Humanities desk
< May 13	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 15 >

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.

May 14

Jürgen Klinsmann and Tottenham

Which game was it when he scored 4 goals,I remember it was his last season for Spurs,but I cant seem to remember which game was it?? Thank you very much

According to some fansite, it was a league game against Wimbledon. Algebraist 09:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase some singer or other, it was the football club formerly known as Wimbledon. --Dweller 09:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was Wimbledon 2-6 Tottenham on 2 May 1998. Incidentally, the rarely-seen Moussa Saib (ooh, there's no article for him yet), who cost £2.3m but made only 13 appearances, scored the sixth goal. Here's an in-depth match review, and here are some musings on Saib. Hassocks5489 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic Occupations - Crocher

In the 1910 census, my grandmother's occupation was listed as "crocher." I do not find this term in the unabridged dictionary, nor did I find a match in on-line search.

I do know that she was an accomplished seamstress and later in her life did alterations for a high-grade retail store.

What does this term mean? Thanks.65.54.97.192 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)glebou[reply]

Since she was a seamstress, maybe it's an alternative or corruption of "crocheter"? --TotoBaggins 03:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a possibility if you are reading this from an old document with uncertain legibility, is the word 'crofter'. The date is a little late for this unless she is from say, Scotland, but see the article, Croft.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glorious Revolution

The traditional view is that the English revolution of 1688 was bloodless. Is this view correct? 84.201.163.98 05:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very first paragraph of the Glorious Revolution article has your answer. Dismas|^(talk) 06:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an area of British history that still manages to be draped in a large measure of intellectual confusion. Indeed, the use of the word 'bloodless' to describe the events of 1688, and more important, their political aftermath, has rightly been described as the last vestige of 'Whig smuggery'. Much depends, moreover, just where one happened to be in the British Isles to see just how 'bloodless' or 'bloody' the whole affair really was. In England it succeeded with ease. In Scotland it also succeeded, but was quickly followed by the beginnings of an armed counter-revolution, which was to reach long into the future. In Ireland it hardly succeeded at all, and the government of James II remained in place, until dislodged by the landing of William III.

In England the only serious encounter was the Battle of Reading, a tiny affair that hardly justifies this inflated title. But soon after this a rumour started to spread that James' disbanded Irish soldiers were intent on the massacre of Protestants. This story, to be known as the Irish Fright, spread rapidly across the country, leading to widspread rioting. In Scotland, most of the nobility, and all of the Lowlands, embraced the Revolution, and only Edinburgh Castle held out for King James, until the governor, the Duke of Gordon, capitulated in the summer of 1689. However, by this time John Graham of Claverhouse had raised the Highlands on behalf of the ancien regime, going on to win a stunning victory at the Battle of Killiecrankie. His death at this encounter, and the subsequent defeat of the Highland army at the Battle of Dunkeld robbed the rising of much of its momentum, though it tends to be forgotten that large parts of the Highlands remained in rebellion until the Massacre of Glencoe in February 1692. In Ireland the victory of the Revolution was even more costly, with major engagements at the Boyne in 1690, and Aughrim in 1691, one of the bloodiest battles ever fought in the British Isles. Resistence on the island was effectively crushed by the subsequent Penal Laws, and the breach of the Treaty of Limerick, which carried the consequences of the Revolution deep into the future. The Bloodless Revolution? No, not by any measure. Clio the Muse 08:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Bell

I was astonished to discover in browsing through your encyclopedia that an Englishwoman, Gertrude Bell, was in part responsible for the creation of the modern state of Iraq. The page on her has a little information on this. Are there any more details? Secret seven 07:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Bell is a particular heroine of mine: the first woman down from Oxford with a First in Modern History; an independent scholar, an archaeologist, and expert in several Middle Eastern languages, a writer, a political specialist, a traveller; a friend of sheiks and kings-the female Lawrence of Arabia! In 1900 she dressed herself as a Bedouin man, riding alone into the dangerous Hauran Plain, still under the control of the Ottomans, in search of the Druze, a militant Muslim sect, which had been fighting the Turks for two hundred years. She made contact with Yahya Beg, king of the Druze, and conversed with him in his own language. Some weeks after he was to ask another visitor to his domain 'Have you seen a queen travelling?'

Bell's knowledge of the Arab peoples was later to be used by the British authorities after the outbeak of the First World War. When the British Army captured Baghdad in March 1917, she took up a position in the city as Oriental Secretary. There she remained in Iraq, or Mesopotamia, as it was known at the time, until after the conclusion of the war. Like her friend, Lawrence of Arabia, she became keen advocate of an independent Arab state. In 1919 she complied a report on the subject, in which she wrote;

An Arab State in Mesopotamia...within a short period of years is a possibility, and...the recognition or creation of a logical scheme on those lines, in supercession of those on which we are now working on Mesopotamia, would be practical and popular.

Her advice was effectively ignored, and the tribes of the Euphrates, angered that one form of imperialism gave every appearance of being replaced by another, rose in revolt, an event that cost the lives of 10,000 Arabs and several hundred Britons. Bell wrote:

We have made an immense failure here. The system must have been far more at fault than anyone suspected...I suppose we have underestimated the fact that this country is really an inchoate mass of tribes which can't as yet be reduced to any system. The Turks didn't govern and we have tried to govern...and failed.

For Bell the one way out was to give the people a distinct political identity, which she believed could be focused in a monarchy, in the particular person of Faisal bin Hussein, recently deposed by the French as King of Syria. At the Cairo Conference of 1921, she and T. E. Lawrence worked assiduously for the creation of Iraq and Transjordan, and Bell persuaded Winston Churchill, as Colonial Secretary, to endorse Fisal as King of Iraq. Bell was also in favour of Sunni dominance in the new nation: "Otherwise", as she put it, "you will have a... theocratic state, which is the very devil." With her help and guidance Fisal came to his new kingdom, and was crowned king in August 1921. For Arab and Briton alike Bell was the uncrowned 'Queen of the Sands.' With the King's approval she went on to found Iraq's great Archaeological Museum, whose unparalleled collection was so sadly looted in 2003. This leads me on to some final words from 'Queen Gertrude', which may serve to sum up the present position of the Western powers in the region;

If Mesopotamia goes, Persia [Iran] goes inevitably...And the place which we leave empty will be occupied by seven devils a good deal worse than any which existed before we came.

I've always believed that an understanding of history should be an essential basis for the formation of policy. But historians will always be cast in the role of Cassandra. Even so, Gertrude Bell's book, The Desert and the Sown, is still worth reading, all these years later. Clio the Muse 10:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Druze, for a description of their beliefs. StuRat 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a delightful typo from Clio: snow in the desert. The book's title is The Desert and the Sown, referring to the difference in many Arab lands between the cultivated lands of the fellaheen and the wild lands of the bedouin. 217.155.195.19 17:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Ha! Ha! Thank you for that, 217! I have amended accordingly, but will remember always The Desert and the Snow. Who knows? Perhaps it may even become a title yet to be born! Clio the Muse 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure PBS Musical Piece

Some years ago there was a show on PBS which depicted famous works of classical music mixed with weirdly impressionistic and surreal settings. For instance, one of the scenes showed a cornfield, which on closer inspection turned out to be a large number of expressionless men, who danced up and down. Another scene showed a dance at a ball.

Does anyone know the name of this work, or the pieces that were played to accompany it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MelancholyDanish (talk • contribs) 08:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi MelancholyDanish, it looks like no one has a direct answer to your question yet. In the meantime, you may want to try:

contact the PBS station for your area and send an e-mail or phone call to the programming director;
PBS stations accept financial contributions from listeners and viewers, phone in a pledge and request the information from the volunteer who accepts your contribution, they will probably be happy to help you, and thankful for your contribution;
Post your question to Talk:Public Broadcasting Service (controversial, some would consider this inappropriate use of an article talk page YMMV);
Post your question {{dmoz|Computers/Internet/On_the_Web/Message_Boards|somewhere else}} or {{dmoz|Reference/Ask_an_Expert|somewhere else}};

Note: you may have better results if you ask for the name of the show or series instead of the name of a specific work included in the show. Also, if you find the answer, feel free to come back here and post it so others will benefit from your findings. Regards.

dr.ef.tymac 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Rings

I remember being told at school that Tolkein did not like the Welsh, and that in building his mythology of England he deliberately cast the Dwarves ("who thought of nothing but themselves") like the South Welsh mining community who are generally short in stature. I cannot find this documented and the maps might indicate otherwise. Was it just a fanciful English teacher or is there any truth in it? --BozMo talk 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard such a claim before, and the evidence given is highly tenuous: I see nothing to link the Welsh to dwarves (who are more obviously connected to the dwarves of various northern european mythologies), nor for that matter is Tolkien particularly opposed to dwarves in any case. What I can add is that Tolkien loved the Welsh language, using it as a basis for one of his own. It's possible his talk English and Welsh would help here, but I don't have a copy to hand. Algebraist 11:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dwarf#Possible origins, it has been suggested that the dwarf-myths of northern Europe relate to the northern migration of tin-miners in the bronze age, which is at least in the same ballpark as your teacher's suggestion. Algebraist 12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on cellar door quotes him as saying:

"Most English-speaking people...will admit that cellar door is 'beautiful', especially if dissociated from its sense (and from its spelling). More beautiful than, say, sky, and far more beautiful than beautiful. Well then, in Welsh for me cellar doors are extraordinarily frequent, and moving to the higher dimension, the words in which there is pleasure in the contemplation of the association of form and sense are abundant."

, which doesn't sound like dislike to me. --TotoBaggins 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dwarves have various points of analogy with Jews. Their creation story resembles that of Abraham and Isaac, and their language resembles Semitic at least as closely as Sindarin resembles Welsh. —Tamfang 07:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Pratchett makes his dwarves Welsh mostly from the mining context.On the other hand he appears to be very fond of them.hotclaws 08:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidentally Tolkien thought quite well of the Welsh: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tolkien#.22English_and_Welsh.22_.281955.29 Vranak

XM Capital Management

A friend and I have studied investing for quite some time, and now we feel as though it would be a good idea to start a partnership or hedge fund, where we aquire clients & invest their money--similar to how Buffett started his partnership. We have beaten the S&P for 3 years, and realistically feel we can produce returns in excess of 35% annually. What steps do we need to take to start our own fund?? And also are we unable to get non-accredited investors to invest with us? Regulation D confuses me on this issue. XM 12:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regulations for Investment Funds of any sort vary by country, by state, by province. Where you are is key to any response we might provide, but generally, you need legal advice, which you won't get here, and a lot of your own money. Bielle 21:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Politics

Okay, while Eurovision might be more of an Entertainment type thing, this is really about the politics, which humanities people will probably know more about...

Why the hell did Malta give the UK 12 points this year? I can kind of understand Malta having a tendency to award points to the UK over other countries, but the song was really awful and they awarded the maximum 12 points! And since this was by televoting (I think all countries do it that way now?), the people of Malta must have chosen to vote for the weirdly imperialistic, innuendo laden, Fly the Flag. I could almost understand if it was by jury, but this was the population phoning in! Also, why does Malta (and Ireland too) give us points in such a preferential manner? It's not like we reciprocate, at least not with Malta. Do they think we'll retaliate if they don't? O_o

So, basically hoping someone has some insight. Thanks! Skittle 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the numbers to confirm this, but I suspect the British expat community mentioned at demographics of Malta may have something to do with it. Algebraist 16:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Ireland boasts more than a hundred thousand UK nationals [1]. That's quite a block vote. Algebraist 16:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malta is after all a former British colony, and it only ceded in 1964; that's within living memory of quite a few people. And in fact, the UK does often give Malta very high votes: 10 points in 2005, 12 in 2002, 6 in 1999, 12 in 1998, and before this, voting was done by jury, with Malta still regularly receiving around 6-8 points from UK and vice-versa. Of course, it doesn't always work out this way; both sides awarded each other nul points in 2003. This pact is sometimes called the "George Cross pact", after the George Cross medal awarded to the island during WWII. Ireland doesn't receive quite the same level of block voting (7 in 2004, 5 in 2001 etc), but there is still some. Laïka 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Ireland gave the UK a good few points, They didn't give any to us though, :(, Its all got to do with immigrant populations, the large Latvian and Lithuanian population of Ireland, meant that although they got very few points of other countries they got plenty of votes from Ireland. Serbia with large minorities in many states was always going to have an advantage. there are a few countries, that once they have a half decent song they are going to win because of minorities in other countries. Ken 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks. Immigrant populations. That's all very interesting. But, given Malta doesn't always give us 12 points, and in fact doesn't always give us points at all, why did they give us 12 points this year? It can't have been the song, unless 'Fly the flag' means something else to the Maltese. Skittle 23:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Migrant populations are the key elements to many western European votes. France always gives maximum points to Armenia, Turkey always gets a lot of votes from The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany and Austria, etcetera. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article from the BBC may explain why Malta cast its votes in favor of the UK - apparently it was some sort of protest against what the Maltese contingent deemed unethical voting practices by other naitons. Carom 00:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that makes a lot more sense. Thanks! I was beginning to worry about the Maltese.... Skittle 16:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

animal rennet in chocolate bars and Kashrut

I was going to add to the article Mars bar that the recent addition of animal rennet to Mars bars made in the UK[2], as well as making them not suitable for vegetarians, also makes them non-kosher. However after a bit of research I've discovered that things with only a small amounts of rennet or similar products are sometimes considered kosher if the rennet is not a crucial part in the manufacturing of the food. What is the rule on this? Are they now non-kosher? Were Mars bars even kosher to start with, before the addition of animal rennet? --Krsont 15:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this story. The London Beth Din are due to make an announcement on the subject imminently. I'll post here if/when I have anything. --Dweller 15:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your last question, yes, Mars bars (and many other affected products) have been approved by the London Beth Din for some years. --Dweller 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The KLBD site ([3]) is carrying this announcement:

"ALERT - MARS PRODUCTS Articles have recently appeared in the national press concerning the use of whey derived from animal rennet in Masterfoods confectionery. We have been aware for many years that whey can be a by product of cheese-making and that, even today, animal rennet can be used in cheese manufacture. Since whey derived from this source contains only trace amounts of rennet, it is permitted according to halacha. There is therefore no problem with any of the Masterfoods products that are currently on the London Beth Din approved list."

Hope that clears things up. --Dweller 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thanks. --Krsont 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that this is really 'cleared up'. There isn't one world body approving food items for compliance with kashrut; in fact, there are foods labelled kosher by many certifying bodies that are avoided by observant Jews of certain denominations. When my Orthodox friend came to visit, she had a list of about a half dozen kosher symbols her sect recognised; everything else wasn't allowed. Anchoress 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard and fast rules don't easily work when it comes to Jews and Judaism, but basically, anyone who keeps the rules of kashrut but is content to consume non supervised milk will happily go with the KLBD supervision. The UK doesn't have the same proliferation of supervisory bodies as in other countries (although there's still several such authorities). --Dweller 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my post above, there's a fuller explanation of the Beth Din's ruling available in pdf format here --Dweller 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle ages - Middle class?

There's plenty of information about the really rich people during the middle ages , and about the really poor, but was there a medieval middle-class? Were there people who had access to enough good-quality food that they never went hungry, or lived in reasonably well built houses (brick and stone maybe), and perhaps even had some access to education? Monks may have come close, but even they were either quite poor or quite rich (I enjoy the story of the monks who protested to a King James (can't remember which) because they had their meals cut from 10 courses to 7!). Other than that, I can't think of any group who would have counted until the Renaissance, when merchants and guild-members would probably have had access to these resources. Laïka 19:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to generalise, because conditions around the world varied so much. I assume you're referring to Europe. One of the interesting elements of European history is the rise of the middle classes and the urban population too. In many countries, this was fomented by the dearth of manpower following the Black Death. In English history, for example, commoners' voices are increasingly heard, even if only as a mob and the London mob plays an important part in several key incidents. I guess if you want a detailed answer, specify a country. Personally, I wouldn't consider the clergy to be a "middle class", rather a class unto themselves, but others may disagree. Of course, the highest clergy were effectively (and sometimes officially) noble. --Dweller 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The techonlogical innovations that made a middle class possible weren't existant back then. For example, crops did not grow as plentiful and were harded to harvest, so a large amount of labor went into farming. The making of metal goods, tailoring, etc. usually needed practice and were also time-consuming/labor-intensive/etc. Most of the money and land was owned by lords, who essentially hosed the serfs out of their fair pay because the serfs lived on the lord's land (if you live in my house, you'll live by my rules dammit) and had to accept whatever pay was given them, which was presumably beans (due to the lord's greed). And there were was no BBB or labor unions, so the serfs couldn't negotiate (or arbitrate) their rights. - 2-16 14:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an agricultural society most wealth comes from ownership of land, and most land was owned by nobles in the middle ages. There was a small amount of wealth to be made from trading and skilled labor, but holding onto that wealth wasn't so easy, as all the laws favored the nobles. Many people lost their possessions as part of the Spanish Inquisition, for example. As noted above, things started to change a bit as a result of the Black Plague. StuRat 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The patterns of wealth and poverty in the Middle-Ages were actually quite complex, Laika, in some ways just as complex as they are today. Most people did indeed earn their living on the land, but there was also a large and prosperous urban 'middle-class' made up all all sorts of people, from merchants to guildsmen. In England in the late Medieval period this 'third estate of the realm' had even attained a voice in Parliament. Dweller is quite right about the effects of the Black Death: it introduced a far higher degree of labour mobility, as families were prepared to move if wage rates were not attractive enough. If one examines in detail the social composition of the rebel army in the so-called Peasants Revolt of 1381, moreover, it can be seen that large numbers of those involved were anything but the 'rustici' described by hostile chroniclers. Many of the rebels were indeed ploughmen, labourers and the like, but still more were artisans, craftsmen and small-traders. Most surprising of all, quite a number were wealthy Londoners, including one Paul Salisbury. You will get an excellent insight into the patters of medieval life from a reading of The Canterbury Tales by Geoffery Chaucer. Incidentally, on a point of information, and just to ensure that there is no confusion in the matter, it is quite wrong to suggest that all land in the Middle-Ages was 'only owned by the nobles', as you will discover if you read the page on the Yeomen. I would also suggest looking in to the The Paston Letters, which demonstrates that social-mobility is not entirely a modern concept. Clio the Muse 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in primary school, I seem to remember do a whole project on the rise of the middle classes in Victorian England. It was strongly implied, and possibly said, that the very concept of 'middle class' was invented by the Victorians, and that they had not existed before Victorian times. Of course, while my teacher did actually know an enormous amount about history, I expect a certain amount of exaggeration, simplification and dressing up happened in the telling. Also, that the meaning of 'middle class' being used is very important. Just a thought, trying to tease extra information out of others... Skittle 00:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Middle class" as a concept is really just a matter of classification. It's quite possible that what we now call the middle class existed long before it was given a name. One earlier name was the bourgeoisie (boozh-wa-zee), but that also sometimes included the rich. StuRat 05:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There were thriving "middle class"es of free artisans etc in many ancient societies, notably Greek and Roman. The Romans, in particular, knew the power of the "plebs" - the games were a useful device for keeping the urban masses happy. --Dweller 09:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwell statue

When I was in London recently I saw a statue of Oliver Cromwell outside the Houses of Parliament. I always thought he was one of the great baddies of English history. Who put it there and why? Martinben 20:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While waiting for a fantastic answer by far more resourceful editors than myself, you can read some information under Oliver_Cromwell#Posthumous_reputation which addresses the statue as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page says "It is by Hamo Thornycroft, and was presented to the Palace by Lord Rosebery in 1899." Further down that page the author indicates that "Cromwell was honoured for his democratic principles and in fact, this period is the only experience England has ever had of a republican government - hence his manifestation in the form of a statue outside Parliament today." --LarryMac | Talk 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we expect a Guy Fawkes statue soon ? :-) StuRat 22:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For an indication of current opinion on Cromwell, he finished 10th in the BBC's poll of the 100 Greatest Britons. Miremare 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the poll result shows, in England Cromwell is often remembered as a hero (when he is remembered). If you want him as a baddie, you should turn to Ireland, where he was long hated (and I think still is) for his conquest thereof. I think Irish influence is the reason Cromwell is often badly thought of in the US, but that's very much original research. StuRat: while I would applaud a statue of old Guido, not all would share my opinion. A Cromwell statue, however, is not at all controversial in England (though approximately half of Northern Ireland are presumably somewhat opposed to it, and I've no idea about Wales and Scotland). Algebraist 23:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every age has a tendency to refashion the past in its own image, and the story of Cromwell's statue at Westminster provides no better illustration of this general principle. In fact, this statue, if 'read' in its own particular historical context, tells us far more about the shifts and changes in Victorian opinion than it does about the infamous Lord Protector.

The saga begins soon after the old Palace of Westminster burned down in 1834. To enhance the new gothic structure designed by Sir Charles Barry and Augustus Welby Pugin, the recently established Fine Arts Commission, arranged for a series of paintings, statues and stained glass, all intended to celebrate the nation's history. This, of course, included depictions of the various monarchs. Only Oliver Cromwell was omitted, passed over in silence as a regicide and a tyrant, a view that had been in place ever since the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660. But the decision of the hapless Commmissioners was greeted by protests from across the country. Radicals and Nonconformists of all sorts demanded that he should have his rightful place in the national panorama. The reason for this is not too hard to detect. England was undergoing some rapid social and political changes; the old aristocratic dominance, the dominance of the Cavaliers, if you like, was under challenge by the 'Roundheads' on a whole variety of fronts. The Reform Act of 1832 had extended the basis of the franchise to large sections of the new middle-classes. The landed interest was under sustained challenge from the Anti-Corn Law League. Right at the heart of this desire for change were to be found the religious Nonconformists, once confined to the political margins, now moving steadily towards the centre. For all of these people Cromwell was a symbol. On this occasion the agitation failed; but it would not go away. Admiration for Cromwell grew still further when Thomas Carlyle, the historian, published Cromwell's Letters and Speeches in 1845. No longer perceived as the tyrant who dismissed more Parliaments than any other man in history, Cromwell re-emerged as an earnest middle-class Victorian moralist, an advocate of the twin ideals of empire and religious toleration.

In the years that followed he appeared in provincial town halls and Nonconformist chapels up and down England, in statue, bust or in stained glass, wherever the radical tradition was strongest. Another attempt to install him at Westminster was made in 1871, supported by over 100 MPs, but once again was defeated as Whigs and Tories fought out the old battles of the English Civil War. Thereafter the issue died away somewhat, especially after William Ewart Gladstone took over the leadership of the Liberal Party. For the Nonconformists and the radicals the 'Grand Old Man' became something of a living embodiment of Cromwell, full of the same moral earnestness and sense of purpose. What need of statues when one had the real thing? The project revived for the oddest of reasons: in 1894 the 'Roundhead' Gladstone was suceeded both as leader of the Liberal Party and as Prime Minister, by the 'Cavalier' Lord Rosebery. Rich, elegant, urbane, Rosebery, a member of the Jockey Club, is said to have had two ambitions: to become Prime Minister and to win the Derby. What he needed to do immediately was to uphold the uncertain coalition of interests that made up the Liberal Party, which almost came apart in the latter stages of Gladstone's ministry over the question of Irish Home Rule. To secure his position he needed the support of the Nonconformists; and to secure the Nonconformists he proposed to give them Cromwell. But he was surprised from an unexpected direction, as yet another old battle was refought, the bitterest of them all.

Rosebery mangaged to push the issue of the statue through Cabinet; but when the Commons was asked to fund the project in June 1895 John Redmond, the leader of the block of Irish Nationalist MPs, on whose votes the ministry also depended, rose in protest, reminding the House of the horrors of the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. The motion had to be withdrawn, a move which was greeted, as one Cabinet member noted, "with anger and disgust from English Liberals, with thick-witted jibes from Unionists...and with wild cries of aboriginal joy from our Irish friends." In the end Rosebery decided to pay for it out of his own pocket, but the erection was resisted all along the way, by an odd combination of Tory and Irish opinion. it was only finally unveiled on 14 November 1899 at 7.30 in the morning, an unusually early hour, intended to avoid any adverse demonstration. Cromwell had won his last battle. Clio the Muse 23:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"... and with wild cries of aboriginal joy from our Irish friends" - what a delicious phrase! So this unnamed Cabinet member acknowledged that the Irish had indeed been the owners of Ireland since antiquity, and the English never had any business there, despite Pope Adrian IV's permission. Or maybe they used the "terra nullius" excuse that was the spurious basis, in respect of the indigenous population, of the British colonisation of Australia. JackofOz 00:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cabinet member in question, Jack, was John Morley. Clio the Muse 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Clio. JackofOz 02:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Cromwell appears on both the BBC's 100 Greatest Britons poll. Neutrality^talk 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Clio the Muse for that amazingly detailed answer to my question. I have another bellow, and would be grateful for your help. Martinben 11:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fred the monkey website

Why the hell would u delete the site????????????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.1.89 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why would "who" delete the site? Bielle 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore my question. The site is there. I just accessed it through "CafePress". Bielle 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the anon was irritated by an article deletion about said website. --Dweller 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted on March 21, 2007 through the regular process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred the Monkey, as was an earlier version on November 20, 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred the Monkey.com. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish refugees

What were the options for jewish people trying to leave Germany before WWII? Captainhardy 20:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How soon before WWII? --Dweller 21:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the timing, but I understand that, at one point, Jews were allowed to leave so long as they could get visas allowing them to travel thru or to another country. The problem was that those were granted by other countries on a quota basis, so there weren't anything near the millions needed to evacuate the entire Jewish population. Exceptions were made for particularly notable, talented, or wealthy Jews, who found it easier to travel. Einstein, for example, went to the US. One odd situation is that quite a few Jews were able to travel safely to Japan, due to a Japanese ambassador who was aware of the threat and granted many travel visas. Thus, even though Japan was a genocidal aggressor in WW2, it actually served to save many Jews. StuRat 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there were a few such cases. One of the most notable being Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, who saved tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews by providing them with Swedish passports. Lewis 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small but highly interesting dimension to this whole story that deserves to be far better known, the details of which are given in Frank Shapiro's book Haven in Africa, published by the Gefen Publishing House in 2002.

Before the outbreak of the Second World war, and indeed right up to Octber 1941, when all Jewish migration from German occupied Europe was halted, the real tension was between the Nazi desire to rid themselves of their Jewish population and the unwillingness of the international community to rise to the humanitarian challenge this presented. The problem was made considerably worse from the time of the Kristallnacht onwards, when a new radicalism entered German policy. Even so, most countries simply tightened existing laws against immigration, which included the British Aliens Act of 1905, and the Immigration Act of 1924 in the United States. Still others enacted new laws. Concessions could be made, and were made, in individual cases, but not at a level anywhere near adequate. The Evian Conference of July 1938, intended to resolve the problem, got absolutely nowhere. Palestine, the only possible destination for large-scale Jewish migration, was effectively closed off by the 1939 White Paper on Palestine. This was a time when Britain was pursuing a double policy of Appeasement: towards the Germans in Europe, and towards the Arabs in the Middle-East. However, one country did remain open to large-scale Jewish migration; and it was Malcolm MacDonald, the British Colonial Secretary, and architect of the White Paper, who suggested it as a possible refuge within the confines of the British Empire. This country was Zambia in southern Africa, then known as Northern Rhodesia.

Although both South Africa and Southern Rhodesia-now Zimbabwe-introduced their own restrictions on Jewish immigration in 1937, in Northern Rhodesia the ruling Legislative Council voted in March 1939 to continue with an 'open door' policy, virtually the only place in the world where such a liberal arrangement was in place. No Jewish refugee was ever turned away, and in the end approximately a hundred families were able to make a home there, some two-hundred and fifty people in all. The reason the number was so tiny was because the policy was never officially publicised. Those who came did so because they were told by relatives already living in southern Africa. But the vast majority never found out that a visa could be obtained for Northern Rhodesia simply by asking for one. Clio the Muse 02:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the window for Jewish immigration from Germany to Northern Rhodesia was open fairly briefly, or, it would seem, even by word of mouth more than a few hundred families would have found out about it. I believe one argument the Nazis made was that "since Jews destroy any country they enter, we should ship as many as possible to our enemies". Of course, once many of the Jewish scientists they let move away worked to develop nuclear weapons and otherwise worked for the defeat of Nazi Germany, they might have had second thoughts about this policy. StuRat 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A much more significant "open" place was refugees was found in Shanghai. See also Category:Jewish emigration from Nazi Germany.--Pharos 21:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to a missile defence system

I have noted that Russia isn't at ease with the idea of USA having a system of defence against incoming missiles. My question is, what are the reasons to object to someone defending themselves? If it was about launching attacks I'd understand it, of course. My only speculation is that such a defence system would ruin the mutually assured destruction, i.e., USA could attack Russia without suffering from the counterattack. Is that the reason? —Bromskloss 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be related to issues surrounding NATO expansion, a bloc of military allies harking back to the days of the Cold War. Whilst the Soviet bloc (the Warsaw Pact) has since all but disintegrated, NATO is going strong and a number of ex-Soviet states are either looking or being approached to join. The development of the missile defence proposed by the USA may well be linked to and involve NATO members. Wherever countries take bilateral actions in a multilateral political climate, there are bound to be those who are less than enthusiastic: in this case Russia which stands to be excluded.Coldmachine 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that part of Russia's position can indeed be explained from its declining power in eastern Europe. The Warsaw Pact has disintegrated, many countries have joined the EU and NATO, pro-Moscow governments have been overthrown in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine and have been fiercely protested in Belarus, Estonia has removed the Bronze Soldier, etcetera. This also explains Russia's gas wars with Ukraine, Georgia and Bulgaria. I think Putin fears that with the defense shield in place, those countries will have even less reason to listen. He fears that their orientation towards Moscow will be replaced by an orientation towards Washington. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the ironies of war is that defensive measures sometimes bring about war and offensive weapons sometimes bring about peace. For example, nuclear weapons prevented World War 3 between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. However, if the Russians had a way to defend against nuclear weapons, they would have been able to attack Western Europe. StuRat 22:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pro-Moscow governments has been overthrown in Kyrgyzstan? Really? As for Ukraine, do you know who Viktor Yanukovych is and who actually appoints the government in that country? What "gas wars with Bulgaria" do you speak about? Could you provide a reference to the news? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if the US had had/had a way to defend against nukes, they could have/will be able to nuke Russia without reprisal. Perhaps more importantly, they could have/could use the implicit threat of the possibility to do whatever the hell they liked. Algebraist 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the US might have run amok, doing nasty things like liberating Eastern Europe from Soviet control. StuRat 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought the countries liberated themself in the course of velvet revolutions, while Gorbachev's Russia basically stood aside and applauded, never attempting to interfere. Can't see what the US did to "liberate" them that Russia didn't. Now we have old Europe and new Europe who while getting generous cash handouts from EU tax-payers, takes its commands from America. So far so good, both for US and for Russia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying they might have been liberated in the 1950s, if the US had overwhelming military superiority then. StuRat 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that part of the reason is that it would upset the balance that obtained through the various treaties to limit nuclear arsenals. If the US and (old) Soviet Union had reached a point of roughly balanced missle forces and the US were then to develop a workable missle defense the balance would be lost. If the US could shoot down some significant percentage of incoming missles it would in effect have an edge without having to build more missles. Another effect would be to force the Soviets to spend vast amounts of money to develop its own missle defense system. I seem to recall that at one time there was talk of offering the technology to the Soviets (but not, of course the hardware), which would somewhat reduce the cost but would still require them to spend billions. Talk of the need for such a system was revived after the North Korean launch of a missle that was theorized to have the ability to carry a nuclear warhead and a range sufficient to reach the US West coast.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the political aspect of deterrence: if the US is no longer afraid of Russian warheads, will it push Russian on points in a way harder than before? Nobody really knows — the exact way in which nuclear weapons themselves translate into political clout is variable, and so any system like this would be variable as well. Better in their eyes to have stability in these sorts of affairs. --24.147.86.187 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia, and the USSR before it, fear the American development of a "first strike" capability. That would mean being able to nuke Russia without getting nuked back. The Cold War nuclear stalemate was based on mutually assured destruction. -- Mwalcoff 01:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's all just a bit silly, as there is no way any defensive shield could stop the thousands of nuclear weapons Russia could launch. They might, however, have a chance at stopping one or two nukes from North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran. StuRat 02:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... which countries simply do not have missiles capable of reaching Europe, and would not in any foreseable future. If US were really interested in defending themselves from Iran, they should have put their anti-missile defense much closer to its border, for instance, in Iraq. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran actually touches Turkey, which is partially in Europe, so they shouldn't have much trouble reaching a European nation. North Korea is working on missiles which can cross the Pacific Ocean; just point them the other way and they should be able to reach Europe. StuRat 02:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason is that the US is proposing an interceptor site based in Eastern Europe. The plan, as far as I know, is for interceptors in Poland and a radar post in the Czech Republic ([4], [5]), which could reasonably be seen by Russia as additional American militarization in their sphere of influence, and as a possible counter to their missile systems. You have to admit, the US wouldn't be very happy if, say Russia decided to build a missile site near their borders. --ByeByeBaby

That's the diff between a missile site and an antimissile missile site. StuRat 05:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish legion

why did the Spanish legionnares call themselves the bridegrooms of death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.201.163.98 (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You should read the pages on the Spanish Legion and, in particular, that on José Millán Astray, the founder of the Tercio de Extranjeros. The ethos of the new formation was taken from the example supplied by Millán Astray, a flamboyant, violent and somewhat extreme individual, who popularised the slogans Viva la Muerte! (Long live death) and A mi, la Legión (To me, the Legion). As a result the Legionnaires referred to themselves as the Novios de la Muerte (The Bridegrooms of Death). They were to prove their courage-and their brutality-during the Spanish Civil War, when they fought on the Nationalist side under the command of Juan Yagüe. The Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno once had the courage to challenge Millán Astray and his thuggish supporters at a meeting in Salamanca University, attended by Francisco Franco and his wife Donna Carmen, shortly after the outbreak of the Revolt of 1936. Although Unamuno supported the rising, the shouts of Viva la Muerte! in the confines of the ancient university were simply too much-"You might as well say death to life", he responded. He had to be taken from the hall under the protection of Donna Carmen, and was held under house arrest until his death in December 1936. Clio the Muse 00:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I would have a better chance of getting into college if I pretended to convert to Islam?

That way if I got rejected I could threaten to sue for discrimination because I am a Muslim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.149.191.209 (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I seriously doubt that any colleges use participants' religions as an criteria for minority enrollment. Also, if your application was rejected, it is very unlikely that a judge would rule in your favor if you sued. Testimony for the college would most likely have no trouble showing the specific reasons your application was rejected, and there is practically no chance that "religion" would be enumerated there. As I said, I have never heard of any college, not even one operated by another religion such as the Catholic Church, that would reject a student because the applicant's religion was Islam. If you are SURE your application will be rejected, why do you bother applying?___J.delanoy 22:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to less Rush Limbaugh. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you were joking when you wrote this question. The joke failed badly. If it wasn't a joke, your strategy is the worst example I've ever seen of preparedness to litigate in bad faith. Please don't ever again ask us to give you advice - even in jest - on how to manipulate the system in an unethical and unconscionable way. JackofOz 00:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every rule offers unethic escapes. Less rules, less lawyers! A lack of rules is not better : more rules, more ways to be heard.

People trying their chances are the best testers for badly constructed rules - if and only if rulers (Congress, Assemblée, Parliament) take time to look at them and improve them. So thank you 64.149 (or is it 191.209 ?), we'll look at that. -- DLL ^{.. T} 16:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that should be 'fewer rules, fewer lawyers'. 86.133.247.13 09:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do the British call people who come from the United States?

As you probably noticed from my question title, people who live in the United States commonly refer to people who live in Great Britain as "British", or "English". Do people in Britain call us "Americans"? Or is there another term that is used? Thanks.___J.delanoy 22:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Yanks", when I was a lad... --Wetman 22:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term I hear most on BBC is "fat bastards" ;) A ecis^Brievenbus 22:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The serious answer is yes, they call us "Americans." -- Mwalcoff 23:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to use "Americans", "Yanks", or I have heard among a very small minority of determined pedants, "United Statian". The other side of that pedantry is occasionally calling Canadians "American" for the fun of the reaction, as they are, after all, from North America. --Mnem eson 23:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Statian makes as much sense as UKoGBaNIan. Corvus cornix 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost always "Americans", sometimes "Yanks", less commonly "Yankees". My grandfather used to call them "bloody colonials" in an affectionate kind of way, but I think that was just him. ;) Miremare 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Merkin? Is that used often? A ecis^Brievenbus 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not often, at least in my experience. I use Damnyankee sometimes, but that's pretty rare too. Algebraist 23:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you call an American with an obvious Southern accent a Yank too? Better watch out...that's pretty much like asking a Scot whether he believes in Leprechauns. Lewis 01:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To an Iranian, "yanks" includes even Southerners, and they might even toss in Canucks for good measure. StuRat 02:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one should even put true Yankees on that level. - AMP'd 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Or even pretend Yankees![reply]

Come to think of it, that would be even more insulting to an Irish person! But you get my point. :-) Lewis 02:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's the other one that always understandably riles the Scots (and probably the Welsh and the Irish, too) - referring to them as "English". Just on the "United Statian" thing, I would never call that pedantry. It's more like inverse pedantry. It's a very recent neologism that imo will never catch on; nor should it. Citizens of the USA have been correctly referred to as "Americans" since 1776, and despite everything I've read at Use of the word American and elsewhere, I can't see that ever changing. JackofOz 02:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that happens elsewhere. Does someone from Swaziland complain when someone from South Africa calls themself a South African "Hey, I'm from southern Africa, too !". StuRat 02:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a European example, see Macedonia naming dispute. -- Mwalcoff 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the obvious difference is that between "South African" and "southern African". People from South Africa are both, but people from Swaziland are only the latter. JackofOz 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could do the same thing and use "North American" for a resident of the continent and "American" for a US citizen. StuRat 04:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.

To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.

To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.

To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.

To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.

And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.

E.B. White

Neutrality^talk 03:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my numerous American colleagues in Canada were discussing whether or not someone from a particular border state was really a southerner. I said I had a solution: they are all Yankees. They didn't like that, haha. Adam Bishop 06:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to call leprechauns the 'little people' and we do believe in them, who else catches the wild haggis for the american tourists? ;) Perry-mankster 09:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The left wing in Britain (which really is left wing) often calls Americans "imperialists", which is beautifully ironic if you consider how the country came to exist in the first place. --Dweller 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The yanks are often accused of cultural imperialism but I have to say I've never heard "imperialist" used as a noun to describe them. Miremare 15:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going astray into the Teutonosphere, I always liked the German language's most common nickname for Americans: Der Ami (m, singular) or die Amis (plural) is used by the left, right, and apolitical alike. I'm fond of it because it's cute and also means friends in French. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Merkin is a wig worn in the pubic area by a female. A Murcan is someone who believes in the Murcan Way [6]. He grows murcan violets [7]. If he moves to Yurp, he takes murcan measuring cups and spoons along [8]. In the 1940's at the beginning of the nukular era, even before the war on terra, similar lazymouth prononciation was termed "slurvian" [9]. Edison 15:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee go home.--Kirby♥time 01:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, Seppo (dating from WWII) is still quite common. I don't know how much penetration that word has in the UK though. FiggyBee 02:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, Figgy Bee. I see you're a Queenslander. I lived in Queensland (Gold Coast; Brisbane) for 11 years; also in NSW, the ACT and now Victoria, and I don't think I've ever heard that word in my life. JackofOz 03:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I guess it depends on the circles you move in (and whether those circles include Americans). I'm a student at UQ and we have a fairly large American student body. Brisbane (and the University) also had a lot more contact with the Americans during the war than most of the rest of Australia, so I guess some of that lives on in the culture of the city. FiggyBee 05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]