Humanities desk
< May 24	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 26 >

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 25

Why Can the Catholic Church Give Wine to the Underaged?

I think that my headline covers it pretty well, but I might as well evaluate. I know that there's freeodm of religion in the United States, but there's also things that are restricted regardless of your religion, obviously. The most obvious example is that Mormons can't have multiple wives. I was wondering, then, why part of Communion involves giving wine to children. Obviously it's in very small doses, but if it's a law, why isn't it restricted at all? It's not as though I have anything against it, I was only curious about the answer. -Erick

The prohibition against those under age 21 consuming alcoholic beverages is not as overarching as it is taught. The law holds that you can consume if under age if you have consent of the parents and are under their supervision. However, you may not get intoxicated. Seeing as how little wine you drink at a religious ceremony, you do not get intoxicated. That is why the exception is there. ~Lexington Hunter Esq.~

To further clear it up, I don't think every state allows underage drinking even with parental consent, and those states would use grape juice at communion. Over here (Texas), Jewish are allowed to get drunk for whatever holiday it was that they celebrate by getting drunk, and some churches use wine at communion. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear up any any possible inadvertent misconceptions the above post may have implied, the one Jewish holiday where it is traditionally acceptable and to a certain extent encouraged, though by no means mandated to pretty much get "tanked" is Purim. Of course alcoholics, the infirm, children, and anyone else for whom alcohol may be inappropriate/pose a danger are certainly exempt. The only other holiday that I can think of where a certain excess of consumption is considered to be part of the celebration is the Passover Seder, where tradition calls for the drinking of four glasses of wine. Still, the same exemptions for those for whom such consumption would be inappropriate apply. (As for myself, at 200lbs, 4 glasses of wine over the course of a several hour long feast hardly feels all too intoxicating! :-) Lewis 12:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Lexington & Wirbelwind said. And some states don't regulate underage drinking if it takes place on private property, parental consent or no parental consent. And some states outlaw purchase by the underaged but not posession. Why is it restricted, that I can't answer. Particularly the part about not permitting it to adults either (that is, people 18 to 20, legal adults for just about every other purpose under U.S. law). Crypticfirefly 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wirbelwind, are you sure? Are there really states where Roman Catholic churches use grape juice for communion? I don't have a good source for this, but I think communion wine is allowed because of religious exceptions, not because of the parental consent thing. In my state at least (Tennessee), no one checks to see whether a minor's parents are present before giving them communion. --Allen 04:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found this, and apparently I'm right that there are religious exceptions but wrong that all states have them. Only 18 do, and Tennessee isn't one. This is amazing to me. I'm now very curious to know whether there are really states where minors can't drink communion wine. Are underage drinking laws simply never enforced in churches in states without religious exceptions? I would think that lots of denominations, especially Roman Catholics, would be very upset if minors couldn't participate in the traditional version of such a central sacrament. --Allen 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical of there being states in the US where minors get only grape juice. I have seen preschoolers getting the real thing, in tiny eucharistic quantities. I understand that liturgical churches in the US used real wine right through the Prohibition era, and that it was given to minors after confirmation (which might have been age 13 or so). Certainly there are denominations (Methodist) where unfermented grape juice is used, and liturgical denominations (Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran) where wine with alcohol in it are used. Sometimes grape juice is also made available for alcoholics, who might fall off the wagon if they tasted the real thing. Edison 04:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Protestant denominations get round the whole matter by using grape juice for everyone, on the grounds, I think, that whether the symbolic blood is wine or grape juice is of little consequence to the ritual. To this day, the smell of Welch's Grape Juice sends choruses of "Guide me oh, thou . . ." through my head. This was standard practice in the 1960s in the United Church of Canada, for example. I have no reason to think that has changed. Bielle 04:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know in Arizona they allow wine to be used,

4-249 Consumption of liquor by underage person in religious service allowed. The dispensing to or possession or consumption by a person under the legal drinking age of spirituous liquor in the performance of a religious service or ceremony is not prohibited by this title. Arizona Revised Statutes

Other states would probably say if they have a specific policy under their respective Alcoholic beverage laws. Anynobody 05:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around, I see states where there are no exceptions for giving minors alcohol, but I also found an article about a bill passed in 1999 that allowed minors to drink alcohol for religious reasons. So now I'm not sure. I guess it did exist for sure before 1999, but the current status is dubious. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was blood..? 213.48.15.234 09:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. It is not about drinking wine in "high" liturgical churches, in the Eucharist. In Catholic belief, the "accident" is bread or wine but when the words of institution, "This is my blood, this is my body" are spoken, the substance miraculously becomes the blood and flesh of Christ via Transubstantiation. In Lutheran theology, the blood is "in with and under" the wine through what others have called "consubstantiation". In some other churches, there is no miraculous change in the fluid and it is a commemoration or a remembrance only.Edison 12:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah i see... JC has some awesome blood doesnt he? Flesh... ehhh not so spectacular. 213.48.15.234 14:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! I don't want to be impolite, but y'all are being pretty shabby with eucharistic theology, there. There are three major views in the west of the eucharist. One is transubstantiation, one is consubstantiation, and one is "real presence." These days, Anglican and Catholic churches, and I think Lutheran churches as well, hold to real presence and neither consubstantiation nor transubstantiation, which were both early and radical statements. It is important for any church that practices real presence or transubstantiation to use wine. Even those with consubstantiation would prefer to use wine, unless they also have social or particular beliefs about alcohol having inherent sinfulness, and these only will go so far as to substitute grape juice. From their theological point of view, it could be virtually anything used, as the act is simply a symbolic memorial.

Federal law trumps state law, and Federal exceptions for religious practice easily clobber any state drinking ages, even if the eucharist can even be remotely, by anyone not already drunk, be considered "drinking." This question, like most of the "Catholics" questions, was trollery, I suspect, because the amount of ethanol present in a sip of communion wine would be lower than that regularly given to adolescents by doctors in medical circumstances. It is a silly question. Even if it were serious, however, there are exceptions for religious expression that even cover the use of peyote by some American Indians, so I doubt that wine is an issue. Utgard Loki 15:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A federal exception, that makes sense; thanks. So the 18 state exceptions are redundant. I don't see any compelling reason to openly suspect the OP of either trollery or silliness, though (setting aside the Mormon comment). From the responses I think it's clear that this is a question people are interested in and confused about, which makes it a good question for the reference desk. Also, if you're correct that the Roman Catholic church does not hold to transubstantiation, then we need to correct some Wikipedia articles (for example, the opening paragraph of Transubstantiation). Do you have a reference? --Allen 15:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually further confused. I saw a page where some states have no exceptions listed for alcohol use/possession. Then I see a 1999 article that a federal law passed allowing it for religious purposes. Then my girlfriend finds this 2003 research, showing which states allow it for religious purposes. I'm missing something here. Can states overwrite the federal law or something? I don't think that's legally possible. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see an exception listed on the United States Code page, or in Title 27 - Intoxicating Liquors. Is it possible the bill you mentioned didn't pass both parts of Congress? Anynobody 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The bill passed the House by a large majority of about 80% though. But you're right, I didn't check if it was passed by the senate nor if it was vetoed. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! Utgard, I don't mean to be impolite, but you're being pretty shabby with your eucharstic theology. :-) If the Catholic Church has abandoned the doctrine of transubstantiation, they forgot to update the catechism.

From paragraph 1376:

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

And from paragraph 1413:

By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.

Catholics, as well as some Protestants, also believe in the real presence, but this refers to the belief that the bread and wine are actually, not merely symbolically, present. You may be confusing "real presence" with the Lutheran doctrine of Sacramental Union. There is no one Anglican belief. Some Anglicans believe in the real presence; some do not (mostly the Low Church). Some Anglo-Catholics even believe in transubstantiation. In addition, you shouldn't confuse consubstantiation with memorialism: consubstantiation admits of the actual presence, it is memorialism that denies it.

Also, federal law does not, as a general rule, "trump" state law, except for situations like the dormant commerce clause, where the constitution has delegated powers to the federal government. The exception to which people are referring may be the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which did indeed attempt to "trump" state law in precisely this way. However, the Supreme Court ruled the portion of the law that tried to limit state action in this area was unconstitutional.

To answer the original question, it may very well be technically illegal where no specific exception exists. However, the question assumes that a prosecutor would neither be able to exercise discretion in choosing whether to prosecute nor be capable of distinguishing between someone taking a sip of wine during a religious ritual and teenagers throwing a kegger. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation between George H. W. Bush and his son

I am trying to find a reference to a conversation had between George H. W. Bush and his son. During this converation, George H. W. Bush cautioned his son about Dick Cheney, making reference to some of the internal debates that were held during his administration. If I recall correctly, this conversation took place around the time that George W. Bush became President (or was running for office), but I am unsure of this. Because I cannot recall any exact quotes from this conversation, I haven't been able to narrow down a Google search enough for it to be effective. I seem to recall that it was reported by the Washington Post, among other places, but I haven't been able to find it yet. The story would have been reported prior to September 2006 (or possibly before September 2005), because I recall discussing it with someone then. Any help in locating a reference to this conversation would be greatly appreciated. --DavidGC 05:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if the secret service (under the direction of you-know-who?) has hunted down and destroyed all records of this conversation. Be careful what you let loose! --Lambiam ^Talk 11:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Corvus cornix 16:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it (well, part of it). It was mentioned in passing by Bob Woodward in his book "Plan of Attack" and also in some articles he wrote in the Washington Post that basically recapped some of the high points in the book. He actually focuses more on the elder Bush's warnings about Rumsfeld, while Cheney only gets a passing mention in the book. I had mis-remembered it as being the other way around, but apparently there's no love lost between the elder Bush and Rumsfeld. This is also mentioned briefly here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/01/AR2006100101148_pf.html

The relevant portion reads, "But there was another dynamic that Bush and Card discussed. Rumsfeld and Bush's father, the former president, couldn't stand each other. Bush Senior didn't trust Rumsfeld and thought he was arrogant, self-important, too sure of himself and Machiavellian. Rumsfeld had also made nasty private remarks that the elder Bush was a lightweight." --DavidGC 10:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Queen of Scots

Why was Mary Queen of Scots such a bad ruler? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.177.38.137 (talk • contribs) 05:49, May 25, 2007 (UTC) - Please sign your posts!

Was she? --Lambiam ^Talk 09:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because she was Imperial rather than metric system? (Or could it have been the reintroduction of Catholicism at the height of the counter-reformation, along with its condemning and killing of "heretics" (her entire population)? Or could it have been an increased influence of the French in England that was resented by her subjects? Or could it have been her tax policy?) Utgard Loki 15:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or even her marriage to a catholic and (even worse) Spanish king, who many feared would try and take the kingdom under his control, especially in those days when wives were expected to be subservient to their husbands? A lesson that Elizabeth I no doubt heeded well. Although I think answering may be just a taster of Clio's in depth analysis to follow Cyta 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that I of course was thinking of Mary Tudor. I'll sneakily blame the reply above for putting ideas in my mind ;). I know nothing about Mary Queen of Scots apart from husbands were again a problem, upsetting people, so I was half right. Cyta 15:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that she was a good ruler...until she married Darnley. During the period from her return to Scotland till her marriage to Darnley, it is arguable that she ruled well (she had, after all, been rigorously educated in statecraft). But Darnley upset everybody by throwing his weight around. And as soon as he was got rid of, Mary married a second divisive figure. Her fatal flaw seems to have been something to do with her choice of men. Elizabeth's personal power came in great part from her remaining unmarried: whether planned or not, that turned out to be a masterstroke. If she had married Robert Dudley or François, Duke of Anjou, they would soon have wrecked things for her, in my opinion. Mary Tudor had lost her popularity when she married Philip. There aren't too many female rulers who managed to keep full control once married. qp10qp 16:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And where would Elizabeth II or Victoria fit in this analysis? Bielle 17:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call them rulers. British monarchs later became ceremonial figures and their sex not so much of an issue as when they wielded executive power. qp10qp 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, this is Mary Stuart, guys, not Mary Tudor! It should also be made clear, I suppose, that we are talking about the period of her personal rule, which extended from 1561 to 1567. Was she a bad ruler? Actually, I think it would be more accurate to describe this period as 'a rule of two halves', as qp10qp indicates; the first reasonably successful, and the second fairly disastrous. I would also agree that Mary was well-educated in statecraft (contrary to the assertion in the Wikipedia page!) and managed, for some time, to play the game well and with skill. But, in point of character, she was quite the opposite of her great cousin, Elizabeth of England, whose head always ruled her heart. The rot does indeed set in with Mary's marriage-the second of her life-to the small-minded and greedily ambitious Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, though initially the alliance helped her improve her political position in Scotland. In some ways her period of power recalls the regency of her mother, Mary of Guise, which also began well and ended badly.

When Mary returned to Scotland in 1561 the political situation could not have been less promising. She had grown up in France and retained a strong commitment to her Catholic faith. In her absence Scotland had embraced the Protestant Reformation. The political elite and the church, in the shape of John Knox, were highly distrustful of a head of state who knew little of the country and had no sympathy whatsoever for its hard-edged Calvinism. It was a delicate situation, but Mary, with an intuitive understanding of Realpolitik, made all of the right moves. She was careful not to alienate the mainstream of Protestant opinion, and was able to make effective use of the contacts and talents of her half-brother, James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray, the leader of the noble faction. Her hard-headed policy in political matters even led to the destruction of George Gordon, 4th Earl of Huntly, one of the leading Catholic nobles of the realm. Mary continued to work well as a ruler, travelling round the realm, governing by her authority and presence.

The 'turning point' comes with the Darnley marriage in July 1565. In itself it was not necessarily a bad thing: an alliance with the Lennox Stuarts strengthened Mary's position at court, and avoided the kind of political problems that could have arisen from marriage to a foreign prince, so amply demonstrated by that of Mary Tudor to Philip of Spain. It did, however, anger Elizabeth and, perhaps even more serious, it angered Moray. Darnely, moreover, was also a Catholic, which meant the the religious question moved from the periphery back to the centre of Scottish politics. Most serious of all, Mary, in falling in love with Darnley, was to expose the real weaknesses in her judgement, which had a major bearing on what was to follow. Before long, 'King Henry' had alienated just about everyone, his wife most of all. Serious matters of state took on the shape of farce and personal drama, as Mary moved from one self-induced crisis to another. Darnley was murdered under mysterious circumstances in February 1567. Having emerged by this 'chance' from one disastrous marriage, Mary, almost without pausing, immediately embarked on another, this time to James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell, the very man who was most suspected of Darnley's murder. By this Mary lost the support of just about everyone, high and low, Protestant and Catholic. On the streets of Edinburgh caricatures of the Queen appeared in the form of a mermaid, the generally accepted symbol for a prostitute at the time. A rule which began well ended in ignominy.

Finally, just a word or two on the concluding points being made in the above discussion between qp10qp and Bielle. Actually, Mary did keep control, even after her marriage to Darnley, who was always denied the crown matrimonial, which would have given him the real powers of a king, beyond the mere title. As far as Elizabeth and Victoria (who did actually have considerable residual powers) are concerned, one should note that their respective husbands are, and were, Prince Consorts, not Kings, which ensured that they always occupied a secondary position to the legitimate monarch. The precedent here was sent in the marriage of Queen Anne to Prince George of Denmark. I suppose nobody wanted another Philip of Spain! Clio the Muse 00:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they didn't want another William. qp10qp 16:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Anne isn't exactly Ms. Dynamite, but it's hard even now to see her clearly, what with the huge blizzard of anti-Anne propaganda set up by the whigs. Anne was no figurehead, though, and neither was Victoria (although she used every ounce of power she had, that was perhaps only a quart at that point). The problem with Anne is that even the tory authors admit that she was not very intelligent. (As Macaulay said, when she was in a good mood, she "was meekly stupid" and when in a bad mood "sulkily stupid.") However, George of Denmark was a bright man with a good interest in the sciences and no interest in ruling. The combination meant that advisors grew important. By itself, that's not news. After all, the problem with George Villiers was that he had all the power, not that he was the king's catamite. That meant that party leaders began to have more power. Anyway, Clio's right: Anne's predecessor was supposed to be Mary, but what the English actually got was William, and forever we say "William and Mary" rather than "Mary and her husband." Geogre 12:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying note: Macaulay was the chief culprit in the "Whig History," so I did not mean to suggest that he was one of the tories. He was the opposite. He was the George F. Will of the whig party, or perhaps the William F. Buckley. (Why is it that authors I don't like always seem to have three names?) Anyway, Anne's dullness of wit is not a reason for her being "weak" as a monarch, as there had been a long, inglorious tradition among the Stuarts of royals who depended over-much on advisors, but her lack of sharpness and the fact that her side "lost" in the coming struggle has meant that she has been so effectively painted-over by black varnish by later historians that we still have trouble seeing her outline clearly. (She was also fat, and, in a woman, that was horrid, while the extremely fat kings never were a point of discussion.) Geogre 14:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a soft spot for her because of all those efforts to have children, especially as the duke of Gloucester survived so long. Purcell wrote him a wonderful birthday song, referring to his love of playing soldiers. qp10qp 16:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britain in 1950

I would like some information for a project on Britain in and around the year 1950. What was life like then? Thanks. Gordon Nash 08:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was, unusual in a couple of ways. First, they were still rationing from WW II, see Rationing in the United Kingdom. Second the economy was very poor, again because of the war. I say "unusual" because one would assume that as a winner the UK would have seen some kind of tangible benefit, see Postwar economy of the UK.

In a European History class I took, the professor showed I'm All Right Jack, a British movie from the time to give a rough idea of how the time was portrayed in film. Anynobody 08:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Festival Of Britain in 1951 is a good place to start looking.hotclaws 09:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The [1] site mentioned by Richardj talks about smog , coal fires and gaslight. I presume there was electric rationing because of coal shortages. I know from other reading that when electric streetlight were installed in Britain in the 1890's and the first decade of the 20th century, the gas lights were left in place as backup, and were lit during electric outages. I have also read that there were no streetlights in cities which were possible bombing targets during the war. So were the old gas lights still in reserve in 1950 from the 1890's, and lit post-was in preference to running the electric ones? And was the smog from homeowners using coal, peat or whatever for heating and cooking? In the U.S. there seems to have been vastly greater material abundance in the 1950's. Were the Marshall Plan goods going to the Continent and not the UK? Why was Britain so bereft of coal and oil? Was it just the cost of the war making them too poor to buy fuel on the international market? Edison 12:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coal shortages are hard to imagine in Britain in 1950. At that time, Britain was self-sufficient in coal. Britain still has substantial coal reserves. They are just not as economical to exploit since reserves elsewhere are more accessible. Gaslight might have been used in preference to electric because gas can be produced from coal, and electrical generating capacity may have been limited to prewar levels (in the face of rising demand) due to a lack of capital for investment in new generating capacity. The basic reason for Britain's impoverishment after World War II was the extreme level of debt the government incurred in fighting the war and the vast amount of capital that had gone into the war effort (shipyards, military hangars, etc) that now had to be written off. Meanwhile, rationing and widespread postwar unemployment kept incomes and consumption down, which further retarded the economy's recovery. The picture was very different from that in the US, where rationing had been limited and consumption remained strong. The US had also gained vast export markets that helped its economy recover quickly from the war. Federal policies promoting highway construction, homeownership, and suburban sprawl also boosted the US economy, while Britain with its aging civilian productive base, continued to lose global market share. Marco polo 16:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is very general. There are several museums that have 1950s houses that are worth a visit, such as the Imperial War Museum and Geffrey Museum in London, and the Black Country Living Museum near Birmingham. In my household we had no car, no television (but a huge valve radio), no refrigerator (so milk and bread were delivered fresh to our door, by a horse-drawn cart), a coke stove to heat the house. Most women worked as housewives, cooking and cleaning, which was a full-time job. If a stranger walked past the window, we would wonder who they were and watch where they went!--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe another factor leading to reduced economic output from the UK following WW2 was the loss of it's colonial empire, most notably India and the Suez Canal. StuRat 21:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britain in 1950? Well, let me see. The first point to consider is that the physical fabric of the country would barely have recovered from the war. All of the larger cities, London especially, were still showing serious signs of damage, with bomb sites and many damaged houses. Investment in new housing was still quite low, with the result that there was a lot of homelessness, addressed, in part, by the erection of squat, pre-fabricated accommodation, using the same kind of materials and techniques of the war-time assembly line. It is no accident that the leading British novel of the day, George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four depicts a drab and decayed urban environment. This was not an imaginary future: it was a very real present!

Defence was still a major preoccupation, with as much as 6.6 per cent of GDP being spent in this area, more than any other major country, with the exception of the Soviet Union. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force were still among the world's strongest and, in 1952, Britain became the world's third nuclear power. There were four times as many service people in the early 1950s as there are today, and all young men were obliged to perform two years of compulsory National Service.

The war, and its financial legacy, had had a profound effect on the economy. Some foodstuffs, like butter, meat and tea and coal, yes, coal, were still rationed. Confectionary had come off ration in 1949, but distribution had to be brought back under state control because demand was simply too great. Shortages meant that people took to producing their own food in back gardens and allotments. Income tax was at an extraordinarily high level, more than twice what it is today. Bureaucratic red tape was a major feature of everyday life, also brilliantly reflected in Nineteen Eighty-Four, and the 'social comedies' being produced by Ealing Studios, movies like Whisky Galore and Passport to Pimlico.

The reliance of coal as a source of fuel, and the high degree of urbanisation, meant that pollution was a major problem. In 1952 one particularly severe bout of smog in London lasted for five days, killing more than 4,000 people from heart and lung diseases. Industrial pollution had an effect not just on the air that people breathed, but contiminated their local waterways. The urban environment of the day is well illustrated in L. S. Lowry's paintings of his native Lancashire. Most people lived and worked in the towns and cities, though farming was still an important sector of the economy. Agricultural practices, though, were still closer to those of the nineteenth century, with little of the industrial farming we have today. The population, about 50 million by the year 1950, was overwhelmingly indigenous. The 1951 census showed that only 3% of people had been born overseas, and immigrants were, for the most part, white and European. The first post-war black immigrants arrived in 1948 on the Empire Windrush, but they were still a tiny minority of the total population.

Class-divisions would have been much more obvious than now, reflected even in forms of dress. Working-class men stll wore the trade mark cloth cap, and women the head scarf. Middle-class males were distinguished by white collars, suits and hats. These divisions were reflected in, and reinforced by, the educational system. The Education Act of 1944 had introduced a 'two-tier' system of schooling. Children were filterd by means of an Eleven Plus examination, which sent the majority to secondary modern schools, where they remained until the age of fifteen, leaving with few, if any, qualifications. A privileged minority went to grammar schools, although even fewer went on to university education, which still, by and large, was the preserve of a tiny upper-class elite.

Also in 1950, despite the huge contribution they made to the war-time economy, women were expected to remain in the home after marriage, rather than seek long-term careers. Domestic work was far more intensive, with few of the labour-saving devices present today. Shopping patterns were also quite different, with none of the 'all in one', self-service superstores. The introduction of the National Health Service in 1946, guaranteeing access to medical care, free at the point of delivery, was a great improvement over pre-war provision, especially for the poor and the elderly. Nevertheless, polio was still a serious problem, and remained so until an effective vaccine was introduced in 1951.

Attitudes towards sex and public morality in general were still fairly stringent. Homosexuality was illegal, as was abortion. Back street abortionists flourished in all of the larger towns and cities. Illegitiimacy rates were low because of the stigma attached to unmarried mothers. Unwanted babies were mostly given up for adoption, or sent to institutions at home or in the Empire. Divorce was slightly more acceptable than it had been, but far less easy to obtain than it is now. Church attendance was far higher. Sources of entertainment for young adults were fairly restricted, largely confined to the cinema or the local dance hall. American performers and music, though not yet dominant, were becoming ever more influential, though fashion trends, like those of the Teddy Boys, were still uniquely British. For women the New Look was a welcome change from wartime austerity.

There are quite a lot of useful texts on this subject, which might be of help to you, covering much of the above and more besides. Jeremy Black's Modern British History since 1900 is worthwhile, as is Arthur Marwick's British Society since 1945. Clio the Muse 02:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the early 1950's children might be paralyzed or killed by polio. Parents would keep their children away from swimming pools sometimes for fear of it. The first injected polio vaccine came along in 1955 after development and testing by Jonas Salk. Parents were delighted, kids thought less of it. The Sabine vaccine, red liquid on a sugar cube, came along later and was more appreciated by children. Edison 05:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all-and a special thanks to Clio-for such detailed answers. A lot of useful information. Gordon Nash 08:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to add is that 1950 was an especially auspicious year. Anything that happened that year was obviously of great historical importance. :) JackofOz 08:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two for one on sentences! (When they're gone, they're gone!)

Mr friend says this "sentence" has three subjects which is impossible and makes it two actual sentences: "I wonder if Tasmin is a carrot". I always thought that everything between a capital letter (if appropriate) and a full stop was a sentence and now I've been told that one sentence is actually two. Can someone clear that up for me? --Seans Potato Business 08:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a single complex sentence. I is the subject, with wonder being the action verb. If I recall my diagramming days correctly, the dependent clause if Tasmin is a carrot is the direct object of the sentence, since it is what is being wondered. Tasmin is the subject of this dependent clause, with is being the linking verb and carrot the predicate nominative. Specifically, this clause is a declarative content clause (and is close to the example listed in that article: "I'd prefer if you didn't mention this to anyone"). Again, though, there is only one sentence. --DavidGC 08:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a sentence is not as simple as a string of words bounded by a capital letter and a full stop. If that were the case, the following would be a sentence: "Mary eaten if cabbage fault gone perhaps now should nuclear backwards marvellous." Neither is the following a sentence: "She tried to stop him she couldn't now he's gone and done it she hopes he's alright she's really worried about him." -- JackofOz 12:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

history of the evolution of hats and balls

Dear Sirs We are a charity asssociation consisting of 1200 children aged 4-18years. We fund raise through innovative activities. This year we want to study and present the evolutionof hats and balls through out the centuries. Can you please give me some information on this topic?? thnak you liana colakides

Maybe i'm missing something here, but hats didnt evolve, they are items of clothing. As for balls... Like beach balls? or... other...balls...? I'm not convinced that 4 year olds would want to know too much detail about how those evolved.. Maybe a little clearing up of the question would be welcomed. 213.48.15.234 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think they mean Ball (dance) , well i hope they mean that...Perry-mankster 14:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC) try here [2]and here [3] as well. hopefully our history expert Dr Clio will be around, but i don't know if she knows that much about balls... =P. Sorry Liana i should have said to get to the links click on the blue number in the square brackets Perry-mankster 14:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For hats, there are sites devoted to the costuming of each era. We may have an article on Elizabethan fashion, for example, but, if we do not, then there are multiple "history of fashion" websites that do exist that can show how hats changed across time. Do be aware, though, that much of what you will find will be "courtly" clothing, just as much of what you find about dancing will be courtly. The workers kept a fairly utilitarian dress throughout. The infamous "cloth cap" and "wool cap" remained somewhat constant among field workers for centuries, even as courtiers went from caps to turbans to tricorner hats to periwigs, etc. Utgard Loki 15:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) You can certainly talk of the evolution of the style of hats in fashion, as well as of the techniques for manufacturing hats, which can reasonably be shortened to "the evolution of hats".

A treatment of the history and evolution of men's hats can be found in: Neil Steinberg, Hatless Jack: The President, the Fedora, and the History of American Style, Plume (2004), ISBN 978-0452285231. Also published as paperback: Granta Books (2005), ISBN 978-1862077829. Quoting from a book description at Amazon.com: "Neil Steinberg traces the evolution of the hat over centuries, as a costly but necessary investment, as a symbol of social status, and masculinity, and as a global industry."

For women's hats, a source is: Hilda Amphlett, Hats: A History of Fashion in Headwear, Dover Publications (2003), ISBN 978-0486427461.

Some information on the state-regulated evolution of headwear in the Ottoman Empire and early Republic of Turkey (turban → fez → fedora) is given in: Jeremy Seal, A Fez of the Heart: Travels around Turkey in Search of a Hat, Harcourt (1996), ISBN 978-015600393. Perhaps not always quite reliable, but fun to read.

Other cultures have evolved other styles of hat. See for instance the traditional hats in Lesotho as featured in the pictures here (scroll a bit down). Something that I find fascinating is how British bowler hats, once the ultimate in gentlemen's fashion, ended up to be fashionable women's headwear among the Aymara in Bolivia, as in this photograph, where the position of the hat can indicate a woman's marital status and aspirations (see Culture of Bolivia#Clothing). --Lambiam ^Talk 16:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being that this is for children, I'd assume you meant the type of balls you bounce around for fun and play sports with. However, you might want to skip the part about decapitated human heads being used as balls in games in the past. StuRat 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're simply considering a "fashion parade" feature at the ball, of children wearing hats representing a timeline of eras, beginning with the fourteenth century, when European fashion started to pick up pace, check Wikipedia's illustrated History of Western fashion.--Wetman 07:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US employer type statistics

I'm hoping to find some statistics about what types of employers US employees work for. Three different ways of breaking things down interest me:

First, how many people work for different size organizations? That is, how many people are self-employed vs work for very small companies/non-profits, vs. work for huge corporations, etc.. The US Census "Statistics of U.S. Businesses" data series (http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/) is not a bad place to start here; it answers my question for most for-profit companies. However, "the series excludes data on self-employed individuals, employees of private households, railroad employees, agricultural production employees, and most government employees" (http://www.census.gov/epcd/susb/introusb.htm). I'm curious if more inclusive data is available. At very least I'm curious how many people this methodology in fact excludes.

Second, how does employment break down by For-profit vs. Non-profit vs. Government? I'm not actually sure this is a well-founded question (can all jobs be placed into one of those categories), but if anyone has tried to answer it...

Third, how many people work for organizations with different legal structures? For instance, how many people work as sole proprietors, vs. how many work at an LLC, vs. how many work for a corporation? Within the corporation group, how many work in publicly traded versus privately held companies? And so on.

One problem with all three of these questions is that they ignore the fact that people may work part-time or work multiple jobs. Maybe they're still worth asking, though.

Thanks, Ryguasu, 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you want very detailed statistical breakdowns, some of which (lamentably, as you probably have already discovered) will not be easy to obtain directly from the United States Census Bureau. Have you already tried the 2002 Economic Census and the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics [4]? Sorry if none of this is new/helpful to you, perhaps somoene else will have more leads for you. Best wishes on your research. dr.ef.tymac 15:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people you don't know by name

This is a rather strange question, but I read in the Call centre-article: "Greeting a caller by name and obtaining his/her information in advance adds to the quality of service". People who you don't now, but who still call you by name (in call centres, shops etc) are becoming increasingly common. I don't think this adds to the service - instead I think it's an extreme nuisance when everybody who I don't know calls me Max all the time! So my questions are: Am I the onely one bothered by this? Is this actually becoming more common? and if so, is there any research done which looks into if being called by name by complete strangers actually makes me more "receptive", or whatever the name-caller wishes to achieve? or maybe there is a difference in culture between different parts of the world? (I'm Swedish). /Marxmax 22:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max, you're not the only one bothered by this. I would be interested to see if there have been any studies on it, though. --Anonymous (Canadian), May 26, 2007, 00:00 (UTC).

In the US it seems to be a generational difference. Calling an 80-year old you don't know "John" is likely to cause offense, as they would prefer top be called "Mr. Smith". On the other hand, calling a 20-year old "Mr. Smith" is likely to sound silly and excessively formal to him. StuRat 00:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 26 now and I don't mind being called Mr. <My Name>, or by my first name. It's better than being called 'lad'/'son' (by older men) or 'love' (by older women) in shops. That's a very common UK thing, which I do find a bit annoying. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favour of getting rid of unnecessary formality, but it is sometimes problematical. I'm generally known as Jack, but my legal given name is John. John is the name on my drivers licence, Medicare card etc etc. So whenever I've been pulled over (vary rarely, btw), the police officer looks at my licence and asks "John, is there any reason you were driving in excess of the speed limit?". I have to bite my tongue and refrain from saying "Excuse me, officer, I don't even know your name, yet you're already on first-name terms with me, and you've got it wrong to boot". JackofOz 04:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this way people might get to be called "Lyman" when all their friends and acquaintances call them "Frank". --Lambiam ^Talk 10:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Jack on this one, although I would go further. It is always bad etiquette for people in shops and banks to call you by your first name unless you've been introduced. If they read your name from a card, they will not know your preferred name, as Jack's case demonstrates. My real name is Demetrius, but I have never used it, and it sounds awfully odd to me. A bank teller used to call me Demetrius, and it used to bother me, although she was very friendly. One day, I was relieved that I didn't get her, but as I walked up to the counter, she remembered me anyway, and called out from a distance "Oh hi Demetrius!" Yikes :-). I'm Australian, like Jack, which is normally fairly informal, but most people abide by the rule of using surnames if they read your name from a card. The Mad Echidna 20:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My grandmother *really hates* her first name and has been using her middle name for most of her 76 years. She has twice-weekly visits from the district nurses to dress her leg ulcer, rarely getting the same nurse twice. They *always* call her by her first name as soon as she answers the door and she absolutely hits the fucking roof... --Kurt Shaped Box 20:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. As far as I'm concerned, the only people allowed to call me by my birth-certificate first name are my parents and grandparents. But that's what they always call me at the doctor's office or wherever. When I was a child, I looked forward to the day I would be "Mr. Walcoff," but it seems that by the time I reached adulthood, the use of last names had been phased out in North America, except in K-12 education. What I find particularly odd is referring to important people in my professional life by their first name even when it's a conflict situation. They are not my friends, so why am I calling them by their first name? It's weird. While I'm a laid-back person, I'd kind of like to go back to the time when you called someone by his or her last name until he or she made it clear it was OK to go on a first-name basis (say, by signing an e-mail with his or her first name). -- Mwalcoff 05:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I well remember the first time I got such an email thirty years ago – no, wait, I don't. ;) But put me down as another member of the "only my mother calls me that" class. — Tangentially, do English public-school types still use an intermediate stage of Smith between the formality of Mr Smith and the intimacy of John? —Tamfang 06:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Others can answer that, but it reminds me of Sir Robert Menzies. He was Prime Minister of Australia for a record term, but was nevertheless, in his own words, "British to the bootstraps". Whenever he wrote to Sir James Darling, Chairman of the ABC 1961-67, he started with "My dear Darling". :) JackofOz 07:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't a public schoolboy, nor am I in any way 'posh' - but every male friend from school that I'm still in touch with refers to me by my surname (no Mr.) only, as I do with them. It's just something we always did, thanks to a particularly memorable teacher (an old-school soldier, ex-Parachute Regiment and Falklands War vet. whom we had nothing but respect for) who spoke this way to us. Calling my best friend 'Paul' would just sound so wrong to me - and him. They say that you never forget a good teacher... --Kurt Shaped Box 08:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, I worked for a while in market research which is a little like telemarketing (you're always calling people during dinner) but the major difference is that you're not selling them anything or trying to shove information down their throat - instead you're just asking them if they'd like to participate in a short survey - oftentimes about things that they actually care about - politics, road safety, nuclear power, airlines, telecommunications, etc.
Now, a lot of telemarketers only get fed the surname of someone in that household for some reason, like they might call up and ask for a "Mr Smith" (when there's actually 3 "Mr SMith"s in that household and when you ask "Which Mr Smith" they will reply "uhh, senior" - it's become stereotypical that it's a telemarketer.
, So the first reason that use a firstname is because it might paint the illusion that they aren't a telemarketer and in fact are calling from a "legitimate" place.
The second reason is that it forces a connection because it says "I know you". If you're talking to someone that "knows you" you are more likely to behave yourself.
It is still stupid of any caller to refer to you only by your first name (e.g. "Hi John, I'm calling from..." - they should always add a surname, and after the initial "Mr John Smith" they should continue to call you by "Mr Smith" because the connection has already been made.
A while back I had to claim that I was calling on behalf of a certain telephone company with a strange acronym (to do their survey)- and after a few tries people were hanging up because they didn't register the name of the company I was calling - so it actually helped to suddenly say their name - and they would stop and say "Hey, how did you know my name?".
Rfwoolf 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When someone from a call-centre rings me up, they call me 'Sir' or I hang up. Ninebucks 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History Question

I am trying to complete a history quiz but cannot get an answer to this question.

He was born in February 1824; his name was given to a line, and he shares his name with an item of footwear. Who was he? 80.177.38.137 22:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out: [[Category:1824 births]] , here: [5]. StuRat 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Stu's future reference, the appropriate syntax: Category:1824 births – put a colon before "Category" (it disappears on the page). Same trick works for Image if you want to link it without displaying it. —Tamfang 09:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His name is Samuel Plimsoll. It was he who was responsible for the Plimsoll line on shipping; and a shoe called a, well, plimsoll was named after him. Clio the Muse 22:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

Hallo, this is an own creation of a map. I want only some critical comments & views, if all things are well posed. Thanks -- jlorenz1 23:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't display, at least on my computer using the Opera browser. StuRat 00:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map does not display on the web page, but directly addressing the svg file works. Your scale should be more close to a corner and read 0, 1, 2, 3... on the ticks. It is also a little bit strange to have miles in a german map, as most readers are probably more familiar with meters.

It's a little bit strange with these SVGs. I 've scaled it down. It has the same problems. So I created a PNG-File I've used this website and this website as information, but if you look in google.books you find other statements. To use miles instead of kilometers was the result of the templates. I was to lazy to convert it.-- jlorenz1 00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional German "Meile" is not like the "mile" that English-speakers know, but is several times larger. I therefore know that I have no idea how to read that scale. Also, the lettering for the individual units is too small to read easily. And nothing identifies which army is which color, although of course that could be clarified by a caption. --Anonymous, May 26, 2007, 01:30 (UTC).

Normally you can scale a SVG without any loss. A legend should be given by the signature of the image. With the miles you've have right. I shouldn't be lazy & I should convert it. You've also right with the german miles, but this german meilen exists only fairy tales like Siebenmeilenstiefel(boots for walking 7 miles with every step) -- jlorenz1 01:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jlorenz1, did the dragoons on the Parliamentary left-wing really project at such an odd angle from the rest of Essex' army? It looks a little like the position John Okey occupied at Naseby in 1645, where he was poised to fire on Rupert's flank from the cover of a hedgerow. In the Edgehill map it looks as if the Parliamentary dragoons (in the open with no cover?) would all be ridden down by the charge of the royalist cavalry. Clio the Muse 06:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is every blue unit labeled by commander but only two for red? Rmhermen 16:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The size and type of each unit don't seem to be labeled. What does the cross hatching on some units, but not others, mean ? Also, the order in which the various movements occur is unclear. You may need several maps to do that properly. StuRat 22:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]