Humanities desk
< August 12	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 14 >

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.

August 13

Assam and Maulana bhasani

Recently, I read a book in Bengali language that Maulana Bhasani went to Assam. Why did he go there? I read Bengali language but don't understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.110 (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Banglapedia, Maulana Bhasani "moved to Ghaghara in Assam in the late 1930s to defend the interests of Bangali settlers there. He made his debut as a leader at Bhasan Char on the Brahmaputra where he constructed an embankment with the co-operation of the Bangali settlers, thereby saving the peasants from the scourge of annual inundation." Dostioffski (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the "travel-bureau" mentioned in Jack Kerouac's "On the Road"?

In "On the Road," Jack Kerouac mentions "travel-bureau cars." I've gathered it involves some sort of ride-sharing arrangement in the late 40s (when "On the Road" was set), but I haven't been able to locate any details about the program, either on Widipedia or elsewhere on the internet. What was it? Who ran it? How did it work? Thanks. --Aplnkr (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kerouac himself writes "The travel bureau is where you go for share-the-gas-rides, legal in the West." (quoted from this Hitchhiking site) We have articles on Carsharing, Carpool, and our article on Hitchhiking mentions similar services in Belgium and the Netherlands under Hitchhiking centres, but I found no article on this particular American institution of the late 1940s or early 1950s. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same question; found some info in this post

http://www.cellomomcars.com/2014/04/the-travel-bureaus-that-put-jack.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.2.180 (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2018(UTC)

Joseph Stalin

Two questions about him. First, how did he see all the killings he is associated with in his own mind? Do you think he was conciously killing people to save his own skin from assassinaton or uprising, or did he genuinely believe he was doing the morally just thing?

Secondly, in the pact he had with Nazi germany to divide up Poland between him, might this have been a clever ploy to give time to build up the Soviet army, and also give some space btwen Russia and the Nazis so that a war with them would be fought off Russian soil?

And I never realised that he was once a bank robber. A bank robber running the country - that may explain a lot. 89.241.155.18 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per #2, see Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact#Stalin.27s_motives. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", as they say. And Stalin might not have so desperately needed time to rebuild the Soviet army if he hadn't previously disrupted and demoralized it with extensive purges.... AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of historians have written about the motives and psychology of Stalin, but I don't think there is a universally agreed upon conclusion. However, one of the more in-depth theories can be found in the following book: Robert Tucker (1992). Stalin In Power. WW Norton. ISBN 0393308693. --Delirium (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, a lot of people do say "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", but Lord Acton's original dictum was "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The treaty with Germany may have been a clever ploy (I doubt it), but the eventual war resulted in more than 20,000,000 Soviet deaths, more than half of them civilians. that's more than 20 times the combined total for the United Kingdom and the United States. Russians remember, as they should, the Great Patriotic War, but they also sometimes had blocking battalions such as NKVD troops to their rear to forcibly re-educate deserters. Here's a review of Montefiore's Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, which suggests in the reviewer's opinion "ample evidence of (Stalin's) unwillingness to believe a steady stream of intelligence, Soviet as well as Western, that his Nazi partner was about to attack him". — OtherDave (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a view that the feudal (?) sense absolute power over life and death held by a suzerain was a mindset in Russian history long before Stalin. Something that Solzhenitsin for example, didn't acknowledge but those on the receiving end, such as the Poles, did. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rite of Spring Groups

I've read that in the Rite of Spring by Igor Stravinsky that the 5 bassoons it is scored for represent what would be the five village elders. First off is this true. Secondly, if so, do otehr instrument groups symbolize other people in a pagan village setting? Thanks, schyler (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Stravinsky would have agreed that any instrument represents any character in that simple sense. For one thing, Le Sacre is a ballet; the characters are already dancing on stage - to assign them distinct instruments wasn't Stravinsky's style, which was always transparent, yet never obvious. It is true that the four bars titled Le sage ("the sage"), or Adoration de la terre ("Adoration of the Earth") in older scores, feature bassoons prominently (and tenderly and beautifully), but the fifth bassoon (the counterbassoon) is grouped with basses and timpani, and the bassoon plays a very different part in the Introduction for instance, where it can be heard as the first voice of a newborn spring, followed and accompanied by twittering flutes, clarinets bubbling up, and other wind creatures more. The Rite of Spring was first written as a piano score and orchestrated later; I doubt very much that Stravinsky consistently assigned instruments to characters throughout this composition. (But I have no negative reference saying "the bassoons don't represent the village elders" and I don't doubt that you read it). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Kennedy

Did JFK's daughter Carolyn Kennedy take the bar examine and did she pass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.180.38 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We note in our article that she is an attorney, so yes, and yes. - Nunh-huh 17:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(American view of Russians)?

Why do american politicians (eg Condoleeza Rice) hate russia so much? Is it the same for everybody. Is there anything that americans find pleasing in russia?77.86.119.155 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have heard of the Cold War? Most of the world has had rather strained relations with Russia over the course of the last 100 years. Things got a little better when the Cold War ended but with the rise of Putin many have seen it going back to its old ways—autocratic, aggressive, etc. And of course there are always pleasing aspects of any place, no matter how much one dislikes their government. Russian literature, for example, is particularly well-liked around the world, especially in America. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I could note, before some other nitpicker does, that strained relationships with Russia go back even before the Cold War for many countries. I just picked an aspect of that which is still in recent memory for many people. There's nobody alive currently who harbors direct resentment of Catherine the Great, for example.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some seem to hate, not dislike - is there a benefit for focusing on negative aspects. Is my appraisal of 'hate' past the mark?

Also as a nitpicker as you say - where is the hate for germany, spain , japan etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.119.155 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(West) Germany and Japan were basically re-made by the US in the years after WWII, in the face of a shared Communist threat. Nothing like that happened in Russia. They stayed the threat, and the feeling that they were the thread did nothing but increase. As for resentment towards Germany and Japan, though—there was still plenty of it in the US through the 1960s or so, and there is no doubt still plenty of it in their nearer neighbors. But those governments have changed significantly since their time of terror. With Russia, things seemed to change... and then also stay the same. Putin isn't just some new kid on the block; he was the head of the KGB! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian music is constantly featured in American classical concerts, and rightly so. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Who can hate Tchaikovsky? Or Rachmaninoff or Kabalevsky? —LaPianista! «talk» 20:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Mussorgsky or Scriabin. Mind you, I'd be quite prepared to hate the music of Alfred Schnittke if I heard more of it, but the relatively little I have heard of it doesn't inspire me to listen to any more of it. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During the Cold War, Americans were taught to fear the Soviet Union, widely known as Russia, as a nation that might destroy us with nuclear bombs and that repressed both the Russian people and neighboring peoples under Russian domination. Villains in American films from the 1950s and 1960s often had Russian accents. Older Americans retain those fears, and they are probably passed on to some extent even to younger Americans. That said, I think that, while most Americans are fearful or wary of the Russian government, Americans are open to friendship with Russian individuals and the Russian people. In schools and universities, millions of Americans read and admire Russian literature (usually in translation), and there is a great respect and admiration for other Russian art, including music and dance. I think that some Americans may even feel a affinity for Russia as another nation of wide-open spaces and great possibilities. Marco polo (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question assumes as fact that Condoleezza Rice hates Russia, which is at least debatable. Rice is probably as well informed about Russia and the former Soviet Union as any American and for that reason is more likely to see a more nuanced picture. As for the mythical average American, a combination of cold-war myopia in the U.S., and the USSR's paranoid distrust of its own citizens, meant that most Americans have more chance of meeting someone from Singapore, New Zealand, or Korea than they do someone from Russia. Given how difficult it can be to understand the neighbors (the people next door, or in the case of the U.S., the mythical average Canadian),the barriers of culture, history, language, and political system post formidable obstacles.

I've always liked the analogy (might have been Robert Massie's) that the Russians are the Texans of Europe. (That's meant as both an explanation and a compliment. If it confuses you, send me an email.) — OtherDave (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"that most Americans have more chance of meeting someone from Singapore, New Zealand, or Korea than they do someone from Russia." With 750,000 to 1,000,000 Russians living in the U.S. and a total of 3 million claiming to be Russian Americans, I don't think it is all that hard to meet one. Rmhermen (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both above, I saw Ms Rice on TV and she disturbed me so much I had to ask this question. I'm used to politics and not particularily sensitive; for example I've seen many times George Bush saying 'russia must do this', or 'russia must do that', or 'were not very happy with russia' etc or even Reagen with his 'evil empire' speach - none of which bothered me - but today I what I saw really disturbed me. Perhaps I'm just scared of black women.? Thanks anyway...87.102.35.13 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to make your own judgments. I would point out the technicality that Rice has never been elected to (nor run for) any office, so she's not really a politician. And after her service in the Bush administration, I think I'd have an equal chance of getting elected. (Ain't nobody out campaigning for Henry Kissinger, either.) P.S.: I took the liberty of giving the question more than a question mark. OtherDave (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Americans who read history are fond of the partnership with the USSR fighting against fascists in World War 2, and we admire the Russian culture of music and literature (and vodka). Americans were amazed and delighted when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. I saw it coming, having read about the Amana Colonies getting rid of communism in the 1930's after 200 years of practicing it, because it led to too many drones who believed in "to each according to his wants" without contributing "from each according to his means." Gorbachev and Yeltsin moved Russia to democracy. Then Putin , of the KGB, clamped down on dissent and took control of the news media, and bullied former soviet republics which had become democracies. Americans become skeptical when Russia of 2008 acts in Georgia (country) like the Soviet Union of 1956 did in Hungary or the Soviet Union of 1968 did in Czechoslovakia, or the Soviet Union of 1979 did in Afghanistan. Edison (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the Russian Federation and the Soviet Union is the same country. I'm even less certain that these conflicts were started by an attack that took the lives of several thousand Russian/Soviet citizens (or "Russian passport holders in Ossetia" as the BBC calls them). A closer parallel would be Pearl Harbour. Even the British gov channel at last admitted today that "the US and UK at least have chosen to represent this as Russian aggression, yet it was Georgia that attacked with a rocket barrage which by its nature was indiscriminate".[1]

The CNN still shows the ruins of Tskhinval with a commentary that it's a Georgian town ruined by those bloody ruskies. In this particular conflict, some Russian media (e.g., Ekho Moskvy) presented both sides of the story more or less even-handedly, while the West stuck to the Cold War-type propaganda. For some reason there was not a single western journalist in Ossetia. They all went to Georgia, representing their opinions and airing interviews with the mad prez on an hourly basis.

"The scale of their cynicism causes surprise," Putin said. "It's the ability to cast white as black and black as white which is surprising, the ability to cast the aggressor as the victim and blame the victims for the consequences. Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages," Putin said. "And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed ten Ossetian villages at once, who ran elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilian alive in their sheds — these leaders must be taken under protection."[2] --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Federation and USSR are not the same country. But the fact that Russia has, in the last decade, been running on a course towards autocracy (and concertedly working to undermine Western power in a number of crucial arenas) has definitely influenced the feeling that Russia has been doing more "business as usual". And nobody much trusts Putin's take on things—for good reason. The man is clearly a snake. (Which isn't to say that the current leader of the US is any more trustworthy.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong. While obviously UK/Russia relations have been rather strained for a while now, and I don't think it has generally been the fault of the UK, the coverage of this Georgia thing has been almost beyond belief. Even newspapers that try to go out of their way to describe both sides end up talking about Georgia 'reining in unruly provinces' while Russia 'attacks'. The situation seems complicated, but if you just skimmed the UK media you'd think Russia randomly started attacking a peaceful country and arming their nukes. 217.42.157.143 (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Redent) I will speak to American pop culture's view of Russians. Off the top of my head I can think of 5 stereotypes. Most Russians in American pop culture fit into these groups.

Terrorist Russian. Usually someone that has some gripe that started during the USSR. Sometimes ex-KGB. Totally has a hard-on for the Cold War. Usually they are in command of some breakaway part of the Russian military or selling old Russian arms/missiles/nukes to terrorists.
Evil Businessman Russian. A ruthless businessman that wears big fur coats indoors. Usually in the oil business.
Boozed Russian. Usually drunk 24 hours a day and LOVES Vodka. Will do anything for Vodka. All Russians are drunk ALL THE TIME and love vodka.
Slut Russians. All Russian women are sluts and even more dangerous than the men, according to movies.
Super-military Russian. Basically a compliment. Russians in movies and TV are often portrayed as burly and very competent fighters with nerves of friken steel. See Steven Segal movies.

--mboverload @ 02:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, except for the Boozed Russian sterotype Americans don't REALLY think Russians are like this. They are just good characters in movies because of their access to any weapon the story would need from "old USSR weapons bunkers". Also, Americans think Putin sucks and that Russians are stupid for being duped by him. Beyond that most Americans don't know much about Russia in its current state. Russians are never actually IN Russia in movies. They are always in America or Europe. --mboverload @ 02:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget The Sopranos, where there were Russian gangsters [3]. One really tough and nearly indestructible guy had been in the "Interior Ministry" meaning paramilitary/secret police, and had "once killed 16 Chechens with his bare hands" [4] , but the American gangster misheard and thought he had been an Interior decorator, and could not figure out why his apartment was so poorly decorated. Edison (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you consult Russophobia for more information. Hollywood has certainly perpetuated the russophobic stereotypes mentioned above, although it has recently found it possible to make room for Hispanic and Chinese good guys (e.g., Antonio Banderas and Jackie Chan). In sharp contrast to these signals of increasing tolerance, you'll be hard pressed to find a good Russian in a Hollywood movie, even though the CIS box-office is increasingly important to studios' bottom lines. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline B Kennedy Schlossberg

In what year did Caroline B Kennedy Schlossberg pass the bar examine and what state did she take the examine?216.229.180.38 (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline graduated from Columbia Law School and passed the NY Bar on her first try, which is impressive. I don't know the year. The NY State Bar Examiners may be able to supply it. I would think that it would be in Wikipedia's article.75Janice (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]