Humanities desk
< January 24	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 25

DPS

I was sitting at the DPS today waiting to get my driver's license renewed when a tall African-American man sat down next to me. He was in all the stereotypical ghetto clothes. Now I never believed I was any bit racist. Not at all! I, however, found myself wanting to move over a couple chairs (even though they were all taken) because I felt really uncomfortable. I don't know why though. After I got up I was thinking about this and wanted some psychoanalysis on the subject. Thanks, schyler (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this border on medical advice? Boiled down... you could've been subconsciously afraid of the gentleman's height, the connotations of his attire etc. - If you're not consciously racist, then forget all of the stereotypes in the media (e.g. "ghetto clothes"). Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 00:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I'm definitely no psychiatrist or psychologist, but I imagine that your reaction was based on the man's close resemblance to a stereotype that, for a lot of people, especially in the media, represents danger. The feeling of discomfort you got doesn't necessarily make you racist, as it appeared without your volition. Your consideration of your feeling and your reaction to it, to not get up and move away, showed your ability to recognise the man as a fellow human being and his right to be where he was. Recognising that you felt uncomfortable in his presence and not making a fuss shows that you probably don't have a problem.

Furthermore, was your reaction to his presence based on his skin colour or his clothing? Would a white man in the same clothing have made you uncomfortable? What about a black man in a business suit? It may be that your discomfort was based on his choice of subculture and socio-economic background, rather than his race. Considering these possibilities might help you understand your way of thinking next time you are in a similar situation. Steewi (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steewie, that was the most concise, comprehensive, and insightful answer I have ever recieved after asking a question on the reference desk. Thank you. I believe it was the dress because a white man in the same outfit would have given me the same reaction or a black man in a buisness suit would have been more comfortable (as comfortable as it can get at the DPS). schyler (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The feeling of discomfort you got doesn't necessarily make you racist, as it appeared without your volition." Volition isn't involved. Racism is a stereotypical reaction, whether "willed"— i.e. provided justifications— or "involuntary"— made a secondary "instinct" through cultural training. --Wetman (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of The Hindu

What is the name of the husband and children of the popular Indian newspaper editor Malini Parthasarathy of The Hindu newspaper? Any links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.113.165 (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Casualties

What is the exact number of American casualties since 1776. This would include soldiers KIA, MIA, or wounded. I would prefer if it were an exact number, including soldiers that may have died/been wounded/gone missing today(1/24/08, or whenever this question is answered) in Iraq or Afghanistan. This number would also include soldiers killed in Somalia, or other places where there was no deceleration of war. And it does not matter what their branch of service was. This should include Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. I know this will been a hard task but I would greatly appreciate it. I am a private in the U.S. Army and thought a tattoo of this number you be a good way to remember our fallen heroes.

I did some calculations of my own using some numbers that i found on wikipedia and came up with 2,633,408 but that might be wrong

any help is greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.12.208 (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm, its a good tatoo in theory but within like 4 days of you getting your tatoo done, it will be outdated for the obviouse reasons. Personaly i would go with a tatoo of your division shoulder patch. Just a thought but at least if that changes it will still show a specfic time period you served. BonesBrigade 04:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above poster that this isn't a great tattoo idea, but anyway, using numbers from the table at United States casualties of war I got 2,842,584 (1,313,708 killed, 1,484,540 wounded, and 44,336 missing). I doubt these numbers, or any numbers you'll find anywhere, are absolutely complete though, and certainly not down to the last man. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you rreally like the number as a tattoo, adding the date and say, the time, would make it commemorative and historic as well, like a parchment. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could be a bit more enigmatic & get a slightly longer lasting number, by taking the average number of deaths/missing per year or day or hour, which by my calculations might be something like year: 12,252, day: 33.6, hour: 1.4. They seem quite sobering to me, and as averages will move fairly slowly. Good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of a meaningless average - during wartime, the numbers are much higher, and during peacetime, much lower. I doubt there is hardly any given year/day/hour for which the number is anywhere near those. -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the the page on democide for links to sources on this sort of thing. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note in passing that the phrase "deceleration of war" made me smile. —Tamfang (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Price of milk around the world

1 litre of milk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.28.250 (talk • contribs)

UK, Tesco, skimmed, 36p a pint. (I'll leave the maths to you) Richard Avery (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can do this math, since the cost of n pints isn't n times the cost of one pint. It's impossible to buy 1 liter of milk at a UK supermarket. I guess the best approach is to price a 2-pint jug and divide by 1.136. Note that milk in the UK is sold in imperial pints, which are about 20% larger than the wet pints used in the US. One US gallon of milk is about 6.66 UK pints of milk. -- BenRG (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible to buy a litre of milk in the UK. See Sainsbury's. The Co-op sell their standard milk in litre-measures, too. Gwinva (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Co-op sells it by the pint. DuncanHill (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the milk in my Sainsbury's is in pints - 4 pints (2.272L) of semi-skimmed, £1.34. -- Arwel (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please go to the Co-op and prove me right! :-) I was always running out of milk when I shopped at the Co-op, because their standard "family" size was 2L, not the 2.27 L you get from some other places. Gwinva (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which Co-op was it? Mine is part of the Co-operative Group, other Societies may use diferring standard sizes. DuncanHill (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm that Midcounties Co-operative sells in litres (just checked my fridge and lo a 2l bottle is found). Foxhill (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My hero! I'm pleased to see the lengths to which Wikipedians will go in the pursuit of truth and academic rigour. (We just need a reliable source now, because someone is bound to claim that images are primary sources, and thus your interpretation original research) :-) Gwinva (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia, supermarkets, whole, circa A$1.30 a litre. FiggyBee (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my neck of the woods in northern Michigan, it's $4.10 per gallon, 2%, at a grocery store. -- Saukkomies 10:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that include sales tax? US sticker prices generally don't include tax, while sticker prices in many other countries typically do. -- BenRG (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan has a 6% sales tax, which would make that $4.10 into $4.35 per US gallon. However, not everyone needs to pay the tax - for instance, school lunches do not charge tax on cartons of milk. -- Saukkomies 13:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You pay tax on milk? DuncanHill (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sales taxes have a nasty habit of becoming regressive like that. Some US localities abolish sales taxes on all foods, some on staples, and some on none. — Lomn 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lidl in Brighton, 4 pints (=2.272 litres), pasteurized, 3.6% fat, £1.30. DuncanHill (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The price of milk in various countries is actually an interesting issue, representing wider concerns. In the UK the supermarkets are very powerful, and negotiate contracts directly with farmers to keep costs down; they also artificially deflate prices of commodities such as milk to remain competitive (often creating loss leaders). Talk to any UK farmer and you will discover that the price they get for their commodoties does not always stack up with the cost of production (hence subsidies). This is artificial, since the world price indexes are usually higher. New Zealand is a major supplier of dairy products worldwide, (Fonterra is responsible for 40% of the world's international dairy trade) which might make you think it is cheap on the domestic market. But no, it is expensive here since the local price is always set by the global price. See NZ Herald and IHT and [Agr-fax for a quick introduction top what has happened this last year. World prices have gone up ~~10-20%,~~ over 40%, a change you won't see reflectedin the UK. Gwinva (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, in New Zealand, currently, standard milk, 1 L, is $NZ 2.10 - $ 2.25. Compare that to Australia above, whose drought sent the world milk price up in the first place! Moral of the story: if you want cheap milk, live in a place which doesn't produce enough. Gwinva (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the outskirts of Alaska, places like Barrow, Alaska, and Dutch Harbor, Alaska, milk costs about $8 a gallon. Wrad (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the convenience store where I usually buy it in Toronto, it's $2.49 for a 1 L carton, $4.39 for a 2 L carton, and $5.29 for a 4 L bag (containing three sealed bags of 4/3 L each). Prices in Canadian dollars, no sales tax on milk. Same price applies to skim, 1%, and 2%; I didn't check homo. Supermarket prices would probably be somewhat lower. Incidentally, I visited New Zealand in 1983 and I remember noting that the price of milk was remarkably low; presumably it was then subsidized there. --Anon, 01%27 UTC, January 27, 2008.

No, actually the prices at my local supermarket turn out to $2.59, $3.49, and $5.49 respectively. So 2 L is lower, but 1 L and 4 L are higher. That's for skim, 1%, and 2%. Homo at the supermarket is higher at $2.59, $3.59, and $6.29 respectively. Weird. --Anon, 11:44 UTC, January 27.

Raley's, Sacramento area: $2.90 per half gallon, 2% milk. California doesn't charge sales tax on food products. Corvus cornix_talk 05:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subconsciousness

Does anyone know the first occurrence of an idea of the human subconsciousness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.83.10 (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See our article Unconscious mind for a historical overview. (Freud preferred the term the unconscious over his earlier subconscious, which nevertheless has remained a popular term). --Lambiam 09:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. Having now read that section, I am afraid, however, that some pseudo-scientific stuff has insinuated itself in the article. 10:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea to post at multiple desks, 74. See policy top of this page. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a big deal Julia Rossi...get off my balls.--74.138.83.10 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a really big deal and it's not personal, just a wiki guidance thing to keep discussions together. Take it easy, cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child porn laws

If two teenaged characters in a webcomic have sex, a bit of which is on-screen, does it count as child pornography? Or are there restrictions on how graphic it can be before that comes into play? Or does it just not matter since they're obviously post-pubescent? --Masamage ♫ 07:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently laws in the US against drawn child pornography (the PROTECT Act of 2003). However, earlier laws against drawn child pornography were found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, and it's possible that that part of PROTECT will be too (see Lolicon#Legal status in the United States). If it's not too explicit, if the characters aren't obviously prepubescent or being raped, and if there's some artistic or literary value to the webcomic, it's probably fairly safe. WP:IANAL and all that. FiggyBee (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see! That makes sense. Thank you for the thorough answer. --Masamage ♫ 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a drawing of two twelve year old kids having steamy sex, you can only see there legs ---> X —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvstalk (talk • contribs) 10:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. X) --Masamage ♫ 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

photographic history of Sandgate, Newcastle New South Wales, Australia

To Whom it may concern, I have been researching where I grew up and have found some info, but found a lot of history missing. Sandgate cemetry was an important gathering place on ANZAC day in the 1960's. Thousands came to watch the march and honour the fallen. I'm hoping to build a web site about the area from the 1800's to the present. The 60's are important, ANZAC day was as important as Christmas and Easter, but people lost touch over the decades. The last 10-15 years have seen a new level of patriotism emerge in Australia and being an ANZAC decendant I'd love to fill some gaps for the younger ones. I have found some info and pics but how could I surf the net to find pic taken back then? Hoping you can help. Regards Bruce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruccarl2 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might have it already, but there's a photograph of two soldiers buried at Sandgate Cemetery re a commemoration service – here[1]. Have you tried googling Anzac Day + Sandgate Cemetery + 1960s (and under google images as well)? This reference This memorial wall, which is located in Sandgate cemetery, is the first memorial wall to honour the service men and women of this country. is here[2] in the context of an amendment to the Summary Offenses Amendment Bill which was to do with vandalism and an anti war feel towards Anzac in the context of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War. Have you tried the Office of Australian War Graves? Happy searching. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a nit pick, but in case anyone searches for a string with the word "Offenses" in it, they won't find anything useful. That's because we spell it "Offences" here. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, it's my typo; on the other, omay gard – I'm being americanned! Good one Jack, well spotted. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Boccaccio's exact birth date

On 16 June 2004 it was entered in the article on Giovanni Boccaccio that "some sources" say he was born on June 16. What sources?--Doug ^talk 13:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should contact the person who made that change in the article directly. The page history states that it was user number 193.2.136.41 If you've tried to contact this person but received no success, then that would make sense why you are now coming here to the Reference Desk. Have you made an attempt yet to do this? -- Saukkomies 16:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have looked into this. It turns out he has not edited since 13 May 2005 and there are no messages on his talk page. I figured this would be in vain to leave him a message since he has not been around for some 3 years. Also thought through the process that it probably wouldn't do any good to leave a message on the Boccaccio discussion page itself for other editors, since it has been there since 2004 and no other editor has challanged it or made any note of it. However I believe this to be not correct and am looking for anybody that might be able to come up with sources for this date. In my research on this I have come to the conclusion that there is so little information about his birth that I believe this date to be incorrect and have reason to believe it is another date. Do you or anybody have sources that say Boccaccio was born on exactly this date of 16 June 1313? --Doug ^talk 19:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only sites I can find on Google that say he was born on 16 June are mirrors of Wikipedia or are based on our article. None of the sources we use have this information, in fact they all say his date of birth is unknown or uncertain. I'd be bold and at least add a ^{[citation needed]} tag, but preferably remove the date entirely. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my thought also. If after a couple of days and I have not got good references I will remove that date and replace with perhaps "c. 1313" Coincidently his death date happens to be winter solstice and this supposed birth date is within days of summer solstice. Perhaps even in the Fourteenth Century it may have been June 16, does anybody know for sure? What I find interesting is that 16 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 3 = Midsummer's Day. --Doug ^talk 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be rare and astonishing if we had a reliable source for the exact date of birth of someone like Boccaccio in the fourteenth century. It wasn't until very much later that dates of birth began to be recorded for anyone non-royal. Indeed, there are many distinguished people of the fourteenth century (and later) whose year of birth we can only speculate about, let alone knowing their birthdays! Xn4 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tend to agree with you. Perhaps the article should be dated for his birth with wording like "born early 1300's" since it does seem strange the numbers for this June date add up to 24 which is the birth of John the Baptist.--Doug ^talk 12:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Why does that seem strange? Just seems like a meaningless coincidence to me - are the two figures even related? Start looking into numbers like that and anything can seem suspicious... -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a saint's day, then it is actually quite possible. Birthdates weren't recorded as such, but if a baby was born on or near a major feast or saint's day, then that was remembered and recorded (at least orally). But a quick glance at June 16 doesn't look promising for significant saints. Of course, you've also got to allow for the changes from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar in the 15th C. In all, a birth date for a 14th century figure really needs a source. I'd put a "c. 1313" in. If a source comes to light later, it can be added in. Gwinva (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it "c. 1313" as suggested. Not sure what the Julian/Gregorian reference is about, Gwinva. The new calendar was adopted only in 1582, and did not operate retrospectively. If Boccaccio had been born on, say, 17 May under the Julian calendar, then 17 May would remain his date of birth forever. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boccaccio's birth date was put in by 193.2.136.41 (who has not edited since 2005) on 16 June 2004 when he said some sources indicate he was born on June 16 and that's why I asked "What sources?" initially above. Thanks for the explanations on the Julian and Gregorian calendars.--Doug ^talk 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin and interpretation of the phrase 'Mercenaries, Missionaries, Misfits'

I am trying to find the origin of the phrase Mercenaries, Missionaries and Misfits. As well as the origin, I would like to source an academic interpretation of the meaning. I have found many references in literature and the earliest so far is by an author called Peter Matthiessen in a book titled 'At play in the fields of the Lord'. I would really appreciate anyone who might be able to shed any further light on this or additional infomation. Much appreciated Paulahargadon (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a commonly-used phrase? All I can find on Google is the title of a book and another Reference Desk question. As far as its concerned with At Play in the Fields of the Lord (excellent book, by the way), well, the three words all certainly have strong connections to the plot of the book, as it prominently features mercenaries and missionaries, and Lewis Moon could certainly be called a misfit, to put it lightly, among the Niaruna. If it occurs in the book, or in some review of the book or something, I think it would be reasonable to assume the term was simply a colorful description of the book's plot. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source for you, but the phrase sounds familiar to me - as a description of either 1) the sort of people you need if you are going to found the greatest empire the world has ever seen, or 2) the sort of chaps who end up buried under a palm tree on some South Sea Island. DuncanHill (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why weren't flamethrowers used durring the American Revolution

^topic 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(tongue-in-cheek) Because the price of gasoline was too high back then. -- Saukkomies 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The technology for producing Greek fire had been lost, and modern flamethrowers had not yet been invented. So it wasn't a possibility. Marco polo (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be missing something, but flamethrowers aren't all that complicated. Chinese used flamethrowers too. Malamockq (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only for defensive weapons against infantry. Greek fire was useful primarily against ships that would try to dock alongside to unload warriors. None of these things were really common after the advent of cannon fire and muskets. Anyway, see the link below, it goes into more details on the differences between ancient and modern flamethrowers. Ancient flamethrowers wouldn't have been much use against European forces from the 18th century on. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on greek fire indicates they were used on land as well, and were used to incredible effect. Being cited as one of the major reasons for victory in many battles. The range issue wasn't much of an issue considering the poor range and accuracy of smoothbore muskets. I'm going to go with Marco Polo on this and say they probably just didn't have the technology for it at all. That's the only explanation. Malamockq (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed here before, I seem to remember -- and one of the conclusions was that flamethrowers would have been an extremely short-range weapon... AnonMoos (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 20#Why didn't they use flamethrowers in Europe during the gunpowder age?, posed by the same OP IP. --Lambiam 09:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite Anonmoos, and Lambiam. He asked that question in the frame of "the gunpowder age", while this one is asked during the Revolutionary War. Changes things quite a bit. Flamethrowers are a short ranged weapon compared to rifles, but not to smoothbore muskets. During the Revolutionary War, they used primarily smoothbore muskets, which had bad range and were inaccurate. Muskets were only accurate up to 60 meters, hence the phrase "Don't shoot till you see the whites of their eyes". Flamethrowers have ranges of 50-80 meters. Malamockq (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt that a flamethrower made with 1776 technology could have consistently projected flame in a militarily-useful manner for a distance of anything like 50-80 meters under battlefield conditions... AnonMoos (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are some movies that depict gunpowder warfare?

Preferably good ones. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The movie Gettysburg has a great scene on the third day of the battle that shows an incredibly large number (over 300 pieces) of Civil War era cannons being fired in an extended bombardment (it was in real life the largest bombardment of cannon in history in North America). The film does a fairly good job of showing how much smoke was produced by the gunpowder these cannons used (although in real life there was much more smoke produced than the movie actually shows). However, because the cannons in the filming of the movie did not have any projectiles (cannon balls, shells, grapeshot, etc), they did not have much of a "kickback", which makes the scene not completely accurate.

In real life when a large Civil War era cannon was firing at the limits of its range (such as was the case in this particular instance at Gettysburg), the artillerymen would have to put in the most amount of gunpowder as possible, and the force exerted on propelling the projectile out of the front end of the cannon for such long distances would cause a tremendous amount of kickback, which would cause the cannon to lurch backwards with enough force to kill a man if he should have the misfortune of standing behind the cannon when it went off. However, if they are just "dry-firing" the cannon, as they did in the filming of the movie, they only put in a minimal amount of gunpowder, and because there is no heavy projectile to be thrust out of the cannon, it doesn't produce a very big kickback. I really don't remember ever seeing a movie that accurately shows a real life cannonade in which the cannons have a realistic-looking kickback to them. It's one of those Hollywood things in which people are expected to sort of go along with what they're showing us without question. You can watch this short video put out by a Georgia-based Civil War Reenactor artillery group where they fire a couple of shots from an authentic gun. However, this video also has some inaccuracies in it - for one, the men firing the cannon stand immediately behind it as they discharge the cannon - something that I've already mentioned would not be a very wise idea if they had been shooting a real projectile.

Because of the enormous kickback of the cannons that the Confederates were firing at Gettysburg, the tail pieces ended up digging sizeable holes into the dirt behind them, which led to the cannon pointing more and more at an upward angle as the cannonade went on. This is one theory as to why this cannonade on that day was ineffective, due to the fact that the Confederate cannons overshot their targets on top of the ridge where the Union Army was waiting for Pickett's Charge (which followed this bombardment). That, and the fact that the Confederates could not see to determine where their cannonballs were landing due to the terrain and the fact that (among other things) after the first volley it was impossible for the artillerymen to see anything because of all the gunpowder smoke. -- Saukkomies 15:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The films of Sergei Bondarchuk have meticulous recreations of battles of the Napoleonic Wars. His 1968 War and Peace recreates the Battle of Borodino using tens of thousands of extras and his 1970 Waterloo has a breathtaking recreation of Marshal Ney's cavalry charge, with thousands of horses swirling around the Allied infantry squares, filmed from the air. Gdr 19:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sharpe series did a pretty good job of depciting musket and rifle tactics in the Napoleonic Wars. AllenHansen (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Polygamy

Has polygamy ever been legal in any catholic country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.191.238 (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was legalised for a short time in nineteenth-century Paraguay after the disastrous War of the Triple Alliance. So many of the country's men had been killed in that conflict that, given the superabundance of women, it was felt to be the only way to allow the population to recover. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of terror

Can anyone direct me to a source that deals with terrorism as a psychological phenomenon? I am particularly interested in what motivates people in the past and now to commit acts of terror. Is it ideology, politics, religion or is there some baser motives at work? Thanks for all the work you do here. Sir Oswald (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look out for Michael Burleigh's new book, Blood and Rage: A Cultural History of Terrorism, scheduled for publication by Harper Collins next month.

There are a number of other texts you could refer to on the 'psychology of terrorism', Sir Oswald, on the motives that propel certain people, or groups of people, towards outrage. In his novel, The Secret Agent, Joseph Conrad provides a vivid description of the moral squalor of nineteenth- century anarchism, just as Dostoevsky probes deep into the fanatical single-mindedness of Russian terrorism in The Possessed.

It's worth stressing that people are often motivated not by grand principles, but by forces altogether baser, more visceral and more personal; excitement, the thrill of danger, social envy and simple resentment all coming before the grand abstractions of politics or religion. Take the case of Emile Henry, a French anarchist, who threw a bomb into the Gare Saint-Lazare Restaurant in 1894, killing one of the diners and seriously injuring twenty more. His motive was to show that the bourgeoisie that their "pleasures would not be untouched", though almost all his victims were workmen. There is also Vera Figner, the Russian Narodnik, who became a terrorist in part to escape the restrictions placed upon her as a woman. Or there is the example of the young men in the contemporary Muslim world, trapped by chronic unemployment, for whom radical Islam offers a way out…as well as new jeans and cool trainers.

In the 1970s the actions of the German Red Army Faction might be said to have emerged from the 'boredom of privilege' than any meaningful political grievance. In Italy one former member of the Red Brigades, an organisation which killed hundreds in the 1980s, revealed his own motives-"Arms have a fascination of their own. It is a fascination that makes you feel in some way more virile...this sensation of feeling stronger, more manly...I found myself...showing them to women to try to impress them."

So, there you have it. And as Burleigh points out the one thing that unites the German and Italian left-wingers with present-day jihadists is not the thought of Marx or Muhammad, but a fascination with gangster films and splatter movies. Did you know, for instance, that in the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan one favoured form of relaxation was to watch Arnold Schwarzenegger movies? Well, now you do! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a manifestation of a persons state of helplessness and deprivity due to several factors that misguides them out of which one of it is psychological and false impressions about the outside world..... 17:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tall Romans? (ancient)

So in all my ancient history classes I remember learning that the romans were generally rather short. However, I came across this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daqin where the chinese refer to the romans as a tall people. Am I remembering wrong or were the chinese just even shorter than the romans? help me out :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the Chinese probably never went to Rome directly, but instead reached the shores of the Black Sea, where they might have met a few Roman soldiers. Maybe regional differences? bibliomaniac 1 5 00:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also bear in mind that even if the ancient Romans were short by modern standards, that doesn't preclude the Ancient Chinese being even shorter. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In The Logistics of the Roman Army in the Jewish War, Jonathan Philip Roth says "... the average height of a Roman male of the imperial period can be reckoned, for the purposes of this study, as 170 cm. (5' 7")." However, the Romans often set minimum height standards for new recruits into the army, and there certainly were very tall Romans, such as the Emperor Maximinus Thrax. Vegetius writes that mounted soldiers should have a height of six feet, and no less than 5' 10". An edict of Valentinian I and Valens in 367 says that a levy is to be raised in Rome from those with a height of 5' 7". Some Roman writers comment on how much taller the Germans and the Celts are than the Romans. For instance, Tacitus says that their greater height gives the Germans an advantage when crossing rivers. Xn4 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is well and good, but I imagine archaeological evidence would be more reliable than textual evidence for something like this (especially because there's always debate on how big some ancient "cubit" of "foot" was). And we have plenty of ancient Roman skeletons.--Pharos (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Although there's uncertainty about the cubit, which was variable, the Roman foot and inch were standardized and are known to be some three per cent shorter than their modern Imperial equivalents. Xn4 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The average height of an Israelite or Canaanite seems to have been 5ft. AllenHansen (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, statistical measurements of ancient skeletons would be quite a bit more reliable than anecdotal comments by Tacitus on how much taller the Germans were, etc.--Pharos (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Hegel

Could someone please recommend a book giving a general overview and introduction to Hegel from a a left interpretation? --Gary123 (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, I can recommend many good introductory texts to Hegel, but not one that could be fitted easily within your ideological parameters. However, you might care to try The Young Hegel: Studies in the Relations between Dialectics and Economics by Georg Lukacs, a Hungarian Marxist, the one original thinker to emerge from the cultural desert of the old Soviet empire. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Empire

Cany anyone recommend a good study-recent if possible-on the end of the British Empire? Ta. Cryinggame (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could try a book called The End of the British Empire: The Historical Debate (Oxford, 1991) by John Darwin. I haven't read it myself, but it's well reviewed in The Journal of African History (vol. 33, no. 1, 1992), at pp. 167-168. Darwin is now University Lecturer in the History of the British Commonwealth at Oxford. Xn4 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best recent treatment of the subject is The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997 by Piers Brendon, published by Jonathan Cape. The title and the chronology are perhaps a little odd, as the loss of the Americas after Yorktown in 1781 did not presage decline but the rise of a new and more vigorous imperium. Setting aside that small caveat the book is well written and admirably structured. Brendon analyses the way in which the Empire contributed to its own eventual extinction by its willingness to devolve power where and when power could be devolved. From the highways he also moves down the byways of imperial history, charting, amongst other things, the rise and fall of the moustache as a symbol of national virility! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why recent? Some of the best writing on the subject is a few decades old. Jan Morris' Farewell the Trumpets remains remarkably readable. Relata refero (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can join in the Jan Morris recommendation, having sailed through all of her Pax Britannica. She isn't a historian as such, more of an academic journalist with a mind like a steel trap and a wonderful prose style. Xn4 17:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]