Humanities desk
< June 22	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 24 >

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.

June 23

John Trevor (speaker) portrait oddity

Why is he cross-eyed? Look at the picture in the article.--Wutwatwot (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From his article:

As Speaker he was memorable for being severely cross-eyed — the affliction was so confusing to members of the House that they were frequently uncertain as to which of them had "caught the Speaker's eye", and would try to speak out of turn.[3]

Tempshill (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking what makes people in general cross-eyed, or why John Trevor in particular was cross-eyed? I'm not at all sure there'd be a unique reason in his case; just whatever it is that makes anyone cross-eyed. Or are you asking whether he was born that way or somehow became that way in later life? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The engraving has been doctored. The irises have been "strengthened" and the background crudely blacked in.--Wetman (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Causes and Manifestations of Discrimination

I am doing research about the Causes of Discrimination and Manifestations of Discrimination.

For Causes of Discrimination, I have: 1. Fear of the different 2. Negative stereotyping 3. Cultural or religious traditions 4. Protecting the interests of your group.

For Manifestations of Discrimination, I have: 1. Hate speech and crimes 2. Unequal opportunities 3. Segregation 4. Violent conflict

I need more points for each! Examples are also welcome, but if I have more points, I can look for examples myself.

Thanks so much.

--59.189.60.214 (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do your homework for you. Have you tried reading Discrimination? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also might want to consider tribalism. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See if this discussion from the archives can help. Jay (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waffle Frolics

I have heard from several resources that waffle frolics were parties in the eighteenth century that functioned like ice cream socials,but instead of ice cream, guests were served Belgian waffles. Could someone provide me with more information? The few resources on the internet do not go into further detail beyond what I mentioned above. I would like to know the origins of waffle frolics and how they are put together. Do other activities accompany them? Thank you. 74.229.155.212 (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)74.229.155.212 (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of either an ice cream social or a waffle frolic, and I'm uncertain how old Belgian waffles as we know them are. In the eighteenth century, though, there was no country called 'Belgium'. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An ice cream social, which we don't have an article for unfortunately (okay, we have a redirect to ice cream but it doesn't cover ice cream socials at all!), was originally a social gathering during the summer where people would make ice cream and bring it to the event to share with friends. Nowadays, they're mostly relegated to church and grammar school functions. Basically a get together where ice cream is served as the main dish. Games of various sorts are sometimes played, especially by the children, and there may be a clown hired for the event. Dismas|^(talk) 09:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian waffles as we know them didn't originate until 1960; however, waffles generally are from that part of the world and date back sufficiently far. Our waffle article echoes the waffle party claim, though without citation. — Lomn 13:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Belgian waffles as we know them ..." shouldn't that be "... as Americans know them ..."? I'm pretty sure waffles (Belgian and others) have been around in Europe for considerably longer than 50 years. Astronaut (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The specific "Belgian Waffle" is a recent construction, and is distinct from "waffles made in Belgium". Additionally, it's not an American invention (no American bias here) -- it is in fact Belgian, and was introduced in Belgium, but is strictly a recent form of the waffle. — Lomn 15:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, "Belgian Waffles" are different from "waffles made in Belgium"? - sounds a bit like "Swiss cheese" (as in the holey cheese available in US supermarkets) is different from the "cheeses made in Switzerland" :-) Astronaut (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what it means, though I don't know the degree to which your Swiss cheese metaphor applies (you've got the degree of specificity backwards). If you'd read the Belgian waffle article, you'd see that distinction made clear. — Lomn 17:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This book review mentions the "waffle frolic", so the reviewed book, Never Enough Words: How Americans Invented Expressions as Ingenious, Ornery, and Colorful as Themselves, is one possible reliable source, although the single review on Amazon complains that the author does not go very deep in his explanations. This Word Detective entry also talks of the frolic, but seems to completely miss the Belgian waffle boat. Recreations of the Colonial Period has a very brief description along with the similar "turtle frolic." The Google search results seem to indicate that the term is still in use, although it doesn't appear to be all that common. It may be worth asking a Language RefDesker for the OED information. I love me some waffles, so I'm tempted to have my own frolic at some point, although I think it may be more of a cool weather event, so I've got a few months to plan. And I might have to skip the dancing girls. --LarryMac | Talk 18:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a Language refdesker, I can supply the OED results, and as a winter special, I will even do it on the Humanities desk. The "waffle frolic" does indeed date back to the 18th century: "1744 in Mag. Amer. Hist. (1878) II. 442 For my own part I was not a little grieved that so luxurious a feast should come under the name of a wafel frolic.". Of course, that gives us no idea how they frolicked. "Waffle parties" occured in the 19th century: "1808 in Scribner's Mag. (1887) II. 183/1 They are going to have a fine waffle party on Tuesday. 1882 Harper's Mag. Apr. 666/1 She tells him of ‘little waffle parties’ formed by her intimates." Waffles were described as: 1817 M. BIRKBECK Notes Journ. Amer. (1818) "Waffles (a soft hot cake of German extraction, covered with butter)." Gwinva (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gwinva. There's a tad more of the 1744 quote here, where we find that they played cards beforehand "as usual", and that there was apparently a play (perhaps two?) after. --LarryMac | Talk 15:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well found. The "magnificent supper [which] appeared in grand order and decorum" was obviously more than just a few waffles; the "ten sunburnt virgins lately come from Columbus’s Newfoundland" sounds most intriguing. Gwinva (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many signatories

How many men signed both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.35.182 (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are talking about the US Declaration of Independence (and not some other country), did you compare the United States Declaration of Independence#List of signers and the last page of the United States Constitution? Astronaut (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six, if the columns I added to the list of delegates to the Continental Congress is correct. Click on the "Declaration" and "Constitution" columns under the "Delegates who attended" section to bring the names of signers of both documents to the top. —Kevin Myers 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Non-Human Life

It seems like Western culture only has a detailed philosophy on the meaning of human life. Why is the life of a dog, bug, tree, fungus, or unicellular organism not considered? Yes humans are conscious and thus may have a special existence but why wouldn't the meaning of life apply to all life? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read through our article on the Meaning of Life, you will see all non-Western cultures have philosophies about this, too. But it always applies to human life only. The question very briefly comes down to, "Why are we here? for what purpose?". In the case of "lower forms of life" their role or function are seen in utilitarian terms, eg how they fill a niche in the ecology of the planet. It seems to make little sense to argue a virus or a dog is here to better itself, learn tolerance of others or seek enlightenment (3 of the many "meanings" proposed for humans). This does not mean those lower forms are 'valueless' ; but they are not regarded as being capable of altering how they lead their lives by adopting different philosophies about it...a mental activity that requires mental capacity not credited to non-human life forms. If some higher animals do in fact speculate about their reason for existence, they lack the language to communicate it to us.- KoolerStill (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you are asking is essentially a religious question, not scientific. As such it is up to you to decide or be indoctrinated by your parents or whatever. A consideration though is that we mightn't be here to ask questions if we had considered our food, competitors etc as equally worthy of life as ourselves. Dmcq (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

42. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution in Martinique 1790

I have heard of a "revolution" and severe disturbancies on French Martinique between the outbreak of the French revolution in 1789, and the British ockupation in 1794. What actually happened there in 1790-94? It is difficult to find anything specific on the net. Normally, all one can find is that the British ockupated the island in 1794, but nothing about waht happened just before, the five years between 1789-94. If someone can give me a usefull link, or perhaps give me a short summary of the events 1789-94, I would be gratefull. Thanks! --Aciram (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some detail in History of Martinique. The article mentions a small unsuccessful slave revolt, before local royalist planters allied themselves with the British. --207.236.147.118 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D-Day: Canadian & British troops

A friend of mine recently claimed that 60 % of allied troops during DDay were British & Canadian. Can anyone confirm the percentage of commonwealth troops for me? Thanks, --217.227.119.241 (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Normandy Landings#Allied Order of Battle section puts the British 2nd army at 83,115 troops (61,715 of them British), and the US 1st Army at 73,000 men. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My calculator puts that as 46.7% US, with 53.3% left for everyone else. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about the argument/conversation I think it is, you may want to note that since the Americans got bad luck on the beach to attack, they had the majority of casualties. Prokhorovka (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "sixty percent" is a figure I've used myself from making a rough approximation without knowing the figures. There were five invasion beaches, each landing about two divisions: two were British, two American and one Canadian = 60%. The numbers for airborne troops (two American divisions, one British) boost the American contingent.

If you include the airmen and sailors involved the percentage of non-Americans is higher. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Asians often make kind of a peace-sign with their hands on Photos?

Examples: [1] [2] [3] and many others by google-search "asians". --92.227.142.202 (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a recent discussion of the practice at The Onion's AV Club. See here: [4]. Other links can be found by googling Asians + peace sign. --Xuxl (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Chinese person who very often makes that sign when being photographed, but I have no idea why. I suppose it's a tradition among Asians, sort of like saying "cheese". --Bowlhover (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the V sign - see V_sign#Japan_and_the_V_sign_in_Photographs for a couple of theories. Exxolon (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asianposes.com.--droptone (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]