Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 September 11

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.

September 11

Searching For A Particular Extract From A Novel Be Richmal Crompton

IN WHICH OF THE SERIES OF BOOKS ON "WILLIAM" BY RICHMAL CROMPTON CAN I FIND THE HILARIOUS INTERACTION BETWEEN WILLIAM AND A SUBSTITUTE ENGLISH TEACHER WHO TRIES TO ARROGANTLY SHOW OFF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE ONLY TO BE THOROUGHLY CONFUSED BY WILLIAM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.236.219 (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read our instructions about not typing in ALL CAPITALS? It's the internet equivalent of SHOUTING AT US! -- JackofOz (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be William Holds the Stage from William the Pirate but I do not remember the books well enough to be sure. Sorry the answer is a little vague but I think it is better to attempt to answer than simply attacking the questioner. meltBanana 12:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

People should be told when their behavior is out of line. It's never too late to learn—— one keeps telling oneself.--Wetman (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And I certainly did not "attack the questioner". I questioned their actions, a very different thing. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It was indeed the story "William Holds the Stage" which is the second story in "William the Pirate", pp.36-57. However it was not a substitute teacher but an Old Boy of the school who wanted to show off his knowledge of Shakespeare, since he had written an article on him which had been published in the local press. This Old Boy was allowed to give a lesson to William's class, since the teacher had suddenly been taken ill. William, because he considered himself to be a writer, was the only boy in the class who paid any attention to this Old Boy's lesson, but would keep interjecting his own amusing comments into the lesson. Simonschaim (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks meltbanana and simonschain. jackofoz: sorry, didnt mean to offend your sensitive virtual eardrums...note, i'm now whispering.....jimmervyn

1992 Los Angeles riots

How come the article does not mention smaller riots taking place in other U.S. cities and Toronto? B-Machine (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions about articles should really be put on the talk page of the relevant articles. The reference desk is here to answer factual questions.

But to answer your question anyway, the answer is simple, no-one has put it there. If you have good knowledge of the events then Be Bold and improve the article. Please reference your work, but even if you can;t adding accurate information is a good step. Prokhorovka (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is about LA. It does not have to mention other - possibly small - riots.--Mr.K. (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Beethoven - Six Ecossaises

A couple of days ago, I attended an afternoon piano recital.

The first item on the program was titled "Six Ecossaises" by Beethoven. This was not a weighty, profound work, but a very delightful, enjoyable piece.

By the time the pianist finished the third ecossais, I got the feeling that part of it was repetitious. By the end, I realized that the last half of each ecossais was virtually identical to each other.

I later asked him about the name. He said that an "Ecossais" is a Scottish dance.

I'm familiar with the concept of "Theme and Variations", but I'm unable to tell if this is an example of that, where each of the last 5 dances are a variation of the first. But even if that's so, I'm struck that the last half of each dance has hardly any variation.

If you're interested in listening to what I'm asking about, here's a link to a youtube clip. And there are other clips there which are pretty much the same.

In this clip, times are as follows:

Dance #--Start time--Start of "Refrain"

  1       :04       :18
  2       :31       :46
  3      1:00      1:14
  4      1:27      1:41
  5      1:55      2:08
  6      2:21      2:37

(I put "refrain" in quotes because I'm not sure that I'm using the word correctly).

Finally to the question - how do you define this work?

Is it six different dances, where it just so happens that the last half of each are identical?

Is it six shorter dances, separated by a "refrain" which is not part of each dance?

Other choice?

Is it unique or almost unique? (This isn't the Language Desk, so I think I can get away with this solecism). Are there any other works like this? Bunthorne (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I know this piece well. It's usually called "Six Écossaises", but I've always thought of it as a single, unified work, because, as you say, each number ends the same way, so it sounds like variations on a theme. It's been recorded many times, but always complete afaik. I've never heard the individual dances performed separately. It was published only in 1888, 60-odd years after Beethoven's death, and the title was probably supplied by a publisher. It's a little analagous to the Viennese waltz. Take The Blue Danube, for example. The famous theme is only the first of a number of completely different waltz tunes within the overall "waltz". Does that make the work (and most of Strauss's other "waltzes") a set of waltzes, or just a waltz? Titles are arbitrary things, and sometimes tell something other than the story. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. That makes a lot of sense, especially when one learns how various works got their name. In most cases, I think the composer would be surprised to find out the name their work ended up with. Bunthorne (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, it's not so much variations on a theme, but the non-vocal equivalent of a song where the words to each verse are different but the refrain is always the same. I can't think of the term for this off-hand. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Portrayal of Jewish women during Third Reich

From what I've seen, nazi propoganda is filled with images of jewish men and portrays them in a certain way (i.e devious, criminal, deformed, sexually perverted etc.,), but I've never seen or read any anti-semitic material from that era about jewish women. Was there any significant attempt to portray jewish women in a certain light or was it just jewish men who were demonised? 198.54.202.114 (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, men were certainly the focus of the propaganda posters, but I suspect there were Jewish women elsewhere in the Nazi cosmology. See e.g. this page in an academic book which discusses how Nazi propaganda discussed Jewish women. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish man as predatory sexual deviant was a threat to the purity of "Aryan" womanhood; the reverse situation (Jewish woman/"Aryan" man) apparently wasn't considered worth featuring in Nazi antisemitic propaganda. Another frequently depicted aspect of the demonized Jew not mentioned by the OP is as the fat plutocrat, particularly a profiteer enriched by exploiting the German people. As such the Jewish woman appears as a rich man's corpulent wife, as seen in the children's textbook, Der Giftpilz, and popularly in Der Stuermer. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

extermination

What did the Jews do that made the German people so mad at them that they would go along with extermination versus say expulsion? -- Taxa (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not much. The German people were having difficult times (due to reparations from WWI, among other things) and the Nazis gave them somebody to blame. People like to have somebody to blame. --Tango (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Nazis cited a book written by a Jew calling for Germany's destruction (I forget the name, but I'm sure someone knows what I'm talking about it and will post a Wikilink to it.) Also, the Nazis did try expulsion but other nations didn't want Jews either. See MS St. Louis. 204.2.252.254 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The book is Germany Must Perish! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that it was published in 1941, it simply cannot be related to the Nazi treatment of Jews. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the question referenced extermination versus expulsion. The Madagascar Plan was formally abandoned in Febuary 1942 and the Wannsee Conference was held in January 1942. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

German attitudes toward Jews had little or nothing to do with Jewish actions. Antagonism toward Jews was (is?) a feature not just of German but of virtually all European Christian cultures that goes back hundreds of years. The Nazis just tapped into it to pin the blame for the German people's troubles on the Jews. See our article on Anti-Semitism. Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What about Islamic cultures? Did they play any part in the role you have given to Christian culture? -- Taxa (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Islamic cultures have their own history of problems with antisemitism but weren't a great influence on the Christian cultures of the time. In fact, at the time they were generally less anti-semetic then many European Christians. And if anything, European anti-semitism had more of an influence on Islamic anti-semitism then vice versa. See also Islam and antisemitism Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Answering the first question: I read somewhere today that the an opposition to the Nazi party was the Communist party, which was led by thirteen men, all Jews. A general Europe-wide fear of Communism meant Jews were despised by association; blaming Jewish communists got the people on your side. So all those people were killed due to fallacy...The article may not have been accurate, it wasn't on Wikipedia. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That would mean that anticommunism was the foundation of antisemitism in Germany, which is untrue. The anti-semitism article will be useful reading, and probably more so the two articles Racial policy of Nazi Germany and Nuremberg Laws. And The Destruction of the European Jews. To quote our article on the latter:

In the early stages, Nazi policies targeting Jews (whether directly or through aryanization) treated them as sub-human, but with a right to live under such conditions that this status affords. In the later stages, policy was formulated to define the Jews as anti-human, with extermination being viewed an increasingly urgent necessity. The growing Nazi momentum of destruction, began with the murdering of Jews in German and German-annexed and occupied countries, and then intensified into a search for Jews to either exterminate or use as forced labour from countries allied with Nazi Germany as well as neutral countries. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All 13 were Jews? That seems unlikely. Karl Marx was a Jew, so that might be some of where the association was coming from. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of the early big-shots of the Soviet Union were Jews. One has to remember that in the early 20th century anti-Semitists blamed the Jews for the rise of Communism and everything else bad that happened. Propaganda will work even (or especially) if something isn't true (read: Big Lie). The early 20th world was AFAIK very racist and anti-Semitic (I saw TV documentaries which spoke among other things of 'scientific studies done in the early 20's by respected American universities which "proved" that Japanese couldn't fly planes because they didn't have a depth perception because of their slitted eyes and that Blacks couldn't fly planes because they "weren't smart enough", etc' (our article Tuskegee Airmen mentions the last). The Dreyfus affair, Henry Ford, The International Jew, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion... these were but the more acute symptoms. Read for example Scientific racism especially the 19th and 20th century sections. Flamarande (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What about Cuba from which Jews were turned away? Cuba became Communist... and now Venezuela. (BTW - it was just reported that Russia is shipping Missiles to Venezuela.) -- Taxa (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's MUCH more likely that you guys have this 180 degrees wrong. I am pretty certain that the Nazi's hated the Communists because it was a "Jewish philosophy" (per Karl Marx's background, and others noted above) and not the other way around. They didn't hate the Jews because they were communists, they hated the Communists because they were Jews! --Jayron32 04:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To focus on the question of "Why extermination rather than expulsion" - once the Nazis gained enough power to go from rhetoric to implementation in ridding Europe (and with the Third Reich's aims, eventually the world) of Jews, they developed and used the most effective means of doing so. Remember the numbers involved: so many live refugees were impediment to the policy of Lebensraum and overall would be competing for dwindling resources needed to sustain the wartime homefront population. By eliminating them (that included plundering their properties and wealth by expropriation), there were problems solved and much benefit to be gained. So the Nazi Germans devoted themselves to finding increasingly cost-effective and practical ways to exterminate this vast and reviled population, from shootings by the Einsatzgruppen to gassing in extermination camps plus a number of similarly brutal variations in between. The only valid reason for allowing some skilled or physically fit Jews to continue existing for a time was to exploit them in concentration and forced labor camps, for the benefit of the German war effort. There was evidently no humanitarian reason to keep Jews alive, and so they were exterminated and their remains reduced by incineration or disposed of by burial in mass graves. Kindly note that I don't present this with chapter-and-verse citations (which could well be compiled with more time than I have available at present) but as a condensed description of Nazi theory and practice over the Third Reich period, as is documented in many articles in Wikipedia and research libraries and period archives (in one of which I work). In summary: extermination of the Jews was in their best interests, expedient, and evidently outweighed any counterargument.-- Deborahjay (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Nazis gave away the wealth and possessions of the murdered Jews to the Nazi's supporters and also the non-Jewish public. Thus, while in Britain for example people became very short of material things during the war, in Nazi Germany working class women began wearing fur coats and there were not material shortages except for perishable goods such as food. I do not remember the details of the book I read that went into the details of all this - its title might have been something like "Nazi Economics". There is another similar book about this that I have not read. 78.149.190.169 (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Jew-hating is nothing new, so it might be worth considering that the Germans weren't any more ardent than the previous instances of official Jew-bashing, but only that they were the first with access to modern media and propaganda tools, modern political organization and a fully industrialized economy, which allowed them to be much more "successful" than previous malefactors. --Sean 17:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a simple matter of sentiment. Reasons come after sentiment. Vranak (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was influenced by Martin Luther and his On Jews and their Lies. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pharos Lighthouse & Nice (France)

I have just been speaking to a Chinese friend of mine who is studying French in France. She told me that she is going to visit Nice, and she said it is famous for its lighthouse, which she then called 'Pharos'. She was unable to explain to me why she called it Pharos, because she had to suddenly go and do something, but it got me thinking. Why would she think Pharos, the Lighthouse of Alexandria and one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World would be in (or indeed have anything to do with) Nice in France? Can anyone get the connection here? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The French word for "lighthouse" is "phare", just as the Spanish word for lighthouse is "faro". So the lady is probably just trying to translate the word and came up with the wrong guess. But then, this question is better for the Language Reference Desk. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that would make sense. She said 'la ville phare [sic] du Sud' which made no sense to me, not knowing that 'phare' was 'lighthouse', then she said 'il y a un lighthouse, un beacon, un pharos', and these words all struck me as they are all related. I see, now. So, it's just a lighthouse and has nothing to do with Egypt? Thanks! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost nothing, as museum has almost nothing to do with Alexandria.--Wetman (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Pharos is a name for a lighthouse - eg http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5243764

See Lighthouse_of_Alexandria#Pharos_in_culture

also " Pharos became the etymological origin of the word 'lighthouse' in Greek (φάρος), Bulgarian (фар) and many Romance languages, such as French (phare), Italian (faro), Portuguese (farol), Spanish (faro), Romanian, and Catalan (far)." from the same article.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the expression "la ville phare" in French does not directly refer to a lighthouse. It means "the leading city" or "the trend-setting city". There is a distant reference to a lighthouse that lights the path that others follow, but the expression is now completely divorced for its coastal origins. --Xuxl (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly that's what she meant to say, but the conversation turned (by my misunderstanding) to lighthouses. No wonder she 'suddenly' had something else to do.... :) --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)