Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 30

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 30

Historical population continent statistics - these seem highly suspect to me

Asia 1800 - 649,000,000. Europe 1800 - 9,000,000. See the article continent. I find it extremely hard to believe that THAT much of a disparity existed between Europe and Asia in 1800. Can we make sure that the article is relying on accurate statistics?--CokeIan (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that is way off. See page 6 (table 2) of this UN report for example.--Cam (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone should change it then if it is inaccurate, especially on a page like continent which is probably viewed by a lot of people, it's getting 4000 views or more almost every day. Isn't it in the interest of Wikipedia to be accurate?--CokeIan (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been removed now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes... by me. See Talk:Continent#Historical populations. Astronaut (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A good source on historical populations is here, under "Historical Statistics". (we have an article on Angus Maddison who compiled the data). I might have time to make the sums and add that, but not right now, so posting here in case anyone else feel compelled to do it. Jørgen (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

U.S. National Defense

Is it right that if someone sabotages or tries to sabotage commercial aircraft in U.S.A. it will be taken as breach of U.S. National Defense and State will react accordingly ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There's probably half a dozen agencies that would like to take a crack at you if you sabotaged a plane. Likely, whoever got you first would arest you, and then you'd be prosecuted under federal criminal law. --Jayron32 04:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking whether or not it would be treated as a "criminal" action or as a "war" action, it is not clear, at the moment. Terrorism (which sabotage of an airplane would probably fall under) is currently a murky category in the U.S. legal system, half way between criminal law and acts of war, and so you could either be sent to federal court to be tried like a common criminal, or you could be sent to Guantanamo Bay to be held as an enemy combatant. This is even more in flux since the Obama administration has on the one hand been saying it is going to phase out this Bush blurriness, but has only phased it out in some places in a limited fashion.

If you're asking whether it matters that the aircraft is commercial and not, say, a military plane — I don't think it does, no, but it's an interesting question. Certainly hijacking a commercial plane can put you in jeopardy of being attacked by the military in retaliation, for example, not just the civilian police force. This is a notable difference; if you hijacked a car or sabotaged a train, I don't think military authorities would intervene unless the civilian forces were totally overwhelmed. Planes are treated differently though because of their ability to be used as weapons, etc. I don't know if this is specifically a post-9/11 thing or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If cars can't be used as weapons, why is there a crime called, "vehicular homicide"? Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Patent - General Question

If I have an idea then, should I check whether it had already been patented, before I start implementing it. If yes, what is the rationale behind this. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are only doing it for your own experimentation, say, in your basement, it doesn't matter much whether you do a prior art search first. Most jurisdictions (but this is not legal advice!) have it so that if you are just researching or experimenting (in the U.S. you have to be doing it for "purely philosophical" purposes), you are not infringing on other people's patents. If you plan to use the patent in any kind of commercial context, though, you will need to check for prior art, because you could be infringing, and open yourself up to legal risk. Imagine you set up your business based on your great idea, and it turns out it is already patented. You've just set yourself up for a massive lawsuit from the patent holder, who will happily clean you out of whatever profits you were making and probably some more. That's a pretty strong rationale for checking the prior art first! If there is any doubt, one should check with a lawyer first, obviously. These terms, like "commercial" and "purely philosophical" and so forth have precise legal meanings in whatever jurisdiction you are talking about, and one should not assume one understands them without legal training. (I certainly don't!) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's already been done, why reinvent the wheel? (article?) Dismas|^(talk) 12:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There can be good reasons to reinvent the wheel — because often that leads to innovating on the wheel. Edison for example had a large library attached to his workshop that contained probably thousands of patents by competitors. Reinventing the wheel often means finding a new or slightly different way to do something, or at least ending up with the deep understanding one would need to actually improve on things (as most inventions are not, in fact, bolts out of the blue). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't know where you live, and that will make a difference. I know for a fact that in the United States there are several software corporations that specifically tell their staff to not research patents for this purpose, because if the staff notices that their work infringes a patent and they proceed anyway, and get sued by the patent holder, then they could be found to have willfully infringed the patent, which means the infringer may pay triple damages to the patent holder plus their attorney's fees.[1] Personally I think this sounds like a risky legal stratagem that would not be advised by patent attorneys outside of the software area, but I am not a lawyer, so what do I know. As another aside, I'll ask whether you've attempted to search patents in the past to look for a particular invention. Many patents, lately at least, are impenetrable to understanding, what with having 96 claims, all phrased absolutely as broadly and generally as possible, in an effort to claim as much "territory" as possible. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why corporations and researchers generally employ professional researchers to look at the prior art — people who understand both the law and the relevant field of study. Both are quite difficult things to investigate. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I know patent prevents someone else from doing what was patented. My question is, how one can say, like, I got this idea first so no one else can do this. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking about how to file a patent, generally speaking, you come up with the invention, you hire someone to investigate the prior art for you to see if it is already patented, then you usually hire someone who is experienced in writing up patents to work with you to write it up as an application, then you submit it to the patent office. It costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time, which is one of the reasons learning how to do a prior art search on your own, or hiring someone to do it for you, is pretty important. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually Mr98's original post isn't really correct. Patent, unlike copyright, requires no knowledge of the patent to be an infringement. And doing it in your basement, while nobody'd probably ever know enough to sue for it, is likely a violation. There's no general exception to patent law for personal or small-scale use. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my post is correct. There is an exception, but it is very narrow. See Madey vs. Duke University. Basically if you are doing it in your basement "solely for amusement, to satisfy curiosity, or for strictly philosophical enquiry" (e.g., in no way for a business model), you are not infringing. It is narrow (as Madey makes clear) in the sense that just doing something for academic purposes does not count as "strictly philosophical enquiry." --Mr.98 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I never learned about, or forgot, this exception in the little patent law I took. Thank you. I would point out that the experimental use exception is narrow and has become only more narrow since Madey, the case that your link's discussing, and that the statutory language contains no such exemption. The Solicitor General in an amicus brief to the Madey appeal actually wrote: it is "improbable that a 190-year-old, judge-made defense with little rooting in any statutory text could anticipate the challenges of the modern academic and research environment and adequately accommodate the competing policy concerns." I guess I'm not the only one surprised by the experimental use doctrine. There's an excellent law review article about it here Shadowjams (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Pledge of Allegiance

How often is this done in schools? Is it daily? I was astonished to read that American school children have to do such an Orwellian and militaristic thing in America, of all places. I would have thought it was completely against the USA culture of do-what-you-like, and something I would only have expected in the regimented culture of North Korea. Do not parents object to it as brain washing? Americans must be used to it and take it for granted, but in Europe not even the most right-wing government would propose doing it. I'm not sure if the Soviets had something similar. 92.29.119.94 (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we used to do it on Friday, when they would play The Call to the Colors on the loudspeaker. And each classroom had a flag mounted. I suspect it's not done as much today, but maybe Pledge of Allegiance will provide further info. Someone asked a similar question the other day, and the answer is the same: While public school teachers can be compelled to lead it, being state employees, the kids cannot be legally compelled to recite it, although peer pressure might influence their decision. And have you even read the pledge? It's a positive thing, expressing ideals that we continue to strive for even if we often fall short: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." I say it proudly. And so should you, if you're American. And if you're not American, you should be envious. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

... and justice for all. Bears thinking about, doesn't it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also stated standalone as "equal justice under law". An ideal that we often fall short of, for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot of issues with the Pledge. We can start with the problem that children who are too young to be able to understand the import of the oath, let alone pronounce "indivisible", are being asked by authority figures to swear it. Then again, I know what it means to pledge allegiance to the Queen. It means that if she turns up and tells me to make her a cup of tea, then I should do it, and if someone acting for the Crown asks me to do something, then I should do it. Similarly, I can pledge allegiance to the republic for which the US flag stands, because the officers of a republic can give instructions. But I don't know what it means to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth, or a red-and-white stripy design, since neither of these things is likely to be giving me instructions, and I sadly suspect it means nothing at all. Then there's the "under God" part, which is troubling in a secular environment like a school. Then there's "liberty and justice for all", which is a nice thought, but quite blatantly not a description of the United States at any point in its history. (I am actually a parent of a school-age child in the United States, so this isn't an abstract issue for me.) Marnanel (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact kids may not totally understand something yet, such as respect for their homeland, is no excuse not to teach it to them. The flag and the republic represent us. We are pledging allegiance to ourselves and to each other. The "under God" stuff apparently came from a misunderstanding of what Lincoln meant when he said "this nation under God..." which was more of a prayer than an assertion. I'm pretty much agnostic myself (as was Lincoln, supposedly), and I don't consider it a big deal, because you can define "God" in any way you want to. Meanwhile, if you think the American flag is just a stripy piece of cloth, you might want to go back to school yourself. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because I went to school in England, but yes, I think a "flag" may be a) a piece of cloth, b) a design, c) an identifying mark of an organisation or country. None of those are things which I understand pledging allegiance to. If you're saying that pledging allegiance to a flag is equivalent to pledging allegiance to the country for which it stands, a) then the pledge is tautologous and b) I have never in my life heard someone say "flag" when they meant "country". Marnanel (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The American flag means a lot more than what you think it does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Marnanel. A flag is a graphic design that represents our government. Pledging to the flag itself is another one of those great mysteries. If a flag ever asked me to make good on that promise I'd tell it to mind it's own business of looking pretty in the wind, and it didn't like it I could replace it with a Jolly Roger for about $10. APL (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Marnanel, you talk about taking instructions from an officer or from the Queen. Aren't you confusing allegiance with obedience. One can take issue with one's country's laws and be very publicly at odds with one's own government, while still being totally loyal to one's country. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the origins of "under God" as a phrase, it was deliberately added to the Pledge in 1954, with Eisenhower signing it in so that "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." It was not meant as a neutral phrase, but one explicitly meant to be a "dedication" of Americans to a monotheistic God. Whether you think that is a good idea, or in line with the First Amendment, or whatever, is up to you, but don't soft-peddle its origins. It was a move in the period of high McCarthyism to contrast the US against the "atheistic" Soviet Union, a nice piece of Cold War propaganda pushed primarily by Catholic interest groups that has been recited by school children for over 50 years now. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we said the pledge once a week in high school. It was read over the loudspeaker while the students stood. Relatively few students actually said the pledge out loud along with the loudspeaker -- peer pressure actually worked against it. I guess it was uncool then; things may have changed. —Kevin Myers 12:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I graduated high school in '92 just to give you a benchmark. We said it every day at the Catholic grade school that I attended for the 8 years previous to high school. Dismas|^(talk) 12:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Being a private school, they could probably also compel the kids to say it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of the schools that I attended (in the UK) had a flag or even a flag-pole, so it all sounds a bit odd to us Brits. Still, it would be a dull old world if we all did everything the same wouldn't it? Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Because in the United Kingdom the allegiance is to the crown not the flag which is why most public building in the UK dont have flags outside. Except for in American films showing Britain! MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In the UK we do not serve the government, the government serves us. 92.15.9.145 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In the US, the government is us. That's the ideal, anyway. That's why our "monarch" is an elective office. It's a job, rather than some kind of divine right. So do British kids actually say a pledge to the Queen? Or is Milborne being metaphorical? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Never. You may owe allegiance to the Crown as a citizen, but it doesn't mean you have to stand up and recite it every day like the Nicene Creed. Marnanel (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean subject, as opposed to citizen, or did you change that phraseology a few years back? Googlemeister (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, we've been citizens since 1981 - Subject is very different. Bizarrely, immigrants do swear loyalty to the Monarch, as part of taking citizenship, but for those born here it's just assumed - the idea of reciting something like that in public, particularly in normal discourse like any school day, is really quite creepy --Saalstin (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You think that to pledge allegiance to your home country is creepy? That's creepy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

It's the practice of being required to do so, and being required to do so every day, which is creepy. If it is appropriate, for instance on becoming a British citizen or on taking a seat in Parliament, there's no problem pledging allegiance - and once done, it is done forever (or unless revoked). But reciting a pledge of allegiance by rote, in a group, every day? Britons would ask "What's the point?" Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In American public schools, kids are not legally required to. Private schools obviously can set their own rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But there is a strong element of 'coercion' if the whole class is being led in the recital of the pledge, is there not? See my favourite Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Kennedy, in Lee v. Weisman. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why forcing kids to pray is not allowed in public schools. And I say again, teaching American kids patriotism is not a bad thing, even if they don't fully understand it yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, there are two different things in play - first off, public displays of just about anything is deemed quite impolite (although less so for youngers) - being overtly romantic, religious, political, anything in public is simply socially inappropriate, it makes us feel awkward, so expecting something to espouse something like that would be considered rude - just think, what if they didn't agree, or approve?. Secondly, we look with bemusement at American displays of patriotism - stadium sized flags, military jets flying over sporting events, a flagpole on every home (until a couple of years ago, we rarely even flew one on the legislature) - it's entirely unnecessary, and we'd feel that what matters is what you think, not what you do, and people who need to show off quite that much are probably compensating for something. (That's an broad sweep, there will be Brits who don't agree. And that's all before you get into the philosophical issue about 'pride' in the actions of people nothing to do with you, and an organisation like a country where, certainly as a child, you had no choice about whether or not you were a member) --Saalstin (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in trying to get kids to realize there are other values out there besides just what they want for themselves at a given moment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, and that's why we study.... history and philosophy, why we get involved in civic society, why we think and form our opinions by sifting information through an open mind, why we expose ourselves to different ways of living, life experiences, and perspectives here on this desk - and I don't see how trying to make kids chant a set creed at a piece of cloth is anything other than anathema to that... I mean it's one thing in church, where people choose to be there, but if kids are legally required to be educated... I mean, OP successfully started a debate, and I'm trying not to soapbox, but it really is the sort of thing no European politician would seriously suggest enacting if they wanted to win - Brits would shuffle around looking embarrassed, Germans would ban it as dangerously nationalistic, French would have a seminar on the logical implications of forcing people to pledge to be free to do what they wanted... :) --Saalstin (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to the Bug's proposed idea that USA and USA's government are one and the same, (or that that is an ideal we should be striving for.)

The USA government is just a group of people doing a job for us. Nothing more. No need to get religious about it. APL (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand his intent. The government is formed by the citizens of the USA, ostensibly to serve the will of the citizens of the USA. Therefore, the people are part of the government and vice-versa. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We pledged some kind of allegiance to something when I was in cub scouts, but I've forgotten what it was. A fictional wolf, possibly. 213.122.54.123 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"I promise to do my best, to do my duty to God and to the Queen..." but then you don't have to join the Cubs if you don't like it. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

MilborneOne, can you seriously imagine a school in the UK asking kids to swear allegiance to the Crown? Because I can't. (I don't think I've ever sworn allegiance to the Queen, except possibly in Cub Scouts, although I have sworn allegiance to her husband.) Marnanel (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds a noble ideal, but, being British, I would mentally cringe if I had to say it, or if I had to force kids to say it. I expect it is just routine in the USA because they have been saying it since early childhood. Dbfirs 13:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And to Americans, the idea of pledging allegiance to a monarch is cringeworthy. We pledge allegiance to our country and its ideals, not to a person. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I would cringe at any pledge of allegiance to a monarch, flag, country or whatever, especially if forced to do so. Dbfirs 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for another datapoint of OR- I'm American and I cringe at it. The pledge is not to the USA's ideals, but to its flag (huh?) and the republic itself. Staecker (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The flag and the republic represent those ideals. Although it was better when it was "MY flag" and left out the somewhat pretentious "under God" part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a famous image that sort of sums up what I, as an American, think of forcing the students to say the Pledge of Allegiance. This has nothing to do with instilling patriotism. Comet Tuttle (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cute. Those kids all appear to be east Asian. Any idea where and when that photo was taken? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No they don't. And so what if they are Asian? Read Bellamy salute. Staecker (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Aha, that article explains the context. Just as the Nazis took a perfectly good symbol, the swastika, and made it an object of revulsion, so they did likewise with the Roman salute. Hand over heart is better anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Bugs: pledging allegiance to the Crown is not pledging allegiance to a monarch. Otherwise you'd have to take a new pledge if the monarch died. The Crown is a corporation that runs the country. The monarch is just a person. Marnanel (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes it is; "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law." Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're pledging allegiance to some other entity, whereas in America we are pledging allegiance to the government, which is us. Maybe that's the difference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not so different; the Queen only governs through Parliament, which is us too. "The King and the land are one". Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom). 95.150.22.219 (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

National mysticism is the hazard in this kind of ritual. 213.122.54.123 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(I am as guilty as anyone, but I think this discussion has moved away from Reference Desk territory.) Marnanel (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The question could have been zapped for being provocative. But I find the many answers here to be interesting and enlightening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perish the thought that anyone might post anything provocative. 87.112.130.90 (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The OP's original premise was ridiculous and ignorant, but I learned some things today, so it had some inadvertent value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignorant? Howso? This is a case where People from one country do a very unusual thing that is otherwise primarily seen in stereotypically strict dictatorships. The question is : Do they really do this, and why? Perfectly reasonable. I live here in USA and have asked the question many times.

Once again Bugs, you need to learn that some people are different than you, and that's OK. (Personally, I even think it's a good thing!) APL (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

When I was in high school I believe we had to recite it once a week, hand of our hearts, facing the flag. That was in the late 1990s. I certainly had to do it in elementary school, I believe every morning. Public school, all. I had no clue what the words meant, didn't care, and became immune to them through repetition anyway. "And to our republic for which it stands" never made any sense to me (I suppose I never thought about what "it" was supposed to be in the phrase). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"...And to the republic for Richard Stans", as one old joke goes. Kids often don't get what the words are of things they are asked to recite, and that's a failure on the teachers' side. We used to sing Christmas carols in school (even religious ones, in the public school) and for many years I wondered why "Silent Night" had a phrase about a "round young virgin". So, at what age did it finally click with you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

At school in Canada (or at least in Ontario) we heard the national anthem every morning, and since I went to a Catholic school we had a prayer every morning too, but we didn't have to actually sing or pray. Most people did; I didn't, and eventually I figured out I didn't even have to pretend to look like I was praying (this is the extent of my teenage rebelliousness). No one ever takes an oath to the Queen or anything else, except for politicians, new citizens, and I think we may have also done that in Scouts. Citizenship ceremonies take place on Flag Day, but that might be a coincidence, because Flag Day is not even a real holiday. (It's just a flag, after all.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In my earliest school days, pledge was done every day. As for some comments earlier about monotheism, let us not forget that even Thanksgiving, per the original proclamation, was to give thanks to God. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving has nothing to do with the USA per se. It is pre-USA by a long margin, and certainly the Pilgrims do not and did not pretend to represent all Americans, nor is there any kind of requirement to actually celebrate it. (Not to mention it has been essentially secular for over a century.) It is not really comparable. More problematic are things like National Day of Prayer. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

When I was very early in school, age 6 or so, we did the pledge every morning, but later (age 13 on) we never did it. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Pledge of Allegiance has no force whatsoever. It doesn't obligate you to anything. Some people feel a wave of patriotism, as Bugs seems to, but many other people do not. It's a civic ritual, and all too easily abused, as in a recent Maryland case where a "troublemaker" child refused to stand for the pledge and was sent to the principal's office by her teacher. When, the following day, the child again refused to stand, the teacher summoned two school system police officers to remove the girl. The school system's own handbook says "You cannot be required to say a pledge, sing an anthem, or take part in patriotic exercises. No one will be permitted to intentionally embarrass you if you choose not to participate." Further, Maryland state law allows any child to be excused from the pledge, and the Supreme Court has held since 1943 (in wartime, no less) that children cannot be compelled to salute the flag.

Of course, if you're a 13-year-old, it takes a lot of grit to stand up to a fuming (albeit ill-informed) teacher, to say nothing of the cops.

I'm guessing that few people who think it's such a great idea to make small children parrot this stuff would quickly step forward to defend the individual rights underlying the refusal. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It was weird not saying the pledge in school. At least, I felt weird. No one really ever asked me, so I never told them my Biblical reasoning behind not pledging my allegiance to a government of mankind (which will be "crush[ed] (Daniel 2:44)"). And I live in Texas to boot! I remember a big fuss over being required to say the pledge at the outset of the Invasion of Iraq and being told I must get parental permission to not put my hand over my heart. I implicitly refused and nothing of came of it. My comrade in faith chose not to stand while the pledge was being said while my prerogative to stand respectfully. It is worth a note that I received a 'C' in that particular English class when I totally understood the material and a low rating in my classroom behavior. The teacher was an Army veteran. schyler (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We said it daily when I was in high school in the late 1980's. As a teacher, though, I've seen that it isn't a priority at most schools- the only school where I've been expected to lead it is a private fundamentalist Christian school. It does make me uncomfortable, but I am a state employee, so I'll lead it if I'm told to. I just moved into a new school building, and we don't even have flag-holders in our new classrooms, so I guess it's really not a priority. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I went to schools in rather liberal area, and occasionally they would start doing the pledge over the PA, then forget about doing it for a while. I agree that it certainly seems undemocratic, or just plain silly, to have children robotically recite a loyalty oath they can't understand every day, but most people never stop to think about all of the connotations of their cultural norms. A good example is the Christmas tree -- from a non-Christian's perspective, it sure seems odd to chop down a tree and drag it into your living room so it can drop needles all over your carpet and die, if not burn your house down, but most people have only warm and fuzzy feelings about it and would never think of it that way. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Particularly in the southern hemisphere, where Christmas comes at the height of summer, and allusions to snow, reindeers, sleighs, winter wonderlands, chestnuts roasting on open fires, and the like, are all completely out of place. But there you go, that's culture for you. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Historical basis

The OP could easily have phrased the question in a more neutral wording, but the question still stands, since at least in the Western world it is an unusual phenomenon. So I don't see how the question itself is "ridicoulous and ignorant". I think we need to get some history buffs on the field. How come the pledge of allegiance became common practice in schools in the US? --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Making a sub-section of this, to kinda bring us back on topic.

I don't have access to actual citations right now, but I seem to recall that the pledge was mostly just used on holidays and other historically significant days up until around the 1940s. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ruled that students could not be compelled to recite the Pledge in 1943, right during World War II. America's own military and national power had grown tremendously since the Great Depression, which led to a bit of nationalism. There was also a bit of anti-immigrant racism and fear which helped spur the "you're not as patriotic as me" sentiment among the dominant white class. The Red Scare during the 1950s cemented that, which is (IIRC) when many schools began doing daily recitals of the Pledge as part of their morning routine. Anyone who didn't participate was acting "unpatriotic," by those standards, and that could cause problems for that person in such a politically and racially tense period. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A search of the Google News Archives finds it was used on a regular basis in schools as early as World War I. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Probably should've clarified that. My point being, it didn't become a "daily" ritual until around the Red Scare. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Medieval distillation of perfume

Was it considered a crime to distill perfume (alcohol based) in Medieval times?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My first reaction is "no", but we'll need a lot more information than that to figure it out...why would it be a crime? When in the Middle Ages are you referring to? And where? I'm sure you must be referring to a specific incident. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you suspect it might have fallen under laws regulating the distillation of intoxicating liquors, I gather such laws first appeared long after the middle ages, and mostly to tax spirits, not to prohibit them.--Rallette (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In particular I am referring to Charles V of France. In 1370 he received Hungary Water from the Queen of Hungary. Apparently he then started making this alcohol-based perfume himself with whatever ingredients. Did he make it illegal for others to make this type of perfume, since perhaps he desired to keep this new type (alcohol-based) perfume all to himself?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 10:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read something that suggests he would have wanted to do that? I really doubt he would. For one thing it would be difficult for him to make something like that illegal, and he had better things to worry about anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just guessing, as he loved fragrances and I thought maybe he would like to control Hungary Water and its derivitives.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Let us also recall that fragrances substituted for hygiene, so generally speaking it wouldn't make sense for distillation to be illegal (being, rather, essential!), although I would expect that there might be some sort of guilds that had exclusive rights which would minimally prevent non-guild members from distilling for sale. Guilds were the original oligopolies. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Following up on what you say, I came across this of guilds and this related to perfume distilling that may have controlled distilled perfume at least to some degree - especially for resale.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)