Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 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.

July 26

British Slavery and Racial Equality in Europe

I was wondering why slavery was such a touchy subject for the British. I mean I watched Amistad (film) and noticed how the British portrayed on it were so against it. I know they were abolished it before America. Also I read that blacks in Europe had it better off than in America for a long time, a prince of Hawaii once wrote that a black man could sit on the bus with the Queen of England while in America he was kicked off a train because he was thought to be a slave. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The important thing here is that there are different types of slavery. For centuries the British used a form of indentured servitude or apprenticeship to accomplish similar means that chattel slavery accomplishes. "Chattel" is akin to cattle, thus a form of personal property, i.e. huamn beings owning other human beings. Chattel Slavery "proper" was never a large practice in Britain and was dogmatized in the Southern United States from the American Colonial Period to the American Civil War. As to your second question about Quality of life of blacks, there are a slew of reasons, ranging from Jim Crow Laws (most important in my opinion) to Multiculturalism (European countries are stereotypically very homogenous) to the psychological effects of Government Assistance from the Freedmans Bureau. Schyler (one language) 01:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that the British economy (that is, the economy of the Island of Great Britain, as opposed to that of Her Colonies) is not dependent on large Plantation economy like the colonies in the New World were. Several major crops (primarily rice, and sometime later cotton in the American South; sugar cane and to a lesser extent coffee in the caribbean and S. America) were dependent on having a large, cheap labor force, which is why slavery took hold in those regions, where it did not in Great Britain proper. Race-based, permanent slavery had no economic reason to exist in Great Britain, so it was easy for them to dismiss the practice. In places where it was a major part of the economy, it was harder to do so. That does not mean it wasn't an abhorrant, evil practice that had any moral justification, but it does help to understand why the practice was more tolerated in the colonies than in Europe. Great Britain was hardly "enlightened" with regard to attitudes towards other "races"; it just manifested itself in other ways besides slavery. The UK had its own race riots as late as the 1950s, so one can hardly say they had been living in a "color-blind society"... --Jayron32 02:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The British Crown also incentivized the ownership of slaves in the New World, awarding more land to family heads with more people (including slaves). Lord Baltimore at one point claimed to own over 40 million acres! Schyler (one language) 02:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The OP mentions the portrayal of slavery in a fictional film. Certainly, in the early C19 it was one area in which the British liked to think of themselves as ahead of the Americans; remember it had not been that long since the loss of the colonies. "I was wondering why slavery was such a touchy subject for the British." Have you read Slavery in Britain and Ireland? The Triangular trade brought wealth to cities such as Bristol and Liverpool, but the pressure grew for Abolitionism, aided by the legal decision of Somersett's Case, which eventually led to first the Slave Trade Act 1807 and then the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. (Also, User:Jayron32, we have articles on the Brixton Riots of the 1980s and 1990s, and the Category:Riots in England mentions the 2001 Oldham race riots as the most recent one with "race" in its title.) BrainyBabe (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some rather uneven comparison of what qualifies as a "race riot", though! The Oldham riots resulted in no deaths and twenty people injured. (Note that such injury statistics for UK police officers can include being stung by a wasp or getting sunburnt.) By contrast, the 1992 Los Angeles riots resulted in 53 deaths and "thousands" injured. Our article Race riot is particularly incomplete in this respect; it lists the two UK events where no-one died, alongside a slew of historical race riots in the USA, each of which saw dozens of deaths. Keith Blakelock is notable for being someone who actually died as a result of a race riot in England (in 1985) - virtually unheard of. It's misleading to think of race riots in the UK as a city-wide orgy of lethal violence, arson and looting, as U.S. race riots seem to be. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's true. The British weren't that nice when it came to the Indians and Chinese during the 1800s and 1900s. But the "equal" conditions in Europe for blacks in the time when in America they were being lynched and enslaved is really intersting. To what extant were their so called equality or better treatment (more accurate word).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The upper classes in the UK would have had servants, not slaves, once society had changed from feudalism. As far as race riots here go, for some reason we tend to go after property rather than people, although there are cases where people have died during riots (Isiah Youngsam in Birmingham is an example). We may not have had the entrenched racism of the American Deep South, but we still have had it over here. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This book seems to have good information about the situation in 1949, when mass immigration from the Commonwealth was just beginning. Small Island by Andrea Levy gives a vivid account of the period, very well researched historical fiction. It's a TV film too. That's one of the periods when the UK seemed to have less discrimination than the USA. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Loyalist (American Revolution)#Slavery and Black Loyalists has a small amount of information relevant to this issue in the late 1700s. Supposedly a community of 10,000+ free blacks in London at that time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

William Wilberforce, a convert to evangelical Christianity, was the driving force behind the British abolition of the slave trade; he led a mass movement against it, support coming mostly from the prosperous but deeply religious middle-classes who were scandalised by emerging details of the treatment of slaves in transit to the West Indies. It took him 20 years. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd extension on the rear of an 1870s house

Can anyone guess at the function of this small addition to the rear of a preserved house in southern Indiana? You can see the exterior on the right edge of File:Jacob Rickenbaugh House, southern side and rear.jpg and on the left edge of File:Jacob Rickenbaugh House, northern end and rear.jpg — it's the partial-story element with the sloping roof. The house was built in 1874, but its remotely rural location seems to have kept it from keeping up with popular styles; for example, it has Greek Revival elements more common on buildings several decades older. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Storage? Perhaps this was a place to keep cordwood dry for burning in a fireplace or woodburning stove. --Jayron32 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

First that came to my mind was a Hideaway Hole for escaped slaves using the Underground Railroad. Schyler (one language) 01:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Storage of some sort, possibly low-temperature storage (thick walls and no obvious ventilation). It's far too visible to be a hiding place. --Carnildo (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is most definitely usable for storage, and was probably built for that purpose. Yet, visibility is not necessarily bad for hiding. Sometimes something that has an obvious use may deter a would-be-slave-catcher. See these pictures.
The only other point is that the Jacob Rickenbaugh House intersects quite nicely with one of the routes in Southern Indiana on this map. Schyler (one language) 02:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there access to this from inside the house? If there isn't, storage for firewood seem plausible. Certainly no good as a hiding place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What you can see in this image is all that I could see — I didn't go inside. The house was built in the 1870s, so the Underground Railroad isn't that likely. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the thick walls enabled it to serve as a root cellar, even though it is above-ground? BrainyBabe (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

1874? It looks like an icebox cellar to me. A walk-in fridge of the era. 208.54.5.230 (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Concurred. It's rather heavy-duty construction if it were only for keeping wood dry. On the other hand, stone walls that thick would certainly keep any animals (bears) away. Vranak (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems to be a larder (or a pantry). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One thought that came to mind was coal storage for a coal-fired furnace. However, if it had been used for that purpose, I'd expect the walls to be blackened by the coal dust, unless it was later cleaned, perhaps by sand-blasting. StuRat (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be more courses of stone visible from the outside than from the inside, so there may be a layer of dirt and debris at the bottom. It would be weird to build such a structure to protect something from bears, in the 1870's, as Vranak suggests. It would not be a convenient coal cellar, since there is no outside hatch for delivery, but that seems possible. It would have been very unhandy to have to crawl into it to get a shovel of coal from the distal end. Did that primitive house even have a coal furnace? The same problem applies to its use as a wine cellar or a fruit cellar. As a larder, it should have been easily accessible from the kitchen. It is so far out of the ground that it would not have stayed particularly cool in the summer, like a fruit cellar or springhouse might have been expected to. I note that the ceiling is huge flat stones which span the gap between the walls, rather than archwork as was common in 19th century stone structures, but they then built a roof over it, so they wanted to keep the contents dry. It sticks out like a sore thumb, so there was no goal of concealing anything from visitors. It may have been someone's folly. ("Oh, Herman! I am terrified of tornadoes! Build me a tornado proof room! Oh Herman! I am afraid of snakes! Build me a snakeproof woodshed!) Edison (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's for storing long things. Otherwise, it'd be a nightmare to get to the things at the end. I'd rule out the larder - you'd always be eating the things you just put in, while the older items rotted, because they're inaccessible. See LIFO and FIFO. The wood idea is attractive, because it could have been stored as longish poles, but it would be annoying having to chop the things once to put away and then again before usage. All in all... nice question. And as a rabbi I knew used to say, "A good question is better than a bad answer". --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It could be a crypt. Maybe the builder was an Edgar Allen Poe fan, and built it to house the oblong box containing his dear departed young wife, so that he could haul it out and open it in privacy when he wished. Maybe someone in the house was afraid of premature burial and wanted a crypt which communicated with the house to contain his Safety coffin. Maybe the owner wanted to lure his enemy to the far end of it to look for a cask of amontillado, then knock him out while he bricked up the house end of the space. Maybe someone wanted a crypt which was secure against grave robbers. Edison (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks very much like a venison larder (Google image brings up a fair share of similar oblong looking constructions, not very spacy or bright, but it must have done the trick). While it does seem awfully prosaic compared to romantic stories about underground railroad hideaways and Gothic crypts, it does still seem like the most reasonable explanation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For the thing to be practical, the thing contained in it should be capable of being hauled out without having to crawl to the far end to remove coal, fruit jars, firewood, or whatever. Maybe a side of beef or venison could be on a plank so that it could be drawn out by a rope. It works better for one big thing than a lot of little things or a heap of something. A partly underground cellar would have kept meat cooler than this above ground, ambient temperature store. But I admit lots of people in the 19th century were ignorant, deluded and stupid, and might have believed that being surrounded by stones would preserve meat from spoilage. Edison (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mu guess is an ice house or at least an ice extension. Collect big lumps of ice from a lake or river in the winter - pack it away in a thick-walled building - you have ice to hand for several months. Refrigeration was (I think) only in use in large commercial undertakings in the 1870s. Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It would not have worked at all well as an ice house. There is a negligible amount of insulation in a stone wall.The south view of the house shows that wall of the crypt exposed to the sun. 19th century ice houses were typically double walled with a foot-thick layer of straw as insulation. sawdust, tanbark and charcoal were also used as insulation. A drain was needed for the melt, which could have been achieved in this installation by a thick layer of gravel below. The ice would have melted quickly in a little stone enclosure without insulation. It would have needed a couple of tight-fitting doors. It would likely have had some shelves to store things which needed refrigeration. Think days, not months, if the outside temperature was warm, for blocks of ice to melt in this uninsulated structure.. If it had a foot of straw on the bottom, then some blocks of ice sawn from the frozen river, then a foot of straw all around and above, there might have been some ice for weeks after it got warm. Of course the homebuilder might have erroneously expected the stone crypt to work well as an ice house. The south view shows a big chimney in the house near it. A place to keep fuel dry and handy is certainly one possibility, but as noted above it would be awkward to crawl to the back to get out the last of the wood, and most fireplaces would not accommodate long logs stuck in it endward. Edison (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess is a "cold room", for storage of vegetables over the winter. I think winter squash grows late into the autumn. But to extend the supply of such produce into the deep winter it may be useful to have what is in essence an unheated room in the house. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

By the 1870's it was plausible that "the iceman" came around a couple of times a week with big blocks of ice from his large and well insulated icehouse. There might once have been an interior insulating structure in this stone crypt which could hold several cubic feet of ice, and which could have been used to chill and preserve milk from a dairy operation, as well as other foodstuffs needing refrigeration, including a tight fitting door. Did the farm include many cows? A chilled milkhouse was an important 19th century part of a dairy operation. The damp could have caused this wooden and sawdust structure to rot and be removed and discarded. The suggestion of storage during the winter is also a plausible one. We have never been told any dimensions of the structure, which would be very helpful. Is there any information available from archeologists/docents/historians/conservators of the structure as to the purpose of the crypt in question? Edison (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The roof on the exterior pictures does not seem to match that shown on the interior picture. Was the roof designed to be opened? If so, then it may be a store for coal, firewood, or ice. I suppose that there could have been several feet of snow outside, so you may want the coal or firewood to be easily available from inside. Or it could be a root store as previously suggested. 92.29.113.104 (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My missing Family!!

I would like to find my family that are from Plantersville South carolinia.The last name is Lance can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.25.198 (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless they're famous, they probably won't be here. Suggest you look at ancestry.com. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Plantersville has a population of about 100 people. It is primarily a tree farm area. However, it is growing fast. If your family is "from" Plantersville in the past, there was even fewer people there in the past. There are people there with the last name Lance. In fact, the principal of Plantersville Elementary School is named Arthur Lance. -- kainaw™ 18:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oceania

I researched a little into Monarchies in Oceania and found out some small island states that existed back in the 1800s and had their own flags. But how did these islands really exist and have their own flags examples like Eastern Island which had no central ruling chief or king even till the modern age but had a flag in 1876. I know having flags is not really a big thing but it must be a sign of attempts to modernize and to save themselves and their independence from European colonization.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, in the case of Hawaii, American colonization :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really, even smaller than Hawaii. Easter Island, Rurutu, Rimatara. Besides Hawaii was recognized by comtemporary powers in the Pacific while most of these other islands weren't.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There were Kings of Easter Island for centuries, up until the nineteenth century. Kings of Tahiti as well, to name two examples. I suppose they adopted flags by copying the Europeans. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well actually the article on wikipedia is wrong Easter Island had no central government till recent times, being ruled by different clan chiefs and all, and even then it never truly evolved into a hereditary monarchy sort of system. I suppose they copied the westerners on making flags.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If Spain truly did conquer England in 1588, then whom did they intend for the throne?

If the Spanish Armada had succeeded with its task and conquered England in 1588, what was its plans for England then? Who would be the next English monarch after Elizabeth Tudor? I assume the Spanish intended the English crown for a Catholic, so who was the Spanish candidate? I have not been able to find it. Was whas the plan of Spain in this regard?

And, another question; what had the Spanish intended for Elizabeth herself? Did they truly intended for her to be accused of heresy? Does anyone know about the Spanish intent in these questions? They must have had a plan. Thank you. --85.226.44.158 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Originally, Phillip supported Mary, Queen of Scots as the legal queen. However, she was executed in 1587. Harry Turtledove, usually good with his research, has the Infanta Isabella on the English throne in Ruled Britannia, with Elisabeth imprisoned in the Tower. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It presents an interesting problem, the article Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604) indicates that the Pope gave Philip the authority to install "whomever he chose" as King of England. If he indeed had the gumption to reinstall himself as King of England (a position he previously held jure uxoris as husband of Mary I) or even to install a child of his own as King of England, one could easily imagine this sort of upset to the "balance of power" not going over well with the rest of Europe, particularly France. France always felt "hemmed in" by the Habsburgs, and if the Spanish Armada created a third Habsburg front for France, it is likely to have generated a "War of English Succession" over the move. Mary Queen of Scots would have been acceptable, she herself had been a Queen of France by marriage, and due to the Auld Alliance the French would probably have endorsed such a move; but imagine the world from the French perspective had the Armada not only been successful, but if a Habsburg scion had been placed on the English throne as well. The Armada's main goal was to end the Dutch revolts, and without English material support, it might well have done that. So, the French would have had to contend with the Habsburgs in control of Austria, the Holy Roman Empire, large swaths of Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal (don't forget that Philip II also enacted the Iberian Union when he inherited the throne of Portugal) and now England? Europe was already looking like a lonely island of France surrounded by sea of Habsburgs; a Habsburg England would have completed the isolation of France. It was in France's best interest to play England and Spain off each other; I am sure it didn't mind the idea of an Anglo-Spanish war, but the notion that Spain would install a Habsburg on the English throne didn't work all that well in their interest. --Jayron32 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if Mary's son James, who eventually succeeded Elizabeth anyway, would have been acceptable. He was baptised Catholic but raised Protestant and at least nominally sided with Elizabeth, but still, he could have been the next logical choice. I guess that might not have been acceptable to the Pope though. It is entirely possible that Philip would have chosen himself or another Habsburg; if France didn't like it, so what? Also, as for what would have happened to Elizabeth, she had already been excommunicated and declared a heretic by the papal bull Regnans in Excelsis, so definitely she would have been tried as a heretic. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In any case it's not clear France was in a position to do much about it: see Day of the Barricades for an account of what was going on in Paris around that time. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Philip Howard, 20th Earl of Arundel? His father was a cousin of Elizabeth and had been considered as a potential husband to Mary Queen of Scots, but he was executed by Elizabeth for plotting against her. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise, but is it possible 10-year-old Lady Arbella Stuart would have been the highest-ranking Catholic in the chain of succession? That would have allowed Phillip to install whoever he wanted as regent and de facto ruler. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read of Philip's character and the way the Habsburgs tried to control their empire at the time, I don't think he would have looked beyond his mirror. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Harry Turtledove, usually good with his research..." I can't take this assertion seriously, nor any conclusion based on Turtledove's works. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Of course he writes (mostly) alternate history, but he has a Ph.D. in history from UCLA, and the base history for his alternates seems unusually sound. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Black Swan

After watching that movie, I wonder, what percentage of the time does the same dancer perform both the roles of the White Swan and Black Swan in Swan Lake ? Also, do they ever appear on stage together ? (If so, I assume a stand-in is used for one or the other during those scenes.) StuRat (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Location of post office in Houston

Hi! I found: "Post Office™ Location - CIVIC CENTER 700 SMITH ST HOUSTON, TX 77002" But which building in Houston is it in? I haven't physically visited the area, and I can't tell which building it is in based on internet searches. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The courthouse building on the West corner, per Google Maps. 99.17.204.52 (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So the possibilities are the Bank of America Center and the federal courthouse building.. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You could always call them and ask... Their local phone number is listed on the USPS web site. Dismas|^(talk) 22:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There are also other USPS locations in downtown Huston within a 10 block radius. Astronaut (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Global Economic Crisis

Probably the majority of the worlds countries now find themselves in debt to people. The debt is reaching unsustainable levels and is for some countries looking to result in sovereign bankruptcy, currency devaluation and general loss of quality of life for the countries citizens. My question is with all this debt, who is the person giving it out and does the money really exist, or is it just numbers on a computer screen. Why can't the powers that be just right off every countries debt and say "we're gonna start from scratch". Also what would happen if every country that was in debt all collectively decided to default on their payments. I mean the creditors can't force them to pay can they, because the debtors outnumber them significantly, I'd imagine. --Thanks, Hadseys 23:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Individuals, corporations, and China hold much of the debt. They certainly can default, and it might be a good thing in the long run, if nobody will loan them money to engage in reckless spending any more. However, it would cause a considerable economic crisis in the short term. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The extent to which China owns US debt is often implied to be more than it is. They own less than $1 trillion, and just a little more than Japan.[1] 99.17.204.52 (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hadseys, Do you, or does someone in your family, have a pension fund? What about a unit trust or mutual fund? Odds are, that if you do, you hold some of that debt and would be among the people who would not be paid in the event of a default. This would also apply to most financial institutions, and so they would then have trouble paying out deposits or making loans. In the end, the resulting crisis would be the worst one in recent history. Not good. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Should Congressio​nal paychecks be stopped if Debt Crisis in Washington​ DC is unresolved​, effective August 1, 2011?

How can the American Public demand that Congressioal Paychecks be stopped until the Debt Crisis in Washinton DC is solved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 001Gberg (talk • contribs) 23:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What the American people can demand is that the rich refund all of the funds they received from the tax cuts, tax breaks and tax loopholes they were granted since the Clinton administration. These guys are worse than priests who have sex with children. DeeperQA (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC) |}

Yes. Edison (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No? Pascal yuiop (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

To someone unfamiliar with the workings of American government finances, a more genuine, informational question is... Can or will such paychecks be stopped? I'm guessing the answer is no, but would like confirmation please.

I assume that you would want them to keep working after their paychecks get stopped, and that's slavery. So no. Just like any other job, they have to be paid. The level of pay can be changed, but not by an average joe. I suppose there's a committee. Pascal yuiop (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That might be a false assumption. Some in the US (Libertarians, anarchists, taxation opponents, Idaho militias, diehard Confederates) would expect an improvement in life in the US and in the world in general if the US Congress went home and stayed there, with their paychecks and pensions stopped. There would be problems when it came time to swear in the next President and confirm his cabinet, or confirm federal judges. There could be recess appointments until the present Presidential term expired, then I expect the Executive department would wither. Of course the last couple of years under the Articles of Confederation, Congress rarely had a quorum. Those Congress member served mostly from a sense of duty and for the honor of the thing, so volunteer congressmen (or corporate sponsored ones, as is effectively the present case) could serve. State governments could do their thing. Perhaps various programs would expire when their funding bills ran out, or they might be able to continue with the same level of funding. Do funding bills for the FAA, the FBI, the NIH etc only fund a definite period, or do they leave funding indefinitely at the last budgeted level?Edison (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Congress itself would have to sign off on a bill which is unlikely as Obama vetoing it since according to him and many others Congress is not working. -- DeeperQA (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the hat because I'm going to try to answer the question narrowly. How can you demand that Congress do something? Well, you can call your local representative and senators' offices and say so. You won't get him or her on the phone, but their offices often tally up calls for and against proposals from constituents. You can also write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, call a talk-radio show or go to Washington and hang out outside the Capitol with a sign stating your point of view in a few words. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The nice thing about doing those things is they will distract you from the realization that you don't matter. Unless you are a large corporation who can fund the representative's re-election campaign, you'd be more effective complaining to a wall. Or bitching at a bunch of random strangers on teh interwebz. Don't ever be under the illusion that the "voters" have the ability to influence legislation. Protest if you like because it makes you feel better, but don't expect anything to come of it. --Jayron32 23:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the cynical angle. The reality is members of Congress do (sometimes) consider how their constituents feel about an issue, and if enough of them write or call about it, it may very well influence his or her decision. Certainly there are many times when lawmakers float a policy and retract it after a lot of people get ticked off about it. It's true that you alone probably can't do anything, but if enough people do, it may make a difference. (Especially on an issue like this where there really are no monied interests involved except the members of Congress themselves.) Think about it: Why did Congress vote to deny itself a pay raise in 2009? It can't be because there was some big lobby that really cared about it, because the amount of money involved is less than a millionth of the federal budget. They did it because they thought it would anger voters if they were to take a pay hike when the economy was in shambles. And how do they know it angers voters? Because people complain about it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Especially if those people are employees of a corporation who writes a big check to a re-election campaign. Those people get to influence legislation without even knowing it! --Jayron32 00:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Corporations can't directly fund official campaigns, and big corporate PACs don't give a damn about something as minuscule as $3,000 congressional pay increases. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I did the math, and a $3,000 pay increase for members of the House of Representatives equals what the government spends in two seconds. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(pre EC response to first point) Operative words in your statement are directly and official, which allow loopholes large enough to drive giant armored trucks full of cash through. And because corporations and their PACs don't give a damn about congressional pay, the elected representatives can enact such measures with impugnity (though they have to wait until their next election to begin collecting their self-given payraises). (post EC response to second point). Well, that's kinda moot. I wasn't commenting on just this one legislation, just legislation in general. I was just trying to correct the misconception that members of congress pass legislation (or don't pass it) based on the opinions of voters in general terms. Of course, there are some rather insignificant, minor, and unimportant things that go on in Congress which the "voters" occasionally have some influence with. But I wouldn't count on the big stuff, where most of the money gets spent, or industries get regulated, or anything like that, to be responsive to input by voters. Yeah, they throw the voters a bone once in a while to they can pretend they care. --Jayron32 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever worked in a legislator's office? I think your cynicism is a bit over-the-top. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is very difficult not to be cynical and to attempt to follow politics in America for any significant length of time or in any real depth. For people that bury their heads in the sand and then poke them out every four years to vote for whichever slate of candidates hold the same opinion of gay marriage as they do; for those people it may be easier to have faith that one's elected representatives act in the rational interest of the nation and of their constituents. For people that pay close attention to what American politicans do as much as possible, it is difficult to see any general trends in that direction. --Jayron32 05:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I have worked in a legislative office and around legislators in various capacities and I can tell you that you have a very simplistic notion of how government works, no offense. There certainly is corruption and big-money influence, but to say that legislators never care about what their constituents think or what they think is best for their area is way off. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well then, I defer to your superior knowledge and personal experience in this matter. It's clear that you have every reason to know more than I do; it would have been nice if you had corrected my errors earlier since it wouldn't have let me look as much like an asshole. I do trust your experience, and if you say that the government is more on the up-and-up than I make it out to be above, I trust you on that. It's heartening that you had a positive experience working with legislators, and I'm glad to here that there are trustworthy people working in the government. It's too bad that those well-meaning legislators can't work through the budget mess. They seem to be spending a lot of time campaigning for the next election, and not enough time working out a workable budget. It's perhaps my frustration with seeing that sort of behavior more than anything that led to my hyperbole above. --Jayron32 06:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Question: as I understand it, assuming no legislative action, Obama is left with two pieces of inconsistent legislation: one, budgeting many expenditures - such as Congressional salaries - and the other forbidding that any more debt be accrued. In the case of genuinely inconsistent law, wouldn't he have the right to decide which items to cut at his own discretion - such as those Congressional salaries? Wnt (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)