Humanities desk
< November 21	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 23 >

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.

November 22

Scott vs. Amundsen

In school I was taught about Scott of the Antarctic and his intrepid team's death on the return journey from the South Pole. It was presented as a grand story of British heroism, struggle and self-sacrifice, capped off by Capt Oates's famous "I'm just going outside and may be some time". This as far as we were concerned was the real story. The context in which it occurred - the race to the Pole, and being beaten by Roald Amundsen's Norwegian team - assumed a lower importance. Oh sure, Amundsen was given the credit for getting there first, but he faded from view at that point. We were never taught about what Amundsen did later in the North Pole, about him being the first to traverse the Northwest Passage, or about his own tragic and icy death.

I'm assuming that in Norwegian culture Amundsen has the higher profile, with Scott being the footnote. Can a Norwegian confirm this for me? What are children taught about Scott there?

Is there a term for the different relative importance historical people assume depending on the culture of the viewer? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a very broad sense social constructionism kinda fits; the social environment you live in shapes the way in which you interpret and value knowledge. That is, the British naturally give greater import to British perspectives on historical narratives, as you note. In America, a similar effect is known as American exceptionalism, though I am pretty sure the effect is not unique to America (as you rightly note in your example from British history). Every culture colors their view of history through the lens of their own culture. Other ideas possibly related may be Cultural relativism, the work of Franz Boas, the concept of Historiography, etc. --Jayron32 00:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, social constructionism is a very heavy-duty ponderous theoretical construct, which in some versions casts doubt on the existence of any objective reality or neutral facts. If the basic facts (names and dates, who won which battle, etc.) are more or less agreed upon, but they're presented with a very different emphasis in the school textbooks of different countries, then historiography and nationalism would be more immediately relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's cultural... here in the US we don't care about this Scott Amundsen guy (or what ever his name was). We know that the only really important polar explorer was an American - Admiral Byrd (actually, I am dating myself... nowadays, polar exploration isn't even discussed in US classrooms... the only time the word "polar" seems to come up in today's curriculum is in relation to global warming). Blueboar (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Byrd didn't have the same concern for "playing the game" as Scott though; see Richard E. Byrd#1926 North Pole flight, and controversy. Alansplodge (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an example of Ethnocentrism? -- ~~

National Geographic had an article about Amundsen a few months back, and it was pointed out there that the British seemed more enamored of the struggle, of Scott's "heroism", while the Norwegians seemed more impressed by results. The fact that Amundsen was much better prepared than Scott seems not to have been of much concern for the Brits, only that Scott was giving it the old college try against the coldly analytical Amundsen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott did plenty of preparation, just a lot of it was wrong; steam tractors and pit ponies turned out to be less efficient than huskies and skis. It all boils down to the conclusion that you want to draw from the event. Traditionally, the British have valued perseverance and "doing the right thing" above winning-at-all-costs. Scott personifies these values. Alansplodge (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was one of the points made in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. The Brits got lots of books and a classic film out of Scott's journey. Compare also the lengths of the respective Wikipedia articles. See also Comparison of the Amundsen and Scott Expeditions.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.. also a symphony (and a Monty Python sketch). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Britain also had Ernest Shackleton's Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition a few years after Scott, which was an even more heroic failure, involving shipwreck, an 800-mile (1,300 km) open-boat journey across Antarctic seas, and a daring rescue mission. British polar exploration is full of bravery, but also seems to exemplify a kind of amateur spirit where doing your best, playing by the rules, and showing team spirit are more important than actual achievement (hence Shackleton is celebrated for rescuing all his men, despite his total failure to cross the Antarctic, and Oates is the hero of Scott's adventure).

I suspect that there is greater focus on the polar exploration than on the more successful achievements of e.g. James Cook, David Livingstone, Mungo Park, John McDouall Stuart, because their explorations were tainted by the crimes of the British empire, while Scott and Shackleton explored a genuine terra incognita. Livingstone for example was a massive celebrity in the 19th century, but now most people only have the vaguest idea of his journeys. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz asked "I'm assuming that in Norwegian culture Amundsen has the higher profile, with Scott being the footnote. Can a Norwegian confirm this for me? What are children taught about Scott there?". As a Norwegian I can confirm your assumptions as correct. Amundsen is better know in Norway, primarily for his expeditions and for his death during the attempted rescue of former companion (and later rival) Nobile. Scott is essentially known for loosing the race against Amundsen, and that is more or less it. The story of Scott vs Amundsen is pictured as a race between a technology-driven but ill-prepared innovator (Scott) against the more experienced and common-sense oriented hardened Norwegian.DI (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, that is pretty much exactly what I thought but I just needed it confirmed. Are there any Norwegian national commemorations planned for the centenary of Amundsen's achievement on 14 December 2011? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One going on right now: The Scott-Amundsen Centenary Race (it's not in Norway though). The Norwegians are commemorating both Amundsen and Nansen [1]Alansplodge (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in Roland Huntford's book The Last Place on Earth (which was so critical of Scott that it might as well have been subtitled Captain Scott: stupid bastard) and the vehement response to its claims, including Ranulph Fiennes' book Captain Scott. The polar expeditions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries often had national resonance beyond their very modest scientific and geographical merit, much like space programs did six decades later. Not a small part of the Norwegian national myth revolves around the exploits of Nansen, Sverdrup, and Amundsen, which took place amid the runup to the Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905 (which actually took place while Amundsen was skiing across Alaska from an iced-in Gjøa). I'd be surprised if Norwegians weren't more proud of Nansen than Amundsen, given Nansen's role in their independence and his remarkable polymath-ishness. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, I think Scott was an idiot for not taking proper precautions. Lest you think this is just bias against non-Americans, let me point out that I also think Amelia Earhart was an idiot, for the same reason. I admire proper preparation and planning, which hopefully leads to results, not foolhardy courage alone. StuRat (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An American named Branch Rickey said that "Luck is the residue of design". Similarly, Chuck Yeager minimized the notion of "The Right Stuff", saying his success was a result of knowing his aircraft thoroughly... and... luck. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think William Holden's character in The Bridge on the River Kwai summed up the American attitude to the British stiff upper lip thing:

You make me sick with your heroics! There's a stench of death about you. You carry it in your pack like the plague. Explosives and L-pills - they go well together, don't they? And with you it's just one thing or the other: destroy a bridge or destroy yourself. This is just a game, this war! You and Colonel Nicholson, you're two of a kind, crazy with courage. For what? How to die like a gentleman... how to die by the rules - when the only important thing is how to live like a human being.

I have to agree with him. There's nothing noble, glorious or uplifting about a death that could have been avoided. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See The Bridge on the River Kwai. "Pierre Boulle (the author), who had been a prisoner of war in Thailand, created the fictional Nicholson character as an amalgam of his memories of collaborating French officers. He strongly denied the claim that the book was anti-British, though many involved in the film itself (including Alec Guinness) felt otherwise." Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The charge of unpreparedness is not borne out by the facts. Read the Terra Nova Expedition article. With hindsight, poor decisions were made, but they were always based on previous experience. Scott's party were subject to "the most extreme weather conditions ever recorded in the region". In the end, they were only 11 miles from One Ton Depot and safety, after a 400 mile journey. Calling Scott "an idiot" is plain wrong and needs to be withdrawn. To quote our article; "The degree of Scott's personal culpability remains a matter of controversy among commentators." That said, given the choice, I'd rather have gone with Shackleton than Scott. Alansplodge (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I stick by my statement. To take one example, let's look at his decision to use horses. He had to be aware that horses are not native to that area and that nobody who lives in such climates uses horses. So, then, why on Earth did he think they were a good choice ? StuRat (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shackleton had used ponies on the Nimrod Expedition of 1907-9 during which his team had made "a record convergence on either Pole" and achieved a first ascent of Mount Erebus. Not so idiotic then. Admittedly the hurried acquisition of ponies turned out to be a major error by Scott, but he was under severe time and financial constraints. I think we're going to have agree to disagree on this. Alansplodge (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I'd argue that when severe time and financial constraints threaten the safety of the expedition, then it's time to wait until you can get more backing. Whether that puts the trip off for a year or it ends up being cancelled entirely, safety comes first. StuRat (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"To tread the narrow line between needless risk and endless safety." (W H Auden) Alansplodge (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a Norwegian, looking back at my school days, the assumption of the original poster seems to be true. In Norway the focus is on Amundsen winning the race and being the first man to the south pole, while Scott is the footnote. As DagI mentions above, the focus is on a well-prepared, realistic Norwegian, beating an ambitious, but less-prepared Brit. (But there isn't any ethnic stereotyping of Scott as being a 'typical Englishman' rushing forwards with good ideas and few facts.) That being said, I would add that to some extent there is some schadenfreude in the portrail, of the Norwegian, coming from what is portrayed as a tiny, poor, backwater of a country, beating the Englishman who represented the Emipire, on which the sun never set.

As Finlay McWalter says above, though, the other Norwegian polar explorer, Nansen, is more well-known (and I personally have a hard time remembering who's who: they are both polar explorers with moustaches). One reason for Nansen being more well-known is of course his other exploits, such as work with refugees after WWI.

'Ethnocentrism' as a term mentioned by someone else further up, seems to be a good label. I don't know how the Norwegian portrayal of the race to the pole would have looked had Scott won, but I assume the focus would still be on Amundsen, possibly looking more on his other exploits, and just mention his losing the race to the pole in a sentence towards the end of the chapter. V85 (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9: The Last Resort

Sorry, moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#9: The Last Resort because that seems more appopriate. —Keenan Pepper 02:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oldest text

What is the oldest deciphered text? By text I mean a written codex, scroll, inscription, etc... By the way, I am asking about a specific thing, not just the document itself, So if it is the Epic of Gilgamesh as written on the sumerian tablet D4575 (I'm making this up for the purpose of example of course) then I want to know that it is the Epic of Gilgamesh as written on such and such a tablet, not just the Epic of Gilgamesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.196.35 (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tărtăria tablets, from about 5300 BC, may be the oldest known writing, but the meaning is not known. They use a proposed script known as the Vinča symbols, and whether such symbols are decorative or representative is not known with certainty. The oldest writing for which meaning is known may be the Instructions of Shuruppak which is dated to about 3000 BC. --Jayron32 05:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient literature might give some hints. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes "predynastic hieroglyphs" found at Abydos, Egypt, "70% translated" and dated to "between 3400 and 3200 B.C.". However, the same page argues that writing was likely introduced to Egypt from Mesopotamia. I think there may be a somewhat arbitrary line between writing and earlier proto-writing--this page uses terms like tags, glyphs, tokens, etc. Pfly (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Narmer Palette JE32169 and CG14716 from 3000 BC pre-dynastic Naqada III phase of Egypt translates the hieroglyphs (catfish) (chisel) as n-r-m-r (King) Narmer.
Sleigh (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the empress?

In Japan, not all consorts of the emperor was given the title of empress (I do now there were two different titles in Japan which translates as empress). There were, it seems, a great lack of empresses between Tokugawa Masako in the 1620s, and Empress Junshi in the 1330s. But who was the empress in between these two? The article of Tokugawa Masako say that Emperor Go-Hanazono (1428-1466) had an empress, and the article Japanese empresses say that Emperor Chōkei (1368-1383) had an empress between these two. Which is correct? Were there in fact two? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Britannic Street, Sandy Row

Resolved

I have been looking at some wonderful old photos taken in the 1960s and 1970s of a street in Belfast's Sandy Row called Britannic Street. It was adjacent to a courtyard. Sadly the street has been demolished. Would anyone happen to know what it was renamed and when it was demolished? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to this site, click on "Belfast Maps" in the left column, then click on "Big Belfast Map", you can see a map dated about 1979 that shows Britannic Street. It's off of Blythe Street a few streets west of Sandy Row. A piece of Blythe Street still retains that name, but most of it has been renamed Bleach Green. Parts of Britannic Street have been built over, but two other pieces remain, one of them named Britannic Park and the other Britannic Drive. According to this source, the area was redeveloped in the "mid-1980s". Marco polo (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Marco. Your link to the map inspired me to create a new article on a different Belfast area.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian colonies dutch language in schools

Do kids in Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Burundi learn the Dutch language in school because of these three nations being former colonies of Belgium? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.240 (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French was the language of the nobility/royalty in Belgium when Leopold II of Belgium founded the Congo Free State, Dutch was not used by the governing classes of Belgium amongst themselves. All of the various umbrella organizations founded by Leopold for the management/administration of his Congolese posessions were named in French and used French in their day-to-day business. Because of this, all of the successor states, up through the modern Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi use French extensively, as an official language and a Lingua Franca among their people. I do not believe that Dutch is used much at all in these areas; that doesn't mean no one ever learns it ever, but there is no cultural nor historic use of that language in those areas. Use of the Dutch language by former colonies is generally confined to areas formerly colonized by the Netherlands, rather than Belgium. --Jayron32 19:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More: The article Belgian French actually covers its use in former Belgian colonies of Central Africa. Flemish, the variety of Ducth spoken in Belgium, doesn't indicate any use of that language in Africa. --Jayron32 19:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch actually promoted the Malay language more than Dutch itself in Indonesia (the Dutch East Indies), and the majority of the inhabitants of the Dutch Caribbean colonies speak various creolized languages. The Belgians did not promote Dutch overseas. The only very significant "colonial" Dutch now is Afrikaans, though a form of New York Dutch survived into the early 20th century (spoken by some of the Roosevelts, though there doesn't seem to be much about it on Wikipedia)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historic and contemporary politics

This may not be the right place, but my mother always told me that "if you don't ask you don't get". Our Ely, Cambridgeshire article is presently at peer review and we are struggling with the government section. If anyone can Labour a little to ~~Conservatively~~Liberally improve this part of the article, your sourced good deeds will earn you ~~Liberal~~Conservative praise. The article may already contain enough sources, including references to VCH, from where we hope someone can confirm that the Liberty of Ely is an ecclesiastical form of government that lasted from the seventh-century until the Isle of Ely became an administrative county in 1888 --Senra (Talk) 22:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the VCH of the Liberty of Ely and it doesn't confirm this, but says that "The matter is of sufficient interest to constitute a first subject of inquiry", which I presume means "needs further research". It says that it seems to have started in 673 with St Etheldreda's concession to the monastery, but then was lost after the Abbey was destroyed by the Danes in 870. The 1888 date is confirmed later in the article. The VCH on the Liberty of Ely goes into much detail about the early history, which I don't feel competent to summarise in a few words. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... which I don't feel competent to summarise in a few words". Me neither. Thank you for your help anyway. Here is hoping someone will turn up able to do the summary as I do not understand myself the possibly subtle differences between ecclesiastical rights and county administration. I do know that the bishop had the right to appoint a judge which could be, and on at least one occasion was, over-ridden (e.g. see Ely and Littleport riots 1816 ) but I do not know enough to write such drivel in the government section of this article --Senra (Talk) 15:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Isle of Ely. I know we should not reference Wikipedia from Wikipedia ~~and in any case, my judgement is that the Isle of Ely article is not that well sourced~~. However, anyone considering helping with the Ely, Cambridgeshire government section may wish to give the Isle of Ely a quick read. Such a person may also find Public General Act, 7 William IV & 1 Victoria I, c. 53 useful --Senra (Talk) 21:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed 1837 when the bishop's rights were extinguished and the Isle came under "normal" local government as it were. Here [2] you can read the text of the legislation Lozleader (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lozleader. There it is—"... 'normal' local government as it were"—you have hit the nail on the head right there. What does that mean? Does it suggest that prior to 1837, Ely, Cambridgeshire was "governed" locally by—erm, I struggle with these terms too—by the bishop, the see, the diocese or something else? Is it more complicated than that? For example, from AD 673 through to 870, was Ely "governed" by the abbess (and founder) Etheldreda and the abbesses that followed her? From 970 through to 1109, was the abbots in the Benedictine monastery the "governors" until dissolution in 1539? Was Ely then "governed" by the Bishop of Ely until 1837? What happens during a vacancy? Is "govern" the wrong term to use? I guess it is very much more involved than that because some powers would be state and some local. I am just trying to encourage someone to write this [expletive redacted] Ely government section using the guidelines here --Senra (Talk) 13:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing much about Ely, I found this about the Tower Liberty in London: "Being granted the privilege status of Tower Liberties the inhabitants were outside the jurisdiction of the City of London and the County of Middlesex and free from jury service at assizes. Although having the right to raise taxes, these were only levied occasionally. The Tower Liberties had its own courthouse and prison, originally on Tower Hill and later in Wellclose Square. Various Police Acts gradually eroded these rights in the 19th century and by 1900 the area became part of the Borough of Stepney."[3] and "Until the nineteenth century the Tower of London and a small area surrounding it was free from the jurisdiction of the City of London. The Tower Liberty had its own courthouse and prison, and the Gentlemen (or Officers) of the Tower claimed certain rights, such as the beasts that fell off London Bridge, all swans which floated below the bridge, as well the right to exact some tolls on goods travelling on the Thames past the Tower."[4] Alansplodge (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might help [5] "Under the Charter of privileges granted to the monastery by Edgar in the 13th of his reign, enlarged and confirmed by Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror, the abbot continued to exercise temporal jurisdiction from the time of the re-establishment of the monastery till the erection of the see, from which period it became vested in, and was exercised by, the bishops of the diocese. The bishops had additional powers; and the royal franchise of Ely, in several statutes, was designated the County Palatine of Ely, till the 27th of Henry VIII., when, by act of parliament, the justices of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery, and justices of the peace for the Isle of Ely, were ordered to be appointed by letters-patent under the great seal, and all writs to be issued in the king's name. Certain jurisdiction, both in civil and criminal matters, was still vested in the bishops, who with their "temporal steward" of the Isle, were by the same act to be justices of the peace; and a general assize of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery was to be holden twice in the year, and a court of pleas for the trial of civil actions to any amount; also quarterly courts of session alternately at Ely and Wisbech. The bishop was likewise Custos Rotulorum of the Isle, which includes the three hundreds of Ely, Wisbech, and Witchford. All this temporal jurisdiction has, however, by a late statute, been abolished; and the Custos Rotulorum is now appointed by the crown, as are the magistrates, who hold their quarter-sessions alternately at Ely and Wisbech, as heretofore, though the assizes have been transferred to Cambridge. The bishop had also the appointment of the two coroners for the franchise, but these are, by the above statute, to be in future elected by the freeholders of the Isle. " Lozleader (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and this from the VCH: "...a Board of Health for Ely, consisting of 15 members, was elected in 1850. (fn. 4) The Board assumed various functions hitherto performed by parish and manorial authorities. The abolition of the civil jurisprudence of the bishop, in 1836, (fn. 5) facilitated the gradual development of modern conceptions of local government, through a transitional phase of provision of certain public amenities by private enterprise. Gas-lighting had already thus begun in 1835. The Corn Exchange Company erected its building in the market-place in 1847, taking over on lease the agelong episcopal control of the market. (fn. 6) In the open, pillared front of the corn exchange a special buttermarket was held. A weekly cattle-market also developed. (fn. 7) The city water-reservoir was completed in 1854 and was apparently under the aegis of the Board of Health. (fn. 8) A cemetery was laid out on a part of the New Barns estate under control of a Burial Board. A Mechanics Institute was established in 1842, under the patronage of bishop and dean. In 1851 it had a library of nearly 2,000 volumes. Party politics and controversy were 'rigidly excluded'. Elementary schools increased in number and offered improving facilities. The Feoffees, about 1850, adopted a permanent system of allotments on part of their fen property: (fn. 10) some 400 poor citizens were enabled to rent these cheaply. The Feoffees, about the same time, erected a double row of sixteen almshouses in St. Mary's Street; others were later built near the waterside. (fn. 11) Considerable modernization of houses and shops took place in this period.

Under the general Local Government Act of 1894 the present Urban District of Ely was created, with a council of thirteen persons in 1900. (fn. 12) The Urban District included the two city parishes, the College Precincts, and the hamlets of Stuntney, Chettisham, Prickwillow, and Adelaide Bridge. (fn. 13)" Lozleader (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]