Humanities desk
< May 17	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 19 >

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.

May 18

Accidents involving aircrafts carrying state leaders

I've seen most of the air crashes involve passenger airliners. Is there any accident involving aircraft carrying the head of a state? --NGC 2736 (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One example: 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. There will be more, however. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 02:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There will be more"? That sounds pretty ominous. LANTZY ^TALK 02:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd avoided such comments in our paranoic era, Jarry1250. You certainly are in a terror suspects' DB right now. OsmanRF34 (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Lech Kaczyński died in a plane crash while President of Poland. (after EC) Or what he said... --Jayron32 02:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Samora Machel, Ramon Magsaysay, Boris Trajkovski, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (the last of these may not strictly speaking have been an "accident" in the strictest sense of the term). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 02:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and indeed the rest of this bunch, probably (state leader = head of state?). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 02:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! --NGC 2736 (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think a few of those are actually ex-heads of state, and others never actually "head" of state; but meh, a good starting point nonetheless. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 02:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Rwandan Genocide was kicked off when their leader died in a plane crash (According to our article: "On April 6, 1994, the airplane carrying Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira, the Hutu president of Burundi, was shot down as it prepared to land in Kigali, killing everyone on board."). StuRat (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 1944 George H. W. Bush had to bail out of his Grumman TBF Avenger after a bombing raid on Chichi-jima. Today, this is the lesser known of two occasions on which Bush dropped a payload on a Japanese target. Naturally he wasn't a head of state at the time, but it was definitely an aviation accident. LANTZY ^TALK 03:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not technically a "head of state", but Dag Hammarskjöld, an important early leader of the UN, died in a plane crash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the most common plural of "aircraft" is "aircraft". StuRat (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks Stu, I was not aware of it. You corrected my big mistake, thank you very much. It happens when someone depends on journalists to increase their vocabulary, not a dictionary. --NGC 2736 (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Notice how your first link uses the correct plural in the text right after using the incorrect plural in the title. Your third link also has some comments from readers angry at their poor grammar. StuRat (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Although I'm not native speaker of English, I should have known this. Just wondering how NPR can do this? --NGC 2736 (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is surprising. Although I expect more in writing, as people have time to check their grammar, versus live broadcasts. StuRat (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

That's rich, from a guy who insists on misspelling the word "its" with an extra apostrophe, contrary to the advice of every anglo grammar book in existence, and who up above wrote "But, the Roman's [sic] didn't limit their killing ...". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

As I've pointed out many times before, there's a big diff between not knowing the rules and trying to change them. StuRat (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Grocer's apostrophe. --Dweller (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat: Yes, that's very true. But I don't get how you can deliberately ignore the rules and make up your own (at least in relation to this word) if in the same breath you're "expecting" others to "check their grammar" (which presumably means they should comply 100% with it). Are you saying it's OK to write ungrammatically as long as you're doing it consciously and pointedly, but not OK to write ungrammatically if it's purely a result of ignorance? Where did that rule come from, and how could you ever tell the difference when reading another's work? Because if you can operate under the "what I say goes" paradigm, surely you must allow others the same freedom. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Well, that first link I mentioned, where they used a different plural in the title than the body of the article, is a good indication they don't know what the heck they are doing. (Presumably a different person wrote the title, but an editor should read the entire thing and apply one set of grammar rules to all of it.) Also, there should be a higher standard for journalists than for casual writing, like here. StuRat (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

There may not be an expectation of professional quality here, but that doesn't mean that one deliberately goes out of one's way to lower the standard (as you do every time you write possessive it's - which requires an extra apostrophe and thus extra effort). I know, I know, you're trying to change the rules; and yet, you write it as its in article space, and, I presume, in most external contexts. So why not stick to your guns and write it's everywhere and let the chips fall where they lie? This double-think approach you have, where you comply or not depending on the context, really does my head in. It's like fighting an enemy who's sometimes shooting bullets at me but sometimes inviting me over for a hearty meal. I would never know where I stand with such a person, and would never feel safe enough to trust them. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Sharing meals with the enemy was common practice a couple centuries ago. Seems a lot more sensible than total war, to me. StuRat (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Who was Charles Sweeney (one of Ernest Hemingway's friends)

Hello, learned humanitarians ! In the foreword of A Movable Feast , Hemingway mentions some of his good friends (saying he is not going to describe them) : Charlie Sweeney, Bill Bird , & Mike Strater. Who was Ch. Sweeney ? WP has about 100 Sweeney , & 2 Charles Sweeney, who don't fit in Hemingway's 1920-1930 life... Hoping Charles is not a nickname , like "Mike" instead of "Henry" for Henry Strater, and with my beforehand thanks, t.y. P.S. : for those interested, the article Henry Strater now exists, on WP fr. I wanted to name it "Henry Mike Strater", but big shots disagreed : seems nicknames are not well looked upon in french titles... Arapaima (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This site [1] states that Col. Charles Sweeny was someone Hemingway met in the 1922 Greek-Turkish war. He seemed to have been some sort of professional mercenary. The two became lasting friends as they shared the same tastes and hobbies (such as big game hunting). he apparently served as an honorary pallbearer at Hemingway's funeral. --Xuxl (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my book, "Sweeny" is written "Sweeney"...Thanks a lot Xuxl ! & have a good W.E... BTW, for those who wonder about a spanish word in For Whom the Bell Tolls : "arroyero" ("riverman") is actually "arriero" (mule driver). Arapaima (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about military

A soldier joined any branch of military and is serving for five years. During these five years, there was no war. Suddenly his country declares war on another nation and he learns he will have to go to the front just after a month. This time he decides to quit his job. Is that legal? Note: It is not legal advice, just curious. --NGC 2736 (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the fact we don't provide legal advice, this question is obviously impossible to answer because the law surrounding leaving the military will vary from country to country and probably from branch to branch. Also the law could easily change during war. And individual circumstances may affect matters. However it's difficult to imagine many militaries allow some to leave just because they are unhappy with their orders unless perhaps they are being forced to do something they've been legally guaranteed they wouldn't have to do. Of course if they are naturally entitled to leave (not all militaries have long minimum service periods although these may apply if people are sponsored for courses, however you may still have to give notice like with many jobs, in NZ its 3 months [2] then it's a different matter but your mention of 5 years seems to preclude this. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rule in US army? --NGC 2736 (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is clear, even if it was challenged in court: if they need you, they'll retain you. See: " stop-loss policy is a term primarily used in the United States military. In the U.S. military, it is the involuntary extension of a service member's active duty service under the enlistment contract in order to retain them beyond their initial end of term of service (ETS) date and up to their contractually agreed end of obligated service (EOS)." OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This actually has happened with the Iraq war, a couple hundred soldiers made it to Canada, but for some of them, it didn't turn out to be as hospitable as they had hoped. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take this hypothetical situation where ALL soldiers, except a few, refuse to go the front. What will happen then? --NGC 2736 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be called Mutiny. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Washington DC gets renamed? --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the military before you are allowed to go is called desertion. In the US, it typically carries a prison sentence and a dishonorable discharge (unless they have political or upper military connections). So, you do get out, eventually. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this hypothetical situation happened in the U.S., I think politicians would simply hire a new army. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, I was wondering what was Academi, just to discover that they changed their name again!OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it easier to commit attrocities with impugnity if you change your name randomly every few years. --Jayron32 17:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... ~~StuRat~~ Dr No (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is sort of what happened with the French army in World War I. The soldiers refused to attack although they continued to defend their positions. And of course we have an article, French Army Mutinies (1917). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You get that type of thing when the generals are idiots who send troops into hopeless frontal attacks on a well entrenched enemy. Or, in the case of the Russian/Soviet Army, they gave the moronic orders to hold positions that were about to be completely cut off, rather than sensibly retreating to a defensible position. If the mutiny exposes the total incompetence of the command structure, and they replace those commanders with competent ones, the mutiny may actually help the war effort. However, the typical reaction is to execute the deserters and cover up the whole thing, leaving the incompetent officers to further damage both morale and their forces. StuRat (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although not always the case. The worst British Commonwealth rebellion, the Etaples Mutiny, was about not being allowed out of camp to go drinking. Alansplodge (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still seems to have the element of incompetent officers who don't care about their troops, though. StuRat (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Alansplodge (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people appreciate Pan-Am smiles?

It's obviously a fake smile, and we all know that, so why? Shouldn't we be pissed off? (I have not doubt some people do not like them, but I'm asking about the rest). OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd prefer real frowns? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is why is it like that. I personally would prefer a more natural behavior. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd prefer that they grimace when the ugly and the unwashed get on board? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in David Foster Wallace's reflection on the "professional smile", which addresses exactly this issue. There's a long excerpt that deals precisely about this concept in our article on A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again. You can also find more here: [3]. --Xuxl (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why would I be pissed off? I didn't get on the plane for a smile or for lots of smiles. Why would I even care? 220.239.37.244 (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some claims that if you smile, you feel happier.[4] Also that if other people are smiling, you yourself may smile.[5] So having smiling staff could promote both smiles and happiness. Possibly. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you're smiling, when you're smiling, the whole world smiles with you ... Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The guy that just served us, he looked so grumpy. Couldn't he even be bothered to smile?" - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is that they are making an effort. It's something like when you get a bad gift: "It's the thought that counts". StuRat (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The airline ticket includes the price of Emotional labor. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist criticism of marriage

I'm trying to find out Marxist criticism of marriage. There are lots of references available, but I don't have the time to read all these. Could anyone please summarize the Marxist view on marriage? --NGC 2736 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo? You're being paged... --Jayron32 15:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marxism is a coherent but not monolithic school of social thought. Most Marxists will have been exposed in conversation to at least one of the following attitudes:

Bourgeois marriage is fundamentally prostitution, and the long term aim of social revolutionaries is to replace marriage and the family with freedom of love. See: Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State; Kollontai, Red Love regarding post-family love, coupling, decoupling and child raising.
Human sexuality within capitalism is as dysfunctional as any other human phenomena within capitalism. This needs scientific understanding as well as revolution. See Wilhelm Reich; for a more approachable (if still avant garde) explanation of Reich while both sane and insane see the film W.R.:_Mysteries_of_the_Organism which connects sexual dysfunction with political dysfunction (Yugoslavian Leninists can't shut up and fuck delivery drivers, but hunger after sexually dysfunctional Russian iceskaters).
Current human practices of coupling are fundamentally economically exploitative; but, since the 1920s capitalism has relied more and more upon the home reproducing willing workers; and, since the 1920s capitalism has supplied more and more of a "social wage" to first world male workers for the cost of their family. Therefore family politics should revolve around getting the social wage paid directly to every human being, regardless of whether they work, and the immediate struggle should be to get women paid the social portion of the wage, ie: wages for housework.

Generally: the family is seen as an institution imposing the division of labour (Engels) and enslaves women's sexual choice by structuring marriage as legalised prostitution. It should therefore be ended. Therefore, marriage as the particular form of family enforced in bourgeois society should be opposed. Marxists tend to avoid individual moralising on this though. More spontaneous families, such as defacto relationships have come under less criticism as a mode of marriage; probably as these are believed to more closely resemble future forms of human coupling and family formation. (Which is a massive cop-out, women are still beaten in defacto homes.)

Also, as a result of the above, Marxists have been in favour of freedom of contraception and abortion.

- - (This answer assumes that the Bolshevik faction as a whole, and therefore the state[s] controlled by that movement (and therefore all the Stalinists, except a couple of revolutionaries like Miklos Gimes or Milovan Djilas) exited the Marxist movement when they gave up on working class power and proletarian democracy, usually we point to the liquidation of the Makhnovists and Kronstadt; but, I'd also point at Simon Pirani's findings regarding 1919-1920 in Moscow factories.) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

important colony

Which colony was most important to the Dutch Empire? Which colony was most important to the Spanish Empire? which colony was most important to the Portuguese Empire? Which colony was most important to the British colony and which colony was most important to the Belgian empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.105.248 (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch East Indies, New Spain, Brazil for the Portuguese, India for the British and Belgian Congo.
Sleigh (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) India was most important to the British Empire. --NGC 2736 (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these would seem to depend on the period. For example, early on the most important colony to the British was the future US, then Canada, then Australia, then India. StuRat (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The future U.S. was made up of 10 colonies and the future Australia was made up of 6 colonies.
Sleigh (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they were also handled collectively by the British government, such as with the Stamp Act 1765. StuRat (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot three there. --Jayron32 17:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina was originally one, and Delaware was the "Lower Counties" of Pennsylvania. What's the third? —Tamfang (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts and Maine were combined. StuRat (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maine is not one of the thirteen. Rmhermen (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Province of Maine. StuRat (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't help us get down to ten. —Tamfang (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Just for the record - The 13 colonies that formed the US in 1776 were: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.) Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia wasn't established until after 1700. All the others were in place by 1650. On the other hand, Massachusetts was made up of two colonies back then (Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay). Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australia was never an important colony. It supplied a small amount of gold revenue for a period, and its supply of wool eventually became an excellent market substitution material for the UK. But it was irrelevant. The Caribbean sugar islands continued to exert massive influence in the United Kingdom up until the reforms of parliament and the abolition of the Corn Laws. Compared to that, Australia soaked up a small measure of manufacturing excess, and of capital in the form of the massive agricultural trust's landholdings. But compared to opium, tea or sugar—a wasteland. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australia soaked up a whole bunch of people the UK no longer wanted. And we're quite happy about that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain why Australians sound like British criminals and lower-class British people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.97 (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worst over-generalisation I've ever heard, but I'll let it go. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have pity on the IP. He's stuck in Toronto. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I had in mind. Australia acted as a safety valve, as America had earlier, so they could send their "undesirables" overseas. The other approach is to execute them all, but that would run the risk of causing a revolution. StuRat (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It won't cause a revolution given the copious application of machine-gunfire. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these answers are much use without justification. Surely the only way to answer this is to find out which colonies were considered the most important by political leaders of these nations at the time? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'd get their political importance. The economic importance is another way to go. StuRat (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... another is military/strategic importance. Blueboar (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a military/strategic standpoint, I expect you'd find a bunch of small islands scattered around the globe to be the most important for the British: they may have ruled the waves, but it's hard to keep ruling them without coaling ports to keep your navy moving. --Carnildo (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India over the whole because it meant we could diversify our holdings after we lost America, I would say. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Angola was an important colony for Portugal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.97 (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angola has become an increasingly important EX-colony, but its contributions in the 18th and 19th centuries were not comparable to the exports of Brazil, rather one should keep in mind the importance of bringing slaves from Angola to Brazil. Spain's most important colony was New Spain we could say, but that is a vast area and refining the answer could probably help us a bit. 88.91.86.12 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the India or Australia were ever colonies. Australia is a federation of six former colonies which became the Commonwealth of Australia. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is sort of pedantically true, but even then maybe not. It is true that, prior to 1901, there was no such national entity as "Australia". But the people of the 6 colonies had come to think of themselves as living in a place called "Australia" just as much as living in a place called "New South Wales", for example, which is why the majority of the people of the 6 colonies voted for federation. The really interesting question is, though, did the Commonwealth of Australia still have a colonial nature, even if it wasn't formally called a colony? Most definitely. In terms of our relationship to the British government and Crown, nothing changed overnight. Until the 1930s the king was advised by his British ministers on all Australian matters, exactly as Queen Victoria had been up till 1901. When the UK declared war on Germany in 1939, the Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies did not make any separate declaration of war against Germany; he simply announced that Australia was automatically included in Neville Chamberlain's declaration - hardly the actions of the leader of an independent nation that makes its own decisions on such matters. There was no such thing as Australian citizenship till 1949; my parents and various friends and relatives of mine were born as British subjects. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the reference desk and we should be pedantic and often off topic. By the way the reason for Australia automatically entering WWII was due to not passing the Statute of Westminster 1931 until Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. Although the Australian government could probably have waffled over entering the war if they had wished. The 1931 statute applied to Canada with the need of a vote and so at the outbreak of war it took the Canadian government a week after the UK to declare war. And of course that required royal assent. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly my point. Canada, I think New Zealand, and some other Commonwealth Realms made their own minds up as to whether they would declare war against Germany. They could have chosen not to. Menzies basically said "We are for all intents and purposes an intrinsic part of Britain and therefore whatever Chamberlain says, goes". The Australian people via their parliamentary representatives were given no say in the matter; the lack of adoption of the S of W would not have prevented us making our own independent decision if Menzies had had less of a "British to the bootstraps" view of Australia. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Belgium, the answer is the Belgian Congo and its predecessor, the Congo Free State, which was a personal colony of Leopold I of the Belgians. It was exploited with astonishing brutality which made other colonial opressors look like amateurs. Alansplodge (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]