Humanities desk
< September 6	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 7

How Come it Took Until WWI for African-Americans to Start Moving Out of the Southern U.S. in Large Numbers?

I mean, the Northern and Western U.S. had a lot of jobs opportunities and good economies decades before WWI. One would think that due to all the racism in the South, much more blacks would have left the South between 1865 and 1915, but very few blacks left the South during those 50 years despite the massive racism (lynchings, Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc.) in the South during this time period. Futurist110 (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was plenty of racism in the north, too, and there still is. Regardless, moving requires some resources and also the will to get up and do it. A lot of folks stick with what they're familiar with, even if it doesn't seem to be in their best interests. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but not nearly to the same extent as in the South. There was much less lynchings, segregation, and discrimination in the Northern United States. I guess you're right about the whole staying where it's familiar to you. However, that did not hold true for a lot of Europeans who immigrated to the U.S. in large numbers in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the GI bill had a lot to do with it after WWII.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but keep in mind that I was pointing out WWI, rather than WWII, as the point from which large black migration to the North and West really began. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the questioner's premise is completely accurate. See this article, for instance. We have a short article on the same subject - Exodus of 1879. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense that there were a few pre-WWII exodus movements, it's not correct, but in the sense that post-WWII there was a huge exodus movement, it is correct. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the Kansas Exodus, which large black exodus movements occurred before WWI? Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there were economic "push" factors too, such as increasing mechanization of southern agriculture. Article is Great Migration (African American)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which points out that there was significant pre-WWII migration as well. In a way it was a perfect setup — pre-WWII, you have about a million African-Americans going North, the trailblazers. WWII comes and goes, and you have a lot of people back from combat, and back from industrial labor in factories, and the GI bill. (And significant numbers of the factory labor during WWII were African-American, and they were often moved to different places in the country anyway to do this labor.) This happens right as the American manufacturing economy is about to start booming, and there are already significant numbers of African-Americans in the North laying the groundwork for the move (founding churches and other community-based things of that nature). So (as is often the case) there are multiple reinforcing factors. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the pre-WWI era, not the pre-WWII era. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even before WWI, there was some, I was reading a journal article on the subject in connection with my research on Joseph B. Foraker and the black vote, though only two or three percent, was crucial in states like Ohio, which were so finely balanced (kinda like today!) that the Governor of Ohio was almost automatically a presidential contender.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One, there was an economic boom that provided jobs; two, men returning from WWI had a much better idea of the world outside the South; and, three, once small communities of blacks in the North got established they provided support groups for further immigration at a geometrically increased rate. See Harlem Renaissance. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the economy in the North and West good before WWI as well? Your second point is absolutely correct--if a black person sees life in Europe, then he'd probably be less willing to return to the South and permanently stay there. There were small communities of blacks in the Northern and Western U.S. even before WWI, though. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that blacks were actually more welcome in the South than the North, so long as they "kept their place". That is, the Southern economy had long depended on blacks in menial jobs, while the North did not, at that time. Thus, moving north would cause white resentment that "they are taking our jobs and moving into our communities". This resulting in KKK actions, etc. However, when there were more jobs than could be filled locally, due to the WW2 war factories and the post-WW2 economic boom, that changed the equation. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that getting lynched much more and getting discriminated against (with segregation and Jim Crow laws) would be considered "more welcome". The Northern economy also depended on menial jobs, but it was primarily white European immigrants, rather than blacks, who worked at those jobs before WWI. The KKK could hunt blacks down in the South or in the North and West, and might have been more active in the South than in most areas outside the South. Also, the KKK was only revived in 1915, after WWI began. Before 1915 the KKK was essentially nonexistent for 40 years. You're right that the WWI and WWII mobilization efforts did provide much more jobs in the North and West that blacks could fill, and thus they took the opportunity to leave the South and to move to other places in order to get those jobs. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the difference is that the KKK (or individuals or plain old mobs) in the South attacked blacks for being "uppity", while, in the North, they attacked them for merely being present. So, if blacks stayed in the South and "kept their place", they would be relatively safe. StuRat (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? This would be interesting if true. However, again, keep in mind that the KKK was essentially nonexistent between 1875 and 1915 or so. Futurist110 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they attacked all blacks in the South, what would that accomplish ? They didn't want blacks to leave, as that was the labor force. They just wanted them to "behave". Is that the part you want a source for, or is it the part of them being more indiscriminate in attacking blacks in the North? StuRat (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The part of them being more indiscriminate in attacking blacks in the North. Futurist110 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Ku_Klux_Klan#Social_factors:

"The Great Migration of African Americans to the North stoked job and housing competition and racism by whites in Midwestern and Western industrial cities. The second Klan achieved its greatest political power in Indiana; it was active throughout the South, Midwest, especially Michigan; and in the West, in Colorado and Oregon. The migration of both African Americans and whites from rural areas to Southern and Midwestern cities increased social tensions."

"The Klan grew most rapidly in urbanizing cities that had high growth rates between 1910 and 1930, such as Detroit, Memphis, and Dayton in the Upper South and Midwest; and Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston in the South. In Michigan, more than half of the Klan members lived in Detroit, where they numbered 40,000; they were concerned about urban issues: limited housing, rapid social change, and competition for jobs with European immigrants and Southerners both black and white."

I believe this also happened earlier, but it's harder to track down, as the anti-black violence was performed by individuals and smaller groups, at that time. StuRat (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Futurist above, if you are an American, I would be surprised you are not familiar with the boom of the Roaring Twenties. You can also ignore StuRat's "contributions". Blacks didn't face legal discrimination in the North, so in places like Harlem where they didn't fear social ostracism, they did quite well. Quite well, indeed. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am an American and I am aware of the 1920s economic boom. However, there was also a large economic boom in the Northern and Western U.S. in a lot of the years before WWI as well. Futurist110 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They should ignore your "contribution", because whether the discrimination was codified as law is irrelevant, it existed either way. See the "DISCRIMINATION IN THE NORTH" section here: [1]. And the Harlem Riots indicate that they weren't as happy as you think. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this article. I'm wondering if the 1900 NYC race riot was more an exception to the rule or the rule itself, though. Futurist110 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there was individual racism, there still is, plenty of it, worldwide. There was for the most part no legal racism with the exception of miscegenation laws in the North. See Jim Crow and List of Jim Crow law examples by State. Members of my family still remember the stark difference once one crossed the Manson-Nixon line between Pennsylvania and Maryland; integration to the north, Jim Crow separation to the south. StuRat seems to be "arguing" (if you can call linking to Harlem riots that were instigated not against blacks, but in defense of blacks, arguing) a point rather than offering reasons why blacks did indeed move to the North. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the point entirely, that blacks wouldn't riot if things were as good as you claim. And was this "Manson"-Dixon line patrolled by Charles Manson ? :-) StuRat (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "Manson-Dixon", now, did I? μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there were no miscegenation laws in the North after 1887 either, with the exception of Indiana (if the info in this map is correct). Futurist110 (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Jim Crow law link I just gave mentions more, but that article sorely lacks references. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be using a rather narrow def of the North, excluding West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and anything west of Iowa. StuRat (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that most Western states had anti-intermarriage laws, but all Northern states except Indiana did not after 1887. And Yes, when I'm talking about the Northern U.S. I mean Iowa, Minnesota, and all the U.S. states east of them that were free states right before the U.S. Civil War. I'll look at your Jim Crow law link in a minute. Futurist110 (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition, California appears to be a "Northern state", but it had such a law significantly after 1887 (though this is something I've just learned). --Trovatore (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typo--I meant states east of Minnesota and Iowa. Futurist110 (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manson-Nixon line at 07:53. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerian burial

Why did the Sumerians and other Mesopatamian people go to trouble of burying their kings and queens with slaves, musical instruments and other grave goods, as in the case of Queen Puabi, if their belief was that the underworld was a place where all men go regardless of rank to suffer a dreary existence in which they "...dwell in total darkness, Where they drink dirt and eat stone, Where they wear feathers like birds"[2]? In made since with Egyptian burials since their outlook on the afterlife was one of eternal paradise, but it doesn't make sense for the Sumerians have such lavish burial practices.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text you quote is dated 600 years after Puabi (and it's possible that it used some poetic license as well). I think it's too simplistic to suppose all of Sumerian and Akkadian civilization had a single unified belief system regarding the afterlife during all of their existence. There's also a lot we don't know about them and probably will never know. It's quite possible that Puabi's burial reflected a view of the afterlife similar to that found in Egypt. - Lindert (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article called "Was Dust Their Food and Clay Their Bread?", by Caitlín E. Barrett, [3] which was published in the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. It discusses this exact problem in great detail for about 60 pages. Card Zero (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada severs ties with Iran, where to put this

Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels Iranian diplomats "Canada has closed its embassy in Iran, effective immediately, and declared personae non gratae all remaining Iranian diplomats in Canada," "Canada’s position on the regime in Iran is well known. Canada views the Government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today."

The statement cited Iran's support for the Assad regime in Syria and failure to comply with UN resolutions on its nuclear program, and its threats against Israel. AmericanMarinee (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about Canada-Iran relations... AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian embassy in Canada up to no good ?

The first link above contains this quote:

"It is completely inconsistent with any diplomatic mission for the Iranian mission in Ottawa to interfere in the liberties that [Iranian-Canadians] enjoy in Canada. Any police organization will certainly take a look at any serious allegations that are raised in terms of their conduct."

What are these "serious allegations" ? StuRat (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote does not actually say that there have been any serious allegations but that if there are any the police force will look into it. If there had been some I think he would have said something like "the police forces are looking into a serious allegation that has been made about the diplomatic mission". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that isn't the type of thing one brings up in a vacuum. It's rather like saying "if anybody from Poland attempts to assemble a nuclear weapon here, the police will investigate". StuRat (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if the government doesn't want to say exactly which cookie jar they caught the Embassy's hand in for national security reasons. We may find out eventually, but I wouldn't exactly hold my breath waiting for an explanation. I'm actually impressed by Baird's actions and choice of words here. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the second and fourth paragraphs of the section, " "Obviously we're concerned by some of the reports that we've heard," Baird said." It seems to indicate that some sort of report has been made, but I suspect there is also a bit of tough talking here. I notice too that he says "Any police organization" which could mean the Ottawa Police Service or any other of Canada's police forces. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sturat, it's in response to a passage above, which says "The calls were sparked by a July news report that said Iran's cultural counsellor in Ottawa, Hamid Mohammadi, suggested Iranian expatriates should be nurtured to be of service to Iran." --Activism1234 22:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that doesn't quite seem to fit with "interfere in the liberties that [Iranian-Canadians] enjoy", unless this "nurturing" involves some type of threats or coercion. StuRat (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy / mission

What is it with Canadian government talking about missions rather than embassies? Are these synonyms or is there a subtle difference (possibly a leftover from Canada's status as a British dominion)? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mission refers to the group of people that have been sent to the country. Technically, embassy means the same thing, but it is often used these days to refer to the building housing the mission. Since they want to talk about the people, not the building, it is less ambiguous to say "mission". (See diplomatic mission, to which embassy is a redirect.) --Tango (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada does not solely have embassies abroad, but also high commissions (in Commonwealth countries) and consulates. Mission (short for diplomatic mission) is the all-encompassing term. --Xuxl (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think consulates are a type of mission. They don't have a diplomatic role. --Tango (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consulates are also diplomatic missions. There are two types of consulates: secondary diplomatic missions providing only consular services (e.g. visas, passport services, assistance to nationals in the host country...) in capital cities where the country already has an Embassy or a High Commission; and diplomatic missions in non-capital cities. Larger examples of the latter are usually called a "consulate general", but smaller ones are simply a consulate. Their tasks are very similar to an embassy's, although they will deal with local rather than national authorities. Their personnel are diplomats, although they have different privileges and immunities than Embassy personnel; these are defined in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. --Xuxl (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's militarily stronger?

Canada or Australia? AmericanMarinee (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By which criteria? Total forces strength? Weaponry? Canadian Forces indicates that Canada has 68,250 active duty military, with an additional 45,000 or so in reserve. The Australian Defence Force has 59,023 active duty personel, with another 44,000 or so on some sort of reserve. So the Canadian military is slightly larger. Raw troop numbers aren't always the best measure however, so you'd also need to know what sort of equipment each nation uses. --Jayron32 15:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about their weaponry, Navy, Air Force and Army, who's more modern? Thank you. AmericanMarinee (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably tough to say. We have articles titled Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy, List of modern Canadian Army equipment, List of infantry weapons and equipment of the Canadian military, List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force all for Canada and List of current ships of the Royal Australian Navy, Weaponry of the Australian Army, and List of current Royal Australian Air Force aircraft for Australia. You can research from there and draw your own conclusions as to who has the better equipment. --Jayron32 15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a really interesting question. Yes measures vary, but are they so close that you can't make an informed conclusion about which? If you had to ask who's military was stronger, the U.S. or Mongolia, I think you'd have an easy time answering. This is the same thing, just a bit tougher. It's tough because they're pretty close to being equal. And they both have the assumed support of the U.S. and the U.K., which are the #1 and #4 spenders on military. I'd gander that money spent is probably the best measure. On that metric Australia spends slightly more than Canada, both in GDP and real terms. Shadowjams (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can't really know until they have a war. Shall we get on that? CambridgeBayWeather, I hear that JackOfOz thinks hockey is not really a sport. HiLo48, Bielle told me that Aussie beer is the worst in the world. --Trovatore (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

My bets are on the Aussies, howevermuch the Canadians deserve out thanks for the Iranian Hostage Crisis. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be watching for moral support from the Queen of Australia. I'm sure the Canucks would be looking to the Queen of Canada. Those 2 old queens ought to have it out between themselves and tell us who won, and save us all a whole lot of grief. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be tricky for the UK if they ever came to blows, as we are obliged to defend both of them if they ever came under attack - Canada through NATO and Australia through the Five Power Defence Arrangements (besides the moral imperative - blood being thicker than water and all that). We'd probably just have to declare war on ourselves. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the day the US would have bought the one, and annexed the other. Nowadays our head of state would probably bow to each, offer an apology, and grant them amnesty should they want to apply for foodstamps. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the Aussies were to invade, we would fight in the offices, we would fight around the desks and in the conference rooms. We would never surrender, unless it were done in triplicate with the proper forms.[4] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the "like" button on this thing? --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The template {{RD-best}} assigns a star. μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate civilian and military departments for national defense

Some countries have two separate departments tasked with national defense, a civilian one and a military one. Australia (Australian_Defence_Force,Department_of_Defence_(Australia) and Canada (Canadian_Forces,Department_of_National_Defence_(Canada)) are examples of this. While other countries (US for example) have a unitary department for defense. Is there a common name for these two types of arrangements? A8875 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there is a distinct name for this, but the relevant article is Civilian control of the military. To me that's the real question — is the military independent of civilian authority or is it subservient to it? I'm unfamiliar with the Canadian and Australian examples, but I wonder where they fall on this spectrum. I suspect they aren't that different, in practice, from a US-style arrangement. This is in contrast with places where the military exerts much more power over all matters of state policy (e.g. Pakistan). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that nations with smaller military budgets also have a plan to use civilians for defense in the case of invasions, while, in the US, the large standing military makes that unnecessary, and the military structure reflects that difference. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a closely related concept to what the OP is asking about is Gendarmerie, which is, like the examples cited above, a hybrid military/police force. --Jayron32 18:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really different from the US? "Canadian Forces" is essentially just the army, navy, air force, etc combined into one command. They are still separate from the government department, like in the US. The Minister of Defence is always a civilian cabinet minister (well, except that one time, briefly during WWII). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australia doesn't have 2 separate "departments" either, unless the OP is using that word in a generic sense. The Australian Defence Force is exactly like the Canadian Forces, a blanket term to cover the Army, Navy and Airforce, that is, the people who actually go out and defend the country and are prepared to die in the attempt. The chiefs of each arm are all senior serving officers, as is the Chief of the Defence Force, who oversees the entire shebang. There are also a small number of civilians involved. The Department of Defence is the bureaucratic arm of the Australian Government that deals with all defence-related matters. It is staffed mainly by civilians, and a civilian is the Secretary (= CEO) of the Department of Defence. The Secretary of the Defence Department and the Chief of the Defence Force both have input into government defence policy. They both take their orders directly from the government. In that sense we have 2 "departments", but only one of them is called a "department". (Once upon a time, we had 5 separate bureaucratic departments dealing with defence: the Department of Defence, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Air*, and the Department of Supply. But wiser heads prevailed and they were unified. PS. * No, not the Department of the Airforce, but the Department of Air. Weird.) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant it in the generic sense, as in "an administrative subdivision". A8875 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of a tangent, but many militaries have dual-roles depending on circumstances. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard is a civilian civil defense department during peace, but a military arm during war. Similarly the National Guard (and state equivalents) have large civilian roles during peacetime. I believe the rules of war also reflect this distinction somewhat by drawing some nuanced distinctions between law enforcement and military personnel during war. Shadowjams (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Department of Homeland Security and the United States Department of Justice are both civilian departments responsible for national defense. The United States Coast Guard and the FBI are defense agencies. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking (and also loosely speaking) the United States Department of Defense is also a fully civilian department, as the United States practices Civilian control of the military. Now, there are active and retired military officers throughout the Department of Defense, but the roles they fill in the department are considered civilian roles; when former General Dwight David Eisenhower was President, it didn't make the office of President a military office. --Jayron32 12:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except to the extent that he or she is ex officio the Commander-in-Chief regardless of any personal history in the armed forces. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the princesses of Japan

In the article Emperor of Japan, there a lot of information about the marriage of emperors and crown princes, and about which brides were considered to be suitable for them to marry, but I can find no information about the Imperial princesses (nor about the younger princes not being heirs to the throne either, but that is a different matter), and I am curious to find that out. Which status did the Japanese princesses have? did they have any role to play in the court? Where they secluded, or allowed to meet men? Did they marry, or where they expected not to? If they did, which partners where considered suitable for them? Only relatives? Did they keep their status as royals after marriage to a non-royal man? Perhaps it is different depending on which time period: I am very curious about the early modern age. Thank you Neptunekh2 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 17:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of Japan specifically, but in cultures with a patrilineal monarchy, royal princesses were frequently married off to royalty in other kingdoms in order to cement diplomatic bonds. They often had no choice in who they married and dating would be strictly forbidden. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese princesses were either forbidden to marry or married off to a member of one of Japan's princely families, depending on circumstances. There was essentially no marriage of any kind between the Imperial family and non-Japanese. And generally the women/girls had no say in it. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for general information, see these. Imperial House of Japan, Sayako Kuroda, and individual princess articles.[5] and [6]. They are not secluded and, of course, they are allowed to meet men. Princess Mako of Akishino was found drinking when she was under age. See these. [7] and [8]. Oda Mari (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing course of the river Thames over the last 1000 years

Hi, I'm looking to find some resources that (accurately and scientifically) give the changing course / basin profile of the River Thames over the last 1000 years. Human impact has made a great difference to how and where it runs. Marshes have been drained, side channels built, land reclaimed. Any links appreciated. Cheers. Span (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've asked the question once already at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Changing_course_of_the_river_Thames_over_the_last_1000_years. Please keep this all in one place. --Jayron32 19:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. You were told to ask here. I wouldn't have given that advice to you, but as someone did, we'll just leave this here. Whatever. --Jayron32 19:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had you said the past 2000 years, I would be able to suggest The Thames through time: the archaeology of the gravel terraces of the upper and middle Thames : the early historical period, AD 1-1000. I haven't read it myself but the blurb says it gives a "summary of evidence for the character of the river and the vegetation and environment of its floodplain [...] followed by a detailed account of the evolving settlement pattern as currently understood from archaeological evidence."

Wrong time period notwithstanding, is this along the right lines? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in detailed profiles of a specific area, rather than the whole basin, there's some excellent and intriguing maps in Oxford before the University (Oxford Archaeology, 2003; ISBN 0947816755). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2000 years is great. The Thames through time seems just the thing. I'll get it. I was hoping to find some online maps of the changing topography, figuring such things must exist somewhere. If not, it they certainly should - it would be a great resource. On a slight tangent - do you know if Googlemaps (or other public mapping/satellite data services) hold historical data for online public searching (satellite, Google Earth..)? It seems this would be a great way to track changing topography, over time, into the future. Thanks very much. Span (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For London specifically (although somewhat more recently, in the past few hundred years), you could look at the Thames Embankments. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Thames through time and Oxford before the University are both part of the Oxford Archaeology Thames Valley Series. Other books in the series are listed here - you might find something interesting among them. I notice there's also a forthcoming book which seems to be the sequel to The Thames through time: The Thames Through Time: Human occupation to 1500 BC, which focuses on the next 500 years.

You asked about historic maps and images. The Thames Discovery Programme looks a good place to start, with links to old OS maps and other works including Charles Booth's Poverty map, albeit concentrating on London as a whole rather than the Thames itself.

Finally any discussion about the Thames and its changing role in the city has to mention Sir Joseph Bazalgette, probably the man who had the greatest single impact on the river. There are plenty of biographies available, each taking a different view of his life and work. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this site shows, meaningful maps are a product of the last 500 years. By comparing the maps linked therein, you may get an idea of how things have changed over that time, but I wouldn't count on the accuracy of the older maps. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Bazalgette is a key article for you. --Dweller (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised nobody's yet mentioned Joseph Bazalgette. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Seawall for a brief mention of the Thames. The history of the flood defences along the Thames is important for the economic history of Britain, but I don't know of any resource that tries to pull it all together, unfortunately. I don't think anyone knows for sure when the seawalls downstream of London Bridge were built - if they were there in Roman times, did they follow the same lines as today, probably not. If you are interested in the lower Thames as well as the upper Thames, you would want to search for information about the Kent and Essex marshes. Flood defences were destroyed in storms in 1377 and some centuries later they were destroyed again at Barking and Dutch engineers brought in to advise. The book on the Thames by Hilaire Belloc might be of interest although scarcely up to date. There are books on the construction of the London Docks, which were a massive feat of engineering at the time. And of course there is a lot of documentation about the closure of the docks. The Thames Barrier is relevant and there may be stuff written about Boris Island that will give you links to the history. With the ideas from other respondents above, that's all the pointers I can think of at the moment, but feel free to let us know how you get on and ask again. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]