Humanities desk
< September 8	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 10 >

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 9

Question regarding the Tower of Babel myth

From our article:

As people migrated from the east, they settled in the land of Shinar. People there sought to make bricks and build a city and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for themselves, so that they not be scattered over the world. God came down to look at the city and tower, and remarked that as one people with one language, nothing that they sought would be out of their reach. God went down and confounded their speech, so that they could not understand each other, and scattered them over the face of the earth, and they stopped building the city.

Why would God do this? Surely humanity working together would be a good thing? I get that the implication is that humanity shouldn't have near-infinite power, but surely scattering them across the Earth and confounding their language made everything far, far worse? I mean, according to this myth, all wars between different nations, all division in humanity, all the pain, suffering, and agony that has struck history all emanates from God taking a glance at humanity's success and deciding that it's too much. What am I missing here? — Richard BB 08:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independence from the Father, is not a good thing. All the man-made divisions, pain, suffering and agony, are a result of people not learning this lesson. So, people care more about their own wellbeing than each other's. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it the other way around - they saw that there were people spread all over the earth, speaking different languages, and they had no idea why that was. This is the myth they came up with to explain it. (In that light, does it have to make actual sense?) This is also why God acts differently in Genesis, which is full of more archaic myths with a less nuanced God character. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that last part is the key. In Genesis, the concept of God seems quite primitive, he's just a guy who walks around and has to see things to know they happened. Not the omnipresent God that is presented later in the Bible. Thus, with such a limited God, all the people working together could be a real threat to His power. Of course, all this brings up the question of why God is presented in such totally different ways in different parts of the Bible (sometimes loving and peaceful, sometimes downright vicious). But, that's a Q for another day. StuRat (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As my church minister used to say, "God has never changed - it's only humanity's concept of God which has changed." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never did like the plot holiness of Genesis. Depending on the circumstances, I have to flip-flop on my view of parts of it as fact or fiction. When I'm in a scientific mood, fiction, because it is irreconcilable with our current understanding of history and other sciences. When I'm in a religious mood, then fact, because despite the incoherencies, the important parts make the rest of Scripture work. Despite this ambivalence, I choose to remain faithful, because I have ongoing positive life experiences casually related to my perseverance, which to me proves it worthwhile; and I find myself enjoying life more than before.

PS God didn't change from the Old Testament to the New Testament, He just changed His tactics. Somewhere in the New Testament, it says that He used all the punishments (like death and destruction, etc.) in the Old Testament as examples of what sinners really deserve, but because of His extended grace/mercy, He puts off until the end times. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a citation is needed for that argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1 Corinthians 10, the verse that I'm talking about is verse eleven, but it must be understood in the context of the whole chapter. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you got the right idea, bud. For questions like this, you wanna make sure go to the people you can unreservedly trust the most. You wanna go to a bunch of random strangers on the internet. I like that! 71.246.154.137 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk is here for exactly this kind of reason. I think I can get away with a mild theological question on the Internet. It's not like I'm asking for financial advice. — Richard BB 14:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The present heading of this section (In the Tower of Babel myth in the Bible, why did God confound humanity's speech and scatter them across the Earth?) is unnecessarily long. The heading Tower of Babel: confusion and scattering is adequately brief and adequately informative. Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened. — Richard BB 15:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while, but doesn't the Bible itself answer that question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With so many interpretations and commentaries over the years by scholars from two religions on both literal and symbolic levels and everything in between, I don't really know where you would begin. Focus On Tower of Babel is an interesting essay available on the Oxford Biblical Studies Online that not only traces some of the major lines of thinking over time but offers a few citations for further reading.184.147.119.141 (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, many years later, mankind attempted a similar project and was punished in a similar manner. Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lehrer said that the reason most folk songs are so atrocious is that they were written by "the people". If he were still writing satirical songs, I wonder what he would have to say about wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crashed airliner - airline name and logo painted out

This Thai Airways A330 just skidded off the runway in Bangkok [BBC story here] and they've already painted over the Thai Airways logo on the tail and the name on the front. I've seen British Airways doing the same thing.

Who do they think they're fooling? Why do they do it? Hayttom 11:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

"a routine practice", apparently. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've heard "a picture is worth a 1000 words" ? Well, a picture of plane wreckage with their logo on it is far worse publicity than 1000 words about it. Of course, these days, the news orgs could just put the logo right back on it electronically. That would only seem fair. StuRat (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While perhaps morally just, such an action would constitute image doctoring. This practice is generally viewed extremely poorly, as noted here, and with good reason. The more honest thing to do would be to note in the photo caption that the wreckage was freshly painted over. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 17:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't counter the problem, that the airline has managed to make it hard for people to remember they had an accident by removing their logo from all images, getting people to trust them again more quickly, and possibly risking their lives, if the issues that caused the crash were not addressed. Instead, I'd like the news org to restore the logo electronically, and state in the caption that this is what they did. StuRat (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. The Guardian has now also commented on the 'routine practice' here, with "A Thai Airways official, Smud Poom-on, said that blurring the logo after an accident was a recommendation from Star Alliance known as the "crisis communication rule", meant to protect the image of both the airline and other members of Star Alliance." Again, do they really think we cannot identify the airline? [As I know the practice is common after crashes, I'd like to think The Guardian picked up on my question. Ok, probably not...] Hayttom 20:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

The point is not that they think we can't identify the airline. The point is that they think knowing intellectually (from reading the story) that it was a Thai Airways plane has less impact than seeing it was a Thai Airways plane. Whether they're right or not and whether that benefit is outweighed by the impression of shadiness produced by the spray paint are open questions. Henry ^Flower 00:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, a picture has more impact and is remembered longer than just a written story. You will note in missing white woman syndrome, that a photograph, or better yet a movie, is always needed. StuRat (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even in this thread there is a tendency to want to hold the particular airline wholly responsible for the incident. A picture showing the airline's logo just reinforces that tendency. And it may not be the airline's fault at all. Qantas Flight 32 was a case in point. It happened at a time when Qantas was going through some image problems, and the media and critics had a field day, painting the airline in as bad a light as possible. It turned out that the fault was entirely due to the Rolls Royce engines. Similar faults were found in the same model engines on other airlines' planes. So the airline wasn't at fault at all. The engine manufacturer was. But nobody photographed the Rolls Royce engine brand logo and saturated world news with it. Nobody apologised to Qantas for the bad press. I don't blame Thai Airways in the slightest for lowering its profile here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the Qantas case you mention, but on the face of it, it seems perfectly reasonable to hold the airline responsible. It's their responsibility to check the airworthiness of their aircraft. If they didn't spot that there was something wrong with the engines, they are indeed at fault. --Viennese Waltz 11:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the matter had ever gone to court, I think there would have been slightly more scrutiny of all the relevant facts than has occurred on this page, so please do not suddenly appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner. As it was, the matter was settled between Qantas and Rolls-Royce. The total cost of repairs was around US$145 million, of which Rolls-Royce forked out the lion's share of US$100 million. Enough said. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that final fact definitely didn't didn't make it to the front page of the papers or the lead articles on the TV news. It publicly remained all Qantas' fault. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think it would damage Quantas' otherwise excellent safety record for long. On the other hand, if they tried to whitewash their name off the plane for the pics, the attempted cover-up might very well be remembered longer than the event. This is often the case with cover-ups.

I also agree that the airline has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the planes are safe. Otherwise, you can have a classic subcontractor blame game, where the main company avoids any responsibility for problems by farming the work out to subcontractors, paying them so little that they must cut corners, then blaming them when they do. StuRat (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what an incredibly dumb approach to take. That is quintessential lose-lose-lose (the company, the subbies, and the paying public). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien and poverty

Hi friends, google-fu is failing me. JRRT Tolkien's letters often refer to worries about money and to taking on extra academic tasks (such as proctoring examinations) to earn more. Yet as I understand it, he was a university professor. Was it not a well-paying job in the 1920s-50s? Or was there another factor that caused such cash-flow worries? Thank you.184.147.119.141 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From ODNB: "J. R. R. Tolkien's early life bears witness to continuing...insecurity... [His father] died ... leaving only a few hundred pounds in shares as support for his widow. For a time Mabel Tolkien economized ..., she was obliged to move into town, living in one rented house after another. Her financial situation was not eased by her conversion to Roman Catholicism in 1900, which caused an estrangement from some members of her family; and on 14 November 1904 she too died young, of diabetes" I believe "continuing...insecurity" equates to "worries about money". Tommy Pinball (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People in many different eras find that they have to economise, or worry about money, to make their expenditure better fit their income. University professors of the 1920s were certainly not rich in the way that American university professors of the modern era are (relatively) rich. To a certain extent, an Oxbridge undergraduate in the early part of the 20th century would be expected to have substantial means of their own (their family would have more than an average income, certainly), thus most people who eventually became full professors would not be from poor backgrounds (there were scholarships, though), and the universities did not see good reasons to make them wealthy in a large way. This had rather reversed by the 1950s, when financial subsidies to poorer students attending Oxbridge were greater than they are today.

Many of Tolkein's most famous works were written during the 1940s, and the analyses of his works by (amongst others) Christopher Tolkein, make note of the fact that these works were largely written on re-used paper that had already been used as examination papers - Tolkein literally wrote his famous works between the lines of what had already been written on the page. The easy explanation is to say "well, paper was rationed", but really it wasn't; he was just being careful with resources, just like any responsible - and perhaps parsimonious - person. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers; I find it interesting that university profs weren`t as well paid as today.184.147.119.141 (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were different expectations regarding pay. In the 1920s, most Oxford professors would live in rooms in their college, eat in their college, and socialise in their college (or the colleges of their peers). Nowadays very very few live in college. In the 1920s, a professor's pay might not, for example, easily stretch to expensive innovations like motor cars - these days they would expect it to cover two cars, foreign holidays, purchasing property in Oxford (not cheap!) and so on.

You could also compare with the situation of a modern graduate student at Oxford. They often live in college provided accommodation, they generally have to teach in order to bring in money, and if they're not independently wealthy then they certainly have to think carefully about budgeting. In the later part of the period you mention, Tolkein also had a growing family to support. So it's not really poverty as such, but more an awareness of what Dickens wrote about the big difference between one's income slightly exceeding one's expenditure, and the other way round. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18thC Head dress

The respective portraits of contemporaries, Leonhard Euler and David Hume, show them with similar headgear. What is the story behind these two intellectual heavyweights wearing silly hats? Tommy Pinball (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Banyan (clothing) which refers to an Eastern style jacket, worn as a morning gown, which often went with "a soft, turban-like cap worn in place of the formal periwig". There are several other examples in the Wikimedia Commons category Commons:Category:Deshabille in art. The cap and frock seems to have been worn as leisureclothing by European gentlemen throughout the 18th century (Deshabille apparently meaning "1. the state of being carelessly or partially dressed. 2. Archaic. a loose morning dress; negligee." according to this free dictionary). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was common to wear such caps when not wearing a wig. It kept one's shaven head warm. Men in the higher social classes at that time wore wigs over shaven heads. It was a fashion, of course, but it also a way of keeping you free of lice. The portraits show them in their "informal" rather than formal personas. It's a way of making the image seem more intimate and natural. Hogarth's Self Portrait at Work shows him with his shaven head under a soft cap. Paul B (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. Makes me wonder if that was the origin of the style of dress seen in some portraits of Native Americans of the 18th and early 19th centuries, especially the famous portrait of Sequoyah. Pfly (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did Hitler offer to deport all the Jews in Occupied Europe to the Soviet Union?

Timothy Snyder in his book Bloodlands, says that many of the Jews from western Nazi-occupied Poland fled into eastern Soviet-occupied Poland, and that some of them were deported by Stalin to Kazakhstan where they survived the Holocaust.

According to Timothy Snyder, Hitler wanted to go further than just sending the Polish Jews into the USSR, but actually offered to Stalin to deport the entire Jewish population in Nazi Europe to the Soviet Union but Stalin turned this down.

Does anyone have historical information about this? --Gary123 (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snyder's book probably does. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No he only mentions it in passing as a sidenote, which why I was asking if anyone had more in depth sources. --Gary123 (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps we'll make do with the source Prof. Snyder cites {ahem} for that sidenote on Hitler's rejected offer to Stalin. If you could provide that — since my workplace library only has Bloodlands in the Hebrew translation I can't skim so readily — I can get on it. I can already state, though, that "Hitler...sending the Polish Jews into the USSR" doesn't conform to accounts I've read; rather (as written in your first sentence) with the invasion of Poland, Jews by the thousands fled across the Bug River into Soviet territory; many (especially families) returned when they found no accommodations there. In The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917: Paradox of Survival (1988, NYU Press), Nora Levin cites a Polish government order at the start of the war, for "all men up to age 45 to go to the east where the government would try to create a new army." Then in June 1940, "250,000 former Polish citizens who refused to accept the Soviet passport were sent to the northern part of Siberia, the part called Komi ASSR. The trip by train took about four weeks, with 50-60 people in each car..." (vol. 1, p. 348). The relaxation of these restrictions occurred only after Operation Barbarossa and "after the Soviet-Polish amnesty in August 1941, when all the deported Polish Jews were allowed to go to Central Asia." (ibid, p. 349, also accounts in Ch. 16). See also how 25,000 Polish refugees, many of them Jews, joined the Anders Army in late 1941. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't locate the Snyder quote, but from my recollection the context was that sine Hitler's longterm plan was to deport all Jews to the occupied USSR anyway, it would make things easier for him if he could deport them there before even invading. --Gary123 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the German translation of Snyders book the passage refers to a plan of January 1940 to send the 2 million Jews under Nazi rule (i.e. at that time the Jews of Germany and Poland) to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in the USSR. This plan is also mentioned here, PDF, p. 18 of 23, based on a newspaper article by Sonja Zekri »Ein neues Madagaskar. Wie Hitler versuchte, Juden in die Sowjetunion umzusiedeln« in Süddeutsche Zeitung of 13 June 2005. A recent newspaper article states that President Medwedjew wants or wanted to attract 2.000 Jewish settlers for the Jewish Autonomous Oblast right now in August, 2013. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]