Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 June 12

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.

June 12

impoverish royals

What country has the most impoverish royal families or most egalitarian (not possessing great wealth or spending much)? Not thinking of an African king or tribal chieftain living in a village though. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Due to German mediatization, I'm sure it's Germany. Surely it's not a big deal for most of them anymore (who cares if you're the heir of the Count of Pappenheim?), but they've historically been considered royalty for marriage purposes at least. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of them seem to be only nobles and not royals and most retained their lands and wealth as part of the upper crust of the German Empire between the years of 1814 and 1918.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Although many were "just" counts and dukes, they were "minor" royalty; they were sovereigns of small states, not nobles within a grander state. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure if you want to count this situation, but Soulivong Savang, the heir to the throne of Laos, left his country as a refugee in the early 1980s. Although Laos is now a communist state, the family is still revered by most Lao as "royalty".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure whether it falls into your exceptions and I don't know about "impoverished" but the current King of Tonga is a pretty ordinary (humble) guy. He was privately educated like his brother the king but served in their (very small) armed forces before becoming a public servant. He was crowned price in 2006 only because his brother was getting older but had no heirs. I don't think he ever expected to become King. He was crowned in 2012 when his brother died. By all accounts he's still a pretty regular fellow and is often at the local pub watching rugby union with his friends. He was High Commissioner to Australia and I remember stories about him - as brother of the king, crown price and his country's most senior diplomat - driving himself around Canberra in a pretty ordinary car while minor diplomats from tiny countries had motorcades. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Dunno if this is relevant, but the Japanese emperor and his family are practically prisoners of his household staff. They literally decide everything for him, even if he can have his cup of tea, I believe. As a "westerner" I find this really weird, like the metaphorical "tail wagging the dog". Not sure if he's poor though, I don't know about his finances. But if he does have money, I presume he has precious little input into how it's spent. 61.88.210.42 (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous Japanese emperors have fared much worse and score quite highly on the indigence rating. This article may be overstating the case, since it has a post-War American axe to grind, but it says (quoting Willard Price - my corrections are in italics); "The year America was discovered (it was actually 21 October 1500) the Emperor GO-TSUCHI died and lay 40 days rotting beside the Palace gates (actually in a room in the palace) because the Royal Family lacked funds to bury him. Finally his son borrowed enough money from a Buddhist priest to pay funeral expenses. The son (Emperor Go-Kashiwabara) was unable to take the Throne because there was no money for the necessary enthronement ceremonies. Twenty years went by before he could be seated. During that time Japan went without an Emperor (not really true), but does not seem to have minded it in the least. One Emperor begged in the streets. One copied poems for a living (maybe Emperor Go-Nara). One sold autographs. One lived in a hut with a roof that would not keep out the rain (possibly referring to Emperor Go-Daigo, who started a civil war in the hope of becoming a dictator)". Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The British have coined the term "Bicycle monarchy" to refer to Scandinavian and Benelux royal families which have discarded historical royal protocols, in order to adapt to 20th-century realities, more thoroughly than has been done in the U.K. If the U.K. royal family hadn't been exempted from "death duties" and most other 20th century taxes, they might be in a humbler or more dependent situation today... AnonMoos (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I interpreted the question as "what country has <the most><impoverished royal families>", and everyone else appears to have interpreted it as <the most impoverished><royal families>". It would help if The Emperor's New Spy clarified which interpretation is correct. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Year of Consul A and Consul B

According to the ab urbe condita article, ancient Romans typically referred to a year by the names of its consuls, e.g. 20BC was the Year of Appuleius and Nerva (or whatever other names they used), rather than most commonly being 733 AUC. But what would happen when the same pair of men were consuls more than once, or if two years' consuls were different men with the same name? For example, Gaius Fabricius Luscinus and Quintus Aemilius Papus were consuls together in 282 and 278 BC. How would the two years be distinguished? Is this when AUC would come into play? Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that the 753 B.C. startpoint was in use until long after 282 or 278 B.C... I've encountered constructions similar to "during the second consulship of X and the third consulship of Y" several times, and I assume that's what the Roman numerals after the names mean in List of Roman consuls. AnonMoos (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That is what they did, even long into the imperial period when it would have been easier to use the regnal date of the emperor. I guess they just hadn't thought of that yet. They only named the emperor in the date if he happened to have named himself consul...sometimes both emperors on both sides of the empire would be the two consuls for the year though. I suppose that is where regnal dates ultimately come from. The names of the consuls probably had no meaning for most people, but the Roman priests in charge of the calendar kept a detailed list, at least in the pre-Christian era. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Does ‘anti‐Latinism’ exist?

I’m doubtful, but some results for ‘Latins’ on Google Books contain generalizations against them, although the exact meaning of ‘Latins’ is not always clear. As far as I do know, discrimination usually takes a specific form (Francophobia or Italophobia, for example). Have there ever been incidences of something broad like this? Curious.--66.190.99.112 (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly anti-Hispanic/anti-Latino prejudice exists. It happens in the US, where immigrants (especially illegal immigrants) from Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean are perceived to have taken local jobs, lowered the pay scales, overburdened the health care and school systems, necessitated providing Spanish language support in government and business operations, etc. (They certainly provide many positives as well, but I'm only listing the causes of the prejudice here.)

If you mean prejudice against Southern Europeans, yes, there's that too, such as from Northern Europeans who view their southern counterparts as lazy, financially undisciplined, and responsible for Europe's economic woes. StuRat (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

66.190.99.112 -- I think anti-French prejudice is its own thing, and is rarely lumped into an indiscriminate hatred of all "Latins" (though it could be lumped into an indiscriminate hatred of all Catholics). If there's such a thing as Latins-phobia, it would presumably mean an indiscriminate hatred of Spanish-speakers, Portuguese-speakers, and Italian speakers, whether in the Americas or southern Europe... AnonMoos (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There's also the cultural difference, as StuRat mentioned above. Latins (whether in southern Europe or Latin America) are assumed to be relatively gregarious by nature, while northern Europeans and North Americans are assumed to be relatively stoic by nature. Even in the US, southerners are assumed to be more friendly and expressive than northerners. Hence the quip (sometimes attributed to JFK) that Washington, DC, is "a city with northern charm and southern efficiency." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I had heard "northern hospitality and southern efficiency" and attribute that quote to Mark Twain. StuRat (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are pastors called "reverend" instead of "doctor"?

Many educated pastors may have a doctorate in theology. Hence, it is expected to call them "Professor" or "Doctor". Yet, people just address them by their religious title, "Reverend" or "Right Reverend". Why? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr. was often called "The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You're conflating several things here. 'Pastor' covers, er, a multitude of sins. Church of England priests, for example, usually do not have doctorates. Those that do, are often referred to as Dr X. But (in formal UK usage at least) 'Reverend' is not interchangeable with 'Doctor'. 'Reverend, like 'Venerable', 'Honourable', and so on, is an adjective rather than a noun; titles which are nouns can be paired with surnames: Dr Fox, President Obama, Mr Smith. Adjectives need either a forename or a noun-title as well: The Reverend Mr Jones, the Honourable Lucy Bloggs. So an archbishop will often be, eg, The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dr Rowan Williams. One's denomination and churchmanship can be a factor, too: in Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic circles, priests are often addressed as 'Father Lastname', or 'Father Firstname' if you're on closer terms with them. Calling someone 'Reverend Lastname' is a sure sign of low churchmanship (and is technically wrong) in the Church of England, but is standard and expected in other Protestant denominations. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In many American Protestant churches, a pastor will ordinarily be addressed by his first name, at least by one of his own flock. --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's true across most varieties of Anglicanism too - but it implies a certain degree of familiarity. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. So, basically, Reverend is the adjective title, while Doctor is the noun title. Roman Catholic priests are called "pastors" too, and they do so officially by signing their names as "Pastor of [insert Parish name here]". What do you mean by "pastor covers a multitude of sins"? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - a bad joke on my part. "To cover a multitude of sins" is an idiom meaning that an expression covers (and conceals the complexity of) a wide range of things. In the RC case, 'pastor' is being used as a synonym for 'parish priest' - in the Church of England, those are usually vicars or rectors. In all those cases, those are just job titles, and so you wouldn't put them right before any part of your name. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

They don't even wear name tags with their titles on them? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The only religious officials I've ever seen do that are the (extremely youthful-looking) Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought the "pastor covers the multitude of sins" comment was referring to how low-ranking the pastor is in the church hierarchy, which may be socially associated with a "multitude of sins" while the higher-ranking religious officials are thought of as more pious and pure than everyone else. Never mind. Me and my imagination. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that isn't the use of those terms. Doctor can only be used by people who have a doctorate degree, such as a Doctor of Theology or similar degree (such as a Doctor of Sacred Theology or Doctor of Pastoral Theology or Doctor of Divinity). People who do not have those academic degrees do not use the word "Doctor" in their titles. "The Reverend" is usually applied to a person who has been ordained. One can have a degree and not be ordained (thus not all religious doctors are "reverend") and one can be ordained without a doctoral degree (thus one can be a reverend and not a doctor). A pastor is usually meant to be a religious leader of a congregation (other ministers are not usually considered "pastors") and, of course, one can be a reverend and not be a pastor (though the reverse is not necessarily true: Usually all pastors are ordained). A minister need not be any of these, though often are. --Jayron32 16:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I know of at least a couple of men who were trained as medical doctors (not necessarily Doctors of Medicine) and worked as GPs, and later became priests. I assume they could continue to used their Dr title. My state of Victoria has a Premier who was formerly a veterinarian. He has a masters in veterinary science, but not a doctorate, and also an MBA. He's regularly referred to as "Dr Napthine". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There may also be cultural factors. In the UK, PhDs by far outweigh DDs, even in the clergy, and it is generally considered rather vulgar for PhDs to use the title "doctor" unless they are working academics. Outside academia, the term "doctor" is reserved for medical doctors and those with earned (as opposed to honorary) "higher doctorates" (DD, MD, DLitt, etc.). This is to some extent a class-related issue - notice how Gordon Brown is always "Mr Brown" in interviews, while Vince Cable prefers to be known as "Dr Cable", instantly telling the alert listener that he has less gentle origins. I've only had one pastor who was known as "doctor", because he had a DD (and was a noted exegete and lecturer); the others were all "mister", even where they had PhDs. RomanSpa (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

One thing I love about the American South is that, if they know you have a Ph.D., they do give you your "Doctor". You don't have to ask; it's just what they consider correct. --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to know that at least they're polite when they offer us all their delightful Southern hospitality. RomanSpa (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Now, that is really uncalled for. Apologize at once. --Trovatore (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The south has made a fair amount of progress since those days (with the possible exception of Texas). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not much better, Bugs. You can find bad things everywhere. It's no excuse for anti-Southern or anti-Texas bigotry. --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Orthodox cathedral identification

Could somebody identify the church in this image? The description says it's in Thessaloniki, but I'm having trouble finding an exact match for it. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Agios Pavlos Church http://www.freeimages.com/photo/1265484 and https://www.google.co.za/maps/@40.63796,22.962239,3a,75y,224.04h,89.66t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjBtJLo7BFU0ylsYmyDbrQA!2e0!6m1!1e1 196.214.78.114 (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Lazar Taxon (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria

How was Samuel Mills Damon and the Republic of Hawaii received at the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Struggling to parse your question. Do you mean procedurally, actually or ethically? Or how was he received by the public? As in, how (was he allowed to be) received? How (in what form and with which titles) was he received? Or, how (with regard to enthusiasm) was he received? St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

? His reception (details....). Period.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's a contemporary description.

A Looker-On in London, by Mary H. Krout, 1899 - Chapter 24 - The Diamond Jubilee

Page 301, '...the Premiers of the Colonies arrived and were assigned to apartments reserved for them in the Hotel Cecil; foreign envoys presented their credentials and were quartered in other hotels and palaces, the guests of the Queen...'

Page 315, 'The foreign envoys, Japanese, Mexicans, Chinese, Spanish, French, German and Italian were magnificent in uniforms heavy with gold and glittering with jeweled decorations. Among them was the representative of the little Republic of Hawaii, as gorgeous in his gold lace and chapeau and as imposing as the representative of all the Russias - a splendor that vanished with the annexation of the islands of the United States, to return no more.'

Page 316, 'In the midst of all this bravery of uniform the simplicity of the American envoy, Hon. Whitelaw Reid, had a marked impressiveness. He, too, represented a rich and powerful nation, but he alone of all those dispatched to England to do honor to the head of the British Empire, wore neither medal nor decoration. In the plain morning dress of a gentleman he was all the more remarkable, among the three envoys who shared his carriage - the representative of the Holy See in his clerical robes of scarlet silk, the Chinese and, strangely enough, the Spanish envoy - an oddly assorted quartette, all the more striking from the events that were even then impending to disturb the friendly relations of Spain and the United States. Mr. Reid was received with the utmost cordiality, sharing the applause that was given with special enthusiasm for the Queen and Lord Roberts.' --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well done Bill Reid, you should write a book called Teach Yourself How to Answer a Refdesk Query. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria = world's scam headquarters?

Practically every internet scammer I've come across seems to be based in one country: Nigeria. Or at least a hugely disproportionate number of them. Be it romance scams, 419 scams (advance fee fraud), selling bogus stuff on the net, etc etc. If there's a scam, Nigerians can be trusted to be front and center in it. And, of course, they ALWAYS ask for payment by hard-to-trace Western Union or Moneygram, NEVER a bank account.

My question is: What is it about Nigeria in particular which breeds these scammers and scams? I don't hear any other African country coming close. Which factors are unique to Nigeria, as opposed to other parts of Africa, which allow this situation to thrive?

(As a secondary issue: Personally, I think Western Union and Moneygram should shut down service to Nigeria until the situation improves, full stop. It wouldn't stop the scammers, but it would make life somewhat more difficult for them, forcing them to use third-country accomplices. I suspect more of the money sent by these two services to Nigeria is scam-related or dirty money, than "clean" and legitimate cash. The scammers would likely be far harder hit than the few "legitimate" Nigerian recipients. Am I missing anything with this suggestion?).

No, I haven't personally fallen victim to a Nigerian scammer yet, thankfully, but they've made plenty of attempts. My spam folder is clogged with them. 61.88.210.42 (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

One issue to address: it's not true that most scams originate from Nigeria (although disproportionate number does): according to our article on 419 scams, "in 2006, 61% of Internet criminals were traced to locations in the United States, while 16% were traced to the United Kingdom and 6% to locations in Nigeria." No longer a penguin (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Corruption in Nigeria might provide some clues.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Some years ago, it was reported that most of the world's spam originated in Boca Raton, Florida. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Are they actually based in Nigeria, or is it just guys (who could be anywhere in the world, really) saying that they're in Nigeria and need your help (and bank account) in order to transfer/launder some dubious monies due to some political situation/war or other - because it's a country that many people aren't going to be particularly familiar with? Yaknow, reducing the likelihood of the mark calling bullshit over the backstory at an early stage. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite the opposite. People are so familiar with "Nigerian" scams by now that only the most gullible bite the hook - it's a way of selecting the most promising targets. If they were truly interested in a country that people are not familiar with, then a country of 100 million people is not the best choice (there are plenty of tiny oil rich states around).No longer a penguin (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Like the wonderful world of Antarctica. Untold billions of barrels, population 0. Once 2048 rolls around, the first person to plant their flag will be unbelievably rich. It could be you, if you get in line right now. (Just send me the money, I'll mail the ticket.) InedibleHulk (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these flights don't land and provide no parachutes, so planting a flag might involve falling very quickly and stopping very suddenly.129.178.88.82 (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

All investments carry risk. For merely double the cost of the flight, I'll also throw in this handy decelerator and 1,847 meals. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Another point: "more of the money sent by these two services to Nigeria is scam-related or dirty money, than "clean" and legitimate cash" would need one hell of a citation. The reason these services are not stopped is that they are widely used for legitimate purposes (even in these countries), not least for remittances by expats.No longer a penguin (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Off topic, but what amazes me is the people who go on TV current affairs shows and tell the world in glorious detail how stupid they were by falling prey to these scammers and lost their life savings. Spending a few hundred or even a few thousand dollars on some scheme might be understandable if you could afford to lose that much, but giving them access to all you have, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars? that's insane behaviour. These are generally conservative people who have a good work ethic, always pay their bills on time, advise their kids and grandkids not to talk to strangers, and know not to put all their eggs in one basket. They wouldn't invest all their savings even in a single bank or institution that has government-backed and watertight security, so what induces them to give it all to a stranger that they never even meet in person, "because he sounded like a nice man"? If I ever did that, I'd be too ashamed to even tell my closest friend, let alone the entire country. Maybe they feel the need to warn others, and are prepared to pay the price of ignominy on top of their heavy financial cost. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• My assumption is that the frequency of scams originating from Nigeria has much more to do with the laws in Nigeria. Either they are lax enough to not control this industry or the authorities can easily be paid to look the other way. As opposed to scamming being some sort of cultural norm that is bred into Nigerians. Bali88 (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It really annoyed me some years ago when they were setting up a university the huge number who just wanted become lawyers. They didn't want to become engineers or doctors or teachers any of the other useful things one might think would be a good idea. Thankfully that problem at least seems to have fixed itself as people have seen how many jobs there actually are for lawyers but I wonder what a lot of the unemployed ones actually do. Dmcq (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: "but I wonder what a lot of the unemployed ones actually do." - they sue each other. If there is only one lawyer in a town, he will go broke... add another and they will both thrive. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What to call the Republican right and left

The term "conservative" has a fairly long history, and the Republican party has long claimed it. But now it seems to have been taken over by the right wing Tea Party, and you often hear the "left wing" of the party referred to as the "establishment" Republicans. Surely this faction doesn't like that label. What do they/might they prefer instead? --Halcatalyst (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The use of left and right in American politics is utterly pointless anyway, as by global standards all parties are far right paleoconservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.254.110 (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Labels that often come up sometimes refer to specific Republican leaders and their ideology. So you may have someone refer to themselves as a "Goldwater Republican" or a "Reagan Republican" to distinguish their ideology from the current Republican party platform. (I haven't heard "Gingrich Republican", but I assume it's only a matter of time.) Regarding the current Republican establishment that (internally) opposes the Tea Party, they're still establishment, so I'm guessing they're resisting giving themselves a more specific label than just "Republican", lest they be considered "fringe". If you needed to distinguish, "non-Tea Party Republican" would be an apt phrase. If the Tea Party ever gets undisputed control of the Republican Party, you may find that the "counter-revolutionaries" may adopt a label to rally behind. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Halcatalyst -- the term "left-wing Republican" has been pretty much an oxymoron ever since "Fighting Bob" La Follette left the Republican party for the Progressives in 1924, and definitely since most blacks left the Republican party for the Democrats in the 1930s... During the 1960s and 1970s you had an opposition between "moderate" or "Rockefeller" Republicans vs. "Goldwater" Republicans, but the moderate/Rockefeller Republicans have been progressively marginalized since the 1980s, and Susan Collins is just about the only one left at the national political level. Nowadays, the Republican party basically consists of different rightist factions, often squabbling with each other over which one is truly rightmost. Probably "establishment" vs. "outsider" and "quasi-libertarian" vs. "social conservative" are far more useful labels for classifying current-day Republicans than "left"[sic] vs. "right"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're only decades off. There have been considerably "left wing" Republicans (at least by the terms as understood in the modern American sense, not any other) up to the modern day. The 1960-1970s had Pete McCloskey (who only recently changed affiliations), Bill Weld had rather left-leaning views for a Republican, as did Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney before they decided that running for president required pandering to southern ultra-right-wingers. It is true that, today, at the national level, the Republican party leans farther to the right than it used to, but it also isn't accurate to say that the last "liberal" republican left the party in 1924. It's been more recent, and more gradual, than that. --Jayron32 16:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anything whatsoever about "liberal Republican", only about "left-wing Republican". Giuliani and Romney were pragmatic practical politicians who adapted themselves to the political balance of their constituencies without getting greatly hung up on abstract theoretical ideologies -- or at least they were before they started running for president -- but they were NOT "left-wing" in any useful or accurate sense of the term, and calling them "liberal" is very vague and hazy terminology that I'm not sure usefully clarifies anything too much... AnonMoos (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"Leftist" is not so much of a widely-used term in America. "Liberal" is much more common. Right-wingers tend to use that term with the same degree of contempt (and as synonymous with) the way they used to say "socialist" and "communist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a "laundry list" of policies one must adhere to 100 percent in order to be classified as a "real" conservative (or a "real" liberal, for that matter). Any politician who styles himself as "conservative" but doesn't adhere 100 percent to that list is labeled "not conservative enough" and can be vulnerable to the tea party. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

As we're talking labels, the epithet commonly used for someone who is seen not to fulfill the criteria for being "conservative enough" is RINO - "Republican in name only". I'll also give a wikilink for the above-mentioned Rockefeller Republican, as it appears we have an article on the topic (which apparently Liberal Republican redirects to). -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is very difficult to put neat dualistic labels on the Republican Party... generalizing (broadly) the party does not break down neatly into "right vs left" or even "conservative vs liberal" on all issues... that's because it is actually made up of three distinct "wings": 1) fiscal budget-hawks, 2) social/religious conservatives, and 3) small government libertarians. Each "wing" care a lot about, and will unite on issues that relate to its own agenda... but can be split on issues relating to the agendas of the other "wings"... so, for example, two fiscal budget-hawks (A and B) will both favor a reduction in taxes, but may disagree with each other on Gay Marriage and regulation of cattle ranching. Meanwhile, two social/religious conservatives (C and D) will both be opposed to Gay Marriage ... but take opposing views on tax hikes and regulations on cattle ranching. Meanwhile two small government libertarians (E and F) will unite on limiting regulations on cattle ranching, but can disagree on Gay Marriage and taxes. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Where they stand on our funding of foreign wars is also an interesting subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Blueboar -- your typology has some validity, but it doesn't seem to be able to accommodate the prominent faction of phony budget hawks, who only oppose deficit-increasing measures which benefit the poor and middle-classes, but never those which benefit the ultra-wealthy and large corporations. So according to the pseudo-hawks, an extension of unemployment insurance must always be "offset" with increased revenues or decreased expenditures elsewhere in the budget, but for some inexplicable reason, an extension of tax breaks which mostly benefit the 1% never has to be "offset". The reason why the U.S. has a budget deficit in the first place is basically that the phony pseudo-hawks frittered away the Clinton budget surpluses on the Bush tax cuts mainly for the rich, without much real concern for the deficits this ended up creating... AnonMoos (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The 1% are the guys who get them elected, one way or another. Hence the Will Rogers comment, which applies just as much or more as it did in his day: "We have the best Congress money can buy." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In the middle of the political spectrum, by default, is the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. Ever so slightly to the right are RINOS -- folks who want nothing to do with the nonsense going on at the heart of the GOP, but can't or won't recognize that their party has left them. Next up are supporters of past presidents (candidates) who couldn't even get nominated today: Bush (41), Nixon, Eisenhower, Reagan, Goldwater, Gingrich. The NeoCons and PaleoCons round out what used to be the more extreme wing, but who are now seen as rather too willing to actually work with their colleagues across the aisle. The John Birch Society, KKK and Tea Party are off-shoots of the ultra-right and generally don't want to be called Republicans (hence, Tea "Party," rather than cacus or wing). DOR (HK) (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to like the Tea Party, but lumping them with the KKK is hyperbolic. The Tea Party is not racist per se, though it undoubtedly has some individual adherents that are. (For that matter, neither is the JBS; their defining attribute is extreme fear of communism, which is a bit passé these days, which is probably why you don't hear much about them.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't read much into the word "Party" in the name. It's a (slightly punning) reference to the Boston Tea Party. No other word would make that allusion. I haven't heard of any serious proposal for them to separate from the Republican Party. --Trovatore (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, their goal is to take over the Republican party. Third parties in America are little more than curiosities. And splitting from the Republicans would likely guarantee Democrat victories almost everywhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well... the Tea Party folks would say they are "reclaiming" the party, and not "taking it over"... and the original goal of the Tea Party was to reclaim both parties ... However, it is true that they had significantly more success in "reclaiming" the Republican Party than they did with the Democratic Party (probably because the Republicans were out of power, and thus more vulnerable to grass roots movements, while the Democrats were in power and thus less vulnerable). So the Tea Party has morphed into a de-facto wing of the Republicans. However... the Tea Party has its own factions. It does not have a single monolithic agenda. If there is one thing that unites Tea Partiers, it is voter anger ... but exactly what the focus of that voter anger is... changes from region to region. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well... I could have said "hijacking", but "taking over" seemed a bit less pointed. Whatever their intent, they were never going to be able to do likewise to the Democrats, who tend to support labor, and the tea party in general is anti-labor. (To name just one issue of many.) Speaking of which, the tea party itself is being taken over by one-percenters who have the bucks to push their personal agenda and trick the voters into thinking it's their own agenda also. When or if they figure that out, it may be too late. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As regards the KKK... What else can you think when you see tea partiers gleefully waving the Confederate flag? You think white supremacism, you think belligerence and violence, you think fascism, Nazism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You think that's what Lynyrd Skynyrd meant? Or the Duke boys? The Confederate flag means different things to different people, but lots of people have used it simply as an emblem of regional pride. (By the way, actually, I haven't seen it used by the Tea Party.)

Now, if the Tea Party is about white supremacy, how exactly does Herman Cain fit into that? --Trovatore (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

To me, the Tea Party seems to be the latest intensification of a long-term trend of cultural resentments and half-astroturfed half-genuine quasi-populism and curiously-selective outrage, all harnessed to serve the economic interests of large corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals (see What's the Matter with Kansas). The Republican party has gained significant support from white lower middle class voters by constantly agitating issues such as abortion and other alleged modern cultural degeneracies, but when the Republicans gain power by means of white lower middle class votes, they don't do all that much to outlaw abortion (the Human Life Amendment has been in legislative limbo for 30 years), clean up video games, etc. -- but they are very diligent in passing agendas that economically disadvantage the lower middle classes in order to benefit the wealthy. It's curious that nothing seems to come out of the so-called "grass roots" Tea Party movement which conflicts with the Koch brothers economic agenda in any way... AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

children's books

Hello. I am looking for children's books written between 1900 and 1930, in English, set in the UK, and with non-upper-class children as main characters. It is the last part that is stumping me. Thank you for any pointers you can suggest. 184.147.127.96 (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you asking for books whose main characters aren't upper-class children, or are you asking for books whose main characters are children who aren't upper-class? Depending on what you mean, Winnie-the-Pooh might qualify: none of its main characters are upper-class children. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, note that this page has temporarily been semiprotected, so you will not be able to answer here. If you want to respond to me, please leave a note at my talk page, and I'll happily copy it here for you. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

[copied from User talk:Nyttend] I meant children who are not upper class. Thank you for your note and your help! 184.147.127.96 (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Just William (series), the protagonist is a middle-class boy. Maybe you already remember this, but "upper class" has a substantially different meaning in this context from what it means in the contemporary USA (and presumably what it means in Canada, where you appear to be) — the upper classes are independently wealthy, while the middle classes include phenomenally wealthy people who still engage in working. If the original Mary Poppins book were a few years older, it would qualify, since Mr Banks is a financier, not a landowner. Also, The Railway Children, published in 1905, is about children whose father is an employee of the Foreign Office, while The Story of the Amulet says that the main characters in its series are the children of a journalist. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

[again copied from User talk:Nyttend] Thank you again for your clarification. I meant to exclude the children in the Nesbit books so I suppose I mean whatever the name is for below middle class. Working class? 184.147.127.96 (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Milly-Molly-Mandy (1928, for younger children) is from a traditional rural background. William Brown is painfully and deliberately middle-class, but only the first ten(!) books (Just William to William) were written before 1930 - he's more at home in the 1950s, perhaps. The family (unnamed, as far as I can remember) from The Railway Children (1906) are one rung up the social ladder from the Browns, but still might fit the criterion. Tevildo (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

British children's literature is very far from my specialty, so unfortunately I don't think I can suggest anything that's specifically from the lower classes, whether farmers or industrial workers or domestic workers. You may just have to look at a book and infer the children's social status from their prosperity or lack thereof. Perhaps the best route is to go through Category:20th-century British children's literature, especially looking at the pre-1931 books in List of British children's and young adults' literature titles (1900–49); that's where I got the titles I suggested, since I've never heard of any of them before. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle and some of the other Doctor Dolittle books, the narrator is Tommy Stubbins, a cobbler's son.

While most of the children in E. Nesbit novels are upper middle class, in The Railway Children the father has been imprisoned, leading to hardship for his family. John M Baker (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Swallows and Amazons just qualifies as it was published 1 December 1930. Billy Bunter's father was stockbroker. Peter and Wendy plus some of the other Peter Pan books. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 04:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I was contemplating S&A, but the Walker family's father is a relatively senior naval officer, and the Blacketts appear to be minor landowners. We never meet Bob Blackett, Nancy and Peggy's father, as he died some time earlier - perhaps in the 1918 flu epidemic or the Great War - but his wife (Molly?) seems to run the Beckfoot estate herself, and her brother Jim Turner (Captain Flint) is a man of sufficient means to spend time prospecting for gold in South America, or writing lengthy memoirs. The Callums (first appearing in Winter Holiday) are the children of an archaeologist - I wonder if their father is modelled on Max Mallowan? In any case, all three 'lakes' families are solidly middle-class. It's only in the Norfolk novels (Coot Club and The Big Six, neither published before 1931) that we meet genuinely working-class children. The Arthur Ransome wiki has an article on class in the books here [1] including a comment from Ransome himself, writing in 1943. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In Peter Pan, the Darling family might be upper class (although the father is only a bank clerk), but Peter and the Lost Boys are not, at least not since they were taken from their original families, so this may qualify. See characters of Peter Pan. StuRat (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Wendy Darling#Background "She belongs to a middle class London household of that era...". Her father is a "bank/office worker" so there is no way she is upper class. Also social class and Social structure of the United Kingdom#Upper class for UK definitions. I would think that there would be few stories with upper class children. Most of the authors were middle class and that's who they would be writing for. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 05:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Railway Children and anything by E. Nesbit would qualify, although distinctly middle-class. The Secret Garden had working class children in it, but was set in a stately home. I'm struggling to think of any books solely about working-class children; I don't think there would have been much of a market for them. In my east London 1960s childhood, we all read books about Jennings and Billy Bunter who went to expensive boarding schools, while we made do with a local council junior school with a tarmac playground. Alansplodge (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Dickon from The Secret Garden is the most obviously working-class child lead character from English children's fiction of the era that I can think of. (I don't think Jennings' public school is that expensive - Darbishire's father is a country parson, after all.) AlexTiefling (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

All things are relative, it was a lot more expensive than a state school - BTW I expect it was a preparatory school rather than a public school, but I'm just being picky. Alansplodge (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, of course: the third form are 11 years old, not 13 as they would be in a secondary school, and there's also the recurrent catchphrase 'even in the best-regulated preparatory schools'. I wasn't pretending it was cheap - just that the stated professions of the boys' fathers indicate that it's neither the most prestigious nor the most costly of such institutions. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we can agree on that. It seems odd now that the concept of allowing children to read about those worse-off than themselves appears to date only from the 1970s, with the obvious exception of Dickens who was safely in the past. Alansplodge (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. As should be apparent, I was raised on exactly these novels, in some cases from my parents' hardback copies. I grew up with ludicrously inflated ideas of what secondary education was going to be like, and was profoundly disappointed and culture-shocked when my time at an actual public school was brutal and miserable. It also exposed the complexity of the class structure - the accent I acquired from my grammar-school-educated parents led to me being mocked as 'posh' by children whose parents were affording the fees a lot more comfortably than we were. Now a parent myself, I'm wondering how to raise my children with a more rational view of life and education. I wouldn't want them to be denied the books of my own childhood, but I'm reluctantly forced to admit that even though the slow ascent of the class system's greasy pole continues, life will never be for us as it appears to be for the protagonists of these novels. The middle class that these authors envisioned has been swept away and replaced by a set of overlapping middle classes, some defined more by income and others more by attitude and socialisation, no single one of which recreates the pre-war situation. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Slightly outside your time period, but I think this might meet your needs in other respects: The Family from One End Street. It's worth pointing out that children's stories about the working classes are all the rage now, more's the pity: my brother recently had to reassure his daughter that he and his wife had no plans to divorce, following a remark in some recently-published book (probably by Jacqueline Wilson or one of her imitators) that "most parents divorce". The problems of the working classes, though sad, are not particularly relevant to the children of the middle classes, but there seems to be a certain kind of teacher that enjoys terrorising children with unwarranted fears. RomanSpa (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

IP 184.147.135.33, who says they are the "same person, IP just changed after a power out" would like to say: "Many thanks to everyone for the helpful answers." Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)