Humanities desk
< June 4	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 6 >

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 5

Last Spanish monarch to wear a crown

No monarch of Spain has been crowned as such since John I of Castile (1379), Ferdinand I of Aragon (1414), and Eleanor of Navarre (1479). But who was the last to wear a crown (no tiaras) on their head minus a coronation ceremony?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be more specific. We really can't know which ones once tried a crown on in private, so do you mean which monarchs made a public appearance in a crown, were painted or photographed in one, etc. ? StuRat (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Physically worn a crown and is known to have done so. If they did privately and there are sources stating that then it would count.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The blog I cite below implies (but does not state) that the last Spanish monarch to wear a crown (as oppose to being coronated) was Ferdinand VII of Spain in the early 19th century. The actual practice of coronation (which is known as "being crowned") (that is, having the crown invested to the monarch by a religious authority) started to die out during the 16th-17th century. The Holy Roman Emperor, arguably the monarch with the closest historical ties to the pope, stopped being officially coronated in the middle 16th century, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor was the last such Emperor to be so crowned; his successors simply stopped doing so. Napoleon famously crowned himself, a rather symbolic statement of humanism in the face of what had historically been a solemn religious event. I'm not sure when other monarchies dispensed with formal coronations (some still do so, the UK does, for example) but as you note unified Spain has never had a coronation. That doesn't mean that kings did not adorn themselves with crowns, just that they didn't go through the ceremony of being crowned. --Jayron32 03:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's such a thing as 'being coronated' distinct from 'being crowned'. If you have a reliable source for this claim, please share. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Coronated" is just a fancy (and very non-standard) way of saying "crowned". --NellieBly (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Royal Crown

Does the Spanish monarchy own any crowns older than the one commissioned by Charles III that were used by the medieval monarchs of Leon, Castile, Galicia, Aragon and Navarre?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a bit bloggy, but presents several historic crowns of Spain (pictures too!) and their stories. --Jayron32 03:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Sterling suing the NBA

I have read this a few times in the past few weeks: "Donald Sterling sued the NBA in federal court last week alleging the NBA violated his constitutional rights by relying on information from an "illegal" recording that publicized racist remarks he made to a girlfriend." The NBA is certainly not a governmental agency; the US Constitution only restricts the conduct of government (not private parties). So, what am I missing? How can Sterling possibly make a constitutional claim against a private party like the NBA? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even private entities can be bound by due process to a certain extent. I have no idea what the NBA's bylaws are, but it would not be unusual for guarantees of due process to be explicitly written into such organizations. While private businesses can be protected to a certain degree from laws regarding privacy, freedom of speech, collection of evidence, etc., the courts can (and do) enforce an organization's own bylaws under something akin to contract law (as all parties agreed to the bylaws, they are enforceable as a contract would be, and when violated the aggrieved party may be due damages). Furthermore, the U.S. government has, in the past, expressly established the right to regulate private businesses (for example, enforcing civil rights laws on private individuals who discriminate in certain business transactions, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which made it illegal to refuse to sell or rent a home to someone because of their race, nationality, etc. Which is not to say that Sterling's case does or does not have merit. I'm no legal expert; however it isn't plain that it wouldn't have merit; there could be any number of reasons why Sterling could have a case against the NBA and "not being a government agency" is not necessarily relevant in deciding whether he does, or does not, have a case. --Jayron32 04:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The US government (federal) can – indeed, often does – regulate private businesses. But that is through federal statute; it has nothing to do with the US Constitution. If Sterling contends that the NBA is violating its own bylaws, that would be some type of contract claim. Perhaps the contract has a provision for "due process". (That would be some contractual obligation to provide due process; it would not be the "due process" guaranteed in the US Constitution.) I still don't see how the US Constitution could possibly be involved here. Anyone? I am not saying that Sterling's lawsuit does or does not have merit. It is the constitutional claim that I am questioning. I can't imagine any circumstance where the US Constitution is invoked here such that the NBA is violating Sterling's constitutional rights. Other rights? Possibly? But constitutional rights? Impossible. No? There can't be any claim that the NBA is operating as an arm of the federal government. What am I missing here? Perhaps sloppy journalism? Even that would be hard to screw up, though, from a reporter's stance. The NBA "not being a government agency" is not a defense to the entire lawsuit; but it is a defense to the constitutional claim in the lawsuit. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The latest story is that he has dropped the suit, so it could all have been a bluff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bluff or no bluff, the lawyers would still have needed to present some viable claim in the suit. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Nominally, a suit must reference applicable statutes, but in some cases, the argument for the suit may be highly flawed and may have been drafted with the clear understanding that it the suit would never reach a favourable conclusion for the filing party. Parties can and do regularly file suits that haven't a snowballs chance in hell of success, for strategic reasons, for purely vindictive ones, or just out of pure obstinacy or obliviousness. And you might be surprised at how high profile some of these cases can be. Certainly there are rules of conduct meant to curb frivolous litigation, but they leave a lot leeway for legal posturing and generally where law concerning contracts of massive financial weight, the type of robust firms that handle these cases have a lot of tools at their disposal for serving the will of their client, even if they do doubt the ultimate legal merit of the core argument and know the situation to be one of posturing.

All of that said, I am inclined to agree with you that the argument that this private recording represents some form of breach of constitutional protections does not seem to hold much water and seems more than a little bit of a non-sequitur. However, from what little I've seen, the threatened suit did not rely exclusively upon constitutional privacy arguments, though a crux of the claims was that the recording was "illicit" and that private statements are inappropriate cause for the fines and penalties the NBA instituted against Sterling. That argument was never likely to win the day for Sterling, but it did have more than enough traction for him to tie the matter up in courts for some time, had he chose to pursue it. This article, though it dates to before the most recent threat of a suit and may not reflect the arguments made therein, does a decent job in briefly describing the relevance and legal weight of the recording. Snow talk 23:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any lawsuit by Sterling against the NBA would be similar to Tarkanian v. NCAA, in which Jerry Tarkanian claimed that his suspension violated due process. The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts would not consider whether the NCAA's bylaws violated substantive due process, but only whether the NCAA was complying with its own rules. However, it now appears that Sterling has backed off. Maybe his lawyers explained the Tarkanian case to him. (The subsequent history of conflict between Tarkanian and the NCAA does not change the fact that the Supreme Court decision is still law.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The first part of your answer agrees with what I opined: the Supreme Court would not consider a constitutional claim against the NCAA, although they would allow the contract claim to stand. The second part of your answer does not make sense to me (where you state: "Maybe his lawyers explained the Tarkanian case to him."). His lawyers would have been the ones who drafted and filed the lawsuit (alleging the constitutional violation) in the first place. His lawyers would be aware of the Tarkanian case. His lawyers would be aware that the NBA is not a government arm subject to the US Constitution. It's not as if Sterling (himself, as an individual) drafted and filed the lawsuit ... and then, later on, his lawyers pointed out his goof. That makes no sense. Right? Or am I misunderstanding that second part of your answer? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is as Baseball Bugs explains. Sterling threatened to file a lawsuit. He didn't actually file a lawsuit. He may have gone to his lawyers after making the threat, and asked them to file the lawsuit, and they declined, because they knew that the constitutional claim was baseless, and because it appeared to them that the contract claim wouldn't survive, because that would involve showing that the NBA didn't follow its own rules (and it did follow its own rules). (In Tarkanian, the NCAA did follow its own rules, although its own rules were unfair, in that they didn't give Tark a reasonable chance to defend himself.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overlooking a very simple possibility, which is just that the newsies got the story wrong. Happens all the time. Journalists are rarely experts in the subjects they cover, and while they are trained in fact-checking, they also have to meet a deadline. (This is part of the reason that news articles should be considered low-quality sources for WP purposes.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, that was one of the possibilities I raised in my original post. (I said: "Perhaps sloppy journalism? Even that would be hard to screw up, though, from a reporter's stance.") Even if a reporter is not well-versed in the law, it would seem odd that he'd "concoct" a baseless legal accusation such as a constitutional violation. He'd probably stick with a more generic "Sterling filed a lawsuit" type of claim. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it that hard to believe. Sterling's claim might very well be similar to one you would make in a constitutional suit against a government entity, for example that he was being punished for his opinions. A reporter might very well have conflated that with a constitutional claim. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. I guess a reporter uneducated in the law might mistake all of these facts for a freedom of speech / First Amendment type of case (which would indeed be a constitutional claim). According to that (incorrect) theory, Sterling's claim would be "the NBA can't punish me for exercising my First Amendment right to free speech". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to consider is that threatening to file suit is not the same thing as actually filing suit. If he actually did file suit, presumably there would be a legal document that would describe the particulars. If he merely threatened to file suit, the best you're likely to get is a press release. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is, the newsies got the story wrong in confusing threatening to sue with actually filing a lawsuit. Anyone can threaten to sue. Only lawyers can actually file the suit, and they will consider whether the case has merit. In this case, the constitutional claim is void, and the contract claim is questionable, because that would require showing that the NBA didn't follow its own rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the difference between a threat to sue and an actual suit. I'd have to go back and read all the particulars. I thought he did file a suit and later dropped it. (I could be wrong on that.) Even if this was merely a "threat", I would assume that the language, words, press release, etc., would still have come from the lawyer (not from Sterling himself). And if it did come from Sterling himself (likely against his lawyer's advice), it would seem odd that he'd try to expound some legal theories not knowing anything about their validity or lack thereof. The whole thing is strange. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note by the way that Sterling is a lawyer (to be precise, our article describes him as a "former attorney", but does not say he was ever disbarred or lost his license, so presumably the "former" just means that he is not currently actively practicing). Also, I don't believe it's true that you have to be an attorney to file suit. --Trovatore (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did not know that he was a lawyer. And, no, you do not need to be a lawyer to file a suit. Prison inmates (non-lawyers) are forever filing suits by themselves, without a lawyer (pro se); these often makes the news. Two points I'd make. One: If Sterling is a lawyer, all the more reason he'd know not to make a constitutional claim. Two: I would assume that a man of his wealth does not do this work on his own and delegates it to his lawyers to handle. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, to me, the simplest explanation is just that the journalists got it wrong. His claim probably hit many of the same notes as a First Amendment lawsuit, and so they reported it as though that's what it was. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd tend to agree. Ignoring the fact that the NBA is not a governmental agency, the issues do sound somewhat like a First Amendment / free speech case. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hate speech is not necessarily protected by the first amendment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, it pretty much is. Exceptions would include immediate incitement to violence, or "fighting words" likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace. Neither of those apply in the private phone conversation under discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so he may have a constitutional right to state racist views, but the NBA, as a private organization, is not required to put up with it. It's not that much different from working in a company with a policy expressly prohibiting hate behavior and hate speech. If someone refers to their colleagues in a hateful way, they can be canned for it. There is no constitutional right to hold a particular job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point. It kinda/sorta sounds like a First Amendment / free speech case, with all the nuances and arguments pertinent to such (save for the fact that the NBA is not the government). And, a bit off topic here, but some employees do in fact have a constitutional right to hold their particular jobs. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They do, eh? Name a few. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some employees do, absolutely. A government employee with a "property interest" in his job. For example, every tenured professor employed by the state at a public university. Every tenured school teacher employed by the municipality at a public high school. Some jobs are considered the "property" of the employee (or, at least, the employee has a "property interest" in that job). Because some jobs are considered "property", the government (that is, the employer: the federal, state, or municipal government) cannot deprive the person of that property (i.e., cannot fire them), unless the government (employer) abides by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. These state, in paraphrase, "the government cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". So, indeed, some employees – very many, in fact – do in fact have a constitutional right to hold their particular jobs. Basically, every public school teacher in the USA; every college professor in the USA. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those examples represent an absolute right to retain a given job. It is always conditional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about an "absolute" right? What I had said above was: "some employees do in fact have a constitutional right to hold their particular jobs". They have a "constitutional" right, not an "absolute" right. That is, those rights (whatever they may be) flow from – and are protected by – the US Constitution. So, indeed, some employees – very many, in fact – do in fact have a constitutional right to hold their particular jobs. If you want to parse it more precisely, we'd say: some employees – very many, in fact – do in fact have a constitutional right to continuing employment in their particular jobs. In my post above, I said some employees have a constitutional right; you asked me to name a few; I named a few. Why are you mentioning "absolute" right in response to my posts above? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking in 1918

"When the queen was eighty- years-old [sic], she was advised to smoke one cigar a day, however, she didn’t. Only smoked a small part of it. She was told to take a little wine, or to smoke, but she preferred a small cigar. She would smoke a small part of it and then put it out and the next day start on a new one." - This was from an interview of Lydia Aholo, the adoptive daughter of Queen Liliuokalani at the end of her life. Did doctors in 1918 seriously prescribe smoking as a health benefit? I thought it was only a social excuse to smoke not that doctors believed it was beneficial for a person's health, especially an elderly person. Was smoking a recommended thing for doctors to prescribe and what kind of illness was it usually prescribed for?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have an article on health benefits of smoking, if it's any help. --NellieBly (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OR, but my mother told me that her father, who was a GP, suggested (but not as her doctor, of course) that she take up smoking because he found it calming and thought it would help her. This would have been in the 40's I think. --ColinFine (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Equally OR - an older Scout Leader once told me that he went to camp with a teenaged boy who had been prescribed two cigarettes a day by his family doctor "to help his nerves". This would have been in the 1950s. Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 1918 date would have been before the tobacco companies bred hyper-addictive super tobaccos that they would cut with all kinds of garbage (Y1 (tobacco) being the first example I ran across, but I'm under the impression that pretty much every company started doing so as far back as the '50s). It was introduced to Europe as medicine, since that's how a number of Native American tribes used it (in addition to an entheogen). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More from the internet: "20,679 physicians say Luckies are less irritating" (1920s advert for cigarettes) and Elliot's Asthma Cigarettes. Alansplodge (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

千家诗

Does 千家诗 have an official English translation? Like how 三字经 is known as Three Character Classic? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, it was first translated into English by Tsai Tingkan in 1932, and there have been six other English translations since then. --Canley (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bonkers meant the title, not the whole text. But should this be on the language desk? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is somewhat under literature... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well just the title is usually referred to as "Poems of a Thousand Authors" I think. --Canley (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what's meant by "official". Is there an Office somewhere that determines how to translate such things? Or do the senses of "official" now include "conventional"? —Tamfang (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi rape of Jewish women

I've read different accounts of the Nazis' willingness or unwillingness to rape Jewish women in the concentration camps and ghettos. On the one hand, there are accounts of Jewish women being forced to serve as prostitutes for the German military. On the other hand, some Nazis are recorded as seeing such actions as absolute taboo - not because they necessarily had the slightest compassion towards Jews, but, on the contrary, considered that the Nuremberg Laws (and Nazi racial theory more broadly) strictly prohibited sexual contact between an "Aryan" and an "Untermensch" ("sub human") under the law prohibiting Rassenschande. I presume these same Nazis would not necessarily hesitate to freely murder Jews, or rape a Russian, French, or Norwegian victim, for example.

My question is, did the Nazis have any consensus on the acceptability of raping women of "sub human" races (Jews, Gypsies, etc)? Or were there widely divergent views on the issue? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a serious question, or yet another dumb trolling exercise? Just read the articles you already linked to and War_rape#Europe. Paul B (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul - this question doesn't look like trolling to me. Would you awfully mind assuming good faith and not casting aspersions?--Genandrar (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

self-censored because f... it. sorry to the OP and anyone who read this. I'm still right, though Asmrulz (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question; I wish it had been pursued more vigorously. It's the old question of immoral versus amoral. The Germans had, after all, not grown up as Nazis, not been trained from birth to Really Believe this ideology. When you take basic laws like those against murder and wipe them out, say that people can take what they want from any neighbor, who is to say that corruption is wrong? Really, how could you tell them that anything was wrong, when if they slashed their neighbors' throats in their sleep, that was something they ought to get a medal for; if they burned down any building in their town, that's one less the Allies would need to get to? And it seems to me that if there's something more fundamental to fascist regimes than hatred, it has to be that their officials are as crooked as the day is long. So I mean, if someone has accepted the task of killing a Jewish woman in a gas chamber, who can possibly convince him that it's "wrong" to rape her first? And yet... we still think of the Nazi Germans as dutifully following orders, which seems all out of keeping with the bloody personal vendettas and caches of looted goods going back and forth in the background. Was it habit rather than ethics, or a difference between the lower class and the upper? I remain mystified. Wnt (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was Holden in the The Catcher in the Rye in a mental hospital?

I read some analysis that claim that Holden was in a mental hospital (although not explicitly told by the narrator). Which passage, if any at all, hints about this? OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a line about "that madman stuff", don't know if that helps you any. It was kind of early, I think, when he was preparing to tell the story. IBE (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first paragraph includes the line "I'll just tell you about this madman stuff that happened to me around last Christmas just before I got pretty run-down and had to come out here and take it easy." I suppose you could interpret the "come out here and take it easy" part as hinting that Holden is now in a mental hospital. --Viennese Waltz 09:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Detroit went down, when other American cities thrived?

Why? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who says they did? And read about East Saint Louis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is that different from Detroit? 1950 population 1,849,568, 2010 713,777? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Why did Detroit went down, when other American cities thrived?" East St. Louis did not thrive. Other cities did not thrive. The reasons cities succeed or fail are dependent on many factors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, others, although not all, American cities thrived. The point here is that it doesn't mirror economical growth. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The very, very short explanation is that the aftermath of the Detroit Riots of 1967 coincided with the nadir of the U.S. auto industry in the 1970s, leading most people who could afford to move out of the city into the suburbs to do so, which meant that the city was caught in a downward spiral of decreasing population and an increasing concentration of poor people... AnonMoos (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further on from that, any area that has a large work force in one industry, that subsequently has that industry go away, is far more likely to suffer severe economic and social consequences. That happened in Detroit: the automobile industry was a vast employer and when they shut down plant after plant that caused an economic vacuum in the area that spiraled. That is of course only one aspect of a messy puzzle but a significant one. By the way, a fascinating movie somewhat related to your post: Roger and Me, about the terrible decline of Flint, Michigan; sort of Detroit's downfall in micro--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several other U.S. cities have suffered a similar decline to Detroit, such as Camden, New Jersey and the aforementioned East St. Louis. Detroit is prominent among them for being largest in population and area, and being the center of its metro area... AnonMoos (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Detroiter here. My analysis:

1) Early 1900's: Growing dependence on the automotive industry, which would eventually cause a severe shock when it declined. Many poor blacks flock to Detroit to work in the industry.

2) 1930's: Unionization leads to higher wages in US auto industry than in other nations with which the US must eventually compete. Generous pensions also require a large work force to support the retirees.

3) Post WW-2: The GI Bill encouraged whites to move out of cities and blacks to stay put. Aside from being racist, this also denies cities of the majority of their tax base.

4) 1967 Detroit riot: Causes further white flight.

5) 1970's - present: Corruption and incompetent political leaders aggravate the problems. The auto industry declines in the face of free trade with nations with lower wages, and no longer has the workforce needed to support it's large retiree base. Similarly, the city no longer has the population and tax base to support it's large retiree base, as well as provide basic services.

As far as the population decline goes, note that most of that population didn't leave Michigan, they just shifted from Detroit proper to the Detroit suburbs. However, the way property taxes are collected in the US means that Detroit gets no taxes from those suburbanites, although they did pass a "taxation without representation" tax on anyone who works in Detroit, whether or not they live there. This was probably counter-productive, in making people not want to work in Detroit and companies not want to locate there. A broader suburban property tax sharing scheme might work better. StuRat (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how "The GI Bill encouraged whites to move out of cities and blacks to stay put. " How did the GI Bill did that? OsmanRF34 (talk)

See Housing_Segregation#The_GI_Bill. Another factor not mentioned there is that blacks didn't have as much money as whites then (due to education and employment discrimination), so were less able to afford to take advantage of the GI Bill to move to the suburbs. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat -- I found it quite bizarre that a newspaper article titled "Six Crazy Ideas for Saving Detroit" included no mention whatsoever of urban-suburban burden sharing. Apparently some degree of shared government functionality across a whole metropolitan area goes beyond the merely "crazy" into the stark raving psychotic.

A rigid urban-suburban partition also had a lot to do with bogging down and bringing to an end 1960s-style school integration efforts, as it eventually became counterproductive to try to move around the ever-shrinking proportion of white students in urban school systems. Part of the famous resistance to school busing in Boston was motivated by the resentment of working-class whites living within the Boston city limits that their children would be subjected to social experiments, while the children of middle class people living in the suburbs (including many of the advocates of integration) would be exempt... AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those ideas are crazy, but others make some sense. I like the "Detroit visa" idea, that would allow in more immigrants, on the condition that they live in Detroit. They could also allow in refugees, and utilize Federal funding for refugees to fix up abandoned homes they could use. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newark, New Jersey is another city that has suffered dramatic decline. Philip Roth's American Pastoral goes on at length about this. There are many more examples of declining cities in the rust belt. --Xuxl (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Air conditioning. No, seriously. Read this article. One of the key factors in the population shift from the American north to the American south (not the only one, but certainly one of them) was air conditioning; air conditioning made the south more livable, so contributed to the migration away from the Rust Belt. From that article "Many of the central changes in our society since World War II would not have been possible were air conditioning not keeping our homes and workplaces cool. Florida, Southern California, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, and New Mexico all experienced above-average growth during the latter half of the 20th century -- hard to imagine without air conditioning. In fact, the Sunbelt's share of the nation's populations exploded from 28 percent in 1950 to 40 percent in 2000. " People have to come from somewhere, and many of them came from places like Detroit. Largest cities in the United States by population by decade will let you track changes. Most Northern cities on those lists have remained relatively stagnant, either plateauing or declining during the last 50-60 years. Southern cities have seen explosive growth. Look at the 1950 census. Except NYC, every other northern city had their historic population peak in 1950. As those dropped off the list in the next several decades, they were replaced entirely by southern cities like LA, Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, Dallas, San Antonio, etc. Houston is an unlivable climate without AC. Now, it would be folly to consider that Air Conditioning was the only factor, but its effect on the livability of a city cannot be ignored. --Jayron32 13:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sad, really. I mean, electricity was also super cheap when the trend started. I wonder if climate change and higher electric bills might be starting to motivate people to move back north... SemanticMantis (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also some desert areas that pump water from underground may soon run dry. They can bring water in on trucks, but that's mighty expensive. So then, they either need to build massive pipelines from wherever there is water, or leave town. See Salton Sea for an example of what can happen when the water starts to dry up (in this case, in a lake). StuRat (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highest per-capita social spending in the free world since late-imperial-Rome. μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that ? I'd expect much higher per-capita social spending in the Nordic nations. StuRat (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]