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

September 11

Name of dictator?

Does anyone know the name of the dictator who one day decreed that there were now eight days in the week - and named the extra day after himself? Or maybe it was that there were 13 months in the year, with the new month named after himself. It was something along those lines, anyway - pretty much King Canute levels of hubris. It was within the last 25 years too, I believe. But that's all I can recall now. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he actually added any days or months, but Saparmurat Niyazov, self-called Turkmenbashi, did rename the days and months in Turkmenistan, naming one month after himself, another after his book, and one after his mum. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the guy - thanks very much. Is this also the same fellow who made it illegal for anyone to speak of his toupee? There's no mention of it in his article, so maybe that was someone else. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Schroeder is famously touchy about his hair (which is, of course, entirely natural and without any artificial enhancements whatsoever), and has used the courts to enforce this undeniable fact, but I don't think he actually passed a law against mentioning it. Tevildo (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for King Canute (or Cnut the Great if you're brave), he has acquired an undeservedly bad reputation. He put his throne by the seaside and commanded the waves to recede, specifically to prove that he DID NOT have the magical or divine powers attributed to him and that he was a mere mortal like everyone else. He's the patron saint of anti-hubris, if anything. See King Canute and the waves. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. I'd always thought that it was the (maybe fictional) story of the king who ended up on the beach with wet feet, looking foolish in front of his people after arrogantly proclaiming that even the waves would obey the divine power of the king. I also thought myself superior to those who get it the wrong way around and appear to think that it was the story of the king who actually *held back* the waves (fairly common in sports metaphors)... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July and August were named after Julius Cesar and Augustus. StuRat (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In I, Claudius, one of Caligula's first acts as emperor is to continue the pattern by renaming September for Tiberius, but if that really happened it obviously didn't stick. —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Mapping Time by E.G. Richards (ISBN 0-19-286205-7) there were lots of temporary renamings of Roman months, and under the infamous Commodus, all 12 months were renamed to Amazonius, Invictus, Felix, Pius, Lucius, Aelius, Aurelius, Commodus, Augustus, Herculeus, Romanus, and Exsuperatorius... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the French Revolutionary Calendar, which while not being the answer to the question, is interesting of itself in this context. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the British side of the American Revolutionary War?

What is the British side of the story? Do they really consider themselves losers? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They thought the colonies should pay higher taxes to pay for the costs of the French and Indian War, which, after all, removed the French as a threat from North America. And they didn't think the colonists would be able to govern themselves. Put those together, and they wanted to continue to impose taxation without representation on the colonies. StuRat (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question seems to be asking what Brits think of the war now, rather than what they thought at the time. I suspect that the truth is that we rarely think about it at all - not considering it a particularly significant event in British history. The Britain (or rather the British political/military establishment) lost the war is indisputable. How much difference it made in the long term is of course open to question - and a matter of conjecture for 'alternate history' forums rather than this reference desk. I think it is safe to say however that it is readily apparent that the pre-war status quo was untenable in the long term, and accordingly that there is little sense of 'loss'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, the war was really unpopular in Britain, and many of the British commanders sympathised with their opposite numbers who had so recently fought with them against the French. In short, the military dragged its feet and failed to follow up advantages, while the British public often supported the colonists. George III and parts of his Government might have been incandescent, but Britain as a whole was more glad it was over that sorrowful in defeat.

Challenged to put a label on it, I suppose most contemporary Brits would see the whole debacle as a colossal mistake. We Celts, the Scots and the Irish, are stil waving our little Stars and Stripes. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celts waving the Stars and Stripes? What world are you living in? The majority of 'Celts' share the very sensible antipathy towards Yankiestan as the rest of the UK. 131.251.254.110 (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talking exclusively about the American Revolutionary war, which was a good result. Attitude to contemporary Americans might soften if they were much quieter and didn't stride round the Scottish capital wearing a selection of clashing tartans. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My partner and I, both Americans, are a very quiet couple. Neither of us wore any kind of tartan when we visited Edinburgh. But then, nobody noticed us except on the rare occasions when one of us opened his mouth. Since we did not fit the stereotype, maybe they took us for Canadians. Too bad that some people base stereotypes on the actions of a conspicuous few. Marco polo (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks to modern technology, the world has moved on from stereotypes, to quadrophonotypes. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The Americans objected to paying for their own defence, didn't want to honour the treaties with the Native Americans, and American smugglers objected to tea taxes being lower in America than in Britain. Looking at how America has turned out, it seems we were lucky to be rid of them. Not so lucky for the Native Americans though. Oh, and it was a War of Independence, not a revolution. DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google failed to find any references to give you, but I can provide a personal opinion as several other editors have done. Militarily, the War of Independence (it's never described as a "Revolution" in the UK) was analogous to the Vietnam War for us - a professional army trained for conventional warfare, beaten by guerilla tactics of an opponent backed by a rival superpower (France). Politically, it still seems that the grievances of the Colonists were rather minor and that war could have been avoided with a bit of compromise and common sense. The lessons learned were subsequently employed in the creation of the British Dominions and eventually the Commonwealth of Nations, which seems to me to have been a rather good thing. Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so interesting point about "revolution" versus "war of independence". We sometimes call it a "war of independence" as well. I don't think Americans really make a political distinction between the two descriptions; we just use whichever one comes to mind or seems to sound better at the moment.

Do you think the British have a political meaning for choosing one term over the other?

The reason that it's interesting is that it's hard to think of another "good" revolution. The French Revolution certainly overthrew a regime that needed overthrowing, and would have been "good" if it had stayed in the hands of the liberals instead of being taken over by a gang of vicious criminals. The Russian one, very very similar situation (though in the broadest of strokes I suppose I'd describe the February Revolution as "good" and the October Revolution as "bad"). You finally get to some "good" revolutions in the late 20th — early 21st centuries (the People Power Revolution in the Philippines, the various "colored revolutions" in Eastern Europe), but these were, for the most part, not even wars, so the term "revolution" seems in some sense a little strong. --Trovatore (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marxists define "revolution" in their progressive model of history as a move from one class-power to another, and I think there's poplar notion that a "real" revolution has to be some Les Miserables-like event built on the idea of overthrowing a supposedly corrupt or unjust social structure. But the term originally meant simply "turnabout". The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was essentially a coup, and that's all the term meant - but it acquired the connotation of progressive change because of the legislation that came after it. The American Revolution was a turnabout in government - hence 'revolution' - that came to be associated with the same idea of progressive social evolution. I think it contributed to the way we use the term "revolution", but to such an extent that the events themselves no longer quite fit the way the word is used. There's also the concept of counter-revolution, which is also still influenced by the Marxist model, so that the overthrow of the Eastern block regimes in 1989 such as the Romanian Revolution can also be called the Romanian counter-revolution! Paul B (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, let's quit letting the bloody Marxists influence our speech so much. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is penis envy a Marxist term? This is silly, very few Americans realize King George once ruled a small strip of our continent, and we Americans all think scouse and cockney are oh, so posh. As for the Nazis and the Huns, well, all in a day's work. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, just once in a while, I have trouble working out exactly what it is you're getting at. --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a poem by Tristan Tzara? Paul B (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, Trovatore, my comment wouldn't have made sense if you thought it was only a direct answer to you. My point was the Marxists above you seem quite jealous of us, while we don't notice they exist. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It still makes not sense whatever. There are no Marxists above him. And America certainly notices them when they are there. Paul B (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a lot of opinion and not much in the way of references. Hack (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How shocking! That's never happened here before. What could possi-bly have gone wrong? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

<cough>. <sniff>. <Hmmm...>. --Jayron32 00:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion of this in Boswell's Life of Johnson. One issue was that British traders and merchants were paying far, far more in taxes specifically to fund the French and Indian Wars than the Americans ever did - and without any real representation, either. That class of Briton saw the Americans and their "no taxation without representation" mantra basically as thieving scamming con artist liars. Their rage at what they saw as being taken advantage of by the colonies led them to support the King and Prime Minister - at least until it became clear that the uprising wasn't going to be put down quickly or cheaply. Their entire interest was in their pocketbooks: little else mattered to them.

Another group that had an interesting view on the war was the intelligentsia, who were more likely to be in favour of American independence than against it. Boswell himself, a Conservative, was on the side of the colonists, as was the radical Wilkes. Samuel Johnson was very, very anti-independence not just because of his Tory love of monarchy and his view of the revolutionaries as traitors but also because of his extreme hatred of slavery. (He's the one who, when asked to make a toast at a formal society dinner, replied with "Here's to the next insurrection of the Negroes in the West Indies!") In fact, many of those most adamantly against American independence were abolitionists.

The vast majority of English, though, even at that time, were illiterate agricultural labourers who probably didn't have any way to know what was going on, and anyway had more pressing concerns than an overseas war that didn't much affect them. --NellieBly (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NellieBly -- Great Britain actually had a fairly high rate of literacy compared to most other countries in the 1770s and 1780s. Basic literacy was reasonably widespread among some segments of the working classes -- not agricultural laborers, but those a few steps above them on the social ladder (such as "nonconformist" urban or small-town craftsmen who took Bible-reading seriously). Many lower-class supporters of John Wilkes etc. were very aware of events.

From most points of view the inhabitants of the 13 colonies were not terribly oppressed according to the prevailing practices of 1776, but they were tired of being yanked around by the vagaries of British politics while having no meaningful say in such politics, and their basic political demands were that they be allowed to have representatives in the British parliament and/or that they be given certain constitutionally-entrenched rights which couldn't be taken away by a simple majority vote following the next British parliamentary overturn. The fact that no high-ranking or influential British politician ever seems to have even seriously considered these demands shows a certain lack of imagination and complacency in the workings of the British political system at that point... AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge cultures

(Apologies if this seems vague.) In the fields of history or anthropology, is there any concept of a "bridge culture" that (within a short span) takes on aspects of another culture and then transmits them to a third? I'm thinking of things like the Normans carrying French culture to England, or the Turks/Mughals carrying Persian culture to India. Has anything been written on this topic? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Kudos for a fascinating question, Lazar Taxon! I await answers with interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural diffusion often occurs from one culture to another by way of one or more intermediary cultures. For example, the idea of gunpowder reached Europeans from Arabs, was learned by the Arabs from the Mongols, and was in turn learned by the Mongols from the Chinese. This would be an example of indirect diffusion, as discussed in our article. Marco polo (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there Muslims that proselytize in Asian countries?

By "Asian", I mean India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Taiwan, China, Japan, etc. Are there Muslim groups that send missionaries to Asian countries and proselytize the people to Islam? 140.254.227.101 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh and Pakistan are already Muslim majority countries and India has a large Muslim minority so none of those countries would have to rely on outside sources for missionaries. As for the rest of Asia, there are groups that work to gain converts but a lot of this tends not to be nearly as organizational about it as Christians. Whereas christians might start a big missionary organization to supply and support missionaries in other countries, most Muslim groups tend to be somewhat smaller local groups already in the place where they are looking for converts and many already have a main purpose besides getting converts so seeking converts is one concern among many. Bakmoon (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a practical purpose to gaining converts? Or is sending missionaries purely for spiritual reasons? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does any religion seek converts? The faithful might say they are trying to save souls. The cynical might say they are tying to gain increased monetary donations to the the church. A realist might say that churches are the strongest memes ever encountered by humans. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your realist might say that churches aren't as strong as other religious groups, but that's a matter of degree. See Meme#Religion; if this is your own idea, you've independently come up with a significant chunk of the original idea of what a meme is. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If by "etc." you include Indonesia, well, that country has the largest Muslim population in the world. There are more Muslims in South and South-East Asia than the rest of the world combined (including the birthplace of Islam, the Middle East.) Check out islam by country for such demographics. Mingmingla (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that Australia and Africa offered land for Israel after WW2?

^Topic ScienceApe (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian option was certainly discussed. I've read of it, but not sure where. Not aware that an actual offer was made. The African idea is somewhat different. Australia is a single country. Africa is made up of dozens of countries. Who would/could have made an offer? HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) : Not "offered". It was "suggested" by others that these, and many other places over the years, all covered at Proposals for a Jewish state, would be suitable locations. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Africa, see the Uganda Scheme, which was proposed in 1903. Nyttend (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the suggestion of a Brazilian homeland but cannot remember the source. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]