Humanities desk
< April 23	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 25 >

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.

April 24

Radical flank effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_flank_effect

I asked about this before, but I think this article is just about exactly what I was looking for. And I was told such studies didn't exist!

Anyway, any more sources would be appreciated, particularly relating to recent events. Benjamin (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article has 24 sources! Could you perhaps be more specific about what more you need - what gaps are you seeking to fill? Re sources referring to recent events, you can narrow google results to recent scholarly papers or news articles using the Tools tab. For instance, here are the results for the term on news sites in the last year, while here are the results for academic publications in 2017 so far. It seems people are discussing the term related to the Arab Spring, the 2017 Women's March, etc. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering about it in relation to recent antifa / BLM / neo nazi actions. Benjamin (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If my memory of the Benjamin's original query is at all accurate, he may find Overton Window (in the above article's 'See also' list), of relevance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem of a trade surplus like the German or Chinese one?

When a country has a trade surplus like Germany or China, how can that be blamed on these countries? Isn't it just the case that they are competitive and selling what others are willing to buy in a functional free market? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpierrepit (talk • contribs) 07:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. If the trade surplus is due to unilateral barriers, or dumping, or deliberately keeping the currency cheap, or some other trade practice that is not regarded as fair, then other countries have a legitimate issue with it. For example, in the 18th century, China's massive trade surplus against Britain was largely attributable to Chinese trade barriers that restricted British imports. When the Chinese government refused to budge on trade barriers, Britain started selling / smuggling opium into China to try to address the balance. When China clamped down on opium, that led to the Opium War. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...the main trade barrier being that China prohibited the import of opium. No particular trade barriers in general required - Europe had little that China wanted to buy, while Europe liked tea and porcelain and silk. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "no demand" line was used by the Chinese government but the lack of demand was a result of the trade barriers. You may have missed the main trade barrier because it is so glaring that it would be unthinkable today: no foreign trader was permitted to enter China except a limited number of companies who were allowed to be in Canton and whose movements even there were restricted. It's not easy to flog English furniture to the Chinese if you can't even leave your office - a situation which changed very quickly once China was opened up by force, all of a sudden British goods of all kinds were suddenly in demand in China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since Germany are in the Euro-zone this has a knock-on effect by keeping the value of the Euro comparatively high. This makes it harder for all Eurozone countries to export. Obviously Germany can manage this, or they wouldn't have a surplus, but it makes it harder for the weaker economies (Spain, Greece, Italy, etc.) to recover. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PalaceGuard008 hit the main points, and Q Chris did as well. Germany’s trade surplus means that, as a group, it’s trading partners run a deficit with Germany. Given the weak state of the EU economy, this is a serious problem: exporting one’s way out of economic trouble is a key recipe for recovery, and Germany is hindering that option among the country’s trading partners. ADD: It is also working through the European Central Bank ot keep the euro stronger than it should be (on weak economic fundamentals), which is as big an issue. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of China there are additional issues, like whether it is really a good idea to enrich them via trade to the point where they become the dominate superpower. They seem to become more militant the richer they get, such as building bases on man-made islands they've constructed to seize contested waters. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China doesn't amass that much wealth as a result of their trade surplus - a large proportion of that money actually flows out as investment, particularly FDI, which is why Chinese companies are often involved in overseas infrastructure projects (particularly in Africa, but also in developed countries a la Hinkley Point) and company acquisitions. Indeed in theory the balance of payments, not to be confused with the balance of trade (net exports), is supposed to balance out to zero through money flowing out of a country with a trade surplus as investment. And the link between wealth and aggressiveness is extremely tenuous, with many other factors to be considered. Alcherin (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany's case, the rest of the European Union can not compete with them in the exports department. Use for example List of countries by exports:

The entire exports of the European Union in 2016 were $2,659,000,000,000. The German exports were $1,283,000,000,000. Most of the rest of the European Union have much smaller export profits:
- France. $505,400,000,000
- Netherlands. $460,100,000,000
- Italy. $436,300,000,000
- United Kingdom. $412,100,000,000
- Spain. $266,300,000,000
- Belgium. $250,800,000,000
- Poland. $188,300,000,000
- Sweden. $151,100,000,000
- Austria. $142,900,000,000
- Czech Republic. $131,000,000,000
- Republic of Ireland. $125,500,000,000
- Denmark. $95,970,000,000
- Hungary. $89,440,000,000
- Slovakia. $73,120,000,000
- Finland. $61,290,000,000
- Romania. $58,421,000,000
- Portugal. $54,330,000,000
- Greece. $27,500,000,000
- Slovenia. $26,670,000,000
- Bulgaria. $24,620,000,000
- Lithuania. $24,810,000,000
- Luxembourg. $20,900,000,000
- Estonia. $13,440,000,000
- Latvia. $13,330,000,000
- Croatia. $12,230,000,000
- Malta. $3,896,000,000
- Cyprus. $2,420,000,000

The only countries on the planet who currently earn more from exports than Germany are China (the world leader in exports) and the United States. Dimadick (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must only be looking at gross exports, not net exports (exports minus imports). There the US is substantially negative. StuRat (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

off topic political debate

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You mean as opposed to sending humans waves over the Korean peninsula or (re-)occupying Tibet? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or invading Grenada, or deposing the democratically elected president of Chile, or trying to assassinate Castro, or bombing Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iraq etc Widneymanor (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I'm not saying China has been particularly aggressive in the past, but rather the perception of increasing militancy by the PRC may not be based in a historical perspective, but in current news pushed by not entirely disinterested parties. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been particularly militarily aggressive because they lacked the ability, other than with neighbors. In particular, the lack of a large navy made it impossible for them to invade nations that weren't on their border. But, they are using all the money we are sending them to build up a strong navy right now. StuRat (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I haven't become a ballet dancer because I couldn't find a pair of slippers...both possible claims, but neither particularly well supported... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2017 (

tfw a massively-militaristic global superpower with troops deployed in 150 countries complains about the world's most populous country putting up a man-made island a few hundred miles off its own coast. I mean, we have an entire carrier strike group home-ported next door to China in a country that, within living memory, attempted to conquer China in a most brutal and depraved fashion. I'll be worried about China when they base a naval fleet in Havana. Let me know when that happens. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will be way too late when that happens, as they will already be the only superpower left. As for the US, at least since the cold war ended, the US has mostly tried to work for the good of the democratic world. (Back during the cold war there were many "deals with the devil" made to hold back communism.) It's true that the removal of Saddam Hussein hasn't worked out well, but keep in mind that he was an evil bastard who used poison gas on his own people, too. Compare that to what we should expect from China if it becomes the only superpower. We've seen no willingness for them to take on one issue they could solve now, North Korea. All they would have to do is cut off oil and other trade until NK gives up the nukes. But they don't. Instead they undermine the rest of the world's efforts by continuing to trade with them.

As for a new superpower to replace the US, I'd like to see the EU take on this role, or better yet a coalition of all democratic nations, including the EU and US.

As for Japan, they are constitutional prohibited from having a strong military, as a result of WW2, so need serious protection from the threats in the region, like NK. StuRat (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We could significantly cut off funding for radical Islamic terrorism if we stopped trading with Saudi Arabia and cut off their oil revenue until their monarchy resigns. But we don't. Instead we undermine the rest of the world's efforts by propping up totalitarian regressive Islamic dictatorships — indeed, selling them modern weapons and fighter jets. Please don't act like China is the only country that makes deals with the devil. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that everyone else in the world has a boycott on trade with Saudi Arabia ? That's news to me. If they did, and the US joined in, then the price of oil would skyrocket, giving Putin more money to use to build up his military to invade the rest of Eastern Europe. And if the Saudi government collapsed, I have no confidence that a free democratic government would replace it. More likely we would get ISIS or something like it. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is aout trade surplusses, not who's more evil. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continents and Landmasses drifting apart. How fast ?

How fast or slow does continents and landmasses drift apart ?

There is no straightforward answer, I know. It depends on many factors, no doubt, some of them possibly unseen and impossible to account for.

But roughly, how long would it take for, say, the British Isles to drift apart from Mainland Europe to its current position ? It is still relatively close, of course, but are we talking about 3000 years, or 5000 years, 10000 years ...? What about Europe and America, now separated by the Atlantic? How long would that take?

Are there noticeable differences in the landmasses between modern-day maps, medieval maps, and pre-Christ maps ? 84.211.184.66 (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The British Isles are on the same continental plate as the European mainland. Differences in the width of the Channel depend on other factors, such as rising sea levels. European and North America were last together 175 million years ago. The main differences with historical maps seem to be due to the ability to make accurate measurements. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The effect you're talking about is Continental drift. See that article and the related seafloor spreading for details.

The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is spreading at about 2.5 cm a year. given that the North Atlantic is about 2,800 km wide, the change is almost unnoticeable, and far below the precision of even modern day maps.
The British Isles are on the same tectonic plate as Western Europe, so they aren't 'drifting away' from it. The English Channel was opened up mainly by the rise in sea level after the last ice age.

Rojomoke (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Thanks to GPS we now have rather precise numbers for the current velocity of separation of for instance the North American Plate and the Eurasian Plate at about 25 mm per year. We also know that break-up between those two plates northwards from the southern tip of Greenland and the southern end of the Rockall Basin happened about 55 million years ago, so it's possible to work out a longer period average. In general we're talking a few cms per year. As to the separation of the British Isles from mainland Europe, that's a result of progressive drowning since the last ice age - they're not getting any further apart physically. Mikenorton (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's often said that North America and Europe are moving apart at about the speed that fingernails grow - see Plate tectonics#Key principles. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This movement is too little to show up on maps even thousands of years old. However, there are other difference that do show up, such as changing river courses, river deltas, and sandbars. Volcanoes also can change the land either suddenly, or in a case like the Hawaiian islands, slowly.StuRat (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

84.211.184.66 -- I think that most differences in geography between the present and antiquity (2000-4000 years ago) are due to the relationship between water and land (rivers changing paths, water breaking through to fill low-lying depressions, areas of land rising or falling vertically, sea levels rising or falling etc.), not due to continental drift. In the early to mid 20th century, it was thought that in Sumerian times the Persian Gulf extended farther north into today's southernmost Iraq, with land later added by agricultural sediments flowing down the rivers; I'm not sure what the current scientific consensus on that is... AnonMoos (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of recorded history is but the blink of an eye on the timescale of the universe. See Cosmic Calendar for some perspective. Continental drift happens wayyyyyy too slowly for there to have been any large-scale changes since humans arose. Again, for perspective, North America is still rebounding after the retreat of the glaciers from the last glacial maximum. As others have mentioned, the geographic change that occurs on human timescales is due to other processes, like erosion, volcanism, and sea level change, which happen much more quickly. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what differences show up on the maps this XKCD comic lists a few (you want to start from "that sounds like a physical map or satellite photo", since all other divisions are political). Mostly, these are a result of climate change, lakes being drained/evaporating, or newly created lakes. MChesterMC (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did some families give daughters an unusually high education?

Yeah, I know that girls would only receive an elementary education for the most part in Europe, America, and East Asia. But there are exceptions, such as Hypatia. I've also heard that women in Communist countries (Soviet Union and China) became doctors and scientists much earlier than the women in Western countries. For women in Western countries, the women's liberation movement came about in the '60s. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you anecdotally about Chinese families who had advanced ideas about gender and education and sent their daughters as well as sons through university even in the 1940s, so I don't think Communism is a necessary ingredient. Having the money to support all of one's children through an extra few years of education instead of marrying them off was, however, quite important, especially in the days before free university education or student loans. If culturally women did not habitually work in professional jobs in a particular society, then parents might see even less return for the investment in a university education. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Female education, especially the Ancient Rome section for Hypatia. Upper class Roman women were often highly educated. Rojomoke (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was better, but not great, in major communist countries (Soviet Union and Russia, for example). I can't think of more than one or two major Community Party leaders from major communist powers in the 20th century (except maybe Margot Honecker and Valentina Tereshkova). In Soviet Bloc countries, the Nomenklatura were almost exclusively male. It is broadly true that Women tended to hold more technical jobs (i.e. Valentina Tereshkova as well), but on the balance did not have access to power. It wasn't that egalitarian. Women_in_Russia#Soviet_era has some background. --Jayron 32 15:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So, the upper-class women across the board gets access to high education. Duh. If your family is poor and you are female, then you are probably needed on the farm or in the shop. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed on "exclusively male." List of Supreme Soviet (1984) delegates. Hardly "exlusively male" (I see tons of female names) Asmrulz (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

put the list through a script looking for female-sounding names. ~290 out of ~1500, giving 19%. Asmrulz (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although not always the case, it rather depended on the enlightenment (or otherwise) of the parents. Even in the 20th century, daughters of the wealthy could be packed off to a finishing school which was more about social graces than academic education. Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Supreme Soviet actually have much power? Didn't the Politburo actually make most of the decisions?--Wikimedes (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that surprising? Feeding women into the (national or corporate) workforce is just what Leftists do. Asmrulz (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Hypatia's case, her father was the mathematician Theon of Alexandria. He apparently trained his daughter to follow the family tradition. In about the same era lived the empress Aelia Eudocia. Her father was the philosopher Leontius, a teacher of rhetoric at the Platonic Academy. Leontius trained his daughter in rhetoric, literature and philosophy, and had her memorize the works of Homer and Pindar. Dimadick (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Chinese women in the 1950s at prestigious universities studying medicine

In China, did the government fund or promote college education for women? The female education article doesn't say anything about college education. Just "schools", which may mean anything beyond elementary school. What about women who went to university and practiced modern medicine in the 1950s? How much money was required for a family to send a girl to university? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After the Communist revolution, higher education reform started in 1950. One of the principles was that national higher education insitutions would become free. More dramatic changes to the higher education system did not happen until 1951-1952. These reforms were politically driven by a desire for total control over higher education in the light of the Korean War, and included the suprression of church-affiliated universities and independent (non-state) universities. Medical faculties of different (often church or independent) universities were merged into state medical colleges. Someone who wend to medical school after these reforms would have paid little or no fees. I know that the government also generally provided financial assistance to university students, but from googling I cannot find details about whether it was specifically targeted at female students. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to 1949, women comprised 18% of the enrollment in higher educational institutions; in the 1950s it averaged 23%. In Medicine and pharmacy, women comprised 40% of the student body in 1958, as compared to 22% in the areas of literature, art and eduction. The data are from Professional Manpower and Education in China, by Leo A. Orleans and published by the US Government Printing Office in 1961, which may only be available in an academic library.DOR (HK) (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]