Humanities desk
< November 26	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 28 >

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.

November 27

Did any hierarchy of social statuses ever have a "pecking order" based on one of the 3 dimensions?

Where the higher status you were the more north, south, east, west, high or low you got to live or the closer to the northernmost/southernmost/eastermost/westernmost/highest/lowest point you could live and that direction or point was held in high regard, maybe even holy? At least to the degree this is practical. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is why castles were on hilltops? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that mostly for practical military reasons? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly for feng shui or similar beliefs? See Feng shui#Compass School for example. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember PBS showing that the Bank of China owned a very long strip of expensive grassy land to ensure nothing can be between the BOC Tower and Hong Kong Harbor for feng shui reasons. Google Maps says there's buildings on it now though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen that PBS show, but I think they must have been talking about the HSBC building, not the Bank Of China building, so maybe your memory is dusty with regards to this show Sagittarian Milky Way?. HSBC (which Hong Kongers call "Hong Kong bank") has always had a special status in their heart. That building only has parks in front of it, so that its view to the harbour is unimpeded. Even though the building is quite deep into the city, as you can see from this view [1], the only thing in front of the main HSBC building is the (relatively low) pier building. --Lgriot (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lgriot, maybe the bank was HSBC then. Do they get any tax or zoning benefits for not putting tall buildings on it? In my city you can sell air to neighbor(s) which is moved to their floor area:footprint limit. And letting the public on the park would increase it too (minimum is somewhere between 9-5 workdays and 5-evening all days, I never paid attention to the signage) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When Beijing was laid out in the early 1400s, the imperial palace zone or "forbidden city" was to the north of the main city. Not sure that living more northward was always more prestigious. Also, in most countries, dwellings on hills a little inland from the ocean, with panoramic views of the beaches, would have a high property value, but in Brazil they've been traditionally inhabited by poor people... AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the rich Brazilians not want them? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could start at Favela... AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So are all hill favelas on steep hillsides like that picture (or at least a place that requires traveling on steep slopes to get in and out) or does the middle and upper class not want flatter parts of hills with less acrophobic access either? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Visit any large city and you'll find an altitude-based stratification of status in high-rise buildings. If a large company owns a building, which floor is the CEO's office on? (Hint: it's not the basement.) Heck, it's a film trope—the opening of Jim Carrey's Fun with Dick and Jane riffs on this, with Carrey riding the elevator all the way to the top while less-successful executives exit on lower levels. During his solo ascent through the last few floors, he sings I Believe I Can Fly.

I was once in an office building were the top management was located on the third-from-the-top floor. I was told this was supposed to confuse potential terrorists. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was that before or after 9/11/01? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was in Germany. The building was constructed after the Munich Olympics. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buying a condo in Manhattan? The best-appointed, largest, most-expensive suites are not going to be right above the lobby. The private elevator goes to the penthouse, not the third floor.

(To be fair, it depends a bit on how one reads your question, and whether you are looking for a causal relationship flowing one way or the other. The CEO gets the penthouse suite because they have attained a particular status; the status doesn't come from having a high-floor office.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In modern western culture things are based on a lot more than altitude though. Riverside Manhattan zip code 10069 is about 50 feet above sea level with $10,000/month per capita and barely further than the other shore is ground 150+ feet above sea level with $1000/month per capita and better views in a 1.5 star school district. A tiny 2nd floor apartment in the former is probably over a million dollars while you can buy at least 5 homes with that on the other shore. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that this is only since the advent of elevators. Before that, in cities, the wealthy lived at ground level or the lowest floors of multi-story buildings. The poor lived on the top floors and hence had to climb stairs constantly. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Older apartment buildings in Paris were built with smaller and less-luxurious apartments at the top. The garret part of the "starving artist in a garret" cliché also refers to this... AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The association between elevation and social status seems pretty straightforward: shit both literally and figuratively slides downhill, so having the high ground is almost always an advantage. Matt Deres (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK post-industrial revolution, the slums tended to be on the east side of cities. The reason is that wind (and the pollution it carries) tends to blow from west-to-east, making the eastern side of population-and-industry centers the least desirable land. this video has a nice synopsis. --Jayron 32 17:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In olden days, living on a hilltop was healthier and preferred by the higher classes. 2A02:C7F:8230:8F00:A117:7494:3EFE:1867 (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Palace and Hampton Court Palace are both next to the River Thames. The Palace of Versailles was built on a swamp. Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hill forts were from oldener times than that. --Jayron 32 17:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied question 1

Original question by 185.217.90.25 (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC) copied from Reddit is as the title here [2]. Removed due to WP:copyvio concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The seas are constantly in motion, so that could be a tall order. It brings to mind Will Rogers' solution to getting rid of U-boats: "Boil the ocean!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gomer Pyle in The Short-Timers, Full Metal Jacket, and reality

"Gomer Pyle" in The Short-Timers, the book which the film Full Metal Jacket is based on, displays "ineptitude and weak character", according to the article. In the book, is he also described as fat and totally out of shape as Leonard Lawrence is in the movie? And: Would someone as Leonard Lawrence really have been enlisted into the Marines... of all US Armed Forces? --KnightMove (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? He might have thought the Marines would make a better man out of him. It didn't necessarily work out that way, but he couldn't know that ahead of time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that neither he himself, nor the Marine instructor, think a second about him quitting, although he's so obviously inept, he was hardly a volunteer. Someone who read the book told me that he was compulsorily conscripted with the draft lottery, which makes sense. --KnightMove (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read it too, and let us know what you find out. It's kind of ironic that the sergeant called him "Gomer Pyle", as the "real" Gomer Pyle was a pretty good soldier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, he was not a "soldier". He was a Marine. Calling a Marine a soldier can get you pretty roughed up. --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that. I just wanted to see if you were paying attention. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with the OP on this one. In the British Armed Forces, recruits are given a medical examination and only the fittest are put into combat roles (my dad was graded "C1" in 1939 and was sent to Royal Engineers railway workshop). I can't believe that the US Marines didn't have a similar system in the 1960s. Alansplodge (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion of this topic at TV Tropes (see the section beginning "How do you know he volunteered?"). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The gist of which seems to be that the US Marines didn't accept draftees as a general rule. Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied question 2

Original question by 93.99.194.244 (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC) copied including typo or spelling error from Reddit is as the title here [3]. Removed due to WP:copyvio concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of distributed computing projects might help (sort the table by "Active processing units"). There is SETI@home, for example. --Viennese Waltz 10:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Original question by 93.99.194.244 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC) copied from Quora is as the title here [4]. Removed due to WP:copyvio concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "some people" and "gravity" and "does not exist". If you mean "why are there silly people who don't believe in the existence of gravity", the answer is "because they are silly". If you mean "I heard there are some definitions of gravity that do not treat it like a real force, but instead as a pseudoforce and that as such, it isn't actual a real force" then the answer is that is basically the most accurate definition of gravity we have, as that's what General relativity tells us that it is. It's a really real phenomenon, that is large masses really do move towards each other when you watch them. You really do stick to the Earth, and if you drop an apple, it really does accelerate towards the ground, but the cause of that acceleration (that cause being what we call "gravity") is not a force in the traditional sense, but rather a pseudoforce created by the fact that spacetime is curved around massive objects, similar to how the sidewards "force" you feel when a car turns a corner is not a real force, but a product of the way your reference frame is moving relative to you. But gravity is still a real phenomenon, even if it is not what you may think it is. --Jayron 32 15:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those people don't exist. They all floated away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip when his parents have forgotten to pay the "gravity tax"...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a public service: [5]. Also: [6] [7] —Tamfang (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Well, it's not so much that you know, like I don't believe in it, you know, it's just...I don't know, lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed." --Golbez (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not far from what GR says: the Earth doesn't pull you, the curvature of spacetime pushes you into the Earth. I don't have time at the minute to look, but there's a great pop-sci channel on YouTube called "Science Asylum" that has a good video explaining the "spacetime pushing you" interpretation of GR. --Jayron 32 18:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood

Robin Hood robbed the rich and gave their money to the poor. So what's the moral of the legend, what did it teach people? That wealth shouldn't be obtained by working and mastering skills, but by having it handed to you while doing nothing? --Qnowledge (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are going to be many different analyses of the Robin Hood legend. You can read about just one of them here. If you do a Google search with phrases like moral of Robin Hood you can find many more examples. --Jayron 32 16:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of a "Wizard of Id" strip. Robin Hood gives a bag of money to a poor person. The peasant jumps up and down, "I'm rich! I'm rich!" Robin Hood brandishes his sword and says, "Stick 'em up!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucky Luke story Jesse James (1969) similarly satirizes the Robin Hood legend: "In 1880, the story begins with Jesse James, who idolizes and tries to emulate Robin Hood, but somehow he is not able to clearly define the line between the rich he is supposed to rob and the poor he is supposed to help. With the help of his Shakespeare aficionado brother Frank, he therefore simply redefines the term "poor" for his own benefit" Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, riding through the night.... --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Much of the wealth that Robin Hood took from the wealthy was accumulated through no work of their own, but rather by exploiting the masses. If Prince John has lots and lots of money because he has raised taxes again and again and again to the point that the peasants are having trouble paying the taxes and still having enough to live on, has he not robbed from the poor? And is Robin Hood not just recovering these monies and returning them to those who did work to earn them? --Khajidha (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wouldn't say it was through no work of their own. That talent for exploitation you're talking about would be the "working and mastering skills" that the OP referred to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure that the story of Robin Hood is intended to have a moral behind it. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it clearly has a moral framework, with clearly defined "good guys" (Robin and the Merry Men, Good King Richard) and "bad guys" (Prince John, the Sheriff of Nottingham). Any story that sets good against evil has principles upon which those "good" and "evil" are defined. --Jayron 32 18:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, J.C. Holt remarked that the point of the tales is not the justice of the outlaws' cause - for there is none - but the injustice of those who oppress them. John M Baker (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are discussions of the moral of the Robin Hood story here and here. --Antiquary (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing worth remembering is that the story (or stories) are old, and have changed over time, and been merged with or influenced by other stories, and that the moral of the story may have changed accordingly. The earlier stories seem to me to be more akin to caper stories like say Lock,_Stock_and_Two_Smoking_Barrels, where you have a bunch of "bad" criminals who prey on people like us, and a "good" group of criminals (Robin and his Merry Men) who are like us and prey on the bad criminals. Other aspects of the story (robbing the rich to give to the poor, Saxon rebellion against Norman overlords, Robin being a dispossessed noble, supporting the good King Richard against the bad Prince John, involvement in the Crusades, having a Saracen/Moor in the gang, etc), are all later additions that reflect the ideals of the time when the story was retold. Iapetus (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, the green tights are indeed historical, and beyond question! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas -> Acting

I'm trying to figure out what happens when the office of Governor of Arkansas is vacant. Everything, including the constitution, seems to indicate that the lieutenant governor acts as governor for the remainder of the term. But is the office of lieutenant governor vacant during that time? Or is one person holding both offices? Or should we still consider the governorship vacant, and the Lieutenant Governor is ex officio "acting governor"?

I guess the meat of the question is, for List of Governors of Arkansas, for example, Harvey Purnell in 1928 - Should he be in both columns at the same time? Should it stay as it is, with him as governor and the Lt Gov column labeled "acting as governor"? Should governor be marked vacant, with a note that Purnell was acting in that capacity? --Golbez (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That could depend on what the state's laws were at the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the constitution alone is the arbiter of this, and all it ever says is the powers devolve upon the lieutenant governor. And the state archives notes some lieutenants as "acting governor" without noting if one or the other office was vacant. I was hoping someone might have some insight into this. I guess I should email the state. --Golbez (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the constitution is just words on a paper, the meaning and application of those words is where it is at. There can be differing interpretations, which is why courts are a thing. --Jayron 32 17:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it helps, but by analogy to similar phrasing from the U.S. constitution, and its common interpretation, see Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 6: Vacancy and disability and John Tyler#Presidency (1841–1845), to wit, "Harrison's death in office was an unprecedented event that caused considerable uncertainty regarding presidential succession... led to the question of whether the actual office of president devolved upon Vice President Tyler, or merely its powers and duties." In the case of the president, such wording was interpreted to mean the actual office and title devolved to the VP, making him the new president. Not sure how this is handled on the Arkansas governorship, but it is one data point you can use. --Jayron 32 17:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, though the state makes a point of saying that the short-term successors were acting governors. This notion isn't unique to Arkansas, but Arkansas might be unique in the possibility that both offices are held by the same person: [8] --Golbez (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Constitution of Arkansas, which includes a link to presumably the full text. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... yes, I'm familiar with the text of the constitution, thanks. --Golbez (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything the governor can do that the "acting" governor cannot? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. --Golbez (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be called a Governor. IIRC, that was the main bone-of-contention with the Tyler controversy: His opponents were ready to grant him the full rights and duties of the office of the president, that is he could do everything a President could, but he would merely be acting as the President, not an actual president. He demanded that he was the actual, honest-to-god, full on President. By doing so, he established (mostly by his own force of will) that the constitution is properly interpreted to mean what he meant it to. It wasn't until the 25th Amendment that the practice was codified into more formal terms. It is sort of the difference between being a regent or a viceroy and being the actual king. People who hold those jobs get to do all of the constitutional duties of the King, including appoint ministers, preside over matters of state, etc. What they cannot do is get called "Your Majesty" and get recorded by the history books as The King. --Jayron 32 19:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kings appoint ministers? Not in the Westminster system as far as I know. Perhaps you might clarify what you meant. Akld guy (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do officially, or outside of the UK, their viceroy (like the Governor General of Canada) does. See Monarchy of the United Kingdom#Royal prerogative, to wit "The royal prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers". It is the Queen's government after all. They used to really do this, like actually considered candidates, chose ministers, dismissed them when they fell out of favor, etc. Over time the real power has devolved so that the Monarch or Governor General merely accedes to decisions already made for them. I can't think of the last time the British monarch did not follow conventions for approving the PM and other ministers, certainly by the time of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution these powers started to devolve to Parliament, and definitely by the time of the Regency era such devolutions were in full swing. But England/the UK never gave up the constitutional power accorded to the Monarch, so long as they don't actually use them. There are lots of complicated legal fictions that make the system run more-or-less democratically now, but for most of British history, the King really did appoint all of the ministers. Legally, they still kinda-sorta do, but only on paper. Really, the party in charge of Parliament chooses the PM, and the PM appoints the rest of the Government. But on paper, those are still the Queen's appointments. She just always says yes to whosoever she's told to approve. Constitutionally, however, the appointment of ministers is her (or her viceroy's, in countries outside the UK) prerogative. --Jayron 32 15:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"She just always says yes to whoever she's told to approve." Yes, and that's a long way from what "appoint" means, which is that she selects candidates based on her personal preferences and directs that they be installed in office with no right of refusal.

"...the PM appoints the rest of the Government." No, the government consists of Members of Parliament who were successful candidates at the general election. The candidates were selected by vote by the party at large before the election. The leader of the party (who may be the PM if the party is already in power, or otherwise usually becomes PM after the election) may have a strong influence on who gets selected, but it is the party at large who select the candidates who, if successful, go on to become Members of Parliament and form the government. What you're confusing is the PM's choice of members of his Cabinet, an inner circle of high ranking MPs who make top-level decisions. The PM has absolute choice of these members, and can dismiss them without being accountable to anyone. Akld guy (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be more accurate to say the PM selects the rest of the Government from the available Members of Parliament. Remember the generally only some of the MPs of some of the parties are members of the Goverment. (Remembering that the Government e.g. Government of New Zealand, is distinct from the governing party or coalition in the legislature.) Note also that the manner of selection of Members of Parliament varies between different countries using the Westminster system. It's not required top be a successful candidate at any general election to be a member of parliament. Notably this is not the case in either the UK, India or Malaysia. All three have bicameral legislatures and the manner of selection or election of the upper house varies, within the country in India, but these mostly do not involve direct election in a general election. Either precedent or the constitution generally prevents the PM and possibly some other members of the Government from being from the upper house, and it's generally expected that most of the Cabinet will be from the lower house, but it's generally possible for at least some members of the Government, including Cabinet ministers (well not so much the UK nowadays), to be from the upper house. As for the appointing issue, Jayron32's comment is IMO a more accurately reflection of how these things are normally worded. See e.g. [9] from the government of New Zealand In appointing Ministers, the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. This tends to be also the case in non Commonwealth realm Westminster systems see e.g. Union Council of Ministers#Appointment. P.S. Actually thinking about it, I don't think it's always required that appointments to the Government are MPs at the time of the appointment. I believe in India and possibly Malaysia, it's sometimes acceptable to appoint someone who is not yet an MP (be it the upper house or lower), with the understanding they will become one within 6 months and if they don't, they lose their position. Nil Einne (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Cousins and Patrick Gordon Walker were appointed as ministers by Wilson in 1964 despite not being members of parliament at the time (one was a trade union leader, the other had lost his seat in the 1964 election). Both entered the Commons through by-elections within months. There was also Peter Mandelson in 2008 (he was given a life peerage). I imagine this is still the case. I'm not quite sure how you would challenge the Queen making someone a minister when the minister's party has a majority in the Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last British monarch to refuse a choice of ministers, I think was William IV, though Victoria effectively did the same thing a few years later in the Bedchamber Affair by refusing Peel the normal patronage of office, that is, the Ladies of the Bedchamber.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, you say how important it is for question answerers to provide sources . You say there is a paper somewhere that says that if Theresa May, say, appoints a junior minister the appointment is actually made by the Queen. The Queen’s official website says rather different [10]. Would you like to link to the paper you are referring to? 2A02:C7F:8230:8F00:5142:DE0B:C770:E83E (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]