Humanities desk
< September 23	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 24

Coffee production in the American South (pre-Civil War)?

The article Time on the Cross says, "The authors proposed that slavery before the Civil War was economically efficient, especially in the case of the South, which grew commodity crops such as cotton, sugar, and coffee." Was coffee grown in the Southern United States before the Civil War, and if so, where? I don't think it's grown there now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe somebody was a little confused for tobacco? According to Hinton Rowan Helper's interpretation of the 1850 census results in The Impending Crisis, the slave states produced about $78 million worth of cotton, $19 million worth of tobacco, $17 million worth of cane sugar, and $9 million worth of rice. Coffee is not tabulated...

There's been a lot of debate about how productive ante-bellum plantation agriculture was, but there's no doubt whatsoever that it was extremely profitable for some (not always the slaveowners/plantation-owners). AnonMoos (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the authors were thinking of slave based economies in general, and not purely focused on the southern US. Sugar was the primary export in the Caribbean, and coffee was a major export in Brazil... and both areas were heavily dependent on slavery (it wasn’t just a US institution). Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very doubtful that any areas in the South would be suitable for growing coffee. At best, it would be a very marginal crop and probably not worth the land devoted to it when cotton was so profitable, and coffee available close at hand from Cuba and other nearby islands.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

In context, page 20, the authors are referring to slavery in the entire New World, and list coffee, cocoa, tobacco, indigo, hemp, cotton and rice. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hemp was grown in the United States ante-bellum South (though less economically important than cotton, tobacco, sugar, or rice), as was indigo in a very small geographic area. Cocoa and coffee were not grown in any commercially-significant quantities, as far as I can tell... AnonMoos (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of Time on the Cross in front of me now. Unlike cotton and tobacco, there isn't even an entry in the index for coffee. The addition of "coffee" in this context was an error, although I doubt we will ever find out why someone made that error. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Polanski petition, Farrow, Allen

I know that Woody Allen has defended Polanski. The wikipedia article on Polanski’s crime states that Mia Farrow signed a petition on behalf of Polanski. Did Allen sign this petition also?Rich (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. The answer (he did) is right there in the section of the article you quote, see [1]. --Viennese Waltz 08:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hmm our article lists Mia Farrow but not Allen. The source you give lists Allen but not Farrow. It could be she hadn’t signed it by the publishing date of the source, I don’t know. It does seem odd hthat wikipedia lists her as signing when not in source, especially since it doesn’t seem like what she would agree with. Could wikipedia be wrong?Rich (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the name Woody Allen was replaced with Mia Farrow in wikipedias list on Aug 30 2019 by 81.106.45.101.Rich (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back. The drive-by was probably trying to be funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Easter Egg

What exactly happens at the end of the short story "The Easter Egg", by Saki ? 223.191.5.22 (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One never quite knows. That's always the point with Saki. Part of the way in which he keeps these short stories so short is to make them clipped and terse, even to the point of incompleteness or obscurity.

The Easter Egg is a concealed bomb, as a plot to assassinate the Prince. This is hinted at beforehand, as the strange servant types and supposed parents both make their escape by taxi, and also there's a mention that the tow-haired child (i.e. the blondeness of young children with that sort of Germanic ancestry) doesn't resemble them (but all middle-European children tend to look rather the same).

I think (not certain) that The Easter Egg was first published as part of The Chronicles of Clovis, i.e. in 1911. Which (despite some claims in one of those US high school literary passnotes books) that it's not a reference to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. However Saki was a product of his class and time. Much as Sherlock Holmes would always take a revolver anywhere east of Aldgate, Saki's middle-class English audience knew that Europe consisted entirely of tiny principalities with castle-palaces on hilltops and brooding anarchists in cellar bars, carrying spherical iron bombs with fizzing fuses. He was playing squarely up to that assumed trope: again, a way in which he kept his stories so short was to rely so much on assumptions like this.

After the explosion, the son and the innocent child are vanished like eggshells. His mother, Lady Whatsit, is scarred and blinded and no more is said, for it's Saki. We never hear what happens to the Prince, because Saki is about the small people, not the strategic world politics.

The same passnotes book with the Franz Ferdinand howler claimed that this story was also the inspiration for the pivotal moment of, A Prayer for Owen Meany. There's certainly a similarity, but inspiration? Who knows. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Castrations in Ancient Israel

There does not seem to be any evidence of this. Rather than question the good faith of the IP, probably best to close this.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My history teacher told me and my class recently, that Israel got conquered by the Assyrians and that the Assyrians mass castrated Israelites and nailed their genitalia (the penises to be exact) on the city gate of Jerusalem. I tried my best to find this incident on the internet, but I couldn’t find anything. A friend of mine suggested that this could have happened under the rule of Tiglath-Pileser III. I was wondering if someone of you knows what my history teacher was talking about.--2A02:120B:C3E7:E650:E5D3:139E:72AA:2608 (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding from previous general reading about this era and area (which means I can't quote specific references) is that when conquering neighboring rivals, it was the standard though not invariable practice of several cultures to castrate (and kill) all the men and youths, take the women and children as sex slaves/concubines, and raise the children as either adoptees, servants or slaves, Certainly the Isrealites recorded themselves doing this to others in various passages of the Old Testament, though the castrations were usually euphemised as the "taking of foreskins" and have sometimes been interpreted as enforced conversion to Judeism.

No doubt others will be along shortly who can give chapter and verse; unfortunately I have a previous engagement shortly and can't do the necessary digging. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.210.107 (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I would have to see an exact Biblical reference to believe this. Some ancient and medieval empires castrated some of their enemies, but there are no mass castration incidents in the Bible (as far as I can tell). I looked in several Biblical dictionaries, and they had no entries on "castration", and fairly brief entries on "eunuch". The ancient Hebrews/Israelites/Jews had a rather equivocal attitude toward castration, as can seen in the Bible verse Deuteronomy 23:2 (or 23:1, depending on the numbering). Maybe there's confusion with the (legendary) mass circumcision incident in the story of Dina in Genesis? AnonMoos (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Neo-Assyrian Empire had a reputation of dominating by raw military might, without much attempt to hide the iron fist in any kind of velvet glove, but its main policy with conquered peoples was deportations to areas where they would be commingled with other groups, and that's exactly what happened with much of the population of the northern kingdom of Israel after the Assyrian conquest, as far as can be determined (the so-called "Ten Lost Tribes", though this term is rather inaccurate...). AnonMoos (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the help!--2A02:120B:C3E7:E650:5DA2:EA2A:3F79:989E (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our artricle, Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, says that the siege was a failure and the Assyrians withdrew, according to Biblical sources with immense casualties caused by "an angel of the Lord". 2nd Book of Kings Ch. 19: v. 35 The Assyrian account of the expedition, Sennacherib's Annals, admits withdrawal but leaves out the angelic massacre. A large number of captives were taken from Samaria, but I can't find anything about their mutilation. Alansplodge (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Britons of a certain age might remember The Destruction of Sennacherib by Lord Byron, which describes this event (but no castrations!). Memorising these things was once considered to be essential in our education system. I can still quote the first and last stanzas, although the middle section is a bit hazy 50 years later. Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the unsourced speculation of the anon visitor above, Judaism has a horror of castration, even for animals. See Castration#Judaism --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OP writes "I was wondering if someone of you knows what my history teacher was talking about." Has the OP considered asking their history teacher what they were talking about? Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Swiss teachers don't take questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason is a very tragic one: my teacher died at the end of last week. He suffered a massive stroke while on his way home. That is the reason. He is no longer among us. We now have a stand-in who knows very little about the Assyrians outside of the small textbook descriptions (but to be fair: he is usually a math teacher).--2A02:120B:C3E7:E650:9591:5E7D:75FD:BEBE (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fet Matts Israelsson

Dear All

I am looking for more information about the natural mummy known as Fet Matts Israelsson. I would like to have some historical data and photographies of this particular mummy. I already checked out the article about the mummy, but it did not provide much information, let alone photos. The links were not very useful as well.

Thank you very much!--2A02:120B:C3E7:E650:E5D3:139E:72AA:2608 (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The body Fet-Mats ("Fat Mats") found in 1719 was apparently neither mummified nor petriphied because it decayed. The swedish language website devoted to him is under development and it has a contact address that you may try. Searching for images finds [2] [3] [4] and there is a video (Swedish required). DroneB (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the links! They were extremely useful! It was almost impossible for me, to find even a simple picture.--2A02:120B:C3E7:E650:5DA2:EA2A:3F79:989E (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Criticisms of Consumerism

I have read some arguments from different political stance against modern day consumerism (economic materialism), but I have yet to read some religious arguments against it. I was curious if there are some famous religious persons or institutions, who have published their criticisms against consumerism. I would like to read or hear their views as well.--2A02:120B:C3E7:E650:E5D3:139E:72AA:2608 (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by googling discussions about the Bible's statement that "you cannot serve both God and Mammon." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many branches of Anabaptists believe in living a simple life, which means avoiding many of the modern "conveniences". SinisterLefty (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, thank you very much!--2A02:120B:C3E7:E650:5DA2:EA2A:3F79:989E (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find amusement in Googling for the cartoon Supply Side Jesus. - bodnotbod (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will check your links and suggestions out, thank you all very much for the help!--2A02:120B:C3E7:E650:9591:5E7D:75FD:BEBE (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Sufficiency and Survivalism

Hi, it is me again. This is my last question, I promise!

I have come into contact with advocates of Self-Sufficiency and Survivalism and have recently inherited an old cabin in the woods which does not have either running water or electricity, so I took an interest in these two subjects. Is there some specific literature which deals with a combination of both of these subjects? I am asking because I have not found anything on the two articles which Wikipedia provides. I would love to learn more, to get to learn on how to sustain my (new) cabin in the woods. Anyway, thank you very much for your answers!--2A02:120B:C3E7:E650:DD73:B7A5:8BD1:E72 (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a vast literature on this, but WP isn't the place for it as it involves WP:HOWTO.

You have both some woodland and a cabin. Certainly in my location, woodland is harder to obtain than the cabin – so don't be afraid to look at even demolishing the cabin and replacing it. That can be easier, from scratch, than some refurbs. You need to consider the seasons, and how long you might spend there, the legality of all this (much "woodland" near me only allows me to "camp" there for up to 30 days a year - if I was able to "live" there permanently, such a site would become unaffordable) and also the security of the place when you're not there.

Technology is pretty good these days. Solar, efficient LED lighting and decent batteries will provide several comforts (even if "off" grid, I see no reason to eschew technology, although I know some do). You might even get an affordable internet connection by cellphone, and that can allow remote security cameras etc.

Sanitation is likely to be an earth closet, but your grandparents may have managed pretty well with nothing else. Woodstoves work well too, but do get a decently designed one that's efficient and not a smog-burner, and is suited to your wood supply. Also learn how to produce decent firewood (stacking and drying). A recent book Norwegian Wood ISBN 9780857052551 is a very good read.

Water supply is hard. Most don't bother. They either ship in water, or they risk it. Boreholes (in some locations) are good and affordable, if not cheap, but it depends on the conditions and you do need to test it, at least initially, to see what's in there both chemically and biologically. A water treatment plant sufficient to use surface water or captured rainwater is very hard to operate in a small cabin that's not permanently occupied.

Insulation and decent weatherproofing is made easier by modern materials, especially if you can ship them in affordably. Again, why rough it?

What's the management plan for the woodland? Are you going to fell or replant any? Getting something like a Woodmizer sawmill on site and some decent-sized trees can produce some timber for profit, and leave you with enough for cabin building. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Andy! This was very useful! I will apply this to my own cabin!--2A02:120B:C3E7:E650:E5D3:139E:72AA:2608 (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides solar power, there's also windmills, which have the advantage of working at night, when the lights are needed most, but probably there isn't much sustained wind in the woods. There might also not be direct sunlight, though. But, if there is, you would need solar-charged batteries to store electricity for night. You could also just charge up batteries when you go into town. Temperature control is likely to be a problem. A wood-burning stove would work if allowed and if you can chop wood, otherwise consider a propane heater. A/C would be even trickier, although they do make propane-fueled A/C units and you can also generate electricity from propane. Of course, going back to town for fuel isn't exactly self-sufficient. Note that maintaining a constant temp with wood requires constant monitoring. Propane or wood work for cooking, or you can eat food that doesn't require cooking, like canned goods. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SinisterLefty!--2A02:120B:C3E7:E650:DD73:B7A5:8BD1:E72 (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having built both (see Hugh Piggott's books on building small-scale wind turbines [5]) I wouldn't build another windmill. Windmills aren't as hard BTW as their towers. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might care to look into David Thoreau's 1854 work on this theme, entitled Walden. Be aware, however, that he glosses over a few details, such as that his 'isolated' cabin was an easy walk from the town his family lived in, and his mother used regularly to visit to bring him a hot meal. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.210.107 (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. As you note, Walden is certainly taken as a seminal work in the "suvivalist" field, but Thoreau is also frequently criticized (back down to when it was even published) for being more a "rich kid playing at camping for a year" rather than a genuine attempt to live "off the grid" as it were, just as you say. Here and here for modern examples, but these criticisms go back over a century. Thoreau hardly lived out in the Wilderness; Walden Pond is walking distance from The Old Manse, where all his best friends lived, as well as to several village centers like Concord; well-trodden roads and train tracks were visible from his cabin site, and the woods around Walden Pond were basically a campsite for the homeless of the area, and were well used as such. He does run a few experiments trying to grow his own beans, but his attempt at true self-sufficiency was mostly a failure. It's still a good read, but it's not exactly a model of the sort of self-reliance it purports itself to be. --Jayron 32 13:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson Crusoe is an alternative book dealing with the topic. While fictional, it does detail many of the methods which could be used to survive alone (and later with one companion, Friday). Of course, there are also more recent how-to books and videos, like https://shop.pbs.org/alone-in-the-wilderness-part-1-2-dvd/product/AIAW453. But note that they all "cheat" in bringing some tools and supplies and clothes from civilization. Surviving with none of these requires a very "easy" environment to live in, like a tropical island with a freshwater source, and an edible animal that had no natural predators and so is easy to kill. And then, for a cautionary tale of what can happen when you aren't prepared, there's Into the Wild (book). SinisterLefty (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at simple living? 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, so far. Thank you very much for the link!--2A02:120B:C3E7:E650:9591:5E7D:75FD:BEBE (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]