Humanities desk
< November 29	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	December 1 >

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.

November 30

Routledge offices

Routledge started in London. "Broadway House, Carter Lane, London" appears as their headquarters address in their edition of Martin Buber's Images of Good and Evil, published in 1952. Nowadays, they're headquartered in their parent company's offices in Oxfordshire. Were they always in London until they merged with their parent (1998), or did they move away before then? 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 1997 they gave their address as 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE.^[1] --Lambiam 10:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the Taylor & Francis article linked:

"It [Taylor & Francis Group] merged with Informa in 2004 to create a new company called T&F Informa, since renamed back to Informa. Following the merger, T&F closed the historic Routledge office at New Fetter Lane in London, and moved to its current headquarters in Milton Park, Oxfordshire."

I take this to imply that Routledge continued to operate at New Fetter Lane until being relocated to Oxfordshire in or shortly after 2004.

From copyright pages of books on my shelves, I can say that in 1962 and in 1974, RKP was at Broadway House, 68–74 Carter Lane, London EC4, and in 1977 they were at 39 Store Street, London WC1E and at Broadway House, Newtown Road, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 1EN. (It is easy to suppose that a publisher has only one address per country, but one of reasonable size may well have two or more.) Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.249.29.80 (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My first job was in Carter Lane. Presumably Broadway House is close to Ludgate Broadway which ajoins Carter Lane. Despite its grand name, the Broadway is actually a narrow alley which is barely wide enough to drive a single car down (image here). Alansplodge (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks Ludgate Hill, Carter Lane, and Newtown Road, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire premises were all called "Broadway House" at one time or another. fiveby(zero) 17:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Routledge 1836
- 11 Ryder's Court, Leicester Square 1836
- 36 Soho Square 1843-
Routledge and Warne 1848
Routledge and Company 1851
- 2 Farringdon Street 1852
- Branch office NY 1854
Routledge, Warne and Routledge 1858
- 7 Broadway, Ludgate Hill 1864
George Routledge and Sons 1865
- George Routledge and Sons Limited 1889
- Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane 1889
Routledge and Keegan Paul 1947
- adds Henley-on-Thames warehouse 1968
- branch office 9 Park Street, Boston ~1974
- 39 Store Street, Bloomsbury 1976
- American office to 25 West 35th Street, New York ~1980
- 14 Leicester Square 1984
Routledge
- 11 New Fetter Lane 1986

Anderson, Patricia J.; Rose, Jonathan, eds. (1991). British Literary Publishing Houses, 1820-1880.

Hmm, then i find Routledge Time Line fiveby(zero) 17:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gaps in government legislation/policy

The ideal of a welfare state presupposes the continual pursuit of social justice ideology. However, in a democracy governed by the rule of law, having the legislature and judiciary taking continuous efforts to remove all kinds of inequality by affording equal opportunity in social as well as economic affairs to all of its citizens, apparent gaps/issues in government laws/legislation persist. What could be the root cause of these gaps, and how can they be closed in order to ensure a substantial degree of social, economic and political equality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grotesquetruth (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, it looks like your teacher has given you a fantastic essay topic. The idea behind questions like this is not to find a single factual answer, but to develop an argument which is supported by evidence. You're supposed to use research skills you've been learning through your education process to identify the gaps in your essay topic question, and then once you've identified those gaps, propose solutions towards closing those gaps. The entire point of the assignment is not to regurgitate a singular answer, but to demonstrate your ability to research, cite your research, and develop an argument. --Jayron 32 15:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a lovely answer. Thank you!DOR (HK) (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the OP??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes I am, got struck at this, thought I could have your rationale as well. Grotesquetruth (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you have 2 different IDs??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no why? I believe you asked if I was the original poster of this question, which I am. Grotesquetruth (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the user DOR's comment sounded like it would have come from the OP, and your answer to my question seemed to confirm that. So, just so we're clear, you are NOT the user DOR, correct? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Grotesquetruth (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is the lovely answer. Legislation is like a road, it's helping in the rise of its own traffic. In the case of Asphalt concrete#Degradation and restoration you have to look for the environmental factors causing degradation and you also reduce the allowable weight of trucks. What remains, regarding legislature is called: reform. --Askedonty (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about ideals is that they often clash with reality. Most societies consist of various groups with disparate interests. Some of these have more power than others; generally the most privileged groups have the most power and are the most focused on their self-interest. Governments are not all-powerful; even if they have the best interests of the least privileged in mind, they cannot arbitrarily play Robin Hood and rob the rich to distribute their filthy wealth in an equitable way. The very rule of law that is supposed to serve justice stands in the way. Moreover, there is often a gap between what politicians say and what they do, once in power. The closer you look, the more conspicuous this gap appears, but many people do not have the time and means to examine this in detail. --Lambiam 17:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the idea that "what is good for people" is a static target, and all we need to do as a government is find out what that is, and do it. It's not only a dynamic and moving target, it's also a target that is very different for different people, and there will be times when meeting the needs of some people can only be done by violating the rights of other people. Governments need to continuously and constantly having to adjust because the needs of the people and the way in which those needs can be equitably provided for will always be changing. It's not possible to create a perfect government plan and just let it run in perpetuity. Conditions will always be constantly changing, and all Governments can really do is respond after the fact to those changing conditions as best as they can. Even a government consisting of nothing but well-meaning, selfless, and knowledgeable people will never be able to meet all needs at all times (and close all gaps). The gaps will always reappear and need to be addressed. For ever. That doesn't ever go away. --Jayron 32 20:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the issue of social fairness(justice) between the population that is well-represented and that which is not? Grotesquetruth (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that what people want is only exactly what's good for them? --Askedonty (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts (and literally every other person who may also comment on this thread) are entirely irrelevant, and no one is supposed to answer such a question. As the instructions at the top of this page states "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." My, and everyone else's opinions, are irrelevant. As I told you before, your teacher wants you to do some research, identify such "gaps" in government services all on your own by citing that research, and then propose your own solutions, also by citing your research. Do that. --Jayron 32 20:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just clarify that I am the original poster of the question, and this was not produced as a result of some assignment from a teacher that you keep stating for whatever reason I don't understand. However, I mistook the platform for being available for research-related enquiries for personal learning purposes. Grotesquetruth (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is certain that Jayron32 did try to make it clear that opinions do not make valid and IMO at any rate solid answers to enquiries. --Askedonty (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your question was about the root cause of persistent gaps. It is unlikely (IMO) that researchers have tried to develop a theory of common underlying causes of all kinds of persistent policy gaps in all kinds of democratic societal contexts. According to the theory of the social contract, while there may always be new gaps to be closed, and closure may take time, such gaps should never be persistent. So for root causes of phenomena that should not exist under this theory, the section Social contract § Criticism may offer some general inspiration. For specific identifiable persistent gaps, theories may have been developed about the specific political and societal conditions that allowed them to persist. For example, much has been written about the contradiction between the bold proclamation that it is a self-evident truth that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and the persistent practice of slavery. The question as posed is not answerable in its generality. --Lambiam 09:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

alright, @Lambiam to return to your previous response you mentioned "even if the government has the best interests of the least privileged in mind, the rule of law stands in the way." how suppose does rule of law governing a democracy accomplish social justice when situations call government actions necessary for the time? will this not result in a justice gap? what is really then a climate of good governance? Grotesquetruth (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not abundantly clear. Almost all discussion (including scholarly articles) about social justice focuses on (often extreme) wealth inequality and barriers maintaining that inequality across generations, such as limited access to good education. I see less discussion about what IMO is the root cause of wealth inequality: the (also often extreme) power inequality between societal segments. The rule of law works as a stabilizer: it makes it harder for the powerful to just take what they want and thus protects the powerless, but it also makes it harder for the powerless to acquire more power and thereby protects the already powerful. So it tends to maintain the status quo and keep the existing power inequality intact. In a radically egalitarian society, with social equality as advocated e.g. here, all share equally in the power too. The climate for effective governance is generally better in more egalitarian societies. --Lambiam 20:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute the statement The ideal of a welfare state presupposes the continual pursuit of social justice ideology. A welfare state merely requires the idea that the state has some responsibility for protecting the welfare of its citizens. "Social justice" is a separate (but probably related concept), and I'm not quite sure what "social justice ideology" would mean (but it sounds like a phrase that would be used by people critical of it). Iapetus (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germany abandoning Nazism

I was wondering, can it be said what was the exact point of time and reason that caused Germany to abandon Nazism and turn completely against it? I think that Adolf Hitler's suicide and Germany's surrender to the Allied forces were major contributors, but did this occur immediately after them? Were the other contributing factors? JIP | Talk 23:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denazification figured into it. But you can't really say there was an exact moment, any more than there was an exact moment when the US abandoned slavery. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:497F (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does it actually mean to say "Germany" abandoned Nazism? As a country it had/has geographical territory subject to outside alteration; one or more cultures; various military branches, some politicized; a national government; a legislature; multiple local administrations, subjected post-War to outside supervision; and a population of millions of individuals. A different answer might apply to each of those entities (and others), and to each individual. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.249.29.80 (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The political entity known in German as the Großdeutsches Reich ceased to exist with the signing of the instrument of unconditional surrender. It was signed by representatives of the army; the Nazi government had already ceased to function in any meaningful sense. It is not unlikely that large parts of the population had already become disillusioned with the Nazi ideology months before the end of the war. In a sense, the real turning point was in 1992, when the schools in Germany started to teach the period between 1933 and 1945 in honesty, including the Holocaust. --Lambiam 11:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went to school in (West) Germany in the 70s and 80s, and we were taught all that. I don't know what you think happened in 1992? --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I based this on an article entitled "Holocaust Education in Germany: Ensuring relevance and meaning in an increasingly diverse community", which states, "Since 1992, the German government has required the inclusion of Holocaust education in all secondary schools (Boschki, Reichman, & Schwendemann, 2010)." However, I cannot find support for the year 1992 in the cited article, "Education after and about Auschwitz in Germany: Towards a theory of remembrance in the European context." While the latter article does state that teaching about National Socialism and the Holocaust is an obligatory part of German school curricula, it does not mention a year in which this came into effect. --Lambiam 16:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went to school in the 1970s and 80s, and of course the Nazi rise to power and the Holocaust were central subjects not only in history classes, but also in German literature and other classes. IIRC, we read Das siebte Kreuz and excerpts from the Diary of Anne Frank. 1992 may have seen a reorganisation of rules after German reunification, but eduction about the Third Reich was universal in schools long before that - I would assume it was introduced as part of denazification directly after the war. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as if such teaching was not uncommon before 1992, but not mandatory either, and in 1992 it became mandatory. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was certainly part of the mandatory curriculum. I cannot find anything about 1992, and I also wonder how such a regulation would have been imposed. School curricula are defined by the states, not by the federal government. There is some degree of coordination through the Kultusministerkonferenz, and it would be from this assembly that I would expect such a recommendation or directive. This KMK statement from 1978 is the oldest that I could find (already uncomfortably late but there may have been earlier ones). --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm just taking a WAG here, but I suspect that 1992 has something to do with the process of German reunification; I know that the process of reunification began in 1989, but the sort of boring bureaucratic stuff in terms of homogenizing laws and regulations and stuff like that doesn't happen overnight. Even after the GDR formally dissolved in 1990, there was still likely a lot of things to do to make the two countries work as one again. Perhaps 1992 is when some rather boring part of homogenizing national education policy (and yes, I know that like the U.S., the German education system is managed on the state level, but there is still a Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany) which does have some role in coordinating national education policy, whatever it may be). Just a guess though. --Jayron 32 20:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With Wrongfilter's source I could find references to a decision from February 12th 1960 by the KMK (the conference of ministers of education of the Länder) on "the treatment of the recent past in history and social studies instruction". The BMBF (Federal Ministry for Education and Research) has very little influence in primary and secondary education - it's more important in tertiary education and research, because if provides significant funds for research, both directly in the form of grants, but also via research establishments (like the Max-Planck-Institutes and the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft). Doctoral students are often funded via such a research institute, even if graduating from a university. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although I imagine that East German schoolchildren were well-versed in the evils of Nazism. Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic, given that they were not being taught the evils of the Honecker dictatorship... --Jayron 32 12:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, indoctrination was through a Communist lens. The compulsory youth movement, Ernst Thälmann Pioneer Organisation, was named after a pre-war German Communist leader who was imprisoned and finally shot by the Nazis in 1944. Alansplodge (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "The People's Stick"." It is a difference without a distinction. --Jayron 32 14:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We all have our national myths, but some are more mythical than others. Alansplodge (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the original question, it is worth noting that in the some of the first West German elections after the war, National Socialism remained force in parliamentary politics (through the Socialist Reich Party). Without repressive measures insitituted in West Germany under Allied occupation, it would likely have remained a force in mainstream politics (especially considering the integration of millions of German refugees from eastern Europe). In the immediate aftermath of the war, there was no consensus on new national identity. Questions like which flag to use, what should be the national capital, what should be the national borders, where yet unresolved. There was certainly frustration with the outcome of the war and material suffering during the war end stage and occupation, but the concept of German collective moral guilt was not universally accepted. Jasper's work Die Schuldfrage was first published in 1946, would become significant in shaping new (West) German identity but it was certainly not universally accepted at the onset. We need to reflect on the impact of post-war reconstruction economic growth (whereby the middle class, improverished at the end of the war, now could dramatically improve material living conditions but denial of National Socialism was precondition for personal advancement) and Cold War (where the West German middle class overwhelmingly opted for West against East). People that had been mid-level officials in the Reich would overwhelmingly conform to work under their new overlords, only isolated individuals would move to fringe politics. The 1968 movement challenged this pact of silence, opening old wounds again, putting spotlight on how the West German elite was full of former Reich officials and collaborators. Post 1968 I think it's safe to say that West German society had an overwhelming consensus on how the history of the war would fit in their national conciousness, but in a way it's only with the annexation of the GDR in the 1990s that the national questions simmering since 1945 was resolved - whereby CDU recognized the Oder-Nesse line as the eastern German border. Worth pointing out, there was a parallel, but very different process in Austria (which had been an integral part of the German Reich during all of the war) to construe another new national myth altogether. --Soman (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also some relevant contribution from the terms of the Marshall Plan. It should be noted that the competing Morgenthau Plan, which was rejected in favor of the Marshall Plan, would have punitively punished Germany rather than offered it aid. The "carrot" approach of Marshall rather than the "stick" approach of Morgenthau likely had a profound impact on denazification of at least West Germany in what was, in retrospect, a relatively short period of time. The East, of course, took a different approach under Soviet domination, seeking to enforce denazification through dictatorial means. --Jayron 32 18:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the biography of Joseph Asher, a German-born American rabbi. In 1965, he helped the West German government develop their secondary school curriculum on the Holocaust, and he was an outspoken advocate for reconciliation between the Germans and the Jews. Personal disclosure: Asher officiated when my wife and I got married in San Francisco in 1981. Cullen328 (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JIP:: I read something about an exhibition making West Germans confront the reality of what actually happened in Germany and was comfortably forgotten during the German Miracle. Maybe I am confusing it with the 1995 Wehrmacht exhibition. Those born later mentions the 1985 speech by President Von Weizsäcker, the teenager Anna Rosmus in 1980 and the Historikerstreit. -- Error (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About East Germany, the National Democratic Party of Germany (DDR):

was an East German political party that served as a satellite party to the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED) from 1948 to 1989, representing former members of the Nazi Party, the Wehrmacht and middle classes.

--Error (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]