Humanities desk
< September 13	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 15 >

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 14

USA: what would a Republican president have done differently than FDR for Great Depression?

After the stock market crash of 1929. Every once in a while I find articles of Republicans during FDR's period who "opposed the New Deal program." Then what would Republicans have idealized to have done differently? And would FDR have been hated by Republicans more during his time period, then with a few decades after his time period? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

We don't do speculation. This question is impossible to answer without a great deal of speculation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I hope the answer was to my topic and not my post. My post is a different question than the title. And I've seen from experience that admins will shut down the title rather than my post. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Presidency of Herbert Hoover pretty well covers what a Republican president did during the Great Depression. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See List of critics of the New Deal and you will find many Republicans, some of which detail what they would have done. A common theme you'll find is that printing a lot of money to pay people to do rather pointless busy work was not beneficial and prolonged the depression. That is an oversimplification of the policies enacted and cannot be proven as we can't go back and try a different strategy to compare results. As always, it is far easier to be certain your opinion is absolutely correct if it cannot be actually tested. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the work was helpful. So many infrastructure projects like subways and dams are from Depression-era government projects. The Depression had a deflation trap even with all that money (was it really printed? Borrowing is not the same as printing. I thought Keynesian economics wasn't popular till after the Depression). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From family stories, my Great-Grandfather hated FDR… wouldn’t even speak his name (and just referred to him as: “That man in the White House”). Apparently great-granddad was a staunch free market man… he hated the New Deal and thought it was prolonging the Depression (and that it wasn’t the government’s job to “interfere” in the economy). He felt that the economy would dip lower without FDR’s policies, but that it would rebound sooner if the government did nothing. Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way I heard it, there was danger of serious civil unrest: see Bonus Army for a taste of it. The New Deal relieved some of the pressure. Otherwise maybe the electric boogaloo might have been in the 1930's and we'd be talking about the three-galoo now? www.econlib.org/scott-alexander-on-herbert-hoover (paste the url since that link appears blacklisted) is a book review review, of Scott Alexander's review of a Kenneth Whyte's biography of Herbert Hoover, that also gives a little more context. I read the Alexander review a while back and it is very interesting and funny, though awfully long. Hoover comes across as a perhaps loveable scoundrel, and not very clueful about running the government. So things might have gotten messy. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:256B (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Kindleberger's history of the Great Depression is fantastic, even if it is no very easy read.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

College textbooks between undergraduate and graduates.

So I'm aware in many sciences, the textbooks for Master's degree is the same for bachelor's degree. Such as the case for textbooks of inorganic chemistry, and spectroscopy. (Not counting 100-level or 200-level). Can anyone think of any majors, science or non-science, where textbooks are specifically different between upper-undergraduate and graduate? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

It's likely that someone at MSc level would switch to reading specialised textbooks on individual topics, rather than one big one. University-level teaching in the sciences loves mega textbooks that cover every aspect of a topic at least a bit, I'd expect that to fall off once you go to graduate level. But this is all a generalisation. Blythwood (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could get pdfs of current college textbooks for free. They're too expensive to non-college students (and even college students have to pay if their scholarship isn't good enough). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know during the covid a lot of textbooks became PDF files, I was able to download several newer-editions of my textbooks from undergrad. Textbooks on toxicology, environmental chemistry, even the ___ 4 dummies. You might not be able to download the most recent edition, well that's what the 2nd recent edition is for. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Why were 4 dummies books free? The supply chain didn't break completely, and free pdfs would reduce sales. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We all like free stuff, and when I was an undergrad (way back in the last millennium), I had to buy many of my textbooks second-hand from older students who no longer needed them, or borrow them on short-term loan from the University library. However, from my subsequent experience as both a bookseller and an editor of science textbooks, let me point out that publishers have to invest a lot of money to commission, edit, promote and print textbooks, which then enter into competition with textbooks from other publishers and may not be widely adopted. In order to cover both the prepublication and post-publication costs (including authors' royalties, ongoing production and distribution costs, retailers' discounts, etc.) of both the successful and unsuccessful titles, and to make a profit (they're not charities) publishers have to charge accordingly. If too many free (often pirated) copies of a title circulate, its publisher may lose money, be unable to invest in future titles, and may even fold: my own former publishing employer, founded 1768, no longer exists as an independent entity. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.131.160 (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also forgot to say this is a scrap argument. The costs of taking a university course far exceeds the cost of a textbook, which can be $200. Exceptions would be if you're enrolled in a state-university. Most people that can afford to buy houses or pay expensive rent, can afford expensive textbooks. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I know private college is usually much more than $1,000 per semester but that's irrelevant if I've decided not to go to college and I'm far too poor to afford to buy house(s) or pay expensive rent. $200 is high by book standards and a lot of money for personal curiosity and you don't even get 1/40th of a bachelors for spending the $200. A lot of the people buying $200 textbooks with their own money are at least investing (in themselves), if they pick the right major and live in a mobile home for awhile maybe they can save money till they beat the stock market's average ~8% compounding (inflation-adjusted)? Let's see, if they would've averaged $40K/yr for the next 44 years after high school without college but spent $60K/yr on pricy private school then started averaging $100K for the next 40 years they would've profited $4000K-$240K=$3760K, $2160K more than $1600K without college. $240K*1.08**44=$7093K. Or $3117K if you get only 6% inflation-adjusted. I guess you're supposed to invest some of your extra salary, in that case if you invest enough of the extra salary at 6 or 8 till age 50 (let's say $20K/year from 22 to 32 since salary will be below lifetime average, then $40K/year till 42, then $60K/year, but smoosh it into a smooth rise tracking salary rise of equal profit so you don't have to live on $40K/year for like 1 year when the savings rate suddenly jumps $10K) it should be more profitable than investing the $240K that same 1.06 or 1.08 to the 44th power. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I teach general biology at a community college. The text for that one course is more than $200. And then there's the lab manual (another $40 plus, and that's produced in house). Not to mention any additional ancillaries. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If, after thorough review, they became sure nothing needed to be changed (probably more likely in Introduction To Homeric Studies or Sumerian Grammar than Coronavirology), and they couldn't think of a way to improve on the 2022.5 edition, so they add one comma without changing the meaning and make the edition without the comma illegal, how much does the value of the 2022.5 physical textbook drop right after? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "upper-division undergraduate textbooks" turns up various discussions and results... AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is also do textbook authors / publishing companies ever explicitly make a textbook for graduate-only or so. And I wonder what subjects would that be. I can't imagine, for example, a philosophy or history textbook for graduate-course only. But it would be 2 versions, 1 for grad and 1 for undergrad. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

(I am a University math professor.) Textbooks in mathematics used by graduate students are generally different from those used by (upper-level) undergrads. This is because the subject is taught very differently at these two different levels. For example the typical undergraduate presentation of calculus is very very different from the treatment of the same topic at the graduate level. Same goes for linear algebra and others. For example the book Principles of Mathematical Analysis aka "Baby Rudin" is intended for upper-level undergrads, while Rudin's other textbooks on the same topic are meant for graduate students. The Graduate Texts in Mathematics (GTM) is a very prestigious series of textbooks published by Springer, intended for graduate students and researchers. They also publish Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics (UTM), which is intended for advanced undergrads. (I am using a UTM book in one of my undergrad courses now.) Often a grad student or researcher will find particular UTM books useful, but even advanced undergrads would typically not be able to follow the level of GTM books. Staecker (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was a History major back in the day… At the upper levels, we were really focusing on reading primary source material, not text books. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly in the sciences (I was a chemistry major), textbooks become less important at higher levels; by the time one is a PHD student, it is likely there are no nextbooks, you are probably working directly with journals like Journal of the American Chemical Society or Synthesis or something like that as your texts. The point of graduate/terminal degrees is that you are working at the highest level training to be a professional academic, so you're learning from the same sources academics use. --Jayron 32 14:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NAZI NZ

Were there any pro-Nazi or more generally pro-Axis movements in New Zealand before or during WWII? 195.62.160.60 (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right politics in New Zealand says no notable such movements. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, there was an active NSDAP/AO branch in Samoa (with a very peculiar history), and Samoa was under NZ control with League of Nations mandate. --Soman (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third Stanza of the Battle Hymn of the Republic

Hello all. I have tried looking it up, but to no avail — does anyone know why so many performances of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” exclude the third stanza (“I have read a fiery gospel…”)? It’s always seemed odd to me. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.127.1.12 (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until you asked this question I didn't even know that that stanza existed. I can't recall ever hearing it or seeing it printed in a text. So, it is probably not performed often because many other people are likewise unaware of it. Why it is not printed more often would be the relevant question. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably for the same reason the second, third and fourth stanzas of the Star-Spangled Banner are rarely performed as well. And I don't think one in ten Canadians are aware that O Canada has more than one stanza and probably much fewer than that have ever heard even one of the last three being sung. Xuxl (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As to O Canada, it doesn't. When the government first made it the official anthem they also cut it to one stanza in English and one in French, and that's still true for today's version. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Especially the third stanza, as it's pretty insulting to the British. (And by they way, its anniversary is today.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the premise of a short story by Asimov. Shells-shells (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the third stanza was the one that goes:

”Nah nerr tee tum tee yummtee

yum tee TUM tee tum tee tee,

Nehrdy yum dee dum dee DUM teedum

tee tumpty tum dee dee

Something something

something something

la dee dahh, de da tee tee

His Truth Is Marching ON.”

(at least that’s how I always sing it) Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the idea that the Gospels can be represented by a row of bayonets is going a bit too far. It's quite a popular hymn in British churches, but I've never seen that verse in a hymn book. Alansplodge (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some references:

...in the verse that is sometimes omitted, the idea of vengeance is clearly articulated in imagery of fire, steel, and crushing. The English Hymn, p. 476

The third stanza spoke of a “fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel,” thereby suggesting some connection between the gospel of Christ and the nation's military agenda. And the Word Became Flesh: Studies in History, Communication, and Scripture, p. 302

In a 1920s tract, the California pacifist, Fanny Bixby Spencer, warned that the “Battle Hymn” actually vitiated the nation's claims to exceptionalism. For, she insisted, it was difficult to differentiate the “war intoxication” the song encouraged from the bloodlust of the "Turks when they go out to kill Armenians. They too have read a fiery gospel writ in rows of burnished steel," foretold in their own holy book. The Battle Hymn of the Republic: A Biography of the Song, p. 13

Alansplodge (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure I've sung the burnished steel bit, but it would have been getting on for forty years ago and in a Methodist Church in Cornwall during a Remembrance Day service, not at a patriotic American event. DuncanHill (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For much the same reason the second verse of God Save the Queen is deprecated:

O Lord our God arise,

Scatter her enemies,

And make them fall;

Confound their politics,

Frustrate their knavish tricks,

On her our hopes we fix,

O save us all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2409:E801:B5C5:61FA:5702:17F6 (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not deprecated, but reserved for "time of war". Although not (as far as I know) used in recent conflicts, my late parents both remembered singing it during the Second World War, when it was thought appropriate. BTW, the last line is usually "God save us all". Alansplodge (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject of violent national songs, I'm reminded of the first stanza of La Marseillaise which closes with the line "Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras, ègorger vos fils, vos compagnes", "ègorger" being a French word meaning "to slit the throats of". --Jayron32 12:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, both the first verse of the Marseillaise and the third verse of the Star-Spangled Banner talk about the spilled blood of the enemy. It just sounds so much prettier in French. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The last line is equally horrible, and there's long been a vocal minority who don't want to sing about drenching the fields in the filthy blood of enemies (see [1]). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen stepmother

If Camilla outlives Charles, I assume she won't be queen mother since she isn't William's mother. Is there any precedent for the term "Queen stepmother", or will she simply be the queen dowager? —Mahāgaja · talk 13:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just “Queen Camilla”. Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any PROOF that she would be Queen Dowager, but I do note that Queen_dowager#British_queens_dowager and this page from Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England suggest that Queen Dowager at least was at one point the correct title. Given how slowly Britain changes its royal laws, it's probably still the case. --M @r ē ino 20:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the last Queen Mother suggests that the title was only included in her official style to avoid confusion with the other Queen Elizabeth. As far as I can tell, Queen Mary was always known as "Queen Mary"; there's not much likelyhood of there being another Queen Camilla in her lifetime. Alansplodge (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last monarch to have a second spouse was James II and VII, who's second wife Mary of Modena was not the mother of either of James's children to succeed to the throne, Mary II or Anne. However, given that James and Mary of Modena were ridden out of the country in the Glorious Revolution, I'm not sure that counts; she did outlive James and BOTH of his daughters who reigned, so was a living stepmother of two monarchs, if that means anything. Before that, it was Henry VIII, who was outlived by Catherine Parr, who only outlived him by a year, and Anne of Cleves, who lived into the reign of Mary I. Catherine would have thus been a living stepmother to one monarch, Anne of two. Prior to that, Henry IV had a second wife, Joan of Navarre, who lived into the reign of Henry VI, so was a living stepmother for Henry V. The ever fecund Edward Longshanks (19 legitimate children!) had a second wife, Margaret of France, who lived into the reign of Edward III, thus serving as a living stepmother for Edward II. If you count the Empress Matilda as monarch, her stepmother Adeliza of Louvain lived into the reign of her grandson Henry II, thus was stepmother of Matilda while she reigned. That's all of the English/British stepmothers of monarchs I can find back to the conquest. If we include Scotland back to around the same time, then Euphemia de Ross, second wife of Robert II of Scotland lived into the reign of her stepson Robert III, and Saint Margaret of Scotland saw one of her stepsons, Duncan II of Scotland on the throne, as well as three of her own sons. That takes us back to the 11th century as well. Those are all of the stepmothers of Scotland prior to the union of crowns. --Jayron32 23:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, thanks for all the research! —Mahāgaja · talk 07:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - List of British monarchs, List of English monarchs, and List of Scottish monarchs helped. --Jayron 32 12:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This [2]explains the difference between the Queen Mother and Queen Dowager. Princess Victoria (the mother of our last Queen Regnant) told the prime minister she wanted the title of Queen Mother. He told her: "You are the Queen's mother, you have that distinction, but you are not the Queen Mother." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2403:C401:A8A9:8A15:4895:1E3C (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That conversation appeared in Laurence Housman's play Victoria Regina, in which the PM went on to explain that only a person who had been a queen could become a queen mother. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith (explorer)

what was his political position: royal absolutist? and his religion: Anglican, Catholic, or Puritan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.167.152 (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article states he was buried in St Sepulchre-without-Newgate, which is Anglican. At that point in history, it would be weird bury a non-Anglican there. I can't help you about his politics. --M @r ē ino 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Than you for the religion. I wait for the other one.

Somewhat speculative, but politics in the early 1600s were much aligned with religion. If Smith tended towards Puritanism, then he might also oppose royal power, particularly as both James I and his son, Charles I, both criticised and later persecuted Puritan preachers. Those who espoused the high church theology promoted by James and Charles are more likely to have supported royal perogative over parliament. At this stage, Puritanism was largely a movement within the Anglican Church of England, except for a small minority who left the established church and who were called Seperatists, so I'm not sure that we can infer much from Smith being buried in his parish churchyard. Alansplodge (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a reference;

The Puritans: A Sourcebook of Their Writings (p. 395) says Smith was "no Puritan".

Captain John Smith: A Select Edition of His Writings says that Smith believed "that the puritans only simulated great piety".

Alansplodge (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be buried anywhere else at the time? I rather think the CofE had something of a monopoly. DuncanHill (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The slightly later Bunhill Fields was the place where London's dissenters were buried from 1665. Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]