Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 11

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities
Humanities desk
< August 10 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 12 >
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.


August 11

edit

Imbalance of women and men on dating sites and clubs

edit

Why is it that dating sites always have many more men than women, and also nightclubs also have more men than women? What are the women doing, staying at home watching tv? How can the imbalance be accounted for? Whats the reason?

Yet an equal number of men and women get married. Given the imbalance above, are women more likely to marry after divorce than men?

Is the imbalance accounted for, perhaps, by women giving up socialising with men as soon as they've had one relationship (and perhaps had an unmarried child) at a comparatively young age, while men continue actively seeking partners to an older age? 62.253.48.5 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this article. Xn4 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In biology, whichever sex invests most in the upbringing of offspring will be "commodity" in sexual courting, since they have the most to lose. Like any good commodity market, demand regularly outstrips supply. In humans (and most vertebrates) that is the female, since she is the one that has to carry and rear the child after getting knocked up by a randy male night clubber. Once that happens, her genetic imperative is to care for the child, and is less likely to be found in the nightclub the following week/month/year. In contrast, the male genetic imperative is to continue to spread his seed, so he is more likely to be found there again. Of course, human social motivation is more complex that this simplistic example, but the basic concept holds true, even in human society. After all, thats where the idiom, left holding the baby comes from. Rockpocket 05:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In biology, whichever sex invests most in the upbringing of offspring will be "commodity" in sexual courting, since they have the most to lose. Like any good commodity market, demand regularly outstrips supply." This is complete nonsense, as there are (almost exactly) equal numbers of men and women, so demand and supply are the same. 80.3.41.168 12:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are the confusing the goods on a market (females looking for mates) with the total goods capacity (all the females of reproductive age), and the active consumers (males looking for mates) with the total consumer capacity (all the males of reproductive age). The difference in biology between males and females means the former is a smaller proportion of all females, than it is in males. This is a pretty standard concept in evolutionary biology. Rockpocket 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However much jargon you want to use, there are still an approximately equal number of men and women on the planet. Your paragraph above is just asserting what I said in my original question, so it doesnt add anything new. 80.0.99.26 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense. Or do you think single mothers with children at home do as much courting, dating, clubbing etc as single dads (with children somewhere far away)? The market doesn't consist of every existing unmarried individual, but of those who, well, advertise themselves on the market. 77.56.108.140 19:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your theory is that this is the reason? That unmarried mothers are less likely to date/ You may be right. 80.0.99.26 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but are there really an equal number of men and women? If you counted the population, the answer is probably yes. But, the question should not be: how many men and how many women exist on this planet? Should not the appropriate question be: how many men and how many women exist on this planet who are in fact interested in dating? Or some such variation. Those numbers might (?) be quite different than an actual population count which is probably 50/50. (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It's not only who is interested in dating, but more like "Who goes to personal websites and nightclubs looking for dates?" Once you narrow it down like that, it's not so hard to believe there could be far more men than women in those environments. Friday (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now tell me why women are less likely than men to go to dating sites or nightclubs? 80.0.99.26 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The article at the link I left (see above) says -
(from speeddater.co.uk)
I can't vouch for any of this, but I thought it did seem to suggest some answers to some of your questions. Xn4 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On your question about night-clubs, they still have much of their original purpose of late-night drinking places. There are well-known reasons why there are more men than women in bars of all kinds, including gender differences in comfort, security, and respectability, men's disposable incomes being much higher than women's, and even (one of Rockpocket's points) the fact that women do more of the looking after children. Xn4 20:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather disapointed that most of the "answers" above just assert what I originally mentioned in the third paragraph of my original question. However I cannot belive that all the women not using dating sites or not going to nightclubs are single parents staying at home looking after their child(ren). That does not account for enough women. Why are childless single women still not going to such places as much as men? What are they doing instead? And, a statistical point - are women less likely to marry than men? 80.0.99.26 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, anon, there has been a number of perfectly informative answers. That you don't believe them, understand them or are disappointed by them does not invalidate them. I'm not quite sure what more you expect, when you dismiss those answers already provided. I'll have another go: The point is that basic male imperative is to go out and mate with as many people as he can, thoughout his reproductive life (which lasts almost as long as he lives). The female imperative is to fine a partner who will provide her with a child then support and care for that child (in a relatively short period in her life). Even though there may be equal number of men and woman in total, either sex are in an ongoing struggle to fulfil their very different imperatives. And since these imperative are in conflict with each other, there is a battle of sorts going on. So, as with any battle, if you want a better chance of winning, you will strategically plan where and when it occurs to give you the advantage. Now, ask youself this, are nightclubs better suited to finding someone to sleep with, or to find a lifelong partner? If you can answer that then it should be very clear why you find more males there than females. Its because the nightclub "battleground" favours the male imperative. So what are the women doing? Well, they are trying to tempt men to their favorable battleground, places where they can scope out the ideal partner as quickly and efficiently as they can. By the looks of the source above, it would appear that is speed dating.
Obviously this is a very biocentric view, but at a very basic level this kind of analysis can be used to model a lot of complex human behaviours. Rockpocket 09:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The previous comment is again just repeating what I said in the third paragraph of my question, followed by some very old-fashioned and sexist cliches about gender roles dressed up in some evolutionary-biology jargon. I am disapointed by these replies. They do not account for things like (as I asked) what are women doing while men are out nightclubbing? And, assuming equal numbers of men and women pair off each year, how do women find partners if they dont go to nightclubs or dating sites much? An analogy that comes to mind is matching a job with an employee - there is one job (female?) but lots of applicants (males?). And I am sure that the number of women who go to speed dating is less than the numbers who do not go to nightclubs. 80.0.133.26 20:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems likely that the numbers are much the same, despite the notion of Benjamin Disraeli, "I have always thought that every woman should marry, and no man". Xn4 23:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pashtuns in pakistan

edit

Does Pakistan have its own native Pashtuns or are they afghani pashtuns?

Have you read the article on Pashtuns? Donald Hosek 00:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions that the Pashtuns are indigenous to parts of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The article does not mention that the border is porous and that people move back and forth across it continually. So it is difficult to say whether some Pashtuns are Afghans or Pakistanis. Furthermore, there are Pashtuns of Afghan origin who are refugees in Pakistan, including probably some of the leadership of the Taliban. Marco polo 01:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(after e.c.) 76.64.129.223's question might stem from the ambiguity of the word Afghan. As you can see on that disambiguation page, Afghan can refer both to the citizens of the nation Afghanistan, and also to ethnic Pashtuns (who can be ethnologically "native" to regions in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but can live and be citizens in any nation in the word, see Pashtun diaspora) ---Sluzzelin talk 01:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Toledo Incident of 1925

edit

I've searched and searched and everything I find is a book review by an historian named Cox, but with no actual information. I do know that in 1925 an angry mob in Toledo, Oregon ran a bunch of Japanese immigrants out of town for some reason. Apparently there was a lawsuit and the Japanese Americans won. What I'd like to know is what caused the problem. Why were the citizens so mad at the Japanese. I assume it's a labor dispute of some sort, but I don't know for sure.

I'm only asking for my own curiosity, not a homework assignment. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about every town in Oregon that has a quilt shop. (Yes, I know that sounds crazy, but I'm having a great time doing it.)CarolStill 03:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

books.google.com tells me that there is a chapter in A History of Japanese Immigrants in North America by Kazuo Itō regarding "The Toledo Incident of 1925", but that's all I've got. Plasticup T/C 04:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Tony Greiner of the Oregon Library Association
In 1925, a sawmill in Toledo (slightly inland from Newport) hired a group of Japanese laborers to work the "green line."These were the hard jobs sorting lumber that the company couldn't keep filled with local workers. Shortly after the Japanese (and some Filipinos and a Korean) arrived at their quarters inside the mill compound, a mob from the town, urged on by Rosemary Schenck marched to the mill. There, they overpowered the resistance put up by mill operators, and then, after roughing up a couple of the laborers, loaded them in cars and drove them to Corvallis. Five of the laborers brought suit in Federal Court, and won damages against several of the mob members... this case was one of the first to establish the rights of resident aliens.
The workers were brought to Toledo by the Pacific Spruce Corporation. The mob was about 50 strong, and largely motivated by xenophobia whipped up by speeches by the ringleaders of William S. Colvin and H. T. Pritchard. Colvin told the crowd "I appeal to every man who respects his flag to join the line", claiming "it was now up to the citizenry of the town to kick the Japanese out whether peacefully or by force." They marched to the workers' housing chanting "Down with the Japs," "Out With the Japs" and "Hang the Japs" and, after a standoff with local deputies and Corporation supervisors, eventually ran the workers out of town Rockpocket 07:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Battle of Thermopylae

edit

In the "On This Day" section of the Main Page, it lists 11 August as the date of the Battle of Thermopylae. However, in the linked article, it says that the date of the battle is estimated as being in mid-September, specifically 18, 19 or 20 Sep as the date of the betrayal. Why this discrepancy? Thanks. 72.205.41.2 03:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that it is the difference between the Gregorian calendar and the Julian calendar, or maybe some other calendar system. This is also why the October Revolution occurred in November. Plasticup T/C 04:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The calendar in question is the Attic calendar, and there is also the problem of different dates given in different sources (which is true for every ancient battle, and everything else in ancient history, and medieval history, and sometimes even modern history!). Adam Bishop 16:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prison

edit

I guess that this is a question of sociology. I just finished watching some documentary on, essentially, life in an American (male) prison. And, of course, pretty much every single inmate had either a tattoo or a whole bunch of tattoos. No surprise, right? It got me thinking. What is the correlation, if any, between anti-social behavior (i.e., being a prisoner who committed a crime and is living in a prison) with one's propensity to get (or to not get) tattooed? I mean, I have my ideas ... but I would like to see the input of others. And, of course, I realize that we are dealing with generalizations and that every individual is different. Blah blah blah. But, why is it that -- when you see a documentary about inmates ... they "all" have tattoos all over the place? Certainly, no one is surprised -- in fact, it's almost expected -- when you watch a documentary on prison life. What is behind this phenomenon? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 04:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well, a lot of fads come from prison. Baggy pants are one example, along with several types of tattoos. I know from one source that spider-web tattoos are used by inmates to signify that they have been in prison, but others have picked up on it and begun to use it as a trendy thing. (This is in certain parts of America.) I suppose that if you wear tattoo, you may be more surrounded by people who have been to prison before, and thus more susceptible to their world-view and behavior... Wrad 04:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, my sister in law carried out a study into something related to this, concluding "Tattoos may be possible markers for lethality from both suicide and accidental death in young people, presumably because of shared risk factors such as substance abuse and personality disorder", (PMID 10837885). Another study finds "individuals with tattoos were more likely to smoke, drink heavily, use smokeless tobacco, and ride in a vehicle with someone who had been drinking than non-tattooed individuals" (PMID 12564865) and a third explains "Participants with tattoos and/or body piercings were more likely to have engaged in risk-taking behaviors and at greater degrees of involvement than those without either. These included disordered eating behavior, gateway drug use, hard drug use, sexual activity, and suicide." (PMID 12042538). Considering the association with risk-taking behaviour, its no great surprise that there is a greater (than would be expected by chance) number of people with tattoos in jail. However, in addition to this, being in jail and/or adopting a criminal lifestyle appears to promote tattooing. See Criminal tattoo. Rockpocket 06:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrad, be careful not to turn the causality around. Prison folk may have more tattoos than others, but that doesn't mean that having a tattoo leads to hanging around with criminals. By far most tattoo-wearers are just 'ordinary' folk - well, not all that ordinary, because else they would not have gotten a tattoo. There is a bit of rebellion in getting a tattoo, which is why teenagers tend to get them - and are then stuck with them for the rest of their lives, whether they like it or not. A housemate of mine has a tattoo on his arm, and he is more the brainy type, a researcher at the University of Amsterdam. A niece also has one and she's a very nice girl who wouldn't hurt a fly (actually she's a nurse, so she does quite the opposite). But I suppose it also depends on where you live. In some cultures a tattoo will be more acceptable than in others. And in some tattoos are generally held in high esteem, especially if they are only used to celebrate something someone has done (and not just for looks), such as in Borneo.
However, I do believe that inmates are more likely to have loads of tattoos, whereas other folk usually have just the one. DirkvdM 07:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not venture to speak for the Dutch, but take a look at the list of associated activities given by Rockpocket. I would venture that, while risk-taking and 'rebellion' of a sort may be involved, there are powerful social and cultural forces at work here. My social radar would allow me to give a fuller (OR) answer for the UK (which may apply in a limited way to the US), but it's kind of socially hard to talk about these things :P Skittle 01:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You would be interested in Adolf Loos' opinions on Ornament and Crime and although his argument was an aesthetic one he did use the example of the criminal and our South Seas' "savages" (though I haven't seen many "decorated" white collar criminals etc). There are all kinds of tattoo and even tatau. Why not look at our article tattoo its seems to have some substantiated facts and references. Mhicaoidh 11:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input - it is helpful. Perhaps what I am asking is this: Are people with tattoos more likely to end up in prison as a criminal (i.e., is there some correlation)? My (very generalized) thinking is this: to get a tattoo in the first place, you have to be a little bit rebellious / going against the grain / trying to make a statement / marching to the tune of a different drummer / etc. (At least moreso than the "average" person who does not get a tattoo.) And people with those qualities and characteristics are more likely to be anti-social / rebel against authority / do whatever they please / act more on impulse than reasoned deliberation, etc. Any thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Makes sense, but as I pointed out those qualities are found in teenagers and once they got them they're stuck with them, even if they turn out boring law-abiding citizens. Another thing I think of now is that people with tattoos might more easily end up in prison because the police are more likely to keep an eye on them. Which means that people without tattoos are more likely to get away with breaking the law.
But something more along the lines of what you were probably thinking is an analogy with dyslexia (no, I'm serious). On a BBC series called something like 'how to become a millionaire' they analysed what sort of people millionaires are and it turned out there was a disproportionate amount of dyslexics among them. The same was true for prisoners. Turns out dyslexics are more prone to risk-taking, which can lead to success or failure. Now this makes me wonder if millionaires have a disproportionate amount of tattoos. :) DirkvdM 18:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want specific numbers an Australian survey found, "Estimates of the prevalence of tattooing among the prison population vary from 51 per cent of females and 57 per cent of males in New South Wales in 1996, to 58 per cent of prisoners in Western Australia." In contrast, 11.9% of men and 8.5% of woman in the Australian population are tattooed. So there is a strong, statistically significant correlation, but cause and effect relationships are very difficult to establish for things like this. [1] Rockpocket 03:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A possible minor reason for people in prison having tattoos is that tatooing is one of the ways that prisoners can express themselves while actually in prison.
Surely we must have a prison tattoo article. No, hmmm. In America, prison tats can be about indicating prison gang membership. And no one mentioned the Yakuza yet? Rmhermen 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel sure that Foucault wil have a lot to say about this somewhere. DuncanHill 22:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other consideration is that those who get tats may have a short-term outlook on life. For example, someone with a long-term outlook may realize that the name of their current significant other shouldn't be permanently affixed to their body as there's a good chance they will have another significant other at some point in their life and the tat will then become a negative. Those with a short-term outlook are also likely to look at the immediate benefits of committing a crime, like getting some quick cash, and ignore the likely long-term consequence of prison. StuRat 03:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat ... I like the way you summed that up ... makes a lot of sense ... thanks ... (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks to all - I appreciate the input. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Alexander the Great

edit
 
The easternmost Alexandrias

Which of the following, Bucephala; Susa; Bactra; Alexandria, is the furthest east of the cities that were conquered or established by Alexander the Great? 144.137.140.162 05:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Bucephalous (thought to be Jhelum): 73°44′00″E
Bactra: 66°54′0″E
Susa: 48°15′28.03″E
Alexandria (in Egypt): 29°55′9.12″E
Looks like Bucephala. Although he also founded Alexandria Nicaea which appears to be marginally to the east of Bucephala. Rockpocket 05:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bankruptcies

edit

is there an increase in bankruptcies in relation to the subprime problem? I'd think that if so many folks can't pay their loans, they'd have to go bankrupt?

Not necessarily. The sub-prime problem is largely over mortgages. If you default on your mortgage payments, you risk losing your home. The lender will foreclose on the loan and auction your house to realize its value, but you don't have to file for bankruptcy. However, losing you home is pretty catastrophic financially, and it is likely that some people will file as a result of it. In fact, in some jurisdictions, by filing for bankruptcy you can get an automatic stay on the foreclosure proceeding. See Subprime mortgage financial crisis and Bankruptcy in the United States for more info. Rockpocket 06:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an increase in the UK - you may like to look at Bankruptcy in the United Kingdom: Why are bankruptcies soaring? Xn4 19:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, where the financial geniuses came up with the idea of lending to poor people with exploding interest rates to virtually ensure foreclosure or suffering, it would take a great deal for mortgage default to pass health care costs as a cause of personal bankruptcy. The genius of for-profit medicine easily clobbers the subprime mortgage in causing misery for Americans. Geogre 14:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central bank interventions

edit

"Central banks in several countries pumped billions of dollars into banking systems" . "European Central Bank injects €94.8 billion of liquidity into the European financial system". Exactly how does a central bank "inject" liquidity into the banking/financial system? What transactions are they undertaking? --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They buy shares in companies/institutions - converting the currency (gold) into shares (representing amongst other things faith in the instituition/company) - see investment#finance and the terms therein - including- bonds,shares etc87.102.5.144 12:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Lack of liquidity" can mean "lack of credit" meaning that banks etc are unwilling to invest in the markets/companies - if this is the case this may suggest that companies are not good investments, and may cause a reduction is stock price. The central banks may invest themselves to prevent a 'crash'.
Liquidity here means flow of money. (and the ability to get money quickly)
So to summarise they are buying stocks and shares OR simply loaning money. Was that ok?87.102.5.144 12:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Market liquidity for why liquidity is considered a good thing.87.102.5.144 12:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Liquidity is the ability to sell a given asset quickly, easily, and without affecting (lowering) the price for that asset by selling it. Central banks inject liquidity in two main ways: 1) by lending money to commercial banks so that those banks can use it to make loans (with which clients can buy assets) or purchase existing debt; 2) by directly purchasing financial assets that have become illiquid, such as mortgage-backed securities that nobody wants to buy in the current market. For an interesting perspective on the effectiveness of their actions in the current market, you might have a look at this commentary. Marco polo 18:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monetary system.

edit

what benefit are there for an economy to have a monetary system of her own?Akinmusi 13:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)akinmusi[reply]

The main reason for a country to have its own monetary system (as opposed to relying on a foreign currency) is that interest rates within that country can change or be changed in response to changed economic conditions within that country.
Italy and Ireland provide interesting examples. Italy's government has traditionally spent more than it has collected in taxes. As a result, prices and wages in Italy have tended to rise faster than in other western European countries. Traditionally, Italy's products remained competitive on world markets because its currency, the Italian lira was devalued or allowed to drop, so that price increases within Italy did not affect foreign customers. Since Italy's adoption of the euro, Italy has not had the option of devaluation, since it no longer has its own monetary system but shares a monetary system with its main trade partners in Europe. Consequently, when prices and wages rise in Italy, Italian goods and services become less competitive within Europe, and the economy slows. If Italy had its own central bank, it could lower interest rates both to revive the economy and to reduce the attractiveness of its currency on the world market. However, the European Central Bank (ECB) will not lower interest rates, because the euro-zone economy as a whole (led by Ireland and to a lesser extent Germany) is experiencing relatively strong growth and because the ECB is committed to combatting price increases and defending the value of the euro. In fact, interest rates may be too low to restrain price increases, and particularly increases in house prices in fast-growing economies like that of Ireland. If Ireland had its own monetary system and central bank, it could raise interest rates higher to reign in the economy and prices. However, Ireland, too, is subject to the ECB. Marco polo 19:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Control of the money supply is also a huge factor. By giving up their currency a country is essentially losing control of Monetary Policy and thereby reducing their control over their own economy. Plasticup T/C 03:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal rags of the Bay Area

edit

What are, historically and at present, the "scandal rags" local to the S.F. Bay Area? I'm interested in tabloids full of local, unverified, off-the-record, on the QT, very hush-hush sorts of dirt from the 1940s through the present. Any suggestions would be helpful! --24.147.86.187 15:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide in Greece and Rome

edit

What was their attitude towards suicide?Judithspencer

When? Bielle 21:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
During antiquity, of course. I am also interested in this question.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The attitudes of Christian Greeks and Romans in antiquity would be different than the attitudes of pagan Greeks and Romans in antiquity. 208.114.153.254 23:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stick to pagan Greeks and Romans, please (sorry to hijack this question, Judithspencer; please tell me if I'm off track).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, not all pagan Romans had the same view of all suicide, but some kinds were more approved of than others. In any event, there was no collective rejection of all suicide in the Roman or Greek worlds until (as 208.114.153.254 has spotted) the arrival of Christianity.
The respectable way to kill yourself was with a sword (falling on your own sword is how we remember this now), and that was looked on as manly, when appropriate. Death by hanging was generally repugnant to the ancient Greeks and Romans, as least as depicted by Roman writers. Xn4 00:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hanging was preferred for women. Therefore, it was not proper for a manly death. For some reason, worthy of research, poisoning and hanging were feminine, while vein opening and stabbing manly. (The hot bath with an open vein grew in popularity after the Republic. No idea, again, of why exsanguination would be acceptable then, except that it was supposed to be a "philosopher's" suicide as opposed to a soldier's.) Geogre 14:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot conceive that this is anything other than ancient Greece and Rome, just as I cannot conceive that it is not a question about pagan attitudes towards suicide. On this, Judith, you could do no better than consider the example given by Titus Livy of the colony of Massalia, the present day Marseilles, where those who wanted to kill themselves merely applied to the senate, and if their reasons were judged sound they were then given hemlock free of charge! In general the pagan world, both Roman and Greek, had a far more relaxed attitude towards the whole concept of suicide, a practice that was only finally outlawed with the advent of the Christians, who condemned it at the Council of Arles in 452 as the work of the Devil.

There is, however, some echo of later Christain hostility in earlier pagan thinkers. Pythagoras, for example, was against the act, though more on mathematical than moral grounds, believing that there was only a finite number of souls for use in the world, and that the sudden and unexpected departure of one upset a delicate balance. Aristotle also condemned suicide, though for quite different, far more practical reasons, in that it robbed the community of the services of one of its members. A reading of Phaedo suggests that Plato was also against the practice, inasmuch as he allows Socrates to defend the teachings of the Orphics, who believed that the human body was the property of God, and thus self-harm was a direct offense against divine law. Yet, it's not quite so simple, because after Socrates says than no man has a right to suicide, this is then qualified by the statement "...unless God sends some necessity upon him, as has now been sent upon me." After all, let's not forget that Socrates himself was a suicide, perhaps the most famous in history!

In Rome suicide was never a general offence in law, though the whole approach to the question was essentially pragmatic. It was specifically forbidden in three cases: those accused of capital crimes, soldiers and slaves. The reason behind all three was the same-it was uneconomic for these people to die. If the accused killed themselves prior to trial and conviction then the state lost the right to seize their property, a loophole that was only closed by Domitian in the first century AD, who decreed that those who died prior to trial were without legal heirs. The suicide of a soldier was treated on the same basis as desertion. If a slave killed her or himself within six months of purchase, the master could claim a full refund from the former owner.

But the Romans fully approved of what might be termed 'patriotic suicide'; death, in other words, as an alternative to dishonour. For the Stoics, a philiosphical sect which originated in Greece, death was a guarantee of personal freedom, a way out of an intolerable existence. And so it was for Cato the Younger, who killed himself after the Pompeian cause was defeated at the Battle of Thapsus. This was a 'virtuous death', one guided by reason and conscience. His example was later followed by Seneca, with as much courage and virtue, though under somewhat more straightened circumstances. A very definite line was drawn by the Romans between the virtuous suicide and suicide for entirely private reasons. They disapproved of Mark Antony not because he killed himself, but that he killed himself for love, a very un-Roman thing to do! Clio the Muse 01:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear: despite official rulings, the Christian church was not entirely settled on the subject of suicide until the later 17th century. One of the more interesting feats of theological derring-do is John Donne's Thoughts on Emergent Occasions, which is a long argument in favor of suicide as divinely appointed opportunity. It's a fascinating read from a young Donne showing off his learning and intellectual facility. Geogre 03:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The church had some discussions on the edge where the search for martyrdom was suicidal, in the case of Martyrs of Cordoba, I believe. --Wetman 05:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See further Anton J.L. van Hooff, From Autothanasia to Suicide (Google Books searchable limited preview). Search this table of contents for some very influential early Christian thoughts on the subject by Augustine. Wareh 15:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're off the main question now...a good bit off...but still in the land of Interesting, so:
Sleepless souls : suicide in early modern England / Michael MacDonald, Terence R. Murphy. by MacDonald, Michael, Oxford [England] : Clarendon Press ; Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1990.
I haven't read it yet, but it looks good. Also, David Hume's Biathanatos is yet another argument in favor of the ethical neutrality, more or less, of suicide. I suppose the short version is that the Romans (and Greeks) regarded it as extreme (obviously!) and therefore justifiable only in extremis (obviously!) but not conclusively good or bad -- an act whose morality was determined entirely by its context. The Christian church has been generally denunciatory but also unclear on the matter. While there have been official, top-down, prohibitions on suicide, even these have had room for exceptional duress. Although Dante has suicides in Inferno and scholastics generally put them the same place, there isn't a great deal of certainty on the issue that runs through the rank and file of theologians (if they have ranks and files) or parishoners. Utgard Loki 15:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did Stalin industrialize Russia?

edit

I was reading Paul Kennedy's Great Power book and he had an interesting thesis on how Stalin completed Russia;s industrial revolution. Basically he lowered consumption to unheard of lows and then used the unnaturally low prices of agrarian output to pay for industry. Unfortunately Kennedy only devotes a fe w pages to this issue. I've read both Stalin's official account and "mainstream" histories and both focus on politics rather than explaining how it actually worked. If anyone knows of any online resources that explain how the 5 year plans actually functioned in achieving industrial growth, I'd really appreciate it. --Gary123 22:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, have you looked at the pages on the Economy of the Soviet Union, Collectivisation in the USSR, Gosplan and the First Five Year Plan? There is a lot of good information on the strategy and thinking behind Soviet industrialisation spread over these pages, which might go some way towards answering your question. I have not read Kennedy's book and cannot therefore comment on his thesis. I am not quite sure, though, how Stalin would personally go about 'lowering consumption' and in what way 'unnaturally low prices' for agrarian products would 'pay' for industry. The point is that collectivisation, and the export of agrarian surpluses, gave Stalin sufficient capital to invest in a programme of rapid industrialisation. Collectivisation of agriculture ended the uncertainty over falling grain deliveries, which had been a worrying feature of the later years of the NEP system. The stress on heavy industry shifted investment and spending away from the whole consumer sector, which was to be a fairly constant feature of Stalinist economics. Prior to collectivisation, Soviet industry was tied to Soviet agriculture and, to a large extent, to patterns of peasant consumption. The position was reversed with the Five Year Plans Clio the Muse 02:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you say sounds a lot like the way it was done in Western Europe in the 19th century. Workers had to work really hard and what they got in return was barely enough to live off. In other words, low consumption. Our wealth was largely built up over the backs of our 19th century ancestors. I often wondered if this was a prerequisite for the emergence of socialism (be it state socialism or social democracy). Maybe that is what the USSR/Stalin thought too - the country as a whole needs to get rich first, before we can start to distribute wealth among the individuals. DirkvdM 08:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russia went through a similar process of industrialisation to that of western Europe during the latter part of the nineteenth century, though it was narrow in scope and heavily concentrated in certain places, Petersburg and Moscow, most notably. There are, however, quite substantial differences between what might be thought of as an 'organic industrial revolution' and what happened in Stalin's Russia. In western Europe the process of capital formation, accumulation and investment developed over a far longer time scale, and was geared to an entirely different set of needs and demands: the development of capital and consumer goods proceeded hand-in-hand. Stalinist investment was entirely state controlled, and the chief emphasis, almost the exclusive emphasis, was on capital goods. Inevitably this had a severe impact on the consumer sector, creating all sorts of shortages. Price controls and shortages are also likely to have created a flourishing black market. Although industrialisation in western Europe-and here I have the example of England in mind-certainly impacted on the quality of life, particularly in the deterioration of the urban environment, living standards for the working-class, expressed in terms of wage rates, were actually rising at the most intense phase during the early part of the nineteenth century. There is an argument that a similar pattern can be uncovered in Soviet Russia, shortages notwithstanding, and that living standards were also on the increase, especially for peasants moving to the cities. For this please see Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution by Robert A. Allan. Clio the Muse 23:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May be, but there were lots of riots and uprisings both in western Europe and Russia, so apparently any improvement wasn't quite going fast enough. And the popularity of Marx and the rise of communism and socialism (little distinction at the time between the two) is another good indicator. In western Europe the change came gradually, especially though democracy, but in Russia the Duma was a scam and when people found that out they started revolting again. With success some 10 years later.
But the point is that by that time western Europe was already largely industrialised, whereas Russia was still largely agrarian. It had barely escaped the middle ages (serfdom was abolished only in the late 19th century). So Russia started industrialising at breakneck speed. The space programme is a point in case (and intended as such). In just a few decades Russia went from a largely agrarian society to the first space-faring nation. To build a space vehicle you need not just a good design but also the groundwork - an industry to build all the components, from sheer power to high-tech. And they had to do it all themselves. After WWII, western Europe got aid from the US. The USSR, which was hit hardest, basically got a trade embargo (not too sure about that last bit - I once heard something to that effect). So industrialisation must have gone very fast. And that can only be done by re-investing any profits (or whatever one should call that in a Socialist State), which means it wasn't (all) made available to the people, which means low consumption. QED. DirkvdM 06:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion here over some simple facts; so let me clarify one or two points for the benefit of those who have a general interest in these matters. The 'riots and uprisings' that most often accompanied the process of industrialisation were the work of those opposed to new machinery and working methods; and here I am thinking specifically of the Luddites and the Swing Riots.
Very few, if any, working people had ever heard of Karl Marx before the late nineteenth century, so he can hardly be described as 'popular' by any reasonable measure. The ideology of Marxism first became widespread with the ascent of organised socialist parties in the latter part of the century, particularly the Social Democratic Party of Germany, which adopted the Gotha programme in 1875. These parties, and these programmes, were a cause of the whole process of industrialisation, not a reaction against it. By this time the older forms of labour had largely been absorbed into new social models, and wage-rates were far in excess of agrarian labour. Socialism, again taking the German model as an example, was more often than not a means of creating a specific 'labour culture' than a revolutionary vehicle.
The Russian Duma was born of revolution. The Revolution of 1917 did not break out because people found out that 'the Duma was a scam', whatever that is supposed to mean, but for a whole variety of reasons, largely to do with problems arising from the mismanangement of the war. By February 1917 the Duma was largely irrelevant in any case. Serfdom was abolished in Russia in 1861, though it is important to understand that as an institution its character was quite different from western European feudalism of the high Middle Ages. Besides, parallels and comparison of this kind are always fraught with dangers. The United States only abolished slavery in 1863. Am I to conclude, then, that its economy was only just emerging from a stage of classical antiquity? There was most definitely no 'trade embargo' against the USSR in 1945, or at any time thereafter. Marshall Aid was available to the Soviets and their allies, though Stalin refused to accept the economic conditions under which it was offered. Industrialisation under Stalin was achieved by high rates of capital accummulation and exchange obtained through exports, not by the deliberate suppression of domestic consumption. On the whole question of Russian consumption, and restrictions on consumption, I would once again refer people to the arguments advanced by Robert Allan, and to Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s by Shiela Fitzpatrick. Proof, Q.E.D. or otherwise, is obtained by investigation, not, I think, by empty and somewhat ill-informed speculation. Clio the Muse 08:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I erred on the Marx bit. Should have restricted that to socialism in general. Whether people called it that or not, btw.
What you say about Germany sounds like you mean to say that industrialisation in Germany started only after 1875, but I assume you don't mean that.
My point about the Duma was that the democratic movement that appeased things in western Europe was tried in Russia to, indeed as a reaction to the uprisings. But it was a scam in the sense that they only instituted democracy, but didn't give it any power. For which reason it was indeed irrelevant by 1917 (and before that).
Serfdom and slavery are indeed rather slippery terms, so I'll leave that.
Like I said, I wasn't too sure about the trade embargo thing. So indeed I used too strong a term. But something like a 'reluctance to do business with the USSR' is rather likely, and that is probably what I heard.
I didn't say there was deliberate suppression of domestic consumption. (Or were you addressing the OP?) It was just the result of reinvesting the profits in stead of using them for the good of the people. Which I assume you mean by 'capital accumulation'. So we seem to be in accord on this point as well. I just add to that the analogy between western Europe and Russia.
That last bit was somewhat uncalled for. You've got a rather nasty chip on your shoulder at times. Or was it meant with a smiley? :) DirkvdM 18:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I shall risk one last comment here. Our task on the Humanities Desk, as I see it, is to give clear and precise information; to talk when we can talk, and to avoid guesswork at all hazards. I will always attempt to correct empirical errors where I see a need, and within the degree of my competence; always try to prevent questioners being misled. If that means that I have 'a rather nasty chip on my shoulder' well, then, so be it-I am delighted to carry this. But I really have to say that I could not care less for your personal opinion of me; and you can take that with the biggest smile I can manage. Clio the Muse 23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you carry out that task quite well as far as I can judge (even if you miss my point occasionally). In your case I have learned to focus on that and ignore your attitude. Just thought I'd mention it this once. DirkvdM 07:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_August_11&oldid=1136081029"