Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 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 12

Secularism vs. opposite

In political ideology, what is the opposite of secularism?

Given the wp definition of secularism (belief that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion), I might take that to be an established church. But then, the opposite of an established church (eg. England) should be the separation of church and state, eg. USA/France. Not an question I can answer precisely, because I haven't heard of secularism as a political ideology before. Could it be a theocracy - ie. a country ruled by God, or clerics?martianlostinspace ^{email me} 00:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Does everything have an opposite? What is the opposite of whale? --Wetman 05:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The whale is a large mammal which looks like a fish; so the opposite of the whale would be a small fish which looks like a mammal. QED. --24.147.86.187 22:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wetman, we normally talk about adjectives when we talk about opposites of words. --Taraborn 06:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The secularism article also has the alternate definition "Secularism can also be the social ideology in which religion and supernatural beliefs are not seen as the key to understanding the world", and that works well with the antonyms (i.e. opposites) stated in the Secularity article: religious or devout. / Kriko 08:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw that the question was specific to political ideology, so I guess my alternate answer isn't what was sought. /Kriko 08:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say clericalism. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the opposite of the sea is the sky, and of big is small, then we might say that the opposite of whale is a hummingbird? A great sea mammal to a tiny bird! Or, if the spelling of "whale" becomes "wail", then I suppose "whisper". Actually, though: it makes sense that the opposite of b has to be a, if a is the opposite of b. You can't say that the opposite of a is b, and the opposite of b is c. So my point being, my logic doesn't fit together precisely.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 11:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tilf?

You know there is a word called MILF meaning Mother I'd to Like F***, right? can there be a word called TILF meaning Teen I'd to Like F***?

Not that I'm absolutely up to speed with your subject area, you might want to take this to the language reference desk. This is humanities - we deal with things like History and Politics here.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course there can. You just wrote it out. However, anyone can make up an acronym, whether it goes beyond a neologism is another matter. Currently TILF is better known, by the population that didn't grow up watching American Pie, as Trade and Investment Liberalization & Facilitation (a goal of APEC) [1][2], though among the youth of today is appears to be an acronym for Teacher I'd Like to Fuck. One can only imagine the sniggers when schools visit APEC on trips... Rockpocket 02:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Protologisms are a passtime of youngsters, as is argot of all sorts. You can make up whatever fun words you like, but that doesn't mean that you need to try to spread it. If you want a successful neologism, look for a word that expresses an idea that does not currently have a term. Your suggestion is very unlikely, as "teen I would like to foul" is pretty tautological. In a society where 19 is the ideal year for female beauty, saying, "This is an attractive teen" is somewhat redundant. The most successful neologisms, other than those occasioned by technology or war, cover things like "homie." Most European languages already had a word like pisano, but English never had a word for "person from my neighborhood and therefore someone with a shared outlook," nothing that covered the force of "pisan." Therefore, "homeboy" worked. Geogre 03:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find an English word for "person from my neighborhood and therefore someone with a shared outlook", is neighbour! OK maybe not as forceful but I seem to have coped my whole life without needing the word 'homie'. And (although technically depending on the law where you live) "jailbait" is a common word for an attractive teen, especially one below the legal age of consent. Cyta 12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

how much was lost

How much was money has been lost globally in the last month due to the market falling?

Last night I heard a former Dutch minister of social affairs explain that no real production was lost in the Netherlands (or was he talking about Europe in general?), so our wealth had not been affected. Only if manufacturers would loose confidence in the future to the extent that they would invest less then that would lead to a reduction in wealth (and thus money), but that hasn't happened (I hope I remember this correctly). I guess that what really happened is that money has changed hands between 'money market gamblers' (aka investors). So no money was lost. Don't know about other parts of the world, though. Of course the US is the odd one out here, because that's where it started. DirkvdM 08:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

alright i worded the question wrong. something is lost when market goes down. what is it called and how much of it is now gone?

You're thinking of market capitalization, although I don't know the answer to your question. -- Mwalcoff 21:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but as I understand it, what is lost is the value of shares and therefore means for companies to invest. But that is a long-term effect and it doesn't really happen if companies keep faith in the future and assume the funds will return. If they do, nothing is lost, really. The stock exchange is a bit like a weather-forecast, giving an indication of what (sort of) companies will do better and which worse. Which is the basis on which investments are made or not (shares are bought and sold). But sometimes the 'weathermen' go berserk and their predictions are worthless. Only if they persist will it become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or if they had made wrong assumptions in the past, as happened in the US in the 1930s (with a strong effect on the rest of the world). And may happen again now because people have been borrowing money, assuming they will be able to pay it back. If that 'weatherforecast' turns out wrong, people realise they weren't as rich as they thought they were. Nothing is lost, it's just that people assumed something was there, which there wasn't. If that happens, it is important that the rest of the world keeps its head cool and continues as normal. If some companies don't, then others will have to invest extra to compensate (as my grandfather did in the 1930s). If they don't, then the government should take on that role, at least in the view of John Maynard Keynes. DirkvdM 07:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Asian ideologies

_{moved from Help Desk!}

-what are the different asian ideologies? 124.107.20.90 03:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a Google search that lists quite a few. --Teratornis 03:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of things that could be described as ideologies - religion, social constructs, politics.... However, the one that describes most of Asia most thoroughly is Confucianism, having spread across Asia like wildfire and shaped a good portion of the big three (Korea, China, and Japan)'s economic, social, and political landscape (I wrote my thesis on this, in fact). Confucianism primarily stresses a group-oriented social dynamic. Confucianism is an odd beast because it both enforces hierarchy (primarily familial) via the strong emphasis on loyalty and superiority of elders, but the principle of "rectification of names" also attempts to ensure that those "higher-ups" are called leaders on the terms of their leadership. Other "ideologies" might include Taoism, another important social "religion", Shintoism, ASEAN, pacifism (exhibited by post-WWII Japan and exemplified in South Korea's sunshine policy), the previously linked Japan's "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" (a euphemism similar to Hitler's "living space" to describe pre-WWII Japanese imperialism in Central and South Asia), and Islam (while not a completely East "Asian" religion, it is Middle Eastern, and Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world). Some more clarification on your definition of "ideology" might be in order if you need more help. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 06:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wooty gets, long form, at the single question you must answer in order to get a meaningful enquiry: what is an ideology? Are you using Althusser's definition? Hegel's? A political science textbook's? Karl Marx's? Know your terms, and then you can know what you're looking for. Geogre 14:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Argentina and the Perons

Please tell me in what way the Perons used propaganda to support regime.TheLostPrince 10:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In what way did the Peróns use propaganda? It might be easier to ask in what ways did they not use progaganda? It was at the very heart of the regime established by Juan Peron, a constant process of public engagement and self-promotion. It was also astonishingly successful, for reasons that I will touch on just a little later.

There were two essential elements to Perónist propaganda; first, the usual thing that one most associates with this activity: posters, speeches, publications and promotions of all kinds; and second, the practical work carried out by Eva Peron, the President's wife, in the Eva Perón Foundation, the charity she founded and managed, even at a micro-level. It would be difficult to uderestimate the impact of this, and the personal contact it afforded many people with Evita, which was to sanctify her, both living and dead, and, for a time, shore up the authoritarian regime established by her husband. Her work in promoting Perón was also furthered by the establishment of the Female Peronist Party, shortly after women gained the vote in Argentina in 1947. Faithful cadres were sent across the country, everywhere promoting the Perónist message. It was a highly effective, election-winning machine.

Apart from party publications promoting the actions, and more important, pushing the image of the President and his movie-star wife, the normal press channels were also subject to a high degree of control and co-ordination. Opposition newspapers were intimidated into acquiescence, or closed down altogether, as was La Prensa in 1951. Evita also bought her own paper, Democracia, which presented news in an attractive, photo-rich and Perónist light. Radio broadcasts also served the same purpose. Official publications, like The Argentine Nation: Just, Free, Sovereign, were essentially photo opportunities, punctuated by text celebrating the regime's achievments. Others catered for the growing personality cult, with titles like How PERÓN gets it done, A Happy People Acclaims Perćn, The Social Mystique of Eva Perón, so on and so forth.

But the most significant work of all was that carried out among school children, which included the publication of school books and stories like Little Cachito. In this an eight-year-old boy who comes from a family too poor to afford to buy Christmas presents but eventually gets a football thanks to the generosity of Evita and her foundation, which ensures that all the children of Argentina receive gifts, and no-one is left in tears! Children learned to read by pronouncing the names of Evita and Perón. After Evita's death in the summer of 1952 the following little prayer was included in the second-year reader;

Little Mother, who art in heaven, good fairy smiling among the angels, Evita: I promise to be as good as you could wish, respecting God, loving my country, loving General Perón, studying and being in every way the child of your dreams; healthy, happy, educated and clean-hearted. Looking at your portrait, like one who swears an oath, I make this promise to you. Even more, I ask you: have confidence in youe child, Evita!

It was in this area that the work of Perónist propaganda had its greatest impact, outlasting the overthrow of the regime by the military in the 1955 coup. By the 1960s the regime was under sustained attack from radical youth, from the very people who had grown up with the image of Saint Evita and the omnipotent General Juan. Clio the Muse 01:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

UK Public in determining qualification for fancy awards (e.g. knighthood)

Could the UK public force revocation of an GBE, KDE etc. by petitioning the UK government? --212.204.150.105 14:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon, we have two issues here:

1) Can the British government withdraw honours, and 2) Can it be forced to do so by the British public?

I cannot answer the first, but certainly, the concept of the elective dictatorship, which seems to make HM government largely opinion proof - at least, to myself it seems like it, compared to other parliamentary systems. It would be difficult for the public to force this, unless it were a really massive issue which threatened the government's position of power. If they could do it, they would normally do it of their own accord rather than public initiative. Even if the government could not, though, Parliament certainly could (constitutionally speaking, by making a law to that effect), because of parliamentary sovereignty.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 20:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also see [3].martianlostinspace ^{email me} 20:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And more to the point of your question, [4].martianlostinspace ^{email me} 20:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In general terms, honours such as knighthoods and the membership of orders of chivalry flow from the Crown and can be forfeited at the will of the Crown. The constitutional practice is now that revoking honours needs to be done on the advice of ministers. Two famous cases of knighthoods being forfeited in the 20th century are Roger Casement and Anthony Blunt. Both had been guilty of what were seen (not least by public opinion) as treasonable acts, but both, although their highest loyalties had not been to the United Kingdom, were men who acted on principle according to their consciences. Criminal convictions are sometimes but not always seen as enough to justify stripping someone of honours of chivalry; they do more often result in the withdrawal of other positions, such as membership of the Privy Council.

When it comes to peers, they can be attainted by parliament for high treason. When there is no treason, the process of removing a peerage requires a specific Act of Parliament, and governments are generally reluctant to make parliamentary time for them. So following mere crime, dishonesty, murder, etc., peers have generally been left with their titles of nobility intact; although in some cases, of course, they have also been executed. As a result of the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, three royal dukes and Lord Taaffe were deprived of their titles for bearing arms against the United Kingdom during the First World War. For instances of peers unaffected by criminal convictions, seeVictor Hervey, 6th Marquess of Bristol, John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol, and Jeffrey Archer.

Undoubtedly, public opinion is a factor, but there is no direct democracy in the UK. A petition of the kind you mean couldn't strictly speaking force the British goverment to revoke the honours granted to someone the public wished to punish, but it might well influence a decision which was hanging in the balance. In the case of Anthony Blunt, pressure was mounted by national newspapers before the decision to take away his knighthood was taken. He was later stripped of the title of Emeritus professor by the University of London as the result of a vote by its governing body.

There has been a strong press campaign to take away Jeffrey Archer's life peerage, since he was found guilty of perjury and perverting the course of justice and sent to prison in July, 2001, but so far it has been unsuccessful. Xn4 23:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I believe there has also been some calls for Robert Mugabe's Order of Garter to be withdrawn. --Counter-revolutionary 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• He's a KCB rather than a KG, and he still has it. However, in June of this year Edinburgh University took away the honorary degree it had given him in the early years of his presidency. Xn4 03:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, quite right. One wonders how he ever got it in the first place! --Counter-revolutionary 15:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

nyc threat

Why is NYC taking threat information from websites? Shouldn't they get any serious threat information from the CIA or NSA before they act and start searching for things?

Are you the same person who said "Why is Congress listening to the CIA when they say Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?" before the war? If so, you are basing both questions on faulty assumptions. -- Kainaw^(what?) 01:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

New York City has its own intelligence unit in its metropolitan police, and it's pretty good. Federal to federal, state to state, and city to city: the city's individual response is dictated by its own information, while the state's response is dictated by its information. Why are they looking at websites? The same reason everyone else is. Otherwise, yeah, it's a pretty foolish assumption that they're not gathering information from all other sources as well, including better human intelligence than many. Geogre 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hobbes the atheist

Can Thomas Hobbes properly be considered as an atheist? Martinben 19:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No. He was accused of being one, but he certainly denied it. If he denied it, it's hardly proper for any of us to say that he didn't know what he believed. Is his political science atheistic? Well, it's a-theistic but not anti-theistic, and, ultimately, it's as based on the assumptions and paradigms of divinely appointed rulers as anything Thomas Filmer argued. Geogre 02:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, many of his contemporaries certainly thought so. In October 1666 a committee of the House of Commons was empowered to examine the views expressed in Leviathan as part of the preparations for a bill intended to make hereesy a crime. Some even went so far as to suggest that Hobbes' doctrines were responsible for the Great Fire of London! His books were either banned or burnt, and the Catholic church placed De Cive on its Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1654. He was regularly attacked in the press of the day, which delighted in detailing the torments he would suffer in the after-life for his apparent lack of belief. It was his rationalism and materialism that tended to disturb people most; even God is reduced to a material level. Archbishop Tenison was to say of him "Yet for the very handsomeness in dressing his Opinions, as the matter stands, he is to be reproved; because by that means, the poyson which he hath intermixed with them is with the more readiness and danger swallowed." His views were certainly unsettling in an age not noted for latitude in matters of faith and belief: that there was no personal Satan; that the Pentateuch and many other books of the Bible were revisions or compilations from earlier sources; that few miracles could be credited after the Testament period; that witchcraft was a myth; and that religion was often confused with superstition. He was, as one writer has noted, 'anti-ecclesiastical, anti-clerical, anti-enthusiastic, anti-theology, anti-creeds and anti-inspiration.'

So, was he an atheist? All I can really say here is that the evidence suggests not; and in his personal life he adhered to the Anglican Church, which, in any case, was for him a necessary instrument of Leviathan. He believed in God as First Cause, but denied most of the manifestations and attributes accorded to Him by organised religion; even holiness, goodness and blessedness, which in the Hobbesian view are all unknowable facts. His God, such as He is, is distant, cold, intellectual amd essentially unknowable. What did he really believe? That is a question that can only be answered by God, and by Hobbes! Clio the Muse 02:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To be annoying and bring up semantics, no one seems to have called themselves atheist at the time. Baron d'Holbach is often quoted as being the first self-described atheist (or one of them, according to his article) in 1770. Before that, during Hobbes's lifetime, and since its coinage in 16th century France, the word athéisme seems to have been used almost exclusively as an accusation for all sorts of perceived threats to established beliefs, not as a self-attribution. See the article on history of atheism. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There would have been clear risks in doing so, Sluzzelin, when Hobbes was alive; more risky, I have to say, in some parts of the the British Isles than in others. Clio the Muse 07:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Greenblatt makes the argument, in "Invisible Bullets," that it was "impossible" to say that one was an atheist (this swings on the hinge of Foucault's ideas of an epistem), that the concept simply existed as an attribute of the other only. The argument is hyperbolic, but it's not entirely baseless. This argument that it can only be an Other is, I think, shaky and a bit precious. We're being asked whether Hobbes fits a contemporary category, and we're actually all concluding that he doesn't. It is possible that he couldn't have fit it, but there were enough who were utterly silent about their religion who seem to have no faith at all, where Hobbes himself professed faith, albeit a highly aggravating and intellectual faith. Geogre 12:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Durable goods which have a chance to appreciate?

A household handbook I'm reading advises (on home ownership):

“ A home won't necessarily make you rich, but houses, condominiums, and cooperative apartments tend to grow in value over the long term. Also, few other investments offer the opportunity to boost their value while you get day-to-day enjoyment from them. ”

[emphasis added]

My question is what other investment would fit that description? I'm coming up with a complete blank -- it seems to me, other than "art" which you can enjoy but not really "use", there is no "durable good" (some would argue a house is just that) that tends to appreciate, or at least often does. Are there any other examples? Is there anything I can buy and use, with the expectation that it has a good chance of appreciating in value even as I use it?

Thank you!

84.0.126.69 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume you're talking about purely financial value, and note that even real estate does fall in value occassionally. The market doesn't always rise all the time. Other than that, are there not many antiques of many things which increase as they go? Many quality yachts, for example, will last long, and hold their value for a long time. Much more than say - cheaper yachts, of similar size and performance which aren't really built to last. But then you could call that real estate to - you can live on boats, obviously. Vintage motors? Are they not useable/enjoyable (as any car) yet hold their value better than some?martianlostinspace ^{email me} 22:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: Are there any other examples? Is there anything I can buy and use, with the expectation that it has a good chance of appreciating in value even as I use it?

Answer: A gold toilet bowl.

See for yourself http://clovetwo.com/archives/2007/7/1/decornlifestyle/sm_pg10toilet.jpg

202.168.50.40 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just a quick note that you've already disqualified the other obvious example the text was talking about: art. The quote does say enjoy, not use, after all. Other stuff that might qualify: jewelery, antiques, historical items, etc. To a limited extent, wines, cigars, whiskeys, and other age-able items might also qualify, though they're obviously less surely to increase in value compared to real estate. Matt Deres 22:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys - thanks for the quick responses! I didn't mean to imply the market would definitely rise, just that there was a reasonable expectation that it "might". i.e. a speculative "investment" (insofar as it is an investment). Now the reason I mentioned "durable" goods is because I am interested in things that I can "use" while I speculate wtih it possibly appreciating in value, without "using up". So, wines, cigars, whiskeys, and other such things don't qualify, since I can't smoke/drink them and have them too. So unless by "use" I meant having it on display to impress someone, they don't qualify. On the other hand, furniture is a perfect example of something you can use! What a great idea, to say "antiques". So, what kinds of antiques are good to speculate in?

Furniture? Jewelery?

Now, if I wanted to buy, say, a watch, that might well appreciate, how would I go about it? I guess now that I think about it some people "invest" in coins or stamps, but since I don't collect these, I couldn't use them while I had them (in a way that doesn't "use them up"), which is the essential basis of my question. So I guess the current list is:

- A House.

- A High-Quality Yacht

- Antiques (furniture, jewellery ... ? )

- Household items made of gold (toilet bowl, ... ?)

- Purely decorative art (a painting hung, a statue displayed -- hey, a Paperweight!).

I guess a small sculpture (ie a sculpture that is actual art made by a sculptist) as a paperweight I could "use" (in its use as a paperweight), without using up, while it appreciated in value.

Anything else?

The second question is obviously I want something that isn't just rolling off a factory floor, like a Rolex, since then why would it appreciate just from being older, when people can buy the latest with just as much gold in it (or whatever) ? So, in that case, where would I find jewellerey that isn't marked up off retail, continually being churned out even twenty years from now?

What else can I buy, and use carefully, for twenty years, with a chance, just a chance, that it'll be worth more? (Not "keep much of its value" but "be worth more", ie, have appreciated in value.) And, if I'm thinking of jewellerey, where can I buy it?

Thank you!

84.0.126.69 00:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC).

For things that you expect to use and have them maintain value, it is clear that they will need to be handled with care and protected. Given that, though, there are many things that would qualify if you consider the collector aspect. Of course, they would have to be things that you also enjoy using, or they would simply sit around gathering dust. For me, it would be books - first edition printings from popular authors that I also happen to like. Collectible Christmas ornaments. Automobiles - a well-cared for antique auto can be used for decades and still have great resale value. Certain high-end brands of pianos and violins. High quality crystal. Or, the best option I can think of: a business that you love. It isn't a "durable good" but it certainly is something that you can "use" while speculating with it possibly appreciating in value, without using it up. 152.16.188.107 06:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The entertainment industry provides a lot of opportunities here, from comic books to prints of classic movies to cells from old cartoons to classic vinyl records. While you can enjoy them as intended, the value generally is much higher for those maintained in new condition, such as unopened comic books. Sports memorabilia can also qualify, such as a baseball signed by Babe Ruth. (You can "enjoy" it by showing it off, but I wouldn't play baseball with it.) Toys are another area with potential, from Victorian dolls to an antique Jack-in-the-Box. We could also include antique guns, some of which are still in good enough condition to fire occasionally. StuRat 20:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Some instruments like a well made Grand Piano.192.53.187.183 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

English poem

Please i need a good poem that illustrate attitude and outlook in england just before first world war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.38.137 (talk • contribs)

You could do no better than look at the work of the lovely Rupert Brooke, in particular The Old Vicarage, Granchester, which concludes with the following lines;

Say, is there Beauty yet to find?

And Certainty? and Quiet kind?

Deep meadows yet, for to forget

The lies, and truths, and pain?… oh! yet

Stands the Church clock at ten to three?

And is there honey still for tea?''

It recalls a world, as George Orwell puts it, where people ate "everlasting strawberry ices on green lawns to the tune of the Eton Boating Song." But we'll row forever... And so we will! Clio the Muse 22:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone may say that Rupert Brooke was a golden boy and not very representative of England as a whole, but I'm with Clio. I guess the attitude and outlook you're looking for are those of the long Edwardian Summer, in which the English basked in their relative peace, security, and imperial strength, so were able to enjoy the pleasures of home blissfully unaware of the nightmares on the horizon. Consider Edward Thomas's Adlestrop:

Yes, I remember Adlestrop -

The name, because one afternoon

Of heat the express-train drew up there

Unwontedly. It was late June.

The steam hissed. Someone cleared his throat.

No one left and no one came

On the bare platform. What I saw

Was Adlestrop - only the name

And willows, willow-herb, and grass,

And meadowsweet, and haycocks dry,

No whit less still and lonely fair

Than the high cloudlets in the sky.

And for that minute a blackbird sang

Close by, and round him, mistier,

Farther and farther, all the birds

Of Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire.

regards, Xn4 00:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Another approach might be to use Rudyard Kipling's If, which first appeared in 1910. It was soon taken up to be read aloud in English schools, and even today many old people can recite a few lines of it, if not more. Not a great poet (but a fine writer of short stories and novels) Kipling was one of the most admired writers of his day, and If sums up the English admiration for self-reliance, coolness, truth, resilience and long-suffering, and for keeping the stiff upper lip, which were the fabric of the old ordered society. The poem survived the Great War, and although it looks old-fashioned, its heart stands outside time. Read it here. Xn4 03:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Did If not top a fairly recent poll on the nation's favourite poems? I certainly love it, as I do Kipling's stories. And as for Mandalay....Come you back, you British soldier; come you back to Mandalay! Clio the Muse 03:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Heck! I'm a fan of "If", and I'm an American! Wrad 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Kipling may not have been a Great Poet, whatever that may mean, but he could write verse that engraves itself in your memory, and pops out at opportune moments. DuncanHill 13:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Robert Graves and Wilfred Owen both took aim at A.E. Housman and Tennyson as villains of the "youths ardent for some desperate glory." For that matter, Herbert Read still seems to have them in mind a bit later. It is the catchiness and sweetness of these verses that makes them pernicious to people who had to watch the bodies of their comrades rot in no-man's land five yards from the trench. Utgard Loki 15:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, I can't quite make out the words "these verses" - if they mean the work of Housman and Tennyson, then I don't see a connection with If, which doesn't glorify war, nor even soldiering. And after the Great War, Kipling wrote of the lost generation -

If any question why we died

Tell them, 'Because our fathers lied'.

Loki may find something to help his thesis in Kwib's List of Victoria Crosses by School, but perhaps we have wandered too far from Anon's request! Xn4 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The connection was also to "If," which is pro-pluck, as it were, and honour, but the main targets of the War Poets who mentioned contemporaries were Housman and Tennyson (and Brooke). Kipling, as I think we've discussed on this desk before, is a multifaceted writer who was both pro and anti-empire, both pacifist and imperialist. Whatever he himself was at the time, though, his poetry was used to instill a towering sense of heroism. When the Lost Generation went to war, they saw no heroism at all. They reacted differently from one another. Owen wrote the greatest war poetry, hands down, but he also died in the war, while Sigfied Sassoon and Robert Graves didn't. Graves might have had other reasons for hating Housman, as he seemed to hate a good many people, but the original questioner could do worse than to look at Goodbye to All of That for a temperature of England in 1914. Utgard Loki 18:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Gulp. We're on attitude and outlook in England just before the first world war, and my suggestion was that If illustrates them. Forgive me if I'm missing something, Loki, but it doesn't seem to me that we need to defend pluck and honour against the notion that they are 'imperialist' or warmongering qualities. If I'm wrong, then the first thing to say is that they're needed even more by pacifists than by militarists, even more by anti-imperialists than by imperialists. Xn4 20:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a missing logical connector there. 1. Poem that sets mood of England. Then we diverge. Most are looking at popular poems of the period. Loki is going a different route: 2. We know the most powerful ones by the ones hated by the War Poets. 3. They cited Brooke, Tennyson, and Kipling. 4. They could be unfair (Kipling is all sorts of things), but theirs is first hand testimony. 5. Go see Goodbye to All of That for more. <shrug> Two paths to answering the same question. Geogre 22:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If has alwways suggested Stoicism to me, and I believe I am right in saying that Albert Camus cited Kipling as an influential figure in the development of his belief (but am blowed if I can remember where). DuncanHill 22:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Loki, can I say without a trace of disrespect that Goodbye to All That is perhaps the very last book I would recommend here. I has almost nothing to say about the 'attitude and outlook' in England before the Great War, unless you think that Grave's rather limited experience at Charterhouse is somehow relevant to the question? Personally, I have always wondered by what right the 'War Poets'-always understood here to be a rather circumscribed group-are held up to be the 'voice of a generation', and what right they had to sit in judgement over Rupert Brooke or any other poet of the time. Brooke was as good a poet as any of them, and better than some. I will happily set The Old Vicarage, Granchester, and, yes, even The Soldier against all of the verses ever compiled by Graves. But this is getting too far off topic, which is the mood of England before the Great War. Graves hated Housman? Well, I think I can guess that most of the soldiers returning to England in 1919 would have understood and shared the sentiments expressed in what might serve the final epitaph of the 'long Edwardian Summer'. And if the original questioner is still around here it is;

Into my heart an air that kills

From yon far country blows:

What are those blue remembered hills,

What farms, what spires are those?

That is the land of lost content,

I see it shining plain,

The happy highways where I went

And cannot come again. Clio the Muse 00:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you i like this poem, its just waht i need. Please, Clio the Muse where is it from?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.38.137 (talk • contribs)

It is Poem 40 of A Shropshire Lad by A. E. Housman. DuncanHill 13:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow! Brooke as good a poet as Owen? I think you're way, way, way off the beam there. The War Poets were not actually the voice of the generation, but they produced the great poems of the era in multiple ways. Sassoon was a good poet for the war itself and then fell into repetition and shabbiness. Graves wasn't really a poet primarily. He was primarily a Classicist, where he was top notch, and novelist, where he was good (and Goodbye to All of That is best seen as part of that). He was a fine poet. "Persian Version" and "Down, Wanton, Down" are nice little doodads. The poet's poet among the bunch was Wilfred Owen. He managed extraordinary metrical skill, formal composition, wording, and imagery and was shaping up to be as great as Keats. However, the reason they are praised over others is that they were the very important bridge to Modernism for the generation. Modernism is born in WW1 and the glimpse of horror behind the mask of "Civilization." There is no question in my mind, anyway, that their verse, during those years at least, was the only living, dynamic, and innovative verse coming along. Part of this is because, as Swift said, there is only one type of health and a thousand different diseases, but it's also because the disillusionment of WW1 was much more profound than that of the Crimean. Dour comments on bad leaders are fine, but they don't match the static horror of the trenches. Geogre 02:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And I will continue to defend Brooke, and Housman, and, yes, even Kipling, off beam or not. But my tastes here are not really the issue, and the question has nothing at all to do with the 'horror of the trenches' or 'modernism' Clio the Muse 03:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It does, though, because a highly disillusioned nation doesn't react with righteous indignation at WW1. The form of the response is dictated by the horizon of expectations, and we know the horizon of expectations by the reaction, both. You end your poem, "You would not tell to children ardent for some desperate glory/ The old lie, Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori," unless you thought there were people out there doing that telling who needed to be upbraided. If you thought they were expecting little or without moral sense created by culture, you would never appeal against that kind of patriotism and Honour. Loki's argument may be indirect, but it's correct in that much. Geogre 12:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, I think you intended to say You would not end your poem..., and the 'you' is Wilfred Owen. But your quotation is a little out, the poem ends -

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.

'My friend' is the hearer. This is a grim, realistic poem about the nightmares of trench warfare. Horace's foolish tag was much quoted in the early months of the Great War, but by the time he wrote his poem in 1917 Owen must have known that Horace had run out of credibility: he was shooting a sitting duck. The poem was published posthumously in 1921, and we can't say whether Owen would then have left it as it was. Perhaps he would. In any event, Horace was a humbug. He went to war and got as far as the Battle of Philippi, but later admitted he had deserted. Xn4 02:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Horace - "the soundest platitudinarian that ever was" [5] DuncanHill 09:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)