Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 October 20

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.

October 20

Pakistan People's Party arch-rival

Which political party is Pakistan People's Party's arch-rival? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.219 (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan Muslim League (Q) and Muttahida Qaumi Movement Xn4 02:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous Unwanted Thoughts

What's the psychological term for the mental disturbance where a person is assail'd by perverse thoughts whenever they get anxious? I've met a few such people and they say that the thoughts seem to fly at them from nowhere and they find themselves incapable of controlling them. 66.112.241.49 01:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC) MelancholyDanish

I've seen people calling this Pure O, as in Purely Obsessive OCD. — Kieff | Talk 01:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what it's called, OCD or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, but without the Compulsive part, although people with this disorder often find it easier to talk about the Obsessive part than the Compulsive part, so it may actually be OCD that you're describing. If it really starts impeding with everyday life, such people often need professional help. There are techniques that can help them deal with such thoughts and lead normal lives. Wrad 02:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophes

When is it consider'd appropriate to use apostrophes in words? 66.112.241.49 01:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

The apostrophe usually shows that one or more letters have been left out of a word or combination of two words, as in "it's" for "it is". It also shows the possessive case - "the Queen's peace" or (in the plural) "the Sirens' song". In past centuries, it was sometimes used (as in your example, consider'd) to show that the final -ed of a word was not pronounced as a separate syllable. So learn'd was clearly one syllable, while the adjective learned was two. This last usage fell out of use, as almost all -ed endings came to be pronounced 'd. The apostrophe has sometimes led men of letters into extreme positions. George Bernard Shaw preferred to leave it out for most purposes, while other writers, such as Lewis Carroll, have insisted on using it more than once in a word, where appropriate, as in "sha'n't". Xn4 01:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There's one more use that is becoming less popular but has not completely disappeared: to join an inflectional suffix to something that normally wouldn't accept it. Today this survives mostly in forming the plurals of single letters ("A's are written with three strokes"), and some people would reject even this and insist on "As". 40 years ago it was usual when pluralizing numbers ("We are living in the 1960's") and many abbreviations ("He performed two E.V.A.'s" or "He performed two EVA's"). To many people today those forms now seem wrong, but they were once standard and there are still people who prefer them. Another such usage involved suffixes like -ed and -ing when informally treating something as a verb that normally is not; I think this was probably never common, but I have seen examples from the early 20th century, although I can't recall any. To make up an example: "Don't sell my wife any more broccoli! She's broccoli'ed me to death already!" Today if someone wrote that, you'd expect them to spell it "broccolied"; but I could see someone writing "E.V.A.'d" even today. --Anon, 04:20 UTC, October 20, 2007.

For a highly amusing and very readable treatise on this subject, get a hold of Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots and Leaves. -- JackofOz 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

An apo'strophe 'should be u'sed to give warning whenever an "'s" i's coming up in the 'sentence. --Carnildo 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Who were the Liberated Africans?

Who are they and where did they come from? ive be hearing that they came from the U.S and to be said that the african americans migrated to the carribean?

They are of african descent but they said that they found no list on slaves that were taken from africa to the West indies but Liberated Africans

who are they?--arab 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that you are referring to the American Colonization Society, the founders of Liberia. See also History of Liberia.  --Lambiam 11:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Accessible books on socialism?

Greetings RD-ers, it's great to be among you again, if briefly. A bright student in my AP class asked me a question recently that I couldn't think of how to answer, and it occurred to me that you are the perfect audience. She mentioned she'd been reading John Dos Passos in her spare time (note to self: clearly you assign too little homework if a kid can read Dos Passos in their free hours), which was of course impressive enough. But then she said that the USA trilogy had gotten her thinking about socialism, and she thought I was the only teacher who wouldn't "turn her in" for asking questions about it. She wondered if I could recommend any books that would tell her more about socialism: what it is, how it would work, etc. We agreed that Marx was "classic" but not too accessible, even to high schoolers who read Dos Passos in their spare time. I said I would think on it, and ask around. All the names that come to mind from the more modern socialists are very hard to follow, but I don't want to tell the kid to read Socialism for Dummies. I would appreciate any recommendations you have of specific titles and authors that are reasonably easily available and informative on the topic (but not so radical that I am likely to lose my job by recommending them). Many thanks in advance for whatever you can offer: in repayment, I promise to hit Random article until I hit a page that needs copyediting and do so -- a sort of Wikignome bartering, if you will. Best regards to all, especially to those few who may remember me, Jwrosenzweig 05:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• So you know I kept my end of the bargain, I left Jeffreys Bay cleaner than I found it (which is not to say I left it "clean"). :-) If anyone has a request for another little article cleaning in return for your assistance, feel free to note it on my talk page, and if I can find time between essays and letters of rec. I will happily oblige. Jwrosenzweig 05:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has quite a few articles on socialism (see the sidebar). If you follow through all the links, you've got quite a sizeable amount of info here. But I assume you thought of that too. As an indicator of what you are looking for, how does that not satisfy? Btw, I hope that 'turning someone in for thinking' was meant in irony. Then again, knowing the US as I do, I fear you were serious. DirkvdM 08:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your question is a bit ambiguous: is she interested in the history of socialism as a political current, in socialist political theory, or in social-democratic policy?

I haven't read it but A. Wright's "Socialisms: Theories and Practices" is supposed to be "a good, brief and accessible introduction to the basic themes in socialism, highlighting the causes of disagreement within the socialist family" (according to Heywood's "Political Ideologies")

When it comes to political theory, the single most accessible book Socialist political theory for me was "Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality" by G.A. Cohen. Jonathan Wolff's "Why read Marx today" is also rather accessible.

If she wants to read Marxists texts, marxists.org offers a great collection of texts and an encyclopedia which explains key terms. Here a good place to start might be The Communist Manifesto (found here) is way more legible than Das Kapital and explains key Socialist ideals such as class struggle.

As for social-democratic policy, Anthony Giddens The Third Way is key in understanding contemporary centre left policy and is not very complex to read either.

I hope this helps! C mon 08:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to sound a negative note, but a learning environment in which a student is worried about being turned in for asking her teacher for further reading, and in which that teacher is worried about losing his job for encouraging her intellectual curiosity sounds deeply flawed to me. I was going to suggest Edward Carpenter for an alternative form of socialism, but he may be too radical for the circumstances you describe. DuncanHill 14:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also recommend everything by Tom Paine for anyone interested in the development of political theories of social justice, but again he may be too radical for an American educational environment. DuncanHill 14:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I share Duncan's alarm here: it sounds more like Soviet Russia than the United States! (Is it the United States?) Having said that I freely confess if my dear mother and father found out that a teacher was passing me socialist texts they would have turned into 'Red' Brits in anger! Anyway, it's really good to know, Jwrozenzweig, that your student has the stamina and the motivation to read something as monumental as USA in her spare time; I really admire her intellectual curiosity. Actually, for someone of her level of intelligence, there are some Marxist works that are more accessible than others. I myself read and understood The Communist Manifesto when I was in fifth form. There are other books I could recommend along these lines, including some more up to date stuff, though I wonder if this is the right way to go about satisfying her curiosity? What I would like to suggest is another novel, one that addresses the issues around socialism directly and in a highly enertaining fashion. The book I have in mind is The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, a sort of socialist Pilgrim's Progress writen by Robert Tressell. I also read this at school. I do, however, have some minor reservations. The setting is England more than a century ago and some of the cultural references may not be that intelligible to an American teenager. Another highly personal choice on my part would be The Soul of Man under Socialism, a brilliant and witty essay by Oscar Wilde (On second thoughts how would you survive recommending Oscar and socialism!!!). My final recommendation is another classic text, this time a history of the main intellectual trends in left-wing thought leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917-To the Finland Station by Edmund Wilson, which I also enjoyed. Let me know if you need any more! Clio the Muse 23:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How could I have forgotten the Blessed Oscar! DuncanHill 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Amen to you, Bosie! Clio the Muse 23:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the anti-socialist bias in the US, one example. When I looked up Cuba in the major Dutch encyclopedia (Winkler Prins), I was surprised that it was mildly positive about the present government. So I decided to look it up in some US encyclpediae in the library and I was shocked. The articles were a constant stream of POV. Really everything was put in a bad light. I didn't expect it to be quite neutral, but this was horrible. Also, I've heard loads of downright lies by so-called experts from the US about the USSR and Cuba. This illustrates the atmosphere that Jwrosenzweig has to work in, and I can understand his reservations.

Having said that, in Cuba I looked at the politics sections of several book shops and a university library and all the books were about different forms of socialism. I wonder which is worse, only providing one side of a story or pretending to provide both sides, but mutilating one of the sides, like Fox news does. DirkvdM 08:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Many sincere thanks to all of the above for their wide range of suggestions: it gives me a very good place to start. DirkvdM, you are right, of course, that Wikipedia had a wealth of possibilities at my disposal, but I regret to say that it's gotten sizable enough to be overwhelming for my poor brain, and I felt sure the RD regulars would be able to narrow the field rather rapidly given half a chance. As far as the alarm expressed here, I think my comments may have been read as too drastic--I meant the comments to be taken as a sort of tongue-in-cheek remark. But in all honesty, depending on your district and its parent community, yes, teachers and students still in this day and age must be careful not to appear biased (especially leftist). In 2003 a class of mine (these are 16 & 17 year olds) informed me that Saddam Hussein had been a communist, and when I assured them that this was not the case, the counter-argument given was "but isn't he a bad guy?" Such are the times. The area is still conservative enough that honors students in the government class occasionally bristle at being asked to read the New York Times over the summer (that socialist rag!). It was only a few weeks ago that I, in all honesty, had to advise a colleague not to make too big a deal of the fact that some of his material was from the ACLU for fear of a tense parent confrontation...again, no one would come close to losing a job over such a thing, and no student would face any real reprisal over being interested in socialism, but there are social and community pressures placed that make it advisable not to rock certain boats too much. Maybe I'm over-cautious. Certainly I'll make my recommendations about socialist reading and see what the consequences (if any) are--and honestly I doubt that in this case anything will happen as a result (it's not as though I'm railing against the oppressor in the middle of a class). If anything comes of it, I'll let you all know from my lonely cell (here I descend again to the tongue-in-cheek)... Jwrosenzweig 04:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought on your thoughtful response, Jrosenzweig, doesn't the ACLU exist to protect the Bill of Rights? Surely something that most Americans would agree is a good thing? DuncanHill 14:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You should really look into the "Road to Serfdom" by Nobel Prize winner Friedrich Hayek. A Wikipedia link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom

sex ratio in public events

Why is it that there is always approximately 2:1 males:females at every social event, such as bars, parties, concerts, etc. ? As a young[ish] person this has been my experience. I am looking for an evolutionary explantion, but any insight is appreciated, Thanks. -- Diletante 05:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Where do you live (generally)? I've noticed the opposite. Wrad 05:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this in concerts all over the USA, (I have attended many phish and the string cheese incident shows) and in bars in New York and Texas. I said 2:1 but it is probably closer to 3:2. -- Diletante 05:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess the question to ask is where the girls hang out. I have a guess. School. Women are outnumbering men in educational accomplishment quite a bit these days. Might sound silly, but it may be part of it. I spend a lot of time at school, in college, and girls always outnumber guys. I'm an English major, so that may have something to do with it. Maybe girls just don't hang out much anymore. I don't know. But that doesn't explain why there are so many at the parties I go to... Seems to me like it's all circumstance. Wrad 05:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I was a psych major and girls did easily outnumber guys in my classes. But I still think you can walk into any major event and find more guys than girls. why? -- Diletante 06:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the events I go to... Wrad 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, thanks for relaying your experience. -- Diletante 06:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It really just depends on where you go. The sex ratio is 1:1, and women go out just as much as men. My guess is that the concerts and bars you attend must be ones that attract a predominantly male crowd. If you went to a Justin Timberlake concert, you would probably notice the ratio is 3 female per 1 male or higher. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thinking from a point of view outside of the 'event'-selectivity (more men at sports events etc.)...Perhaps more men are likely to go out 'alone' than women so that means that there will be more men than women as the women who are 'alone' may decide not to go out unless friends are going. Whereas a guy may happily go along on his todd. Also it may be that men make their presence more 'known' than women so you feel like there are more men there. If you are single perhaps it is psychological and you just think that there are few women around as potential partners. If you are not single and perhaps are easily jealous you might see more men as potential threats to your relationship. I expect the divide is more in your head than in the real numbers, it might not be 50:50 but 2:1 is a big divide. ny156uk 11:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Something similar was discussed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 11#Imbalance of women and men on dating sites and clubs , you may be interested in the answers there (though the person that asked the question then wasn't.) Rockpocket 02:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're a guy. I'm guessing you're a fairly typical guy. Thus, you tend to choose to go to places that guys choose to go to. Somehow, you have got the impression that the places you go out to are representative of all places. I really don't think there's anything more going on. Skittle 11:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

good points everyone, thanks. I went out to lunch just now, there were more men than women. What about the so-called ladies night? isn't this an attempt to reverse the usual ratio? Yeah I am a guy and and Skittle probably has a point that my choice of where I go could be a confounding factor. -- Diletante 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you only tend to get 'ladies night' in places that have a shortage of women and want to attract more; in places where women choose to go anyway, they don't bother. I rarely encounter them. Skittle 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Product mix/Product assortment

What is Product mix? What is Product assortment? Any differences between them? -- 158.182.155.31 05:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There might be differences; it depends on the context. Do the dictionary definitions of "mix" and "assortment" not answer your question?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you call this phenomenon?

If someone gets a present, whether he is happy depends on who gave the present, not what the present is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.78.9.149 (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Present-giver bias? I'd be surprised if there is a word for this. ny156uk 11:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Socialization? If you're interested in the social forces at work in gift-exchange, start with the article gift economy. Wareh 19:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the Thought That Counts? See also It's the Thought that Counts: A Signed Digraph Analysis of Gift-Giving. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Being in love? Rockpocket 01:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Board of associated loyalists

In the context of the American revolution who or what was the board of associated loyalists? 81.151.6.49 11:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a Loyalist organization led by William Franklin, who was an illegitimate son of Benjamin Franklin and the last colonial governor of New Jersey. Many loyalist refugees fled to New York City, where the Board of Associated Loyalists helped to organize support for the British war effort. Xn4 19:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Franklin's organisation was also responsible for acts of terrorism and reprisal against the Rebels, though this was not part of their official remit, which was to focus their actions against military targets alone, with no unprovoked attacks on civilians. But the Loyalists, having lost their homes and their property, fought with a commitment and a bitterness, that was not generally matched by the professional British forces of the day. They were particularly active in New Jersey, where the New Jersey Volunteers became the biggest Loyalist or Tory formation ever raised in the Americas.

The most famous, or imfamous of the New Jersey Tories , depending on one's perspective, was Ensign James Moody (no Wikipedia page, surprsingly), who took his own personal woes out on his Rebel neighbours. His raids across the the area became so notorious that for much of the war cries of "Moody is out!", or "Moody is in the country!" were used to alert the local people to his presence. In one raid in June 1779 Moody attacked Tinton Falls, taking prisoners and rounding up cattle. When intercepted by Rebel militia the Loyalists entered into a fire fight, breaking through in a bayonet charge, after running out of ammunition.

The attack on Tinton Falls, and many others of the same kind, were a source of horror and alarm to the rebels. The New Hampshire Gazette noted that the Jersey Loyalists chose "...the hours of darkness to perpetuate the works of darkness...generally land in the night and before the militia can be collected, flee to their vessels with precipitation, snatching up in their flight what plunder they can and then magnifying in their lying Gazettes one of those sheep-stealing nocturnal robberies into one of the Duke of Malborough's victories in Flanders." In essence it was the classic form of hit-and-run guerrilla warfare: hit where the enemy is weak and unprepared; retreat in the face of superior forces.

Moody, the great raider-in-chief, was eventually captured and taken to the fort at West Point, where he was badly handled by the commander, none other than Benedict Arnold. When General Washington learned that the prisoner was being kept in chains in a filthy dungeon he ordered Arnold to treat him properly, a favour Moody repayed by escaping to resume his raids!

After the surrender at Yorktown, with the British anxious to end their involvement in the Americas, it was only the Loyalists who kept the conflict alive, even endangering the prospects of peace with the capture by a force led by Captain Richard Lippincott of a small fort at Toms River in March, 1782. The Rebel commander, Captain Joshua Huddy, was subsequently hanged in reprisal for the death of the Loyalist Philip White while in enemy hands. Huddy's hanging, which did not have the approval of the Board of Associated Loyalists, caused an international outrage, with Washington threatening to hang a Loyalist officer unless Lippincott was handed over. The Loyalists refused, and it took the intervention of Louis XVI in person to prevent a renewal of hostilities. With the war coming to an end the hard core of the Loyalists finally took refuge in Canada. Clio the Muse 01:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

David Irving

Is David Irving a good historian or a fraud? Martinben 12:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There are differing opinions, and this is not the place to discuss them. I suggest you read the very thoroughly argued linked article and decide for yourself.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When reading about controversial subjects, the present and archived (1, 2, 3) talk pages are often interesting as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As a historian myself, I would probably say (and this is my own opinion, now—and note that I am not deeply tied up in the Irving controversy in any real way) that: 1. David Irving was not a bad historian (and certainly not "a fraud"), 2. but he has been seduced by a bad ideology, and has colored his worldview with it. Once you get yourself into confirmation bias rut even a smart person can have trouble getting out of it; once they've been jailed for said belief, they feel like a martyr and to go back on their way of seeing things would be to acknowledge the truth of whomever jailed them (never fun). Much of his early work (e.g. The Virus House) is not bad at all, but once he started going down the path to Holocaust denial, not only did he start seeing what he wanted to see everywhere he looked but he became incredibly isolated from the rest of the historical community. He became ingratiated to people with no real respect for history—other cranks, whose sole shared values were hatred, a belief in conspiracy theories, and delusion—and he became alienated and despised by those who did care about history, and he became what we might now call a "crank". I think "fraud" is incorrect in any case—I don't think he is intentionally misleading, but I do think he is unintentionally very misled. I would not trust any of his later works to have been done with a clear head; his early works are probably not any worse than any other historians, though—colored by his own interpretations, his only feel for things, but that's a large part in reconstructing any historical narrative, whether we choose to admit it or not. I think Holocaust issues encourage this sort of "fall from grace" more than other ones, in part because once you are on the "wrong side" of it (even in a minor and unintended way), the alienation and isolation can be extremely swift, with resultant professional and eventually intellectual penalties. I don't think that's very healthy (and I would never work on Holocaust history for that reason), but it should be no surprise to a savvy historian why that is. --24.147.86.187 14:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read most of Irving's work, though not without caution. He isn't, of course, a trained historian. At the beginning of his career as a writer, he clearly had difficulty in distinguishing between reliable and unreliable sources: see, for instance, his approach to estimating the German civilian deaths in The Destruction of Dresden (1963) and the result of the Broome libel case (1968). However, he later learnt to work hard on good sources, and in some specialist areas he became very knowledgable. At the beginning of 1996, the New York Times canvassed the opinion of mainstream academic historians, and most of those they asked said they saw Irving as a "historian of repute". He chose to write revisionist history, looking at events anew from the German (and one could even say the Nazi) point of view, and there was an up-side and a down-side to that. As one of the first in the field, Irving had some bestsellers which helped his popular reputation. He also threw new light on what went on on the German side during the Second World War. But I should say he wasn't careful enough and was moved by strange forces. He has a streak of sensationalism which has helped his book sales but has fatally harmed his work and his reputation. Xn4 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm deeply impressed with the thoughtful and measured responses of both 24.147 and Xn4, which leaves me with very little to add, other than to say that Irving is a superb historian, which only serves to make his offense all the greater. You see, most Holocaust deniers and Hitler enthusiasts are either stupid or deluded or both. But Irving is not. I read a a first edition of Hitler's War (published in 1977, I think), in which he does not deny the Holocaust, he simply says that it 'emerged' as a result of ad hoc action by local Gauleiters and the SS. But anyone who knows anything at all about the Third Reich, and Irving, I do believe, knows more than most, would quickly conclude that nothing, nothing at all, no major initiative of this kind, could ever have happened without Hitler's knowledge and approval. The argument is simply unsustainable. So, unsustainable as it is, it gave way to outright Holocaust denial. In his blindness, in his political bigotry, Irving commited a sin which for which no historian, no researcher, can be forgiven: he twisted, denied and distorted the facts. He knows the truth: he simply chose to turn away from it in a perverse act of double-think. He gave over his formidable talents to a worthless cause. A superb historian became a wretched human being, the chief victim of his own fraudulent bad-faith. It's tragic. Clio the Muse 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

An outstanding thread and an early contender for next week's thead of the week award. --Dweller 10:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to all concerned for this incredible response. I intend to incorporate some of what has been written in the above into a research paper I am writing on historians and their methods. This really shows the true value of the reference desk. Martinben 12:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is he a great historian or a fraud? is a false dichotomy. It is not for me to evaluate his historical output - I will leave that to his fellow historians - but, as others have indicated above, I understand that he has done both good work and bad (I would hesitate to say "great"). I doubt he has actually been fraudulent - in the sense of being actively dishonest or lying - but he has exercised an unforgivable degree of Nelsonian blindness. -- !! ?? 11:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

How do people know that Adolf Hitler killed himself on April 30, 1945? --Hadseys 16:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Death of Adolf Hitler.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Magda Goebbels/Suicide, which supplies further details. Xn4 18:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hadseys, have you read Hugh Trevor-Roper's The Last Days of Hitler? The information for this was originally compiled when he was working as an intelligence officer for the British Army, and remains to this day one of the best investigations of the kind. The Soviets were also aware of the full facts very early on, though they chose to obfuscate them for years afterwards. Clio the Muse 01:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

People's convention

I am looking for some more detailed information on the People's Convention, a communist front organisation that operated in Great Britain in the early 1940s. 81.156.3.198 16:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That page, 81.156, only tells part of the story. The so-called People's Convention was not the initiative of the Hammersmith Trades Council; it was the initiative of Moscow. It was set up after the outbreak of the Second World War during the time of the Nazi-Soviet pact, the honeymoon of the odd couple. Loyal Communists were instructed to denounce the struggle with Germany as an 'imperialist war', hence the need for bogus front organisations like the People's Convention. It was all quite subtle, of course, in the usual Communist style. People were encouraged to join in support of initiatives like higher living standards or better bomb shelters. Once safely enrolled they discovered that the 'real enemy' was not Germany but Winston Churchill and those members of the Labour party who joined the wartime coalition. The best denunciation of the whole fraud came from George Orwell, Harold Laski and Victor Gollancz, who in 1940, under the auspices of the Left Book Club, publised Betrayal of the Left. In this Gollancz asked,

"Can anyone carry self-delusion to the point of being able to read through the file of the Daily Worker [The Communist Party Newspaper] and still believe that this motive was any other than to weaken the will to resist? When, at the same time, you tell people that this is an unjust war, fought for no purpose but to increase the profits of the rich: when you jeer at any comment about the morale and heroism of the public and call it 'sunshine talk'; what possible purpose can you have but to stir up hatred of the government and hatred of the war, with the object of underminining the country's determination to stand up to Hitler?"

The Convention, shameful as it was, attracted the support of some prominent intellectuals, including Raymond Williams and Eric Hobsbawm, who wrote a pamphlet defending the Soviet aggression against Finland, because Stalin was only seeking to defend Russia against an attack by 'British imperialists'! You will find more information on the Convention in All the Russians Love the Prussians, Chapter Eight of Nick Cohen's What's Left, an excellent expose of the moral cowardice of so much left-wing thought. Clio the Muse 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Life in Stalin's Russia

Hi. I'm looking for good sources of information on everyday life in Stalin's Russia. All references gratefully received! Mr. Crook 18:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several eyewitness books like Gennady Andreev-Khomiakov's Bitter Waters and Mary M. Leder's My Life in Stalinist Russia: An American Woman Looks Back. The trouble with everyday life under Stalin is that it wasn't much like everyday life as most of us know it and was largely overshadowed by the menaces of a police state. Indeed, for a large number of people, every day was spent in a prison camp. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn throws some light on that in Cancer Ward, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and The Gulag Archipelago. Xn4 19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You could do no better than read Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times by Sheila Fitzpatrick, packed full of all sorts of fascinating details, including some on the humour current at the time, which in itself does much to explain how things were. My personal favourite goes as follows. Polish customs officers wake up to find thousands of rabbits at the border demanding to be allowed to cross. "What's wrong?", one asks. "The OGPU have orders to shoot all the camels in the Soviet Union", the rabbits reply. "But you are not camels." "Try telling that to the OGPU." Clio the Muse 03:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Xn4, you say "for a large number of people, every day was spent in a prison camp". You mean Gulags, I assume. At the end of Stalin's life and rule, the population of the Gulags was at its peaks at 1.7 million. That was just under 1% of the population at the time. For comparison, that is the same percentage as people in prison in the US at the moment and about double the amount in Russia at the moment (see Prisons in the United States#Comparison with other countries). Two complications here, though - the USSR and Russia aren't the same and I'm comparing prisons with prison camps. Did all prisoners go to Gulags? DirkvdM 09:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In English I prefer prison camps, Dirk, looking for the plain words, but perhaps Gulags is more authentic. And of course Stalin had prisons, too. The Lubianka must be nearly as well known as the Bastille?Xn4 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That was a KGB headquarter with a prison annexe, so I suppose it was not for long-term imprisonment, just for 'interrogation'. So my question remains - did all the long-term prisoners go to Gulags? Searching for USSR/Soviet prison(s) I found only Category:Prisons in Russia. Butyrka prison says that was also a temporary prison before people were sent to the Gulags. Same goes for Lefortovo prison. The Peter and Paul Fortress is an interesting case - it was used to protect the Tsarist officials against the angry mob. Solovetsky Monastery was a Gulag. Ognenny Ostrov and Sukhanovka appear to have been for exceptional cases. The other prisons were elsewhere or stopped being used as a prison in Soviet times. And that last bit suggests that indeed the Gulags were the only real prisons. So the amount of prisoners per capita was apparently indeed about the same as in the US now (which is by far the highest in the world - about a tenfold of the median elsewhere - so that doesn't quite make it ok). Of course, a more important question is how people were treated there. Since people were used for labour, it would make sense that they were kept healthy, but that's no guarantee (think Nazi Germany). I now remember having heard about a dissident 'intelligetsium' (now what's the singular for 'intelligentsia'?) who had been sent off to Siberia and who said that they could live a fairly normal life there, rather like in regular village. But I'm not sure if that was a Gulag or one of those famous USSR research towns.

Through the years I've learned that so many of the stories I heard as a kid about the USSR were complete nonsense that I am very careful with anything I hear about the Gulags. Those especially will have inspired many horror-stories because the were not verifiable. An extra complication is that it would have served the purpose of the government to make the citizens believe it was terrible, as a deterrent.

But the question was about everyday life, and this doesn't quite cover that. (Sorry, I started the spin-off before there was a proper answer.) DirkvdM 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Dirk. The Lubianka was the first example which came into my mind of a Soviet prison which wasn't a prison camp because at the moment I'm re-reading a book about Sidney Reilly, and he was held there. Better examples of good old-fashioned prisons may be the notorious Lefortovo, Ognenny Ostrov and Butyrka Xn4 23:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly here, Dirk, you seem to be attempting a direct comparison between Stalinist Gulags and the American penal system. Such a parllel is not just misleading, it is dangerously misleading, suggesting that the Soviet slave system was just another penal programme: it was not. Or, if it was, so too were the German concentration camps. Where did you get the figure of 1.7 million from? According to information derived from the archives of the NKVD, the population of the Gulags peaked in 1950 at 2,561,351, up from a base of 179,000 in 1930. But these figures do not tell the complete story. The total number of people in the Gulags at any given time only serves to mask the high turnover in the system. In 1943, for example, over 2,400,000 people passed through the system, though the figures at the beginning and at the end of the year show a decline from 1.5 to 1.2 million. We are dealing here with a system with an enormous level of prisoner movement, not reflected in the overall figures. In 1947, to take another example, 1,490,959 peoole entered the camps, while 1,012,967 left, again a huge turnover not reflected in the snapshot for the year. So the number of people being processed through the Gulags in constant movement was far, far higher than the bare statistics allow. It has been estimated that between 1929 and 1953 that as many as eighteen million people passed through the camp system; Khruschev himself claimed that seventeen million passed through between 1937 and 1953.

But even this is not the full story. Not all those sentenced to forced labour ended up in enclosed camps. Many thousands of ordinary Soviet citizens were sentenced to 'forced labour without incarceration', often for quite trivial violations of the fierce labour code. In addition to this the forced labour category also included prisoners of war, the inhabitants of filtration camps, and the huge numbers of 'special' exiles, including the so-called kulaks, deported during collectivization, as well as national minorities, like Poles, Balts, Caucasians, Tartars, Volga Germans and others. So, now we have a figure of 4 million for prisoners of war, and around 700,000 in the various filtration camps, though it is difficult to be completely accurate about the latter. Kulaks exiled to the deserts of Kzakhstan and elsewhere account for 2.1 million. The minorities forced into 'special settlements' has been estimated at 7,00,000 million in the period from 1930 to 1948. One conservative estimate of the total number of forced labourers in the U.S.S.R puts the figure at 28.7 million. The number who died as a result of this experience has again been conservatively estimated at 2,749,163. You will find all of this information and more in How Many?, the appendix to Anne Applebaum's Gulag: A History (London, 2004)

As for conditions under which people lived and worked I thought everyone now would be familiar with One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. Clearly not. But of all the camp literature I think The Kolyma Tales, Varlam Shalamov's brilliant collection of short stories, are the most revealing. His crisp, matter-of-fact and undemostrative style, very much in the fashion of Guy de Maupassant, only serves to make the horror that more stark and poignant. Do not ever attempt to justify that which cannot be justified, or accept the unacceptable. That is the path to the moral abyss. Clio the Muse 23:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What am I justifying according to you? I already mentioned the importance of what life in prison was like, apart from the numbers. I just reacted to Xn4's remark that "for a large number of people, every day was spent in a prison camp", and wondered how many people were indeed in prison, and that turned out to be 'just' 1%, so not quite an example of everyday life, what the question was about. And because from a recent thread I had learned that that number was the same for the US now, I thought that was a clarifying comparison. And then it spinned off from there.

I got the 1.7 million from the Gulag article (about halfway the history section). That excluded the 'colonies' and I didn't know what that was, so I excluded it. Your number seems to include it. You're saying that a lot of people stayed in the Gulags for a very short time. That's not what I expected, considering what I wrote above. You mention 30 million over 75 years. Assuming an average of 1 million prisoners, that would mean 2.5 years on average per prisoner. Sounds fairly normal to me (don't know, really).

You also include Poles, Balts, Caucasians, Tartars and Volga Germans, but the question and my figures are about Russia. If you include those, you'll have to divide by the total population of the USSR plus the eastern bloc. and I can't find those figures, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was at least double that of the USSR alone, so that would leave the final number the same. And prisoners of war are a completely different thing, even less to do with everyday life.

In the Netherlands, we have 'forced labour without incarceration' too, called 'werkstraf' ('work punishment') and there is a lot of criticism on it for letting people off to lightly. But again, that comparison doesn't say much if you don't have details for how much, how and for what. I can believe that life in USSR prisons was harsh, but until I know I will not assume it. DirkvdM 08:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

When I read your remarks I was immediately reminded of the movie Remains of the Day, the scene where Sir Geoffrey Wren, a character with Fascist sympathies, says, in a response to some criticism of what was happening in Germany, "Every country has to have a penal system. Here we call them prisons; over there they call them concentration camps. What's the difference?" Well, we know what the difference was as far as the German system is concerned, and I personally find it altogether shaming that the same level of knowledge does not appear to exist with regard to the Soviet concentration camps.

In essence, it seems to me-and I have no wish to be unfair-that you are comparing, or seeming to compare, that which simply cannot be compared, in such a way that the inference could be drawn, whether this is your intention or not, that the Gulags were no worse than American prisons. They were worse, in both quantitative an qualitative terms. Your suggestion, moreover, that it would make sense that the inhabitants of the Gulag Archipelgo 'were kept healthy' confirms how little hard information you actually possess. As for the 'favourable' conditions under which the intelligentsia were kept, you might do well to add The First Circle to your reading list.

I do not mention 30 million over 70 years; I do mention 28.7 million forced labourers processed through the system during the lifetime of Stalin. I would assume when people write of 'Stalin's Russia'-and the questioner can correct me if I am wrong-that the reference is to the Soviet Union, not specifically to the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The various national minorities I mentioned all came from within the borders of the Soviet Union as established by June 1941, some from within the RSFSR itself. The post-war satellite states are not included. Russian 'forced labour without incarceration' was nothing like the system now operating in the Netherlands: at least I assume it was not; for, if it was, I cannot imagine any complaints arising that criminals were getting off lightly. In the post war-period leading up to Stalin's death the annual population of the camps hovered around two and a half million, men, women and children. Beyond this you have the colonies, the forced labour settlements and ordinary prisons; for these also were part of the whole system. I have already given you a source where you can check the figures for yourself; I've also made suggestions on supplementary reading, which should give you some understanding of life in the Soviet twilight. After all, it can only be a good thing to avoid uninformed speculation, I feel sure you will agree. Clio the Muse 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Once more, I was just talking about the number of people in prison (by whatever name), to point out it is not a good example of everyday life. The comparison with other countries was indeed not necessary for that. But that it is little known what life was like there is indeed a problem, precisely why I don't make assumptions. If it was as horrible as the nazi concentrations camps (the comparison you make), wouldn't we know by now, more than a decade after the end of the USSR, with all the openness?

Concerning the keeping healthy, I merely suggested that that would have made sense, but then pointed out that that is no guarantee. There, even I made a comparison with the nazi concentration camps. So how can you accuse me of bias, which you appear to be doing?

You spoke about 28.7 million forced labourers (does that represent all prisoners?) in the USSR. You didn't specify 'under Stalin'. So which is it? And I merely gave a rough indication so rounding to 30 million made sense.

Concerning whether this is about Russia, the USSR or including the entire Eastern Bloc is one thing. But whichever figures you take, you should definitely make sure all the figures in one calculation are all about the same region.

"... at least I assume it was not ..." isn't that 'uninformed speculation'? That's the biggest danger here. Like I said, I've heard so many blatant lies about the USSR that I will no longer assume anything without hard evidence. Just like Soviet citizens were told all sorts of lies about the West (I once asked a Georgian about this), the same will have happened the other way around. It's an age-old story. When two peoples are opponents and there is no contact between them to verify things, all sorts of lies can and therefore will be told. DirkvdM 07:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing is, in my attempt to fight the bias I perceive around me, I have to be careful not to become biased myself, especially in the face of opposition by my surroundings. You pick up on my counter-bias and are then tempted to become biased yourself to get your point through. At least, this is how this feels to me. I suspect you have the same problem that I have, that because the other party puts a stress on one side of the story you have to put a stress on the other side of the story to provide the right balance. Notice that where we don't talk about the subject at hand but about the right methods to research things, we seem to agree, namely that one should question everything. And the best way to do that is to collect stories from both sides. Problem is that on this side of the iron curtain I (and you) have almost exclusively been exposed to one side. DirkvdM 10:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My politics are conservative and right-wing; I make no secret of that. But I adhere in the firmest way I can to the strictest standards of scholarly detachment; there is no other way of writing history. In a recent exchange I took issue with an editor who was allowing national pride to blind him to some simple facts. I made the point that while we have a duty to our own country, we have a higher duty to the truth. There is a huge body of literature on conditions in the Soviet camps, some of which I have pointed out to you, notably Anne Applebum's superb Gulag: a History, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 2004. It amazes me that you seem to be in total ignorance of work like this; of history, of literature, of testimonials of all kinds. In refusing to recognise this dimension of the truth you are coming dangerously close to the left-wing equivalent of Holocaust denial. For someone who claims to be studying philosophy you seem to me to be curiously lacking in qualities of reflection, of introspection and discernment. Your political attachments should not blind you to the wider significance of events. You might even consider the possibility that some of the things you were told about the old Soviet system, just some of them, might in fact be true. I've made reading suggestions; ignore them if you wish. But if you do decide to take matters further begin with Shalomov; you could do no better. You really, really need to stand back a little , Dirk. And I say this with all kindness. Clio the Muse 01:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I used to be right-wing and then left-wing and now I am a pragmatist (sort of like Buddha also found the middle way by exploring the extremes - a very illuminating strategy). I now find it strange to call oneself left- or right-wing. It's like taking a position before you've thought about it. Unless you mean you've thought about things first and then found all your conclusions turned out right-wing. But even then it is strange to say you are right-wing, as if that defines you. Aren't you what your thoughts make you? And it's dangerous because it may lead to the aforementioned prejudice.

I am interested in all sorts of things - history is just one of them, mainly because it's so important for our future. But hard sciences are at least as important, and that's really where my main interests lie. I occasionally read some stuff on history, but don't expect me to know specific books. You have here-above demonstrated a lack of insight in mathematical matters. We're both limited in what we can know. But having different perspectives is actually very fruitful. I like reading your lectures here. Maybe if you visited the science ref desk once in a while you could learn something from me. (in all modesty...)  :)

I don't study philosophy anymore. It's my way of thinking (looking at things from as far a distance as possible)* and temporarily made it my study. Mostly Logic and Philosophy of Science.

*Funny, I wrote that before I read you remark about standing back.

Don't worry about hurting my feelings. Insincerity would hurt me more. (Which is one of my main gripes with USians, but that's a different issue.) DirkvdM 07:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish clothing

Hi! What everyday clothes did a jewish man wear around the time of Jesus? Thanks. —Bromskloss 18:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably robes and cloaks not greatly different from those worn by many other peoples around that general time period. AnonMoos 20:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How about a kippah? —Bromskloss 20:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That would depend on the person, most notably their position. I suppose you mean what clothes Jesus wore. He was a carpenter, so something cheap and sturdy. An educated guess: hemp. DirkvdM 09:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the men and boys would worn tzitzit. Proably over their clothing, unlike the modern day convention. Kippah would only be necessary if the head was not anyway covered in some other way, such as cloak, scarf etc. --Dweller 10:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fabrics used would have typically been flax (linen) and wool. They would not have mixed wool and linen. --Dweller 10:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I should add that the fabrics were commonly dyed. There's considerable archaelogical and written record of dye-making and processing in the region at this time. Presumably, the poorer people would have had more basic clothes, as dye would have been expensive and regarded as something of a luxury. Also note that the Holy Land was at a crucial point in the ancient trade routes between Egypt (Africa) and Mesopotamia/Asia Minor. (Indeed it was regarded as the geographical centre of the world, as much as the spiritual. See our various Mappa Mundi articles) Those traditional trade routes, added to those opened by the Roman conquest (particularly littoral links) mean that fabrics and fashions would certainly have been imported, for those who could afford them. It's hard for us to estimate the extent of this, espcially as fabrics don't survive the centuries as well as, say, weapons, but it may have made for a more cosmopolitan array of clothing than in more isolated societies. --Dweller 09:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Caravan trade routes overland from the orient, through Palmyra and Damascus and the Decapolis to the north and east, and around the coast of Arabia through Petra to the south (pretty picture in Silk Road). I dare say we can expect all sorts of unusual fabric, but I doubt they were widely available to everyone for everyday use. -- !! ?? 11:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some more bits and pieces. Both shoes and sandals are referred to in the Mishna. And in those days, tefillin were commonly worn all day, despite periodic bans by the Roman authorities. It was later, in the time of the Talmud, that wearing of tefillin was restricted to time of prayers. --Dweller 20:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Two tunes

Looong ago, I was taught to play two tunes, that are now buzzing around my head demanding a name. I believe the first one is called something like "The White Rose of Scotland", but I've not been able to track it down under that name. The melody's notes are (with a high B and A): BEF#GBAGFEBFAGE.

This you-tube video sounds vaguely like the melody you provide, but only vaguely. It's called "The Wee White Rose of Scotland", and it was written in 1986, so it may be too new for what you're looking for. I do have a little bell tintinabulating inside my head about a more traditional song called something like "The White Rose of Scotland". When it accepts the invitation to come into my consciousness, I'll get back to you. -- JackofOz 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The second one is a Czech or something lullaby, but I've got no name to go on. This one's melody is EBBBGF#EAAF#F#E. Any help on either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.147.66 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you give some indication of the relative duration (length) of each note? That may help us track it down. Notes played with equal duration often sound quite unlike the tune they represent. -- JackofOz 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, attempting to overcome the limitations of text:

B

E

F#

G

B

A

G

F#

E

B

F

A

G

E

1/8

1/4

1/8

1/4

1/8

1/4

1/8

1/8 (slurred with next note)

1/8

1/8

1/2

1/2

1/4

1/4

E	B	B	B	G	F#	E	A	A	F#	F#	E
1/4	1/4	1/4	1/4	1/4	1/4	1/2	1/4	1/4	1/4	1/4	1/2

Should look like this in notation, if I've done it right... octaves may be off... - Nunh-huh 02:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sabotaging Relationships

Is there a name for a psychological disorder in which a person unconsciously seeks means of sabotaging all their closest relationships, for fear of loving or of being loved? In other words, the person doesn't even realize what they're doing or for what reason, but they have a hard time being close to people and whenever someone starts to get close to them they find a clever means of ruining it. And then they wonder why they can never have a successful friendship or relationship. 66.112.241.49 19:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

There are lots of different personality disorders with complex, and sometimes over-lapping behaviours. Only a mental health care professional could give a valid diagnosis based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. However, one disorder that appears to share some of the behaviours you mention is Masochistic (Self-defeating) Personality Disorder Rockpocket 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also a Wikipedia article on it.--Rallette 11:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits Needed - Angelina Grimke

Hi, Im not tech saavy - but the article on Angelina Grimke was vandalized. I would have fixed it, except I don't know how. They added a sentence that needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.232.120 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Done, thanks for letting us know. For the next time: WP:REVERT. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)