Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 5

Humanities desk
< July 4	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 6 >

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.

July 5

A stock standard?

As I understand it, supporters of Ron Paul are still pushing for the gold standard, though it has been called a "barbarous relic" at various times.^[1] What I wonder is --- have people considered basing a currency (whether publicly or privately issued) not on bullion, but on a very broad no-load index fund? Wnt (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

From the Ron Paul article: "While Paul believes the longterm decrease of the U.S. dollar's purchasing power by inflation is attributable to its lack of any commodity backing, he does not endorse a "return" to a gold standard – as the U.S. government has established during the past – but instead prefers to eliminate legal tender laws and to remove the sales tax on gold and silver, so that the market may freely decide what type of monetary standard(s) there shall be."A8875 (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

All such schemes have a basic problem: the essential value of money derives from the liquidity it provides, and when you try to base money on some commodity, you inevitably mix up its liquidity value with the value derived from supply and demand for that commodity. That always leads in the end to trouble. The only reason for doing it is if there is no alternative that isn't worse. We do have an alternative: the Federal Reserve system. The problem that the gold-bugs have is that they fundamentally distrust the Fed and are willing to take the bad consequences of commodity money (which they usually don't understand anyway) rather than trust the Fed to do the right things. Looie496 (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, the liquidity problem is a problem only for soft money advocates of government interference in the banks and intention debasement of the currency. Of course people who don't want to see the state debase the currency for political reasons don't see the "liquidity problem" of hard gold as a problem. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody wants to see the state debase the currency for political reasons. But there are other people who see the liquidity problem of hard gold as a problem: those who believe that deflation is a disaster which needs to be avoided. Looie496 (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You have not heard of free silver or quantitative easing? Bot are debasements for political reasons. One of the oldest corruptions on the book, it goes back to the Ancient Greeks if not before. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think many would like to debase the currency, such as those who want the government to have high benefits and appear to have low taxes. By "printing money" and thus creating inflation, the government can pay it's debts via a hidden tax on all, inflation. This may benefit the rich, especially, since they are likely to have investment strategies which have higher returns than inflation, while the poor, with their assets in a bank account, their car, and personal possessions, are less likely to do so. I'm not sure that the risk of deflation is any worse, especially when the possibility of a currency collapse exists when using an unbacked currency (fiat money). I suspect that after some major currencies do collapse/suffer hyperinflation, we will see a return to some version of backed currency, as people will have lost faith in fiat money. StuRat (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No one wants to see another Zimbabwe situation in their own country, but traditionally debtors favor mild inflation, while creditors favor no inflation... AnonMoos (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wnt -- the problem with the gold standard is that the money supply has more to do with gold discoveries and mining logistics than with more purely economic factors, such as whether the economy is overheated or depressed. During most of the 19th century, there was a long term overall slight deflationary trend, which was periodically counteracted by gold rushes and mining bonanzas, while the U.S. government was mostly powerless to do anything meaningful to mitigate economic recessions. The problem with a "stock standard" would be that it could be subject to manipulations of various types... AnonMoos (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to my limited understanding, the way we handle recessions now is to increase the money supply by allowing some favored bankers to print money usable by those indebted to them. With a stock standard I think we could expand the money supply by somehow encouraging more companies to go public and add themselves to the indexes. Wnt (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody in the UK has ever wanted to follow the example of Winston Churchill, who in 1924 "oversaw Britain's disastrous return to the Gold Standard, which resulted in deflation, unemployment, and the miners' strike that led to the General Strike of 1926." I'm not clever enough to tell you why it brought these clamaties upon us; just that we don't want to try it again to see if it was a fluke. Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The fundamental problem was a shortage of gold. The world's economies had been growing a lot faster than the world's gold stocks, and the nations with the strongest economies were sucking it all up. That problem would come back far worse nowadays if any large nation actually made a serious effort to return to a gold-based currency. Looie496 (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alansplodge -- I think the problem was that the gold-£ conversion factor was set at the pre-war rate, which was a triumph of nostalgia (or the desire to pretend that WW1 never happened) over economic realities. AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with a gold standard is that it causes people to squirrel away their gold, rather than use it. It is genuinely useful stuff, like for electrical contacts, but people hording it and using it for silly things like jewelry makes it too expensive for many other uses. Silver, on the other hand, isn't as useful, since it tarnishes. There is it's antibiotic property, but otherwise it's always seemed like the worst possible choice for utensils, to me (as anyone who bent a silver spoon scooping out ice cream or burnt themself grabbing a silver spoon sitting in hot soup can attest to). StuRat (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Any metal spoon sitting in hot soup is going to get too hot to touch, so that in itself is no argument against using silver spoons for this purpose, as compared with stainless steel or whatever. The best argument against using silver utensils for food preparation is that they were always meant to be used solely for eating, if only because of their impracticality in the kitchen. You might use a silver ladle to serve the soup, but it wouldn't sit in the soup getting hot when it isn't being used. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Metals do not all have equal thermal conductivity. Iron is 80.2 W/m-K, while silver is 429 W/m-K, or over 5 times as much. StuRat (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That exactly supports my point, and yours. Silver is the worst possible choice for cooking utensils (way too conductive; and tarnishing, particularly when in contact with eggs), which is why no cook in their right mind would use silver cooking utensils. Which is why they are reserved, in the best houses at any rate (sniff, sniff), for eating with. That does not include scooping out ice cream or having them sitting in hot soup. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A silver tea service also is stupid, as the silver tea pot will get hot enough to burn you, and then the tea inside will quickly get cold. I also prefer to use my cooking utensils to eat, where possible, to reduce dishes. So, I will use a serving spoon to stir my mac and cheese, then eat it with the same spoon (and out of the same cooking pot, too). Stainless steel is ideal for both. StuRat (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

They had tea cosies for that problem. It protected the pourer's skin as well as reducing heat loss a little. If the occasion was too formal for a tea cosy, there would probably have been a butler doing the honours, and he would have worn white gloves. If you're telling me you're given to eating directly from the cooking pot, using the same utensils you cooked with, I'm afraid we have nothing more to say to each other, and I wish you good day.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Using an unsuitable material and then using another material to protect against it is about as silly as making tea pots out of pure sodium, with a glass coating added to prevent it from exploding when it contacts water. StuRat (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, if you've never eaten straight out of the cooking pot with the same utensils, you've obviously never been a poor bachelor. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I jest, of course; I love eating straight out of the pot. It's a known scientific fact that it actually tastes better that way. I was always a poor bachelor; then a poor married man; now I'm a poor confirmed bachelor.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Some have proposed a "market basket of commodities", presumably ones whose historic fluctuations are not strongly correlated. Here's David D. Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom chapter 46, because I happen to have it handy:

So far I have not discussed what commodity a private system should base its money on. Historically, the most common standards were probably gold and silver. They were well suited for the purpose [for reasons I need not repeat].

But in a modern society none of these characteristics is important, since the circulating medium is not the commodity itself but claims upon it. The disadvantage of silver and gold is that they have very inelastic supplies and relatively inelastic demands ....

The ideal commodity backing for a modern system would not be any single commodity but rather a commodity bundle. The bank would guarantee to provide anyone bringing in (say) a hundred thousand of its dollars with a bundle consisting of a ton of steel of a specified grade, a hundred bushels of wheat, an ounce of gold, and a number of other items. The goods making up the bundle would be chosen to make the value of the total bundle correlate as closely as possible with the general price level. While a change in production technology or non-monetary demand might alter the value of one good in the bundle, it would have only a small effect on the value of the bundle as a whole. ...

Am I naïve to suppose that a commodities index would be less prone to manipulation than a stock index? At any rate, I'm pleased to learn Ron Paul's real position. May the soundest currency win! —Tamfang (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The historical experience has been that the soundest currency loses, through Gresham's law... AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Gresham's law ("bad money drives out good money") depends on legal tender: if merchants are compelled to accept copper coins as if they were silver, people will hoard the silver and spend the copper. This important condition is often omitted either because it's bloody obvious (except to those wedded to the idea that people other than themselves are irrational and therefore economics is bunk) or because it's inconvenient to the popular myth that a free market is always a "race to the bottom"; you pick. —Tamfang (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Except now, you can create your legal tender with paper, plastic, or even pure electronic transactions. Coinage aside, the material itself is no longer a deciding factor in that process. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll update the illustration from Gresham's time. If I'm able to pay my bills in Zimbabwe dollars (cash or electronic) and my creditors are compelled by law to accept such payments as 1:1 equivalent to "real" money, unless I have strong moral scruples I'll spend my Z$ and hoard the good stuff. The point is that without legal tender the merchant won't take the Z$ and the good money, not the bad money, stays in circulation. —Tamfang (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think there are some differences that would crop up between a stock-based and a commodity-based currency. First, a commodity based currency is unlikely to actually be based on holdings of the commodity - you won't really want to have billions of bushels of wheat sitting in lockers somewhere. But a stock-based currency might (or might not) be based on actual index fund holdings - potentially, even 100% holdings, being simply a sort of bearer certificate. The other thing is that because stocks are actually held, they can potentially be voted, which has some curious consequences. Of course, to actually vote in every shareholder meeting with every stock represented in those few dollaroids in your pocket would be infeasible; and voting that way in any case would destroy the anonymity of the currency. But, for example, a company or other organization issuing the paper currency could issue several colors - you could pick the "pink" kind, and you and your fellow pinkos could nominate somebody who would vote the company's holdings in a socially responsible way, or you could pick the "true blue" kind, and your representative would push to oppose outsourcing and keep jobs in your own country. All these colors of paper would still be the exact same holdings, and no matter who won in any board meeting, they'd experience the same gains and losses, so anyone obtaining a color he didn't like might, for some possibly very small surcharge, exchange it for a color he does like, with the company storing/destroying/reprinting any net gains and losses. I think... Wnt (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Qing Manchu Speakers

How often was Manchu spoken by members of the Qing Imperial Court (the emperor, his family, and eunuch and palace maids)? Was it more spoken or less spoken than Chinese? Was Manchu required to be spoken by politicians and officials and in imperial examinations?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of wikilinking (and then revising the links to) parts of the first part of your question. Manchu language#History and significance suggests http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QiM2pF5PDR8C and Qing_Dynasty#Fall suggests http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Politics_of_Language_in_Chinese_Educ.html?id=okhrBBmnHVQC 75.166.192.187 (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The examinations were for the purpose of recruiting Chinese to the traditional Chinese bureaucracy, while the official Manchu policy was to maintain a strong distinction between the martial Manchus and the non-martial Chinese, so I strongly doubt whether the Manchu language would have been used in such examinations... AnonMoos (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese wiki article has some information on this: in the Shunzhi era there were separate examinations for Manchus and Hans, but subsequently there was only one paper for Hans. Manchus and Mongols were discouraged from participating but were not forbidden. Being a Han paper, it was naturally in the Han language. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Communist party in the depression

How much did the circulation of the Communist Party of America's newspaper increase during the first years of the depression? How many Americans left for the Soviet Union during the depression? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about the Great Depression, right, and not any of the other depressions that occurred while the Soviet Union existed (e.g. the fallout from the 1973 oil crisis)? Smurrayinchester 06:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am talking about the Great Depression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think more Americans went to the Soviet Union due to the Palmer Raid and events around that time, rather than during the Great Depression... AnonMoos (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

For circulation figures of the Daily Worker, I tracked down this: "Harvey A. Levenstein addresses the development of The Worker (Cleveland, Chicago, and New York, 1922-1924) and Daily Worker (Chicago and New York, 1924-1958). Levenstein sketches the history of these journals, providing circulation numbers. The Daily Worker's readership increased throughout the 1930s, and the its content changed, replacing articles on strikes and jeremiads against capitalism with political cartoons and features that aligned communism with American ideals. Levenstein's essay gives the reader more information about issues covered in these newspapers then do many of the other authors, providing some examples of what the papers contained, including advertising.". From http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/laborpress/Kelling.htm. And the Levenstein seems to be a chapter in Joseph Conlin (ed.) The American Radical Press 1880 - 1960 Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press 1974. I can see snippet view only in Google Books, and I see the little snippet that it would have been expected that the circulation would rise after the Crash, but actually it remained stable. (Therefore it rose later in the 30s, when the Third Period policies were replaced by the Popular Front.) Itsmejudith (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

These finds mirror my expectations in relation to 3rd International parties, and their lines' appeal to workers, and workers' motivations for supporting Communist parties in the west in the period. The early 1930s and late 1920s were a period when Anglophone communist parties were most distant from the working class movement, after they burnt up the sympathy and organic relationships which arose out of the 1910s crisis; but, before they reestablished union contacts. (Admittedly then the US becomes atypical in the late 1940s due to the strength of repression there). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way it's the same Harvey Levenstein who wrote Revolution at the Table, a history of food in the USA. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

By coincidence, I happen to be reading The Communist Party of the United States, from the Depression to World War II by Fraser M. Ottanelli (Rutgers U. Press, 1991, ISBN 0-8135-1613-7). He says that at its peak, the Sunday Worker (edited by Joseph North) had a circulation of 100,000 (page 127). Harvey Klehr's earlier The Heyday of American Communism: The Depression Decade (Basic Books, 1984, ISBN 0-465-02946-9) says that the Party's cultural magazine, New Masses, jumped from 6,000 as a monthly to 24,000 as a weekly in early 1935 (page 351). —— Shakescene (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What do Americans and the British call people from Southeast Asia?

Deliberately oversimplifying here: So when describing (or perhaps more accurately, stereotyping) people, in the US "Asian" generally means East Asian and "Indian" means South Asian, while in the UK "Asian" means South Asian while "Oriental" is accepted as PC and means East Asian. "Middle-Eastern" is understood in both the US and the UK, but what do they call people from Southeast Asia? Is it the case, perhaps as a result of the region's relative racial diversity, that a stereotypical notion of what most Southeast Asian people look like hasn't been formed? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In Canada and I believe also in the US, they are just lumped in with the other "Asians" from China/Japan/Korea. Certainly, I know Vietnamese people who refer to themselves as "Asian". Adam Bishop (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)What racial diversity? I can't visually distinguish between Thai, Vietnamese, Laotians, Burmese, etc. nor can I distinguish their languages - to my ear they all sound like nasal "sing-song" with lots of long vowels and "ng" sounds. As a group South-East Asians look and sound fairly homogenous - much like West Germanic speaking Europeans. Roger (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of mainland vs maritime SEA, the latter of which I wonder would more likely be lumped in with Pacific Islanders. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are from a region that actually sees these groups regularly (I grew up in an area of California with many Southeast Asian immigrants), you can definitely tell them apart. People from Vietnam and people from Cambodia look pretty dissimilar, as an example — Cambodians have much darker skin complexion on the whole. I think you also underestimate the actual biological human diversity of the region; don't conflate "they all look alike to me" with "they are all actually alike." I say this as a pretty boring white guy myself. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, I think it's a matter of not having a lot of immigration or cultural trade with the area, so that neither a stereotype nor a convenient catch-all term exists. I suspect that "Indonesian" would generally be taken to mean someone from that general area, even though that is only one of a group of countries. Possibly "Austronesian" or "Australasia", but then you're into slightly more educated terms. "Asian" might vaguely work, in some contexts. If I had to refer to the area, when speaking to an everyday person with no maps to point to, I'd probably say "that big cluster of islands above Australia". 86.143.135.49 (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have always wondered about a similar question not so much of South East Asians specifically but for any of the non-Chinese, non-subcontinental Asians when filling out race statistic questionnaires in the UK. Typically, these questionnaires break down in terms of "broad ethnic groups" and then specific groups under those. One of the broad groups is "Asian", but a closer inspection shows that the sub-groups are all various varieties of subcontinental/south Asian people, plus a miscellaneous sub-category called "other Asian". Another broad group is "Chinese and others", which includes varieties of "Chinese" (Chinese, English Chinese, Welsh Chinese, Scottish Chinese, etc.), and also "any other".

For a Korean person, for example, it must be very confusing whether they are an "other Asian" or "any other" - they are clearly "other" "Asian" in the more formal sense, but the way ethnicities are categorised in these questionnaires suggest that the questionnaire does not see "Chinese" as a sub-category of "Asian", and perhaps sees "Asian" to mean "south Asian" exclusively. So for someone from an ethnic group which is "more similar" to Chinese than Indian, say, are they "other Asian" or "any other"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a quirk of the 2001 Census. In 2011 it was more sensible. Main category: Asian/Asian British. Subcategories: Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Any other Asian background (write in). The results will be out soon, and hopefully someone will do a study of the write-ins. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I live in the UK and have never heard anyone refer to anyone else as "Indonesian", "Austronesian" or "Australasia"n. I've heard various tags, of varying specificity, accuracy and political correctness, including "Far Eastern", "Oriental" and occasionally "Asian". OR and generalising alert: I tend to agree that it's to do with lack of familiarity, but also a little to do with traditional British very mild xenophobia, characterised by lack of real interest in where people are from. Many "East Europeans" I've met have been surprised to find out that I'm interested to know if they're from Romania, Poland or Kosovo, and more surprised when I mention it in a second conversation. --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To the OP: "Oriental" is not a politically correct term in the UK. On the contrary it's politically incorrect and dying out, quite rightly in my view. --Viennese Waltz 13:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious what you can possibly mean by "quite rightly". I mean, don't get me wrong, I do take note of what words give offense, and take that into account assuming there's a satisfactory alternative. But there doesn't seem to be any logic to it; it just has to be memorized, and I do find that necessity a little annoying, even if not annoying enough to risk making a scene over. Or do you think there is some logic to it in this case? --Trovatore (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Those who use it will defend it on the basis that the term just means "Eastern". To be consistent, they ought to call Americans "Occidentals". But really they should stop using it, because it's deemed offensive as a racial term in the UK. On the other hand, this guy is a British caucasian who might be proud to be called "Oriental". --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Where I live in Canada, people from India, Pakistan, etc. are called "East Indian" (most absolutely never simply "Indian"), while people from East and Southeast Asia are called "Asian" when they're not differentiated. --NellieBly (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) My experience in the UK is that use of "Oriental", like "Antipodean", is acceptable among certain social/cultural groups and not among others. In any case, those who object to the use of "Oriental" clearly have not managed to popularise a replacement term that could easily distinguish an "Asian" in the US/Canada/Antipodean colloquial sense from an "Asian" in the British colloquial sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think "Polynesian" is widely used in the U.S., probably even for peoples who aren't actually Polynesian; as long as they come from an island of some sort east of Taiwan. ("Micronesian" and "Melanesian" are technical terms, not part of the popular vocabulary, I think) The formal Census term is "Pacific Islander" if I recall correctly. How Filipinos are called is anyone's guess, but anybody speaking with a Spanish accent is going to be thought of as Hispanic, no matter what they look like. But agreed - there's little real distinction in American culture between Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, or Burmese, despite the visible differences. All this is just my fallible personal impression. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The non-PC way of referring to Asians, Easters, South Asian, whatever: List_of_ethnic_slurs by ethnicity. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm American, and would refer to each of those people by their nationality, if known. If unknown, or if referring to people of multiple Southeast Asia nations collectively, I'd call them Asians or Orientals (which isn't considered offensive here). StuRat (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There are countless restaurants in America whose names contain "Orient" or "Oriental" somewhere in them, and they are nearly always Chinese places. So apparently it's not very offensive, maybe at worst just kind of quaint and out of date. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Really, Bugs? Everything I read has Asian people highly offended at being called "Oriental". 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard that too, although I wonder if it's really Asians who are offended, or PC whites who think they should feel offended. Just google [orient restaurant] and [oriental restaurant], and for names like [orient express restaurant] and see how many hits you get. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Many Asians in the US do indeed take offense at being called "oriental". This would include just about all US asians that I know. That word is regarded as fine when describing cultures (e.g. art, cuisine, etc) but not individual people. So it's totally fine to call a restaurant oriental, but don't call its owners oriental. Staecker (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not the term itself, but rather the concept of all people from that region being lumped in together they find offensive, much like a Canadian wouldn't much care to be called an "American", even though they are, of course, from North America. StuRat (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That particular analogy doesn't work — Candians don't usually call themselves "American", but they do call themselves "North American", with no evident regret. (North America means something different in Canada than it does in the US; in the US it includes Mexico; in Canada, generally not.) --Trovatore (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Do they think Mexico is part of South America ? StuRat (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In the London, the only substantial immigrant communities from that region are either Hong Kong Chinese, Malay Chinese or Vietnamese. I have heard the term "South East Asian" but "Chinese" or "Vietnamese" would be more usual. "Asian" has become a by-word for somone from the Indian sub-continent - Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi ar Sri Lankan. Alansplodge (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you know they are a vague collection of SE Asians (as an American) you will call them SE Asians. If they have straight dark hair and epicanthic folds but you are not otherwise sure of their origin you will most likely describe them as Orientals. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Southeast Asia is actually divided into two distinct regions. Indochina (or mainland Southeast Asia) and maritime Southeast Asia.

Indochinese SE Asians (the Vietnamese, Thai, Lao, Cambodians, and Burmese) are closer to East Asians in language, culture, and ethnicity; hence why their languages are also tonal, i.e. "sing-song". They're also more likely to be lighter-skinned, with straight hair, and eyes with epicanthic folds.

Maritime Southeast Asians (the Indonesians, Malaysians, Filipinos, Timorese, and Bruneians), in contrast, belong to a completely different ethnic and linguistic group that were traditionally sailors - the Austronesians. They are more closely related to the other "islander" ethnicities in both culture and language: the Malagasy of Madagascar, the Micronesians, and the Polynesians. The vast majority of Austronesian languages are also not tonal at all. And we're pretty different from the Indochinese people, being usually darker-skinned, with almond-shaped eyes, and straight to wavy to outright curly hair.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Americans tend to call people not on the mainland Pacific Islanders. Presumably this would include Indonesians and Malaysians, although being former Ducth/british colonies which don't emigrate much to the US they are not in most American's conscience. I have only ever met one Indonesian myself, but grew up knowing many Philippinos, who were called...Philippinos. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying they preferred the Ph- spelling over the F- spelling? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure in any case how I would indicate the difference in their pronunciation between ph- and f- when they told me they were Philippinos, but the f- spelling was not current with English speakers when I was growing up, and it would have been anachronistic for me to indicate otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

role model racialist thinking

I heard this racialist line of thinking that some underprivileged dilinquent youth would choose an athlete role-model just because they were of the same or they were also raised by a single parent who was on welfare at one point. Well, needless to say, our President now fits all of the above descriptions (except for being law professor then Senator then President instead of a professional athlete) - so, the same (to me racialist) line of thinking would imply that a lot of underprivileged delinquent youth would choose to study hard, go to law school, and try to "become President". (Obviously, just as most of the role-model inspired "youth" actually don't go on to practice professional athletics, but still "do better" by having these role models - again, according to the racialist line of thinking -, so, too, most of them wouldn't actually become President, obviously).

Does any such role-model effect exist and has been proven, in urging the mentioned demographics toward scholastics excellence, law school, aiming for a Senate seat, etc, as a result of Obama's acting as their role model?

Also if I am not mistaken there must be around as many top senators and representatives as top athletes at the top of, e.g., the MBA, so to me the comparison seems quite apt... If it does not exist, it debunks the racialist line of thinking entirely. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I certainly hope that this precedent would make minority kids more willing to believe in their dreams; but in the context of an economy where it is still actually much harder, how could you measure this? If you can think of an experiment, it would be a good way to find if it's been done. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Obama does not fit the above description. Was he a delinquent young? Was he that underprivileged? Was he the son of a single parent on welfare? He did some experimenting with drugs, like many teenagers, but his life experience, when growing up, were mostly constructive and motivating. Minorities from really depressed areas won't identify much with him. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A role model need not have the same life story or even class background. I think you're wrong about minority children not finding ways to identify with him — in my experience, many of them do, simply because skin color has such a strong effect (above and beyond class) in the United States. (I live in an area of the country where I am in quite a lot of contact with low-income African-Americans, and they seem to support and identify with the President pretty strongly, despite the many differences between himself and them.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, Minority children can take him as a role model, but not in the way the OP meant it, only through the race link, which you mention as specially strong in the US. The other points of his biography are not accurate. I don't think that Obama's mother was on welfare/food stamps when raising him. The article does not specify that and I don't find any reliable source, although some are available, which are as trustworthy as the Obama-is-not-US-born theorists. He was for some time abroad and for some time with his not-single grandparents. That's for me a clear indication that he couldn't have received much welfare, if at all he got some. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, to specify, the only thing Obama would have in common with them is the same thing previously an Athlete could have in common with them: 1) being of the same race. (this is what I find racialist in this line of thinking). 2) I also mentinoed: "also raised by a single parent who was on welfare at one point." This is also true of Barack Obama. So on these two points he is the same as an Athlete with the same background of the same race, who, according to the racialist theory, would "inspire" someone just by being of the same race and having these couple of parts of their story be the same. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

See my answer above. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a phrase which springs to mind here: "Have you seen yourself recently?" A few years ago in the UK, it became common (along with the phrase "Have you heard yourself recently?") to highlight the deficit in broadcasting of non-white, non-middle class, non-male presenters. The theory goes that the media should be representative of the population at large. There's also a sexist observation that women above a certain age are not represented on television and certainly not as newsreaders. This seems to be changing. It seems that ethnic minorities being visible as being successful in whatever field become role models for ethnic minorities, regardless of their background. Somehow they become representative of the capabilities of their ethnic background and encourage others to follow them. OK you may find it "racialist", but they would say they're redressing an existing imbalance. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jews jewish religious denominations

Do all Mizrahi Jews practice orthodox Modern, Orthodox Hasidic and Orthodox Haredi Judaism or some practice other sects like Reconstructed, Conservatism and Reform Judaism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.209 (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

First off, it should be understood that the conservative and reform movements (and, by extension, the reconstructionist) are distinctly Ashkenazic phenomena. Outside the west, until the 20th century, the majority of Jews were culturally and halakhically in alignment with what would be considered "Orthodox" practice, even though "Orthodox" was merely a regional neologism created as a reaction to the liberalizing efforts of the reformers. Any Mizrahi Jews that are formally part of a non-Orthodox religious movement are most likely to be aligned with either the Masorti or Progressive Judaism in Israel (equivalent to the conservative and reform movements in the west, respectively). Hard numbers are hard to find, but I'd say (without a source to back it up) that the balance of observant/non-observant is probably close to exactly what it is for every other Jewish population. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Karma/god and revenge

If someone does something bad to me, should I take revenge or forgive him and expect that he gets what he deserves from the Karma/God? But, if I'm also part of the universe, maybe it's me who has to fulfill this Karma/God strike back, I suppose. How do religions deal with that? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it's worth noting that concepts like Karma and God are understood by religions very differently to how they're used colloquially. I'm no expert on Karmic religions, but I'm sure someone who is may be able to expand on this. I'd have thought that seeking revenge is a form of attachment, and thus bad for one's own karma; whereas the karma of one's enemy is only the problem of one's enemy.

Conversely, in a theistic religion, do not expect that God (even if you believe in a strongly interventionist god - many do not) is your personal avenger. But generalising massively, most theistic religions have something like the Golden Rule. As Hillel the Elder said: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to others; this is the whole Torah - all the rest is commentary." Or as Jesus said: "If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer them the other." Taking revenge is usually considered a sign of not forgiving others. Expecting God to be your avenger also looks quite unforgiving.

Thus I would say - the opinion of most major religions is likely to be "Forgive rather than seeking revenge; and do so without hope that ill will befall your enemy. If you are reconciled to your enemy, your enemy will no longer seek your harm, and you will no longer wish your enemy harm."

Of course, religions are only composed of humans, and any given religion is likely to include people whose opinion will be "Hit him hard; he sinned against you", or else "Let him be; but when his dog dies, it's a judgement against him". AlexTiefling (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Soylent Green is composed of human beings. Religions aren't. By perhaps, but not of.μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, you know damn well what I meant. Your smug one-liner just makes you look ignorant, Religions, as groups, made up of (and very likely by) the people who belong to them. It is not meaningful to talk about, say, Christianity as separate from the beliefs and practices of actual Christians. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, frankly I assumed you were unintentionally misusing the pronoun, not making a Mitt Romney "Corporations are people" statement. Although you insist you meant what you said, your new formulation identifying a religion with the "beliefs and actions" of its practitioners, rather than the practitioners themselves (like crammed-in overweight bodies collectively exceeding the maximum weight for which an elevator is certified) is a much better and very different claim. Sorry for hitting a raw nerve. μηδείς (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't what I said, either. 'Corporations are people' is about Corporate personhood, which is how there are electors in the City of London who are not natural persons in the legal sense, for example. There's a difference between treating an entity as a person in its own right, and recognising that a membership organisation is composed of its members. And it's not that you hit a raw nerve; I see you again and again on these board, making sly superior one-liners, about ebonics, chavs, youth, and so on. Your whole attitude reeks of personal and intellectual privilege. You're not helping the questioners by being so high and mighty. Try actually helping people instead of waving your massive, er, education around. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. "Chavs, Ebonics, Privilege and Youth"? Are you seriously taking my reference to My Cousin Vinny to be an attack on young people? Seriously!?!? I hope you aren't taking names, comrade. I didn't say that you said corporations were people, did I? (The link you provide is beside the point, BTW. Romney was referring to the fact that corporations have no existence beyond their owners/shareholders, not to legal personhood.) I actually did assume you were using the wrong preposition rather than making a very metaphysically confused point. Religions are still not composed of people in either sense. My first post and my previous were both sincere. But it's obvious at this point you are just looking to take offense. So, in so far as my prior explanation was an apology I retract it. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It depends, to the extent that a religious is a social moiety then the religion is directly composed of human beings. We regularly both subsume individuality beneath collectivities, and reify the outward forms of collectivities. But, at the same time, network effects and solidarity mean that people who when viewed from one aspect are individuals subsumed beneath a collective, viewed from another aspect of their being are collective members whose personality only exists in the networked context. AFAIK social scientists haven't come to a good conclusion on this (may never do so in "human" time). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) In Christianity, people are commanded to forgive others for transgression against themselves. All evil deeds will eventually be paid for, either by the person who commmitted them or by Jesus, who paid on the cross for the sins of all that believe in Him. In Islam, to forgive someone else is counted as a good deed, but not considered obligatory. Ultimately, God will forgive some people and punish others, as He sees fit. According to some hadith, Allah will punish unbelievers for the sins that Muslims committed. Dharmic religion vary widely, but according to the standard view of Karma, retribution is a necessary effect of good/bad deeds, so it does not matter for someone if you punish them or not, because they cannot escape Karma. You on the other hand, might fare better if you refrain from vengeance. I know little about eastern religions, so anyone please correct me here if I'm wrong. - Lindert (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's important to remember that in doctrines such as Christian universalism and (in some sense) annihilationism, such punishment is rejected. Consider, after all, suppose a loving mother were given the chance to judge her own son in a courtroom. Would she find an excuse for leniency? Would she flatly reject a horrendous punishment? How much more so if she were not merely judge, but the supreme queen of the nation, whose word was unarguable? Now, if God is the ultimate love, the archetype of which a mother's love is only a dim reflection, wouldn't this be even more so the case? Wnt (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that view is that it ignores God's justice. Sure, a mother who judges her son in a courtroom might find an excuse to let him go, but if she does that, she would be an unjust judge, and will be fired from her job. That is exactly why a divine self-sacrifice was provided, to satisfy both God's perfect justice and His love. Universalism has throughout the ages been considered a heresy by Christians, because it contradicts so much of the Bible. - Lindert (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If a judge can accomplish by counseling or community service what another would need to hire a jailer to fail at accomplishing, is she not the better judge? And when favoritism is shown toward everyone, it is no longer unfair. How do you view Luke 14:25-33? If following Jesus is the only way to evade eternal torments, how can anyone be told not to make the effort? And what for those already perished? Besides, there's just something very peculiar about a view of Christianity which proposes that Pilate and the men pounding the nails were the direct agents of humanity's salvation. Wnt (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting reading Luke 14 as saying 'not to make the effort'? It is an exhortation that one must be willing to sacrifice anything for the gospel. Counseling can never accomplish the purpose of God's judgement. God's justice demands payment, retribution. Read Romans 12:19 "Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.". And yes, Pilate and Herod were instruments in God's plan (Acts 4:27-28): "Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the peoplee of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen." - Lindert (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Predestination is a thorny issue; but one might parsimoniously interpret that only to mean that Jesus had to die like all men. And is God more vindictive than men? I mean, I know that if I get the choice between facing the risk of the traditionalist (pagan?) Hell, and saying that Hitler should get the chance to skate by means of Purgatory or reincarnation or something in exchange for me getting the same deal, I'm going for the soft option. Why wouldn't God prefer that also? I mean, who among us is wired to think that perpetual torment of hell is actually a just penalty, for anything? Maybe we're wired that way for a reason, namely, because that's not how things are. Wnt (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "maybe it's me who has to fulfill this Karma/God strike back", this verges on the argument from free will and even if all your actions are God's will and/or are predetermined, this does not necessarily absolve an individual of responsibility for his decisions and doctrines can still dictate what they consider to be the correct response. Ankh.Morpork 19:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

See Romans 12:17, 19.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You are making a mistake by associating Karma with God, two completely different belief systems. I cannot vouch for Karma, but Scripture states that: "Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them." Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

regarding Karma, at least in my backwater of buddhism, let them deal with the consequences of their actions, and you deal with the consequences of your own. While the diversity of consciousness can go into may places, if you own consciousness is second guessing an action, it probably isn't to do rightly and be done rightly by you. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole question is meaningless. It's like asking "Should I use apples or a car to swim in the air." Karma has nothing to do with any kind of God. It's just cause and effect. Similarly, it has nothing to do with good or bad, as those are completely subjective concepts - i.e. what you think is good for you may be bad for someone else. Karma is not a thing to be relied upon to get vengeance on another person. It doesn't work that way. If someone leads a life which is detremental to society, then sooner or later, society will punish that person, if this is the answer you want. Do it yourself or don't do it. Make the choice. But prepare to deal with any consequences that come from that action (i.e., your own karma). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You have failed to understand the question. Obviously it has meaning, otherwise people wouldn't been answering above you. And obviously II: it does NOT relate Karma with God. Read it again, pls. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, well let's try this from the other end. All humans are manifestations of the force of Atman. When one strikes another, he is the person striking and the person struck, and the pain he suffers as the person being struck is his penalty for the striking. This is the immediate effect; but in a future revision of the Universe, the good ones remain, enjoying the virtues they have gained as (to them) a law of nature, and the striking will be as if it never happened. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Fleet death

It is my understanding that after his wife died his brother in law evicted him and he was homeless when he committed suicide. Your article does not mention this. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.84.181 (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is more appropriate for the talk page of the article ( here). Either there is no source confirming this or nobody wrote it yet into the article. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Maybe no other Wikipedia editor has read as much as you have about the subject. I've never heard of this gentleman, so I presume he's a touch obscure. All our articles depend on some individual(s) who've taken enough of an interest in the subject to provide some decent material, with references from reliable sources.

If you can fill in any of the gaps on this or any other of our 4 million articles, please feel very welcome to do so. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me add a link to the article in question: Frederick Fleet. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

At the British enquiry into the Titanic disaster he got a bit testy towards the end of his testimony: "Is there any more likes to have a go at me?". I feel it's a slight blemish on my family escutcheon that my great-great-uncle Sir Robert Finlay was counsel for the White Star Line at the enquiry. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. If Hitler had been captured and tried, even he would have been entitled to legal representation. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"Herr Hitler, allow me to introduce you to your public defender - Mr. Howard Cohen." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Psychology question

When someone is, for example, watching a horror film on TV, and that finishes and a sitcom comes on, sometimes their brain (momentarily) still engages with the new information as if it's a horror. Does this psychological phenomenon have a name? -- role^player 20:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's part of a temporary conditioned response ? For example, if you see a zombie walk in whenever a door opens, you become temporarily conditioned to expect that, so, if you see a door open in the sitcom or in real life, shortly after, you expect a zombie to walk through, and respond accordingly. The classic case is when somebody sneaks up behind you and says "boo", right after you've heard a scary story, resulting in the need for a change of pants. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Priming is the closest thing I am aware of. IBE (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's broadly known as a "frame" -- see for example frame analysis and frame (artificial intelligence). Looie496 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Though there's no singular principle or piece of terminology I can think of which exactly correlates to your example, the concept of the human mind's propensity to expect continuity has been a major field of study for cognitive psychology for many years. The following are partial matches at best to the type of bleed-through involved in your example, but consider the material in Misattribution of arousal and Misattribution theory of humor, both of which (the former in particular) underscore the fact that our emotional states are not as distinct as we normally think, that we apply labels and borders between them mostly after the fact and somewhat arbitrarily, and that the effects of recent stimuli can have a deep impact on how we process and perceive experiences following it. A peripheral issue is the fact that the conscious mind is more resistant to accepting change than we'd like to think. A great example, though even more far afield from your original inquiry, is Change blindness, which is well represented by these fun little experiments: [1], [2], [3]. Snow (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The first two cases are surprising, but not the third. I'm not at all surprised that we would ignore trivial details when intentionally focused on watching a magic trick. StuRat (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I found it interesting how they exploit that fact in that clip, making you believe the point is being illustrated in the magic trick when in fact the audience is the one being misdirected. It's a very subtle reinforcement of the entire principle being explored and I think it's very clever editing. It's actually not uncommon for psychologists and magicians to work together in exploring these concepts -- both in informal presentations (like the show the third clip seems to come from) or in genuine research and experimentation -- since magicians tend to be, almost by definition, very knowledgeable about exploiting gaps in attention. The examples about both formal and informal experiments and simple cognitive illusions in this vein go one for days, each more bemusing than the last. Snow (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've learned from watching magicians to look at their other hand when they do a flourish or some distraction with the "show hand". However, it's not reasonable to expect people to look at their (not part of the act) handkerchief or collar when watching a magic trick. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, but that's the entire point; we're not as holistically aware of our surroundings as we convince ourselves we are. And I don't just mean that in regards to our ability to focus; our eyes only see a fraction of what we believe they see and the brain (particularly the cortex) fills in the blanks with a lot of post-processing, (and often makes assumptions to do so that are good for efficiency in the process in the long run but lead to artifacts like visual illusions and other misperceptions). But as to following a magicians tricks, you might find this interesting also, Stu: it's a look at how slight of hand exploits innate tendencies in our visual cognition. Snow (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think people are aware that they ignore trivial details. Had you asked me, after the trick, what color his pocket handkerchief was, I'd have said "How the heck should I know ? That wasn't part of the trick, so I ignored it". Which reminds me of a joke:

Q:"My wife complains that I never listen to her. Does yours ?"

A:"How the hell would I know ?".  :-) StuRat (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sending the bailiff 'round to collect debts

In the movie The Rocking Horse Winner (and presumably in the short story of the same name on which it was based), after a court judgement is made against them, a bailiff is sent to live in the home of those who owe the debt, until the debt is paid, along with his wages for the number of days he remained in their home. This is set in England. So:

1) When was this practice used in England ? (I'm guessing it replaced debtors' prison.)

2) Were there any other nations which used this method of debt collection ? StuRat (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of a bailiff taking-up residence in someone's house. The usual procedure is for the bailiff to sieze property to the value of the debt owed - usually the TV, car or furniture. If you don't settle the debt quickly, the goods go to auction. The bailiff has a right of entry into your house and usually calls-in a locksmith if there's nobody at home. The police often attend, as obstructing the bailiff is an offence. Alansplodge (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've also never heard of the bailiff staying at your home. What would be the benefit of that? As Alansplodge says, they just come and take your TV. --Tango (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In the movie, the annoyance and potential humiliation of having the bailiff stay in their home is what got them to pay their debts. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no mention in the article of the bailiff at all, let alone his temporary taking up residence. But The Rocking Horse Winner (film) does include a role for bailiff, and the film is said to be considered a faithful adaptation of the short story. Odd that this very unorthodox bailiff incident is mentioned neither in either of our articles, nor in the IMDb reviews. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no mention of a bailiff in the story that I can see. I guess it's colour added for the film; the story is very short. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And it's a fantasy story, so, let's not jump to the conclusion that it really was like that in real life. 88.14.195.164 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Reversing the situation described by StuRat, a sponging-house was a place to keep debtors, "often the bailiff's own home". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Although that was used in the mid-19th century and the film in question is set in the mid-20th centuery. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The story was written in 1926 and the film was made in 1949. However, judging from the taxicab and clothes in the film, I'd say it was set around 1926, too (they didn't "modernize" it). StuRat (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If you went to a video sharing site like YouTube, you might find the whole film and (hypothetically) you could see that the taxi looks remarkably like a 1934 Austin 12/4 "Low Loader" Taxi. A replacement for it wasn't launched until 1948 (we were a bit busy making tanks), so it would be the most likely taxi to find in London in 1949. The 1958 Austin FX4 taxi didn't begin to be replaced until 1997, so these things have a rather long shelf life. Alansplodge (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

But we still have the 1920's clothes and hair styles. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, not much of an expert in that, but the lady's big hat matches the right hand exmple in the middle row. The boy's clothing is typical of 1930s to 1950s. There's a lot of evening wear on show which had a timeless quality. You may be right, but remember that US and British fashions were still markedly different at that stage. Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the bailiff in the film does indeed threaten to stay several days until a debt of £40 is paid. I'm sure it's a plot device as the family appear to have lots of nice property that he could have taken instead. Alansplodge (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it time to recommend Ken Loach's Raining Stones about the unauthorised bailiff profession? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Go for it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Debt collecting is a highly politicised industry. In a consumer society with highly developed human needs, a great number of people have incomes radically below the capacity to service the "needs" society deems normal for them. In the case of Ken Loach's Raining Stones this need is a communion dress, in new condition. The worker involved puts this object above any other alternative (such as the ones suggested to him by his workerist mate or his socially aware priest), and then gets caught in a spiral of increasingly precarious work and debt. Eventually, his debt is sold on to heavies, bailiffs operating under the private law of the criminal fraternity; and in particular his wife is menaced. Bailiffs aren't the primary theme here, but they do take upon themselves the right of entry and proceed to demand money with menaces. Just like the ones licensed by a court actually. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Although the OP was asking about a County Court Bailiff - a bit different from a common debt collector. Alansplodge (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)