Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 May 9

Humanities desk
< May 8	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 10 >

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.

May 9

Public Domain?

Why is this image not in the public domain? http://www.gettyimages.com/license/515301502 Eddie891 (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It is in the public domain. Getty likes to claim that everything is copyrighted, but this does not make it so. Some countries recognize a so-called sweat of the brow doctrine, whereby creating a digital collection of public domain work resurrects the copyright, but that is not recognized in the United States, where both Getty and Wikimedia are headquartered. It may be an issue if you are using the image in a country where that doctrine is recognized. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright is territorial, so the answer will depend on where the picture was first published, whether that country is a signatory to the Berne Convention, where you plan to use the picture, and whether that country is a signatory to the Berne Convention. In many countries copyright for artistic works will last for 70 daysyears after the death of the author, in which case a photograph published in 1900 could still be under copyright. 1 January 1900 seems like an implausibly neat date. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you mean seventy years. 195.147.104.148 (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant - corrected above.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think that in the US, the copyright relates to the date of first publication, not the date of creation. If that photo was hidden away in a drawer by the photographer until after 1923, and then published, and the copyright was properly maintained, then it is copyrighted. If it was published in the US (typically by being made available to the public by being printed in a book, magazine, or newspaper) prior to 1923, then it is in the public domain. So, if you want to use this image, it is better to try to find that published source and reference it, not the ghouls at Getty. If you just use the Getty image and they hit you (or us) with a DMCA takedown, we would need to go through the tedious process of contesting it and getting them to validate their copyright. -Arch dude (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Would anyone have found the 1899 song Telephone dirty?

The song Michigan J. Frog sang. Either thinking it had a hidden meaning like what some people think about some old rock songs or more obvious or overt. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The song in question is Hello! Ma Baby. "Telephone rag" was a nickname for the song. Aside from "what the-- Hello!" in the Arthur Collins performance, it's pretty innocent. "I rings the bell" doesn't work as metaphor for masturbation in this case because it happens before she even picks up the phone. He adds an additional bit about trying to find her address and worrying that if the lines get cross someone else will "win" her but reading that as anything less than innocent requires the sort of contrivance that would render Jesus Loves the Little Children utterly blasphemous.

The meaning of the song appears to be "I got a girlfriend who I only know over that new telephone thing." The commentary seems to be more about "hey, how will this affect relationships?" rather than sex. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought too but I am not well aware of the intracacies of Victorian morality. For all I know there could be an obscure reference to promiscuity or going too far before marriage or adultery or adultery in your heart (New Testament reference), only wanting easy girls (since he doesn't even know what she looks like), miscegenation, Mormon polygamy or whatnot by path of Greek mythology reference or insinuation or something else only people back then would get. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, but have you listened to it played backwards? 😜 Blueboar (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If you play it backwards at slow speed, it says, "Dummy! You're playing it backwards at slow speed!" (channeling George Carlin) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What does that sound like reversed? "Deeps wols ta sdrawkab ti gniyalp ruoy. !YmuD!"? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how sheet music is compatible with Backwards masking, though there are Crab canons... AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"It" being a recording of it, as per Blueboar's comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It was originally released as sheet music, and would probably have sold more as sheet music than as a recording during the Phonograph cylinder era. AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Check out this recording of "In My Merry Oldsmobile" and see if it sounds risqué by early 1900s standards.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure "You can go as far as you like with me, in my merry Oldsmobile." was intended ambiguously: sexual (or scatalogical) double-entendre was a common device in popular songs of the period, as exemplified by the career of Marie Lloyd. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

They softened the lyric a bit for Murray's version, but the original sheet music had the second verse as, "They love to spark in the dark old park / While they go flying along / She says she knows why his motor goes / His sparker's awfully strong." Double entendre of sparkplugs and "making out". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It's slight enough to become mundane over the centuries, but "honey" still more closely speaks to the literal sweetness in a woman's honeypot/cookie/peach than to the abstract ingredients of her personality/temperament/soul. Prudes of the day were cooler about treating women as sex objects than prudes of today, but would have likely frowned harder upon the idea of a dumb horny animal (not easy being green or black) daring to thirst for the same nectar as cultured and courteous gentlemen callers. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans moving to the mainland

Can someone born in Puerto Rico simply move to, say, Vermont the same way as someone from Texas can? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

According to Citizenship of the United States, the answer is yes. Birth in Puerto Rico confers US citizenship and this confers the right to live and work in the US. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that per the same article (Citizenship of the United States#Citizenship vs. nationality), even US nationals can live and work in the US proper. The primary limitation is they currently can't vote in state or federal elections. They may be able to gain US citizenship after having moved to the US proper. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you're missing a "non-" there, Nil Einne. {The pooster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Where? I was referring only to non-citizen US nationals or US nationals who aren't US citizens or whatever your preferred terminology is, and probably I should have been clearer on that but I don't see anywhere that a non- itself is missing. Although I don't think anyone would believe US nationals who were already also US citizens couldn't vote or need to gain US citizenship anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

To be specific, people born in American Samoa or Swains Island are U.S. nationals (with US nationals passport and right to live and work in the US) but not citizens. Loraof (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It also includes people from the United States Minor Outlying Islands and some people who live in the Northern Mariana Islands. The Mariana situation allows people born their to apply for either citizenship or nationality rights within 6 months of their 18th birthday, while the Outlying Islands situation is purely hypothetical; they have no native permanent population (and have not since the 1940s, some from much earlier). --Jayron32 16:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we moved from Ponce, Puerto Rico to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania by buying airplane tickets. My sister was not left behind to fend for herself, although she could have been, since she was crawling by then. (I was born in NYC, my third second sister was born in Louisiana. She was the only one who needed a permit to cross the Manson-Nixon Line. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Medeis: Who needs a permit to cross the Mason-Dixon line? Edgeweyes (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Go to the Princeton art museum, and transcribe and translate the Greek inscription above the inside of the entrance, and I will explain the difference between Manson-Nixon and Mason-Dixon here. I'll be able to tell if you cheat, so don't ask the curator. μηδείς (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, in case there's any confusion, the relevance of this to the original question is that it means in general terms, nearly anyone born on US territory, including of course the states (which aren't territories in the formal sense), is able to move to the US proper to live and work; even though they may not have US citizenship which means there are some restrictions like the ability to vote. Puerto Rico is a case where they are citizens, but even in those examples where they aren't this doesn't affect their ability to live and work in the US proper. Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all! And sorry I was so ignorant about all of this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Does Western Europe have something close to as bad as the Rust Belt?

Eastern Europe? Australia, Canada or New Zealand? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There are definitely areas of decaying industries in western Europe that could be compared to the Rust Belt. Much of the steel industry in Lorraine, in northeastern France, for example, has wilted away, leaving behind unused and rusted industrial plants. The former East Germany also left behind a legacy of obsolete industrial sites. There is nothing comparable in Canada. --Xuxl (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Deindustrialisation by country#Canada cites areas of Ontario and Eastern Canada as "Rust Belt" areas, This article cites it as Southern Ontario (the Golden Horseshoe). --Jayron32 14:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but as that links implies, it's not really comparable. Partly it's because the scales are so different - Canada just didn't have the same kind of industry as the US, so it didn't have as far to fall. That makes for both less mess and less cleanup. For example, Kitchener, Ontario has lost most of its industrial base over the last fifteen years, but it was still of a small enough scale that the buildings could (mostly) be remediated. There are certainly still areas in Ontario of failed industry, but it's really not the same. Matt Deres (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

For some historical perspective you could also look at mill towns and the South Wales Valleys, or Ruhr in Germany. We have an article on Deindustrialisation by country. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The falling demand for coal and the steel crisis of the 1970s affected coal and steel producing regions worldwide, such as those in the Ruhr, Nord-Pas-de-Calais and in the north of England (decline of the UK coal mining industry). Some parts of rural Australia are also occasionally referred to as a rust belt [2]. Alcherin (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, the Walloon region of Belgium. AnonMoos (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

When UK Labour Party supporters claim that Margaret Thatcher deliberately destroyed the UK steel industry, I ask them how she also managed to close down Detroit. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Like Trump, Le Pen made a strong showing in the Rust Belt in the French Presidential Elections 2017, [presidential election 1st round] Le Pen French rust belt ZygonLieutenant (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Why was Canada's Liberal Party so successful over the long term?

Why isn't there as much of a back and forth between two parties straddling the center like in America? Did the New Democratic Party or Conservatives ever try to move their positions and candidates closer to the Liberals to improve their chances? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It might have something to do with being next to the USA, which presumably will protect Canada from invasion (along with the rest of NATO), and not being adjacent to a major threat, like North Korea. So, there's not much of a panic there that if they don't build up massive defenses their nation will be conquered. And this has been true for a long time. Lack of security often leads to electing right-wing governments that promise to protect their citizens from threats. But the security situation in Canada allowed them to focus more on improving the lives of Canadians. Using Maslow's hierarchy of needs, once the basics like "Safety" have been addressed, individuals, and I believe nations, can move on to higher pursuits.

A secondary effect of being adjacent to the USA is that some draft dodgers moved to Canada and stayed, which are likely to be a fairly liberal group. According to our article: "This young and mostly educated population expanded Canada's arts and academic scenes, and helped push Canadian politics further to the left. " The absence of these people from the USA would also push politics to the right there, but due to the relative sizes of the two populations, the effect would be far less dramatic. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Aha! So the Conservative Party of Canada might not win as much. So then why doesn't the social democratic party do better which the article says is Canadian centre-left? Liberal Party of Canada says the Liberal Party is Canadian centre to centre-left. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Somebody famously quipped that the Liberals have been so successful over the decades because they have found the point of equilibrium in Canadian politics: slightly left of the Conservatives. Canadians always come back there after trying alternatives. Note also that the Conservatives have been a moving target in terms of ideology, at some times being very centrist and at others more to the right. --Xuxl (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Conservative Party of Canada is also not the Conservative Party of yesteryear. It self-destructs every few decades and then a new party starts with the same name, whereas the Liberal Party of Canada shows much more continuity. This is probably much more to do with factors related to how each party is run, without regard to the right-left-centre status of each party. After all, when the Progressive Conservative Party dropped from first to fourth place between the 1988 election and the 1993 election it basically disintegrated, so much so that the only other viable party from 1993-1997 was the Bloc Quebecois, a single-issue Quebec Nationalist party. It took the Canadian right a decade to create a new viable party, the current Conservative Party of Canada, which by the 2011 election had reduced the Liberal Party to the same level of Parliamentary irrelevance that the PC party had been reduced to 18 years earlier. The difference in the case of the Liberals has nothing to do with the fact that they are a left-leaning party, but merely that they didn't simply give up and disappear as the PC did for a decade, they had better internal discipline and returned a mere 4 years later in the 2015 election. This article explains some of the Liberals success, and also goes on to explain how Canada's politics remains, as it has for decades, a three- to four-party system, a violation of Duverger's law. --Jayron32 14:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

An excellent summary. I would only add that it was with the 1997 election that it was clear that the (small 'c') conservatives were going to need to make major changes if they ever wanted power again. The Reform Party of Canada had a brief flirtation with popularity, but its right-wing populism never really tapped into the Canadian consciousness like it has in the US. Matt Deres (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course, even in the US, the success of right-wing politics has been more about strategy and "gaming the system" than actually winning converts. There was a massive push to control legislatures for Gerrymandering purposes after the last census, which secured majorities needed to enact voter suppression laws, etc. Also, the US Congress (particularly the US Senate) and the US electoral college give disproportionate power to those living in low population states, which just happen to be conservative ground zero. So, the results are far more conservative office-holders than the polls would predict, as in the case of Trump. However, the anti-establishment wave which swept the US in the last election will now be against conservatives, as they are now "the establishment". StuRat (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Irish people sold into slavery

What's the number of Irish people that were sold into slavery and transported to North America by the British? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.245.215 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

How about: ZERO! A white nationalist organization has promoted the idea that Irish slaves in colonial America outnumbered slaves from Africa and were treated worse. Many white Europeans entered North America as indentured servants, and had to work for 2 to 7 years to gain their freedom, and/or to pay for their passage. Black slaves, by comparison, were slaves for life, as were their offspring, to the last generation, unless their master gave them their freedom, or they somehow were able to save enough money doing work for hire to buy their freedom. See Snopes. Snopes noted that some indentured servants, like some impressed sailors, may have lived under worse conditions than some slaves. Edison (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• You are thinking of indentured servitude. It was for a set term, and semi-voluntary, as it was a way to discharge debts, avoid prison, etc. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Read Irish slaves myth.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There's the Sack of Baltimore. Also, during parts of the 17th century in some areas of British North America, there wasn't all that much difference in status between white indentured servants and black slaves/servants (though because the treatment of blacks was less harsh than it later became, rather than because the whites were slaves). We have something about the ending of this at "Slavery in the colonial United States#The development of slavery in 17th-century America". During the 1850s, abolitionists accused southern politicians of wanting to extend slavery to whites, and some (like James Henry Hammond) seemed to be open to the idea, which George Fitzhugh advocated for, but it never happened on any significant scale... AnonMoos (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• While black slaves undoubtedly had it worse, many Irish were transported as prisoners, not as voluntary indentured servants. The English treated the Irish with contempt and judges were much more likely to sentence an Irishman to transportation than an Englishman. Semi-separately, the Irish potato famine forced many Irishmen to either "volunteer" to go to America, or starve. The English absentee landlords did nothing to help them. -Arch dude (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• As slavery continued decade after decade, there was more European ancestry in succeeding generations of slaves, especially after the importation of slaves from Africa to the US was outlawed in the early 19th century. By the Civil War, there were numerous slaves whose condition of servitude resulted from their having a mother who was a slave, and not at all from their appearance. They could have blue eyes, very fair skin and blonde hair and still be slaves. Of course it would have been relatively simple to run away to a distant part of the country, assume a false identity , and live in freedom. But if someone recognized them, they could be dragged back into slavery via fugitive slave laws. Edison (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  Three of Sally Hemings four children "passed for white". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

See also Morrison v. White. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that in the 17th century, a considerable number of Irish people were enslaved by Barbary pirates for the Islamic slave trade. Nearly all the inhabitants of Baltimore, County Cork were abducted in a night raid in 1631, "only two or three ever saw Ireland again". See Sack of Baltimore. It has been estimated that 1.25 million Europeans were enslaved during the 17th and 18th centuries. [3] Alansplodge (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but exactly zero of those were abducted by the British and exactly zero of those were transported to North America. The enslavement of Europeans in this way is a reality, but to understand the context of the OP's question, the enslavement of Europeans is used by white supremacist apologists as a way to justify black slavery in America. --Jayron32 11:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, point taken. Alansplodge (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)