Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 January 13
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 12 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 14 > |
| 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. |
January 13
editNeed help with a character
edit
Hello english team, I don't know if I ask on the good village. I need some help identifying the third character on the left after Donal Trump and William M. Matz. I read somewhere it is Superintendent Keith Stadler. But I'm not sure, due to his Linkedin Profile. Someone can help me please ? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpesenti (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- If you click on the photo, the caption does indeed say it's Stadler. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- He’s pictured at a ceremony with Trump, implying that the picture was taken no earlier than January 2017, when Trump took office. But the article Keith J. Stalder#Biography says he retired in 2010, so assuming that’s the same person, he wouldn’t be doing that in 2017 or 2018. Loraof (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- The gentleman in uniform next to Matz is Army Chaplain Timothy S. Mallard. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Britain's and France's attitudes towards decolonization on the eve of WWII
editDoes anyone here know what Britain's and France's attitudes towards decolonization were on the eve of World War II in 1939?
I know that WWII ushered in a grand era of decolonization and that Britain and France declared war on Nazi Germany in order to protect Poland's independence, but I am wondering as to what Britain's and France's attitudes towards national self-determination for non-White peoples were at the start of WWII.
Anyway, any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- The classic statement of the British attitude was Churchill's in a 1942 speech-
- "Let me, however, make this clear: we mean to hold our own. (Cheers) I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire."John Z (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Although Churchill probably represented the most illiberal extreme of British political thought on the issue. The big idea of imperialism in the early 20th century was that by being under British administration, colonies would eventually (in the very distant future) develop into self-governing partners like Canada and Australia. In the meantime, they could be exploited for resources without any cost to the domestic tax-payer. During the 1930s, there was the realisation that social and economic development of the colonies needed to be funded by British government. Some reading:
- Development, Modernization, and the Social Sciences in the Era of Decolonization: the Examples of British and French Africa by Frederick Cooper.
- The Making of British Colonial Development Policy 1914-1940 by Stephen Constantine (from page 197).
- The Demographics of Empire: The Colonial Order and the Creation of Knowledge edited by Karl Ittmann, Dennis D. Cordell, Gregory H (from page 65).
- Decolonisation in the way it actually happened was not really intentional, but became unavoidable after independence for India and Pakistan in 1947 (itself a failure of a policy of measured progress towards self-government, the Government of India Act 1935) - see Governing Africa: the Imperial Mind in British Colonies, 1938-1947, in the light of Indian Experience by Alan Cousins.
- Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Empirically, Britain had a much more, erm, friendly attitude towards its colonies which had substantial White populations. It had notably granted dominion status or responsible government to several colonies prior to World War II, those being Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and Ireland. They all have something in common... --Jayron32 13:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that racism wasn't a big factor, but by the end of the First World War, all of those that you mentioned could be described as developed economies, whereas many (particularly African) colonies were a long way from having the wherewithal to successfully make their way in the world. The obvious remedy for the the paternalistic mindset of the time was continued colonial administration. Dominion status for South Africa and Ireland (which was part of the UK and not a colony) were the result of peace treaties to end wars and not part of any intentional policy. Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- "Developed" vs. "Undeveloped" is also because of racism. Why did the British Empire feel the importance of developing the Canadian and Australian economies to the point where the countries could support responsible government, whereas in other places they did not? To say "countries with less white people were less developed" is not an accident. There was a deliberate difference in how the colonizing power treated different colonies, and that had a DIRECT impact on the economic development of those countries. The British government also set the criteria for responsible government in a deliberately racist way "Do we have enough white people to run this country" was their yardstick. The fact that London also felt the need to invest economically in those colonies to develop them to the point that they could run themselves successfully was part of that attitude, not a coincidence. It's a feature, not a bug, of the racist colonial system. This article explains some of it quite well, and how a country like Britain decided which economies to industrialize, and which to keep extractive is why some colonies (the white ones) were ready for independence sooner. --Jayron32 13:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that racism wasn't a big factor, but by the end of the First World War, all of those that you mentioned could be described as developed economies, whereas many (particularly African) colonies were a long way from having the wherewithal to successfully make their way in the world. The obvious remedy for the the paternalistic mindset of the time was continued colonial administration. Dominion status for South Africa and Ireland (which was part of the UK and not a colony) were the result of peace treaties to end wars and not part of any intentional policy. Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Empirically, Britain had a much more, erm, friendly attitude towards its colonies which had substantial White populations. It had notably granted dominion status or responsible government to several colonies prior to World War II, those being Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and Ireland. They all have something in common... --Jayron32 13:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Although Churchill probably represented the most illiberal extreme of British political thought on the issue. The big idea of imperialism in the early 20th century was that by being under British administration, colonies would eventually (in the very distant future) develop into self-governing partners like Canada and Australia. In the meantime, they could be exploited for resources without any cost to the domestic tax-payer. During the 1930s, there was the realisation that social and economic development of the colonies needed to be funded by British government. Some reading:
Economics
editHi, I would be grateful if someone can provide Atkinson and Stiglitz (1980) Lectures on Public Economics, Mc-Graw Hill. Thanks in advance --Abhinav619 (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Abhinav619, you need to ask this at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. Rojomoke (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Palestine did not exist before it was called Palestine
editIn German:
Auf Ihrer Seite zu Kaiser Hadrian steht: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian_(Kaiser) „Aus Iudaea wurde die Provinz Syria Palaestina <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina . Hadrian bewertete den schließlichen Sieg so hoch, dass er im Dezember 135 die zweite imperatorische Akklamation entgegennahm; doch verzichtete er auf einen Triumph <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6mischer_Triumph .
Das ist meines Wissens korrekt. Deshalb heißt es, dass der Begriff Palästina erst seit 135 n.Chr.
existiert.
Doch Ihre Seite https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6misches_Pal%C3%A4stina
Beginnt mit dem Satz: Das römische Palästina bestand von 63 v. Chr. bis etwa 634 n. Chr. Ich sehe da einen Widerspruch.
Geschichtsklitterung ist sehr problematisch. Im Jahr 63 v.Chr. gab es noch kein Palästina, weder römisch noch anders.
Bei deutschen Themen würden Sie wahrscheinlich umsichtiger formulieren und aus „Germanen“ weder „Deutsche“ noch „Bundesbürger“ machen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulrichsahm (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wrong venue - discussions about articles on the German language Wikipedia need to take place on the German language Wikipedia. It is a separate project with different policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hallo Ulrichsahm, leider können wir Ihnen hier (englischer Wikipedia) nicht helfen. Bitte stellen Sie Ihrer Frage in der deutschen Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Auskunft. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Here's the origin of the term "Palestine".[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Why didn't ABC nor CBS make a major cable news channel like Fox News and MSNBC?
editIs the different flavors of CNN market already full? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, CBS has CBSN and ABC once had Satellite News Channel. Regards SoWhy 20:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- News has become very competitive worldwide. You can watch Bloomberg, Al Jazeera or Sky News life 24/7 for free on youtube. I wouldnt invest a cent in a new news company. --Kharon (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- BTW, the later article mentions plans, which were abandoned after Fox News and MSNBC, to launch a new 24 hour news channel. It also mentions they did eventually launch another 24 hour news channel ABC News Now which lasted much longer than SNC but also ultimately failed. Finally it mentions that they do still have Fusion TV although it's somewhat different from other attempts. Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- ABC News recently launched a 24/7 live streaming service called ABC News Live. It seems that they have realized (like everyone else soon will) that cable and broadcast TV is a slowly dying industry, and that most people in the U.S. are moving towards streaming services like Roku, Hulu, Netflix, etc. So they DO have a 24-hour news service. They just haven't put it on the cable or satellite platforms. It's available online and through streaming services. --Jayron32 12:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- BTW, the later article mentions plans, which were abandoned after Fox News and MSNBC, to launch a new 24 hour news channel. It also mentions they did eventually launch another 24 hour news channel ABC News Now which lasted much longer than SNC but also ultimately failed. Finally it mentions that they do still have Fusion TV although it's somewhat different from other attempts. Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)