Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 October 10
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 9 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 11 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
October 10
editno motive on jfk's assasination
editwell, i click control plus letter f then search motive on the page in assasination of john f kennedy. Sadly this page has no mention for motive. please can anyone explain what is the motive behind that assasination thank you. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:8436:BBAC:942B:3011 (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think it is fair to say that no one (who is talking about it) knows for sure. The closest thing to an "official" answer would be this passage from the report of the Warren Commission, taken from our article on Lee Harvey Oswald:
- It is apparent, however, that Oswald was moved by an overriding hostility to his environment. He does not appear to have been able to establish meaningful relationships with other people. He was perpetually discontented with the world around him. Long before the assassination he expressed his hatred for American society and acted in protest against it. Oswald's search for what he conceived to be the perfect society was doomed from the start. He sought for himself a place in history – a role as the "great man" who would be recognized as having been in advance of his times. His commitment to Marxism and communism appears to have been another important factor in his motivation.
- You can buy that or not; there are any number of alternative theories. Hope this helps. --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you watch JFK_Revisited:_Through_the_Looking_Glass, it gives enough reasons for his assassination. Omidinist (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Many books have been written about this, most of which are conspiratorial baloney. There are dozens of self-contradictory conspiracy theories. Here is what competent historians have concluded: Lee Harvey Oswald was an alienated guy who was not very intelligent. He was attracted to communist ideology at a young age. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps where he was trained as a marksman. After leaving the Marines, he decided to defect to the Soviet Union. He became disenchanted with that country although he got married there. He returned to the United States with his wife and fixated on Castro's Cuba, and reached out to various American communist and pro-Cuba groups. None fully accepted him because he was a strange, creepy guy with a suspicious background. He traveled to Mexico City to meet with Cuban diplomats. They brushed him off. He returned to the U.S. and tried to murder a right wing retired general but failed. He got a menial job at the Texas Schoolbook Depository in Dallas, and coincidentally, Kennedy's motorcade was scheduled to pass by that building on November 22, 1963 . Oswald saw this as his chance for greatness and to trigger a revolution. He was not very smart but he was a good shot, and so he assassinationated JFK. That's it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Anyone wanting to understand the topic should start by looking for differing perspectives on the question, rather than trusting any single source. If, after sufficient research, you come to a definitive conclusion as to Oswald's motivation, you are probably wrong... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Since he never confessed to JFK's murder, he certainly didn't publicize a motive as such. But he was probably the typical assassin: A nobody who wanted to be a somebody. In one TV documentary, a commentator refers to him as a "chinless little character". Disbelief that such a nobody could have such impact is at the heart of a lot of conspiracy theories. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- The assassins of James Garfield and William McKinley resembled Oswald as alienated loners motivated by derangement and fanaticism. So, Oswald's greasy sleaziness should not be a surprise. John Wilkes Booth who killed Abraham Lincoln was different. He was a successful, wealthy, handsome, charismatic actor who was completely dedicated to the Confederate cause. He assembled a team of assassins with the ultimate goal of decapitating the leadership of the United States. General Ulysses S. Grant was on a trip put of town. Vice-President Andrew Johnson escaped unscathed. Secretary of State William Seward was gravely wounded but survived. Booth managed to murder Lincoln, but his grand plot failed in the end. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- To carry this tangent further, the conspirators' plot to kill all four men was unsuccessful, but their grand aims were not. Andrew Johnson's highly conciliatory attitude towards the former confederacy during the Reconstruction era meant that within less than a decade, the same white power structure was still in power through the entire south as had existed before and during the Civil War, the economic and political plight of the recently freed black slaves was largely unchanged after the end of slavery, as they were quickly disenfranchised by local authorities (with the explicit consent of the national government) and economic systems which were only marginally different than slavery were established that probably set needed social change back at least a century over what could have happened had Lincoln remained in power. --Jayron32 12:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- That is a pretty bold endpoint to the tangent. You might be interested in question #3 here (need WP:Library) or Eric Foner's discussion he mentions in The Fiery Trial. Here's the mentioned passage in Brock's An American Crisis. fiveby(zero) 14:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Whether Lincoln would have actually done better than Johnson is unknowable. We do know that he intended to. While Lincoln's last speeches showed a grand vision for Reconstruction—including full suffrage for freedmen—Johnson and the Democrats adamantly opposed any such goals. While Lincoln was personally a moderate (and not a Radical Republican), and as such favored the Ten percent plan over the Wade–Davis Bill, at least in the 1863-1864 period. There is some evidence that by 1865, Lincoln was being won over by some of the more Radical tendencies in the Republican party; he definitely favored the protection of rights for freed slaves, though he opposed the enacting of retributive punishments for the white leadership of the former Confederacy. What we do know is that Johnson did not favor the use of the Federal government to protect said rights, and as a Southern Democrat himself, tended to be much less interested in going any further than simply ending formal slavery on paper. We're fairly certain Lincoln intended to do more than that bare minimum. Lincoln will always remain a controversial figure both in how egalitarian his attitudes may or may not have been regarding the relationship between the races, and in how much he actually may or may not have been able to accomplish. He would have been much better than Johnson in both of those regards, however. The death knell of Reconstruction is often cited as the Compromise of 1877, but in reality any hope of meaningful protection of black citizenship rights died with Lincoln. If black voters were not already being disenfranchised with impunity by 1876, there would not have been a close election to compromise over. It is no coincidence that the compromise of 1877 was about the election returns in South Carolina so prominently. As you can see at this list, by the 1876 election it was the ONLY southern state returning black members of Congress; so effective had the disenfranchisement of Black voters been in the rest of the south by that point. The contested states (including SC but also Florida and Louisiana) were states where the black voters still had a meaningful access to the voting process. Whether Lincoln could have stopped this may be debatable. What isn't debatable was that Johnson was not only not interested in stopping it, he was actively supporting this kind of thing. --Jayron32 15:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- You might better just have said you were not interested in the reading. fiveby(zero) 20:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Whether Lincoln would have actually done better than Johnson is unknowable. We do know that he intended to. While Lincoln's last speeches showed a grand vision for Reconstruction—including full suffrage for freedmen—Johnson and the Democrats adamantly opposed any such goals. While Lincoln was personally a moderate (and not a Radical Republican), and as such favored the Ten percent plan over the Wade–Davis Bill, at least in the 1863-1864 period. There is some evidence that by 1865, Lincoln was being won over by some of the more Radical tendencies in the Republican party; he definitely favored the protection of rights for freed slaves, though he opposed the enacting of retributive punishments for the white leadership of the former Confederacy. What we do know is that Johnson did not favor the use of the Federal government to protect said rights, and as a Southern Democrat himself, tended to be much less interested in going any further than simply ending formal slavery on paper. We're fairly certain Lincoln intended to do more than that bare minimum. Lincoln will always remain a controversial figure both in how egalitarian his attitudes may or may not have been regarding the relationship between the races, and in how much he actually may or may not have been able to accomplish. He would have been much better than Johnson in both of those regards, however. The death knell of Reconstruction is often cited as the Compromise of 1877, but in reality any hope of meaningful protection of black citizenship rights died with Lincoln. If black voters were not already being disenfranchised with impunity by 1876, there would not have been a close election to compromise over. It is no coincidence that the compromise of 1877 was about the election returns in South Carolina so prominently. As you can see at this list, by the 1876 election it was the ONLY southern state returning black members of Congress; so effective had the disenfranchisement of Black voters been in the rest of the south by that point. The contested states (including SC but also Florida and Louisiana) were states where the black voters still had a meaningful access to the voting process. Whether Lincoln could have stopped this may be debatable. What isn't debatable was that Johnson was not only not interested in stopping it, he was actively supporting this kind of thing. --Jayron32 15:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- That is a pretty bold endpoint to the tangent. You might be interested in question #3 here (need WP:Library) or Eric Foner's discussion he mentions in The Fiery Trial. Here's the mentioned passage in Brock's An American Crisis. fiveby(zero) 14:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- To carry this tangent further, the conspirators' plot to kill all four men was unsuccessful, but their grand aims were not. Andrew Johnson's highly conciliatory attitude towards the former confederacy during the Reconstruction era meant that within less than a decade, the same white power structure was still in power through the entire south as had existed before and during the Civil War, the economic and political plight of the recently freed black slaves was largely unchanged after the end of slavery, as they were quickly disenfranchised by local authorities (with the explicit consent of the national government) and economic systems which were only marginally different than slavery were established that probably set needed social change back at least a century over what could have happened had Lincoln remained in power. --Jayron32 12:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- The assassins of James Garfield and William McKinley resembled Oswald as alienated loners motivated by derangement and fanaticism. So, Oswald's greasy sleaziness should not be a surprise. John Wilkes Booth who killed Abraham Lincoln was different. He was a successful, wealthy, handsome, charismatic actor who was completely dedicated to the Confederate cause. He assembled a team of assassins with the ultimate goal of decapitating the leadership of the United States. General Ulysses S. Grant was on a trip put of town. Vice-President Andrew Johnson escaped unscathed. Secretary of State William Seward was gravely wounded but survived. Booth managed to murder Lincoln, but his grand plot failed in the end. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Since he never confessed to JFK's murder, he certainly didn't publicize a motive as such. But he was probably the typical assassin: A nobody who wanted to be a somebody. In one TV documentary, a commentator refers to him as a "chinless little character". Disbelief that such a nobody could have such impact is at the heart of a lot of conspiracy theories. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
In the documentary I mentioned above, it has been proved that the President was not killed by just one bullet. Other bullets from different angles have been shot. Omidinist (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- The documentary certainly attempted to lay out the plausibility and potential evidence of different bullets fired from different angles… but it did not rise to the level of “proof”. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oswald fired three shots from the top floor of the book depository. The first shot missed. The second hit him and Connally but was probably surviveable. The third one blew his head open. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- For more on this unresolved controversy see Single-bullet theory. Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- The notion that this Oliver Stone movie "proves" anything is false. Here is a review that tears that film to shreds. Cullen328 (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oliver Stone's JFK- film was completely trashed in the (liberal, left- wing?) American Historical Review. It's all nonsense/ entertainment. Oswald was a dedicated pro- Castro Kommunist (critical of Russia, where he had lived and married). Back in the USA he worked for the famous pro-Cuban committee. He went to the Cuban embassy in Mexico, then to Cuba, to offer his help in offing Kennedy. He was an excellent shot and maybe no Einstein, but not dumb either. The role of Cuba was first asserted by (the last great progressive) president Lyndon B. Johnson, no idiot either, ...Castro got him first. As has been US policy since, LBJ played it down to avoid W W 3.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- I recall seeing a clip from an interview with LBJ late in his life (possible conducted by Cronkite), in which LBJ said he had "not entirely relieved himself" of the notion that the commies could have been behind the JFK assassination. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- ”That’s what he would say… innit?” ;) Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- I recall seeing a clip from an interview with LBJ late in his life (possible conducted by Cronkite), in which LBJ said he had "not entirely relieved himself" of the notion that the commies could have been behind the JFK assassination. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oliver Stone's JFK- film was completely trashed in the (liberal, left- wing?) American Historical Review. It's all nonsense/ entertainment. Oswald was a dedicated pro- Castro Kommunist (critical of Russia, where he had lived and married). Back in the USA he worked for the famous pro-Cuban committee. He went to the Cuban embassy in Mexico, then to Cuba, to offer his help in offing Kennedy. He was an excellent shot and maybe no Einstein, but not dumb either. The role of Cuba was first asserted by (the last great progressive) president Lyndon B. Johnson, no idiot either, ...Castro got him first. As has been US policy since, LBJ played it down to avoid W W 3.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
point of difference?
editcould someone explain the difference between a Law, Act and Rule and their thin line of relation with an example? Grotesquetruth (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Why do all of your questions sound like homework problems? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 20:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- As these terms are used, they overlap. --Lambiam 06:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- No, nobody can, because there isn't a consistent, precise difference of the sort that you seem to keep searching for. Words like these are used in varying senses. Sometimes they overlap. Sometimes (in a particular context) they are used to express a specific difference in meaning. ColinFine (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- An Act is generally a piece of written legislation passed by a government to codify and modify the behaviour of citizens of a given country - e.g. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not drive on public roads in a manner that endangers other peoples' lives, and especially not when drunk, etc. "The Law" is what results from putting the wording of an Act to the test in court. A Rule tends not to have the force of Law, but may be enforced by certain competent authorities - e.g. Don't run in school corridors. If you fear the punishment, then just behave (i.e. don't break the law/rules). But some (the naughty ones) say that rules are made to be broken. MinorProphet (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Chinese National Socialism
editApparently there was a wartime Japanese party advocating Nazism: Tōhōkai. Was there a comparable Chinese Nazi movement before the end of WWII? Thank you! 82.54.87.89 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
After the fall of the Qing Dynasty, there was considerable discussion among Chinese intellectuals about the future government. Some such as Yuan Shih-kai sought to establish a new dynasty while others clustered around Sun Yat-sen had long advocated a more progressive model. Sun's Three Principles of the People highlighted nationalism, democracy, and the people's livelihood. The latter may be interpreted as socialist. Later, Chiang Kai-shek established close relations with both the Soviet Union and (later) Nazi Germany. Chiang favored state control of some industries, and single-party rule, but after the 1927 Shanghai massacre sharply curtailed contact with the Russian. After World War II, he distanced himself from national socialism, but continued to follow its broad principles. See also Socialist ideology of the Kuomintang. DOR (HK) (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Chinese conservative nationalism lacked the anti-semitism and the white-supremacist Aryan mythology which are the both the sine qua non of Naziism, however. Naziism is not synonymous with far-right nationalism, it is a particular variety of far-right nationalism that has aspects of both white supremacy and anti-semitism. --Jayron32 11:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Germany had one particularly awful type of national socialism; China had another. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)