Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 January 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< January 6 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 8 >
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 7[edit]

Rich and poor in greek theater[edit]

I have searched on the internet and in the library in several books but am unable to find details on how greek theater was different for the rich and poor. Any help, even just links would help.

According to one web page the tyrant Pisistratus granted certain groups of people free admission (and some of the best seats in the house) to Athens' yearly City Dionysia festival. So apparently most people had to pay for admission, which would have made an immediate difference. Further, this web page tells us that priests and other dignitaries had a row of specially designed reserved seats. In our own article Theatre of ancient Greece we find that these were the first stone seats, rather than just sitting on the ground.  --LambiamTalk 04:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

East Indians (ethnic group)[edit]

This article is a bit confusing to me. My understanding is that this is not a very common usage compared to North American and possibly other usage which define East Indians as people who are from India as opposed to West Indians from the Carribean or Indians, which can mean either the indigenous peoples of central North America (or I suppose anyplace in the Americas except for the Arctic) OR people from India. Plus it does not have much in the way of references. Comments? Suggestions?--Filll 04:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the article name is fine. If you search for "East Indians", you get a disambiguation page listing the sense of the term "East Indian" more commonly used outside of India. This is as it should be. The link to the disambiguation page also appears at the top of the article that you cite. This ethnic group is apparently known as "East Indians" within India, so there seems to be no other appropriate name for the article. Marco polo 21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical Question: Love and the Heart[edit]

You might be interested in this question asked on the Science Desk. Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Love_and_P_A_I_N. --Judged 04:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The name “Ishmael”[edit]

In modern times is the first name “Ishmael” a Muslim name? I always thought it was, but in the film Fanny and Alexander there is a Jewish character named Ismael. In real life, however, I have never met any Jews named Ishmael or Ismael. Also in the novel Moby Dick was the narrator Ishmael supposed to be from a Muslim background? Thanks for any clarification.--Citefixer1965 05:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not a "Muslim" name per se - but you might expect that Muslims would use it. For Jews and Christians, the focus is on Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Islam, the focus is more on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob. Muslims believe that Ishmael was born to Hagar, who was married to Abraham. Christians (I'm not really sure about Jews on this part) believe that Ishmael was born to Hagar in a human attempt to bring about the fulfilment of God's earlier promise to Abraham, and that Abraham was not married to Hagar at all. There is more detail in the article Ishmael. BenC7 06:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Ishmael is not commonly given as a name to Jewish boys, but it is a good Hebrew name, and for an example of a Jew called Ishmael see Ishmael ben Elisha. As far as I know, there is no reason to think that the fictitious character Ishmael has a Muslim background, any more than that Abraham Lincoln has a Jewish background.  --LambiamTalk 06:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much; that answers my question. --Citefixer1965 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the Arabic form of the name is Isma`il. AnonMoos 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there was a typo in Moby Dick. In fact the first line was supposed to read "Call me fishmeal" :p DDB 09:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

At the time of the writing of Moby Dick, Biblical names were very popular. Ishmael is a Biblical name, just one of many given to Protestant New Englanders. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Hebrew Bible says of Ishmael, "He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." Because of this negative reference, the name has not been traditionally used by those (for example, Jews and Christians) for whom the Hebrew Bible is holy scripture. Ishmael in the Qur'an "is a highly regarded person," which is why the name is common among Muslims. I personally wouldn't believe the claim that Protestant New Englanders, etc., used the name, without further evidence. (I don't think they named their kids "Cain" either.) I'd guess that virtually all persons with the name Ishmael were named by (A) Muslims or (B) Moby-Dick fans. Wareh 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wet finger in air to indicate wind?[edit]

Why is it in movies, and I think in real life too, that people make their finger a little wet with their mouth and then stick the finger into the air, to see from where the wind blows? How does that work? Feeling a little colder on the side of the finger the wind blows on? Gettin dry on the side where the wind blows on before the other side? And especially, why would people do that, to me it seems you could just stick your face in the wind and have a much greater surface to feel the wind on, and to better judge the wind therefore. -- Aetherfukz 08:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, both ways work (try them), but raising a wet finger (one side feels colder) is quicker, because you can sense all directions at once without turning around. --Anonymous, January 07, '07, 10:32 (UTC).
I would also note that it is a signal to the person you ask that you are checking (if you just told them without doing anything they would wonder how you knew and not them, potentially). A common thing to do is to pick up a bit of grass and dropping to see which way it blows in the wind. ny156uk 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Evaporation of water from the windward side of the wet finger causes a much stronger cooling than mere exposure of dry skin to the wind would. Also, the finger is more or less round, and therefore about equally sensitive to wind from all directions, whereas the your head probably has hair on the back, which makes it much less sensitive to wind from that direction. But yes, if you are bald and have a tub handy to wet your whole head with, that would indeed be more sensitive... I prefer ny156uk's grass method myself. (By the way, this question would be suited for the science reference desk.) --mglg(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Man whose wife is dead[edit]

Dear Friend, What is a man whose wife is dead known as? (like woman whose husband has expired is known as widow) Thank you, Best regards, Bijal

The word is 'widower'. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This would have been an excellent question for the Language ref Desk. StuRat 16:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A Person with Great Intelligence - Adolf Hitler & Napoleon Bonaparte[edit]

Does the Ability of a Person to Manipulate others = A Person with Great Intelligence? --Foundby 14:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Naaah, that's social competence. --User:Wakuran 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
And what might social competence be? --Foundby 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I would call that guile. Also note that there are different definitions and ideas about the word "intellect" Chickenflicker--- 16:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Guile makes no sense at all. There should be an Article descibing what Social Competence Entails. Or did you guys just make it up Social Competence, never heard of it. --Foundby 16:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You would agree that manipulating someone is tricking someone into doing something - being deceptive, being duplicitous, right? Thus, while guile means "insidious cunning in attaining a goal; crafty or artful deception; duplicity" [1], a manipulative person would need to be guileful. Chickenflicker--- 16:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't social competence used in English? As far as I have understood, it's just a common catchphrase for vaguely perceived as "people skills". It was a joke... =S 惑乱 分からん 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah and why are we on the word Guile? When we are talkking about human intelligence? --Foundby 18:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Then that would make the person manipulated, stupid, retarded, unintelligent, a person who is not very bright, and without much intelligence? --Foundby 17:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes. It's not nice, but people who let themselves be manipulated will often be described in those words. Skarioffszky 17:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Emotional intelligence is "the ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups" (emphasis added). Skarioffszky 17:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So if you have high Emotional intelligence you can control the world? --Foundby 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A person of high intelligence will know well that manipulating others will generate bad karma. Vranak 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And this Karma article redirects me to a spiritual article. I am an Athiest. --Foundby 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that article is very useful or even accurate. Karma's the type of thing that cannot be taught... and once you do know it well, you can forget the about the concept entirely. Vranak

Say this person has no Karma but high Emotional intelligence, then he would be able to control the whole world? And rule the whole world? --Foundby 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Consider two people with extremely high emotional intelligence and very little karma/scruples: Napoleon and Hitler. It's impossible to manipulate everybody at the same time, no matter how good you are at it. Clarityfiend 19:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I remember now before the war how Adolf Hitler started building up military, and by breaking that treaty, by manupilating England & France, saying its all for peace. Then he took over the Austria I believe, and told England & France that Austria wanted to be invaded. He conviced Englands Prime Minister so much that the war started too late. Then when he invaded Poland, England was not fooled this time. So Hitler signed a treaty with Russia by Deciet (he broke it later). Then he tried invadeding the whole Europe. And then he died. The End. --Foundby 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The ability to get others to do what you want is power, not intelligence, at least according to Bertrand Russell, who seems as good as any expert to consult on this. --24.147.86.187 22:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
"You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time." --The Dark Side 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That's true, but couldn't Hitler just send some diplomats after the war was declared, and make Britain and France call it off by a signing a treaty with them? (see I am smarter than Hitler lol) --Foundby 23:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition of "smart?" Some Nazi leaders were thought to have high IQs, but they were dumb enough to blindly follow a paranoid leader into a war that nearly destroyed their country. Hitler may have been charismatic and succesfully manipulative, but that doesn't mean he was intelligent. It's clear his views on race were completely wrong from a scientific point of view, not just a moral one. I mean, this was someone who (assuming Nazi propaganda reflected his views) not only believed blacks (and Jews) were inferior intellectually but believed they were inferior athletes! Doesn't sound too smart to me. -- Mwalcoff 03:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mwalcoff There is a difference between IQ and Emotional Intellegince. So even though they may have had high IQ, they must be defficient in Emotional Intelligence. --Foundby 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Define further: Coincidences verses fact[edit]

When is a number of coincidences consider then a fact? In other words, how many coincidences does it take on the same item or same subject before the consensus is toward it being an actual fact and not longer a mere "coincidence"? --Doug 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

When you can identify something that is causing the coincidence to happen and prove it in a stable environment (kinda like an experiment) it would potentially change. A co-incindence could well already be a fact you aren't aware of (e.g. it might seem a coincidence that it is always colder in the countryside, but in reality inner city heat causes cities generally to be a little warmer than the countryside) though. ny156uk 17:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If, by a mere coincidence, you happen to have some intuition, you'll find it is a mere fact where others still think of a coincidence. -- DLL .. T 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Cf. epistemology --OliverH 18:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for these excellent answers. I especially like this of "opistemology". This is a new term to me. Will have to study this further since it is very deep material. I do believe this is what I am refereing to. Also like that of the "experiment", because I believe this to be true then. Also of this of temperature: Through the last 30 + years I have noticed a general overall trend of "global warming". Perhaps a year or 2 of extra high temperatures may be just a mere coincidence, however overall it has been accuring at least the last 30 years. Perhaps this may lean towards that of a fact then since it has happened so many times over a long period of time? What do you think? --Doug 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your question is a main subject of the science of mathematical statistics. The question is not about epistemology, which discusses which questions can or cannot be answered in principle, but about statistics, which determines quantitative rules for whether, and with what certainty, an answer is supported by the observations at hand. Importand concepts include confidence interval and p-value. Basically, no statement about the real world is an absolute fact, but some things have negligible probability of being false. The direct answer to your question is that it depends on how unlikely each of the coincidences would be if your proposed "fact" (hypothesis) were false, and on how many such hypothesis tests are being done in parallel. If you are interested in the general question of coincidences vs facts, I suggest you ask it on the mathematics reference desk. If you are curious about the observational certainty of recent global warming in particular, you may want to ask questions on Talk:Instrumental_temperature_record. --mglg(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You might want to look at how statisticians deal with determining whether a collection of facts has real meaning or not. Our articles on correlation and chi-square test might be of some value to you. Generally speaking though, what separates out superficial from more rigorous conclusions is a combination of methodology, repeated measurement, and large data sets. One person's informal observations over the last 30 years would not be a terribly rigorous data set — however if you took standardized readings of temperatures over time you could potentially make certain claims about them (though your claims are often limited by your data set — measurement of yearly temperatures in your local area would not tell you about the entire world, for example). --24.147.86.187 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this last answer makes the important point that whether a number of things occurring simultaneously are related or not, each of them is still a fact. A fact does not cease being a fact just because it happened coincidentally with something else. That the 2 things are related, may be an additional fact. JackofOz 23:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding answers. Thanks all. Actually I was just using the global warming as an example, however I am really looking at this from the viewpoint of "Codes" and ciphers. I stayed away from that because I know how much controversy it causes, just speaking of that (i.e. a Da Vinci Code). I think the one answer is especially noteworthy, that being of putting it on the Mathematics and Science reference desks. In the future I will do that, however not now since someone I'm sure will say I am double-posting. The actual question I am thinking more along the line is: if one did in fact find what one believes to be a systematic code or secret writing in some ancient manuscripts and it is consistent all the time (in other words: very predictable), then is it not a Fact and no longer a mere coincidence? In the process of using this Code, many say to me that no matter how many times it "just happens" to decode a message that makes sense (and is consistent with the story before and after this particular story), it is still simply "a mere coincidence" (basically because they themselves do not want to believe it is a Code). Now lets say this "Code" is so predictable that one could use it as a system to decode a very large manuscript (or several large manuscripts that use the same Code) and the decoded manuscript (message) makes complete sense each and evey time. It works not just once or twice or just a dozen times, but works hundreds of times; going way beyond a few mere "coincidences". Is it not then a fact; meaning the decoded manuscript is in fact then the true message? To me, coincidences are something that happen at random and just a few times over a long period of time; whereas it is a true Code if it is predictable and usable hundreds of times in a very short time of usage. Also then (to me) it is a true Code (i.e. type of a Da Vinci Code) if one (anyone) can apply the same principles and "Rules" as a system to other similar manuscripts and come up with (as an end result) true verifiable historical records already written by reliable famous ancient historians (i.e. Polybus, Plutarch, Livy). Perhaps one example could be that the revealed message says the Cyrus Cylinder has 40 lines. Perhaps another example could be that the revealed message is that a very famous Roman road (a Straight street) goes to the city of Taras (Appian Way, which is a verifiable true fact). So bottomline, is this then (being systematic and logical) no longer a set of "coincidences", however then truely a Code? --Doug talk 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What events led to South African independence?[edit]

What were some events (wars, protests, meetings, etc) that led to the independence of South Africa? NIRVANA2764 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer depends on what you mean by independence. If you mean the achievement of statehood and self-rule, then read about the historical roots of the Union of South Africa and follow the links from that article. If you mean the achievement of full sovereignty, which came with independence from the British government, then you should read the articles on Statute of Westminster 1931 and Dominion and follow the links. If you mean the severing of all ties with the United Kingdom, you might look at South African referendum, 1960 and follow the links. If you mean the achievement by South Africa's black majority of self-determination, then read History of South Africa in the apartheid era. Marco polo 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. You pretty much just pwn3d my World Cultures teacher. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NIRVANA2764 (talkcontribs) 21:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Saudi Arabia[edit]

Is it Illegal to not be a Muslim in Saudi? If it is what punishments can be received for practicing your faith. If its not, are things forbidden to Muslims, such as Alcohol and Pork banned for non-Muslims too? Ken 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The main point of reference here, Ken, is Islam in Saudi Arabia. Strictly speaking it isn't illegal to be a non-Muslim, and there is an ancient Jewish community, as well as significant numbers of Hindus and Christians, concentrated chiefly among the migrant workers in the Kingdom. However, with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, the practice of other religions has become increasingly difficult, and public worship of Christianity is now effectively illegal. For this see Roman Catholicism in Saudi Arabia. I cannot really comment on the consumption of items like alcohol and pork by non Muslims, but I believe that the wealthier expats, who live more or less in isolation from the rest of the community anyway, may have access to some illegal goods. Clio the Muse 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there is not an "ancient Jewish community" in Saudi Arabia (there was one before Muhammad, but it has not existed for over a thousand years) -- and for many years the Saudi authorities explicitly prohibited Jews from entering or working in Saudi Arabia (see Horace Phillips (diplomat) etc. etc.). AnonMoos 04:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Correct, Anon. Judaism is basically verboten in Saudi Arabia. There exists no "ancient Jewish community". Without an in-depth understanding of the subject of Judaism in Muslim countries, I'd suggest that the original responder refrain from making such ignorant statements concerning areas for which s/he is clearly uninformed. Loomis 05:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Anon is ever-so-slightly incorrect. The Saudi authorities do not prohibit all Jews from entering Saudi Arabia and, in some areas, they are allowed to work (Jewish workers for foreign countries/companies in Saudi Arabia). For example, the U.S. press tried to make a big deal out of the American Jewish Committee visiting King Fahd. But, they were not the first ones to visit there and meet with the royals. As for workers, there are many oil companies working in Saudi Arabia that hire Jewish employees and the U.S. has Jewish military that have been stationed in Saudi Arabia. Of course, all of those are non-Israeli Jewish people. I would not be surprised if they are extremely strict against Israeli Jews entering the country. --Kainaw (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
They don't now forbid all Jews from entering now, but in the 1960's they did. AnonMoos 07:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I personally know an American Jewish engineer who was banned from working in Saudi Arabia in the 60s or 70s maybe. I wonder when the policy was changed?--Pharos 02:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That's true. As for Christianity, during the lead-up to the Gulf War, during Christmas of 1991, Christian soldiers from the various coalition countries stationed in Saudi Arabia to protect that country from a seemingly imminent Iraqi attack (Iraqi forces were mobilized along the Iraq/Saudi border) were under strict orders from their superiours to make sure that they do not celebrate Christmas in any public way, lest they offend their Saudi "hosts". Loomis 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
We were told not to celebrate it off base. On base, we had a Christmas tree, Christmas music, received gifts mailed in, and the Saudis shipped in a bunch of turkeys for us (no hams for obvious reasons). This is not unusual. There are cultural issues in all countries. Also, we were not there to protect the Saudis. We were borrowing an air base from them to launch attacks against Iraq. In the area, we had few allies that would let us do that. There was Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Every other country was opposed to having U.S. troops stationed in their country. I have heard that Turkey secretly allowed intelligence forces monitor the northern border of Iraq, but that is officially denied. --Kainaw (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nazi badges[edit]

Good day

I have been given 2 pieces from my mother from WW2. One looks like a Weibliche Jugend female Rad badge with no inscriptions on it at all. The other made of bronze has a piece approx 1cm width by 2cm length black, red yellow flag and in the centre is what looks like a compass and something else I cannot discribe, I think it is a hammer. The piece attached to it is aprox 2cm by 2cm and incaves at each side as it is a square piece with a circle in the centre with the hammer and compass and wheat either side of it. Around this is KOLEKTIV DER ARBEIT SOZIALISTISCHEN. On the back is enssribed " SOZIALISTISCH ARBEITEN LERNEN UND LEBEN". Still in original plastic box. Please let me know if anyone has a clue where this came from. I think my Grandmother may have been part of the Rad National labor service in a Third reich depot her surname was Martins. The first piece I talk about looks exactly like the gold female Rad badge but it must be alluninium. Thank you and have a great New year.

Karen Bronkhorst South Africa

Hello, Karen. Actually it looks to me as if these badges might be Communist rather than Nazi, perhaps from the German Democratic Republic or even the pre-Nazi KPD. I am almost certain that a Nazi badge would mention the Nation as well as Socialist Labour, rather than have labour isolated in this 'red' sense. Oh, yes, there is one other thing: the compass and the hammer are indeed the symbols of the old Communist East Germany, and you will find them on the red, black and yellow flag, together with the wheat sheaf. So, if it's any consolation to you, your grandmother seems to have been involved in Communist rather than Nazi youth organizations. Es lebe unsere DDR! Clio the Muse 23:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
See illustration at Commietravel. They may be able to help you date the item. --05:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's easier than that. [2] shows these particlar medals and slogans. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jpgordon, I should have been more thorough. The front lettering seems not to appear in those pictures, but it does in this OMSA database picture, with the three colour bar. According to RIBBONS OF ORDERS AND DECORATIONS OF THE WORLD it is a ministerial decoration for civilians, the "Ehrentitel Kollektiv der sozialistischen Arbeit" (Collective of Socialist Labor), established in 1962. The FDGB-Lexikon, Arbeitsversion, Berlin 2005, says: "The honour was awarded to Collectives ... for outstanding socialist competitiveness, the fulfilment of political, cultural and technical requirements, as well as the observance of socialist morals and ethics. The collective received a certificate and a monetary award. Each member received a medal and a certificate. By 1989, 270 000 collectives, with 4.8 million members, had already received the honour." --Seejyb 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pre and post 9/11 America[edit]

for some reason lately i have been intensely researching late 90's and early 2000's culture, and since i was a little too young at the time to really 'feel' what the time period was like, i wanted to know how huge (or not) the shift in American and global culture was after 9/11. It seems that the decade was heading in a different direction up until that point, with late 90's more dressed-down futuristic fashions and a more electronic-influenced feel to popular music. I have read specific points of view saying that America had to rethink the direction it was going, and the progressive fashions were replaced by fashions of the past, which exists no more today. Also, music seems to have had the same transformation, with many styles from previous eras coming back. Is this a result of the fact that we aren't specifically in a decade with a name, or have we run out of ideas, or like i said previously, a result of 9/11 and possibly the collapse of the "new economy"? --Technofreak90 23:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective as an Irish person, America has definitely changed since 9/11, I think it has more to do with the changer over from Clinton to Bush however. I don't think Americans realise how much better of a leader Clinton was in regard to keaping a positive image of the U.S.. Bush (aided by 9/11) has brought out a much more conservative America which has sort of isolated the US from other world cultures. I'm not trying to be critical of the Bush administration, just telling things as I see it. Ken 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that 9/11 was not a major change for the direction of the U.S. - except for allowing it to finally finish Desert Storm a good 10 years after it began. The collapse of the stock market and the fallout of related corporate crime afterward is the big change. Before 9/11, anyone who suggested that the stock market was unreasonably inflated would be laughed at. Middle class people thought they had it made. Throw money into any stock and you profit. Shortly after 9/11, the stock market collapsed. Not the whole thing - primarily the highly profitable tech and med stocks. Middle class people who thought they were going to retire and live on a private island in the keys were suddenly stuck with being middle class again. Then, one executive after another was investigated for making illegal stock trades or illegally inflating their stocks. The rich got richer off the collapse while the middle class got much poorer. Things went back to the way they were before the 90s. This is, of course, not unique. Look at the "roaring" 20s and the following depression. I'm sure it will happen again in 30-50 years. --Kainaw (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


I grew up in the 1960's. I am a New Yorker. I lived, worked, socialized, shopped, ate and commuted at the WTC. Americans had a false sense of security. The WTC had been attacked before but the loss of life was small scale. I was terrorized! I flinched at every plane. Millions of Americans were traumatized too. It wasn't just 9/11 but also its consequences. No New Yorker or D.C. resident imagined they would catch commuter trains, eat food, etc. with a military presence. I am a liberal Democrat, I welcomed FEMA, the National Guard and increased security with tears. I believe urban Americans feel vulnerable and are willing to have their freedom restricted. I know I have. The unnecesarry deprivation of civil liiberties is shocking. This isn't Vietnam, though. We don't protest because we want security. I was joyous when we invaded Afghanistan. It is not good but trembling with fear and feeling innocent planes are crashing on you is not fun.

Even both of those things weren't related to 9/11 - the Dot-com bubble burst before 9/11. Rmhermen 01:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This is unencyclopedic and completely subjective, but here goes: I am in my 40s and was an adult during the 1980s and 1990s. I saw a big shift in popular sentiment and culture in the United States after 9/11. The biggest changes that I perceive are increases in fearfulness and cynicism. Fearfulness of terrorism was in my opinion fanned by the Bush administration (for example, through the Homeland Security Advisory System). The public's fear was used by the Bush administration to muster support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as Kainaw suggests. Repeatedly, however, Bush and his team made claims that turned out not to be true, such as the claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This, together with revelations of rampant corporate fraud, led to widespread public cynicism and distrust of claims by people in power. From a cultural point of view, I think that these events have led to a loss of national self-confidence among Americans (despite the almost desperate flag waving) and a loss of confidence in the future. This may explain the popularity of "retro" cultural styles, which offer nostalgic reminders of seemingly more innocent, secure, or hopeful times. Marco polo 02:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was watching West Wing on 9/11 and recall attitudinal changes that have largely been ignored by the popular press. Generally, voters were disgusted at the sleazy Clinton administration that hamfistedly broke peace accord in the Middle East as Clinton tried to score a foreign goal. During the storm that followed, Democrat leaders lay low, and, not actually having any congress responsibilities, began promising much which they will never have to address. Spin doctors used to say that sexuality had nothing to do with administration. Now, spin doctors want to ignore worthy achievements made in times of adversity. imho. DDB 03:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Power: A New Social Analysis[edit]

I am looking for the complete book online of Power: A New Social Analysis. Since it was released in 1938 it is free domain now. Where can I find the complete book. (I am a bad google searcher). Much Appreciated. thnx. --Foundby 23:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not public domain. Copyright extends to either 50 or 75 years (depending on jurisdiction) after the author's death, and Bertrand Russell only died in 1970. --Nicknack009 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Where can I find the pirated version, you know the ebook for free? --Foundby 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not a place to look for pirated material. If you want a version for free try your local library. --Fastfission 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)