Humanities desk
< April 2	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 4 >

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.

April 3[edit]

Definition of peasant[edit]

I remember reading Thailand, or perhaps something else on Wikipedia. One thing that I remember is the use of the word "peasant" to describe the Thai farm workers (I assume farm workers because I assume they live an agrarian lifestyle). I think Thailand actually has a monarchy, but what is the actual relationship between the sovereign and Thai peasants? By the way, would a migrant undocumented farm worker working on American farms and living in shacks be American peasants? Or are American farmers who own family farms free, rich peasants who enjoy middle-class lifestyles? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peasant would be regarded as insulting in the US, even by a farmer who proudly call himself a "hard-working country boy."

It's an arbitrary social class, and only as real far as is accepted by a society. As such, I would say that there are no peasants in the US, even though there are individuals who, in the exact same socio-economic situation but in other times or places, would be considered peasants.

It's like how America doesn't have royalty, even though the richest portion of the country inherits their wealth and has serious influence over major issues, and some people insist that's all God's will. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.70.33 -- the anthropological definition of "peasant" is along the lines of traditional farmers who have a dependent role within a larger society or hierarchy, so that a portion of the crops they grow is owed in taxes or tributes or repayments of debts to non-farmers. The operators of highly mechanized and modernized "agribusiness" operations are not usually called peasants, though in some cases they may be in almost perpetual debt (like some kinds of peasants are). A "migrant undocumented farm worker" falls into the category of a landless laborer, who does not have direct responsibility or authority for any plot of land, and so is not really the same thing as a peasant. In United States history, sharecroppers probably approach closest to the usual definition of a peasantry... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working Class Hero, by John Lennon, famously includes the line "But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see". Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yes, it does. What of it? Matt Deres (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the term in contemporary use. It shows the derogatory significance of the term. I think it shows the wide-meaning significance of the term. Its use there is figurative, encompassing just about any walk of life. In its use there, hardly anyone escapes being considered a peasant. That is a contemporary song. The lyrics are reflecting possible current use of the term. It may supersede historical usages, as we know language constantly evolves. Bus stop (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "peasant" and "pagan" have the same, seemingly neutral origin.[1] But there's often a tendency to ridicule farmers as being rednecks, rubes, bumpkins, jays, hayseeds, etc. (Usually by city slickers.) Hence those terms are no longer neutral. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A working class hero is something to be. Bus stop (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It's like how America doesn't have royalty, even though the richest portion of the country inherits their wealth"

The United States does not have either royalty or nobility, and is constitutionally forbidden from establishing one. Per the Title of Nobility Clause (1787): "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Nothing in the Constitution forbids hereditary wealth. As for "peasants", serfdom in the Kingdom of England had ended by the Tudor period, and was never established in its colonies. Per our Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom: 1574- "Last remaining serfs emancipated by Elizabeth I."

History of serfdom elaborates a bit: "In England, the end of serfdom began with the Peasants' Revolt in 1381. It had largely died out in England by 1500 as a personal status and was fully ended when Elizabeth I freed the last remaining serfs in 1574. Land held by serf tenure (unless enfranchised) continued to be held by what was thenceforth known as a copyhold tenancy, which was not completely abolished until 1925 (although it was whittled away during the 19th and early 20th centuries). There were native-born Scottish serfs until 1799, when coal miners who were kept in serfdom gained emancipation. However, most Scottish serfs had already been freed. " Dimadick (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dimadick -- Serfdom is a legal status, while "peasant" is a social-agricultural term (which can become a vague derogatory epithet). Scottish coal-mining serfs were not peasants, while there have been many cases of peasants who were not serfs. AnonMoos (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a peasant is basically someone who lives by subsistence farming and without much mechanization. That's different from serfdom in that a peasant could in principle leave the farm and move to the city or whatever, though most don't. It might, however, include sharecropping. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

173.228.123.121 -- I still prefer the anthropological definition (see above). Peasants can be serfs (though not all are), while tribal farmers who are not exploited by overlords or agents of an overarching state are not usually referred to as peasants. AnonMoos (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings to the question in the OP. Are those agrarian Thai people peasants ruled by a monarch or independent farmers? What are they? Is there really feudalism in Thailand? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that all words have shades of meaning including implied tone based on many contextual factors, including the time and place of the interlocutors, the intent of the speaker, the grammatical context of the word, and important for us the social, cultural, and historical context of the use of that word. When Lennon (as noted above) called people "fucking peasants" he had a clearly pejorative connotation in that context. However, merely because Lennon was using it in that way for that context does NOT mean that the word "peasant" is a purely pejorative word. Likewise, in the context of European medieval life, "peasant" implies a certain role in the economy based on European medieval life. I must stress this point, because it is central to everything I am saying: this doesn't mean that it's use in other contexts without aspects of European medieval life is wrong. Perhaps the use of peasant to describe Thai farmers is the proper term or perhaps it is not, but to claim that only the singular usage of any word, based on a specific application, is the only possible definitive way a word can ever be used; well, that's not right. Maybe peasant isn't right, but the reason would not be because "peasantry" must only include European-style feudalism. Peasantry as a broader term simply means politically unconnected agrarian classes. That doesn't mean we have dukes and lords and ladies. --Jayron 32 16:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, I don't think there is currently actual official serfdom anywhere in the world (is there?). Serfs as I understood the term were literally the property of the landowner. That's different from chattel slavery in the sense that you can't sell your serfs to someone else, but they're basically part of what comes with the land: they're not allowed to pick up and leave. So if you sell the land to someone, they get the serfs with it. Part of the deal of being a feudal lord was that you were supposed to conscript your serfs into military duty so they'd be available to the king when the king wanted to fight a war. Obviously it wouldn't work if the serfs themselves had a choice in the matter. (And part of the challenge of being the king was keeping your lords strong and loyal enough to threaten your enemies with their armies, while preventing them from becoming strong or unified enough to threaten you).

The "fucking peasants" thing sounds like calling someone lumpen proletariat, i.e. a snotty way to refer to someone by their (from the speaker's point of view disfavored) socio-economic status. I sometimes hear insulting terms for Silicon Valley tech tycoons based on their socio-economic status, so it goes in all directions. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An agricultural serf was not literally owned by the overlord (that would be slavery), but rather was "tied to the land" (glebae adscripti), and at a minimum owed the overlord a portion of the crops he grows (and possibly some other "feudal dues"). The serf was not directly sold like a slave, but the whole package of serf-family-on-land-owing -obligations-to-overlord could be transferred to a new overlord, and in some systems sold for money. AnonMoos (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the version I remember is that serfs were slaves; they just weren't chattel slaves like pre-1860's US/colonial slaves were (you couldn't buy or sell them independently of the land). I hadn't heard the term glebae adscripti before, but https://dictionary.thelaw.com/adscripti-glebae/ defines "adscripti glebae" as "Slaves who served the master of the soil, who were annexed to the land, and passed with it when it was conveyed", and the Wikipedia article adscript says something similar. In particular I thought that the lords' obligation to provide military power to the king (and the king reciprocally protecting the lords' continued power over their estates) was the main force holding the feudal system together. So the lords had to keep their estates producing serfs who could then be conscripted as troops. I expect it became less viable as warfare became more technological after the late middle ages. But I'm not up on the history of this and have been wanting to read about it sometime. If you know a good book I'd be interested. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of politics[edit]

What do historians agree on to be the most political decision ever made by politicians?86.8.202.255 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "the most political decision"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thats up to the respondents to present the evidence isnt it?--213.205.242.246 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't know what the original question really means, then we can't answer it (or even decide whether or not it's worth answering). AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was asked on yesterday's BBC comedy programme Cunk on Britain [2] which is a spoof on the historical documentary programmes now quite common on TV. The programme involved asking experts stupid, meaningless or impossible questions about British history - and that was one of them. The expert involved got very muddled, and failed to come up with any sort of answer. My own thought was that (in the British context of the programme) it might be the execution of Charles I - but there are plenty of other possible answers. It may depend on whether you are looking for the decision which had the greatest political impact in historical terms, or the decision which was made for the most purely political motive. Wymspen (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the British-based OP simply parroted that question from the show. Looks like an April Fool's joke that was late by a couple of days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appeasement of Hitler.
Sleigh (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a time traveler from the future, I'd posit that the GOP refusing to censure Donald Trump in any way will end up being one that historians will agree on. --Golbez (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be the Brexit. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]