Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 13

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.

August 13

Copyright tag

I uploaded an image of Mother Teresa and Dr. Johannnes Maas, and neglected to check the box that this image is NOT coprighted. I cannot figure out how to edit it to remove the warning that it is not tagged. This is the page:

Image: Mother Teresa and Dr. Johannes Maas.jpg

01:16, 12 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Mother Teresa and Dr. Johannes Maas.jpg (This photo of Dr. Johannes Maas and Mother Teresa was taken by his personal photographer. Her name is Ms. Toni Cordell. It is not copyrighted. It was taken in Mother Teresa'a office in Calcutta during a meeting with Mother Theresa following her being awar)

Mother Teresa and Dr. Maas are two noted humanitarians who, I think, are worthy of inclusions in this esteemed encyclopedia. (Dr. Maas is listed in the 16th edition of Marquis Who's Who in the Midwest, page 436. Thank you very much for your assistance. Carol Penrod 02:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Carol PenrodCarol Penrod 02:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Click on the blue copyright tag in the warning. Notice that that page has a link to All copyright tags. Pick the tag that applies. It will look like {{some description of the copyright}}. When you like one, copy everything from the beginning {{ to the trailing }} into the description of the image at Image: Mother Teresa and Dr. Johannes Maas.jpg. -- Kainaw^(what?) 03:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Siena Duomo's Pavement

In your article it states that for 3 weeks each year the covers are removed so that the whole floor can be seen. Please,what are the dates of this in 2008 ?≥89.241.201.55 10:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any announcement of the dates for 2008. The dates were announced for 2007[1] as August 18-October 27, for 2006 as August 20-October 27 (though another source reported August 7-22), for 2005 as August 20-October 31, for 2004 as August 21-October 26, for 2003 (?) as August 21-October 21 and for 2001[2] as August 23-October 3. So it would seem that you'd be very safe planning your visit at any time in September. The telephone number for information seems to be (39)(0577)283048. An essay focusing on the odd prominence of Hermes Trismegistus in the pavimento can be found here. Wareh 15:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But those time periods are for more than three weeks, so is our article incorrect in that statement? Corvus cornix 18:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems safe to assume so, and I've modified the article accordingly (with links). Wareh 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Name of John Galsworthy's short story

B.krishnakumar 13:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)There is a short story by John Galsworthy in which a spy woman-I am told the story is based on the life of Mata Hari-is lodged in a nunnery(convent)by the soldiers on the eve of capital punishment.She requests the Mother Superior to allow her to dance before the inmates at dinner time.The request is granted and she performs the dance of her life!Next day morning the soldiers come and take her to the gallows.But something unusual happened at the nunnery.One of the inmates-- who had watched the the spy woman's dance-eloped from the nunnery,leaving a note,"I've decided to live and enjoy my life".Can anyone post a copy of that story or in the least let me know the title of that story?

This short story is called Salta Pro Nobis and was written in 1922. It was first collected in Caravan (1925) and is also in a modern collection called The Apple Tree and Other Stories (see pp 160-164 of the Penguin edition, 1988). I tried googling the first sentence ("The dancer, my mother, is very sad"), but I'm afraid that doesn't lead to an online text. If you need it urgently and can't get hold of it in time, leave a note on my talk page and we'll see what we can do. Xn4 16:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you profusely for the information.I'll search for the story and come back if necessary.Thanks again!B.krishnakumar

Oldest (stone?) house in Europe (Knap of Howar is Northern Europe)

Knap of Howar in Orkney is often described, including in WP, as "the oldest preserved stone house in northern Europe". Sometimes "stone" is omitted. This implies that there's an older preserved house (stone or not) elsewhere in Europe. What, where? Any ideas? (Knap of Howar is a wonderful place and well worth a visit!) PamD 14:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that professional archeologists did the excavation, because otherwise these structures look something anyone who was familiar with stone fences or stone foundations could have built in a few weeks. The article says it was built on an earlier midden, so the radio carbon dating gets problematic. The stones themselves are possible millions of years old, and the midden (garbage) under them is "older" than the 300 year or so age of the house, so we are left with determing the date that humans worked and stacked the stone. Is there a lab measurement to state what year a stone was stacked on another stone? Edison 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Archaeologists would have determined the date of the house by obtaining the radiocarbon date of debris deposited in its floor while it was occupied. Probably the house had a packed-earth floor on top of the midden layers, so it would be possible to distinguish debris deposited by occupants from midden debris. Marco polo 17:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The oldest lived in house in the UK at least is I think "The Jew's House" in Lincoln, Lincolnshire, UK. 80.0.133.26 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about Saltford Manor? [3] DuncanHill 11:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Knap of Howar "was occupied from 3500 BC to 3100 BC", so is in rather a different league from Lincoln or Saltford! Someone suggested that Malta may hold the answer. Any ideas? PamD 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Air war over Japan

I would like to know someting more about the strategic air offensive against Japan, and how the Japanese responded, prior to the atomic attacks of August 1945. CheersSecret seven 16:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You could start with Japan campaign and Bombing of Tokyo in World War II and Strategic bombing during World War II, but none of these has much information on the Japanese response. Marco polo 17:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't much of one, particularly later on. Gasoline was in very short supply, and the small amount available was held in reserve against the expected invasion. The Japanese had no effective night-fighers, and few aircraft that could operate at the altitude of a B-29. It's why the strategic bombers were lightly armed and often without fighter escort, and why the atomic bombings were carried out unopposed. The basic response was to keep an eye out for bombers, head to shelter until the bombs stopped falling, and try to put out the fires afterwards. --Carnildo 22:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also Bombing of Kobe in World War II. Rmhermen 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me focus chiefly on the question of the Japanese response, as the air offensive itself is largely covered in the pages linked here by other editors.

As early as 1928 the Japanese authorities had been alert to the possibility of attack from the air, and some precautions were put in place. In 1937 the Air Defence Law was passed, followed in 1939 by the formation of the Greater Japan Air Defence Association. However, as far as Prime Minister Tojo was concerned the best defence against this form of attack was Japanese expansion across the Pacific. Indeed, he went so far as to declare that "Preparations for homeland defence must not interfere with the operations of the armed forces overseas." It was not until 1943, as the 'protective perimiter' began to shrink, that the whole issue acquired a new priority in strategic planning. By the end of the year the government began to consider proposals for the wholesale evacuation of children and others, not vital to the war, from the cities of Tokyo, Nagoya, Kobe and Osaka, though little was done before the first serious B-29 raids began in June 1944. In the wake of this the evacuation programme was speeded up; and by September over 400,000 children and their teachers had been sent into rural areas.

The real fear, of course, was that Japan's 'cities of wood and paper' were perfect bonfire material. Neighbourhood 'bucket relays' were organised, hardly adequate for what was to come. More drastically, municipal authorities started a policy of selective demolition to create 'fire breaks.' Belts of up to 120 feet wide were cleared of houses, and most structures around public buildings were systematically removed. Almost 2 million people lost their homes this way; and though they received some financial compensation, no alternative housing was provided. Like the evacuees, they were expected to stay with relatives. Although the government also urged the construction of air-raid shelters, there was an insufficient supply of basic materials to allow for a comprehensive programme. Most civilians had to make do with plank-covered trenches.

If civilian defence was bad, military protection was even worse. Japan's radar screen, such as it was, could not cope with with aircraft flying very low or very high. The fighter shield available for home defence was completely ineffective, as Carnildo says, against enemy bombers flying at high altitudes. Fuel, moreover, was in short supply, as were good pilots, the best all having been sent overseas, or wasted in Kamikaze attacks. Not only were the anti-aircraft guns the country possesssed largely out of date, but there was also an insufficient number to protect all of the likely targets.

This wholly inadequate defence was aided, to an extent, by early American strategy, which placed the chief emphasis on precision bombing. Things changed in early 1945, when Curtis Le May took over command from Haywood Hansell. Although precision raiding continued for a time, Le May began to experiment with incendiary attacks; and that, for the Japanese, was when the real problems started. Clio the Muse 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-aircraft warfare doesn't say much about the Japanese antiaircraft weapons. The article on strategic bombing in WW2 just says that the B-29's dropped bombs from 30,000 feet on Japan and missed their targets a lot. For terror bombing of a large population center, a miss is generally still a hit, when the desire is just to set paper and wood homes on fire and kill civilians. The Japanese had in May 1942 captured Corregidor, which had U.S. antiaircraft batteries able to keep the Japanese bombers above 24,000 feet, resulting in ineffective bombing. The 3 inch guns could reach 30,000 feet, but there was a shortage of mechanical fuses which could be exploded at that altitude. By April 1942 the Corregidor aa batteries were shooting down one bomber per 100 shells. Two planes which incautiously came over at 22,500 feet were instantly shot down. Mechanical fuses allowed shooting down planes up to 28500 feet.[4] Proximity fuses were not strictly necessary, because of accurate stereoscopic rangefingind and mechanical gun directing. It is surprising the Japanese either on their own or by improving on captured weapons had not gained the ability to hit aircraft at 30,000 feet by 1945. Even if hubris said the home island would not be attacked, the weapons would have been useful for defending against Allied attacks on their island bases. Edison 15:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias depending on sexual preference

I'm looking for a word which describes someone treating someone differently due to their sexual preference. The word 'homophobic' doesn't exactly cover it, since this differential treatment may not necessarily be worse than normal; it could just be different, or even superior. For example, "Molly's view that all gay men are camp may have been ____(ist?)"

Thanks! --Joewithajay 17:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "heterosexist" means favoring heterosexuals. By analogy, I suppose that you could refer to the favoring of homosexuals as "homosexist", though I have never seen this word used before. I do not think that there is a word referring to favoritism based on sexual orientation in general. Marco polo 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to a negative attitude towards homosexuals or more generally against people of a different sexual preference (as per your first question)? I'm sure some homosexuals will have a negative attitude towards heterosexuals (think of an attitude and someone somewhere will have it). And I once heard a lesbian fulminate against bisexuals.

What about 'sexual parochialism'? (disclaimer: I made that up :) ) DirkvdM 18:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want a neologism, how about "orientationist"? Sounds obfuscatory... AnonMoos 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Prejudicial"? --Sean 19:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice, as in pre-judice, is to pre-judge someone (in this case based upon their sexual orientation). This probably doesn't fit 100% with what you're saying, but the following comment would be prejudicial: "So there's a homo guy coming tonight, he must be camp", or "I could never like a gay guy". Descriminatory is to descriminate (in this case based on sexual orientation). Like, "It's an open party, but homos aren't allowed", or "Sure I'll give him a lift home, unless he's gay, then no way". Finally there's derogatory, in this case anything verbal that would be insulting or offensive to someone (in this case based on their sexual orientation). So for example the terms "poof, fag, queer, fudge-packer" could all be considered derogatory.

Looking at your question again, I could see how if you altered the question we could have come up with the word sexist, as in "Molly's view that all men aren't faithful may have been sexist" - that is, a form of racism based on sex/gender. All we need to do for you then is come up with the same word, but for sexual orientation, not gender. That's why the word 'orientationist' or even 'sexual orientationist' may fit - but these probably don't yet carry the right connotations and are open to misinterpretation. In cases such as these, the all-inclusive "racist" usually does well, as in

"Molly's view that all gay men are camp may have been racist"

Rfwoolf 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds completely weird and wrong to me. I would say "bigoted", but would never generalize "racist" to the point that it didn't refer to race. Bhumiya (said/done) 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is not 'sexist' racism based on sex? The term racism is open to various definitions, one of which is anything that is prejudicial, derogatory, or discriminatory against a 'race'. A 'race' can be anything from "men", "women", "gay", "straight", and the very obvious "black", "white", "asian" etc. Given that the word 'racist' has been overused and more commonly refers to skin-tone or nationality, doesn't mean that other forms of racism don't exist, such as being sexist. Rfwoolf 01:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, race commonly refers to shared biological ancestry. even if racists are often even confused about that. Female individuals don't have a shared biological ancestry (though it could be argued that they have a social and cultural ancestry) distinguishing them from male individuals. The same applies for hetero- vs homosexual, young vs old people and so forth. Like with racism and sexism, a one-word term, such as ageism, sometimes finds these prejudices, but they're commonly seen as a form of prejudice, discrimination, or bias, but not as a form of racism. I don't think I have ever encountered that wide a definition of racism, and this usage would mislead me. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sluzzelin that definition of racism is completely non standard and would be very confusing to any normal English speaker. Cyta 07:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Glasgow

Tomorrow my team in playing against Glasgow Rangers in Champions League qualifications.I will spend just one day in Glasgow:tomorrow Im arriving at 6 am and Im leaving at 11 pm...What should I see in that time from the most important city sights,since this in probably the only chance I`ll get..>Thank you

Celtic Park ;) Rockpocket 18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're art/culture inclined: Glasgow School of Art, Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, the University of Glasgow's Hunterian Buildings and the Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery. The Merchant City is attractive at night. Buchanan Street and (to a lesser degree) Argyle Street and Sauchiehall Street for shopping. If it's sunny (pah) and you're tired, Kelvingrove Park is a nice place to sunbathe and peoplewatch. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

More seriously, while Celtic Park is an interesting place to visit for football fans, you may wish to have a look at Category:Visitor attractions in Glasgow. Personally, I've enjoyed visiting the Glasgow Science Centre, Gallery of Modern Art (note the Duke of Wellington's hat), and the Scottish Football Museum. Many tourists prefer Edinburgh for a day trip, which is only 1 hour away by train. You would certainly have time to catch an early train and spend the morning at Edinburgh Castle - which is very impressive - before heading back for the match. Rockpocket 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Glasgow Museum of Transport and St Mungo Museum of Religious Life and Art are both good too. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Our Ibrox Stadium article, incidentally, would benefit from some "match day" photos (maybe one of the crowds outside, one of the game in progress). -- 19:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could take part in the traditional scottish match day ritual: find youself a pub filled with other football fans and have a drink with them. You will find that Scottish football fans tend to be very friendly and welcoming to others (see Tartan Army). Indeed, some of the most amazing sights I have seen in Glasgow is that of fans of rival football teams partying together (After a Scotland v Germany match at Hampden, the memory of a number of large German frau dancing on tables with skinny kilted scotsmen remains with me to this day). You may be surprised to notice that as many as half the people in Glasgow will be supporting your team anyway... Rockpocket 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Tartan Army article also needs photos badly. There will be no shortage of willing subjects. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all of you,though I saw just a little part of Glasgow,it seems like a very beautiful city. The most amazing thing was excatly what Rockpocket said,that half of the city supported my team,and that even some of the Celtic fans came to the match,just to support my team. It is true that Glasgow fans are very friendly,unlike us,but after chanting "Fuck you Rangers,fuck you" for the whole first half without any negative response by them,we saw that they are nice lads,and after the game we got aplause from them. However ,they are very quiet,so 200 of us were louder then 35.000. of them.Other then that,once again,Glasgow is a beautiful city,and if I am ever to live in UK,it is definetly in Glasgow,not London.

Thank you for your advices,everyone,hope to see some of Rangers fans in Belgrade in return game

England and France

I am amused by some of William Hogarth's depictions of the French, particularly in Four Times of the Day and The Gates of Calais. I imagine his negative view was fairly typical for the time, but would be interested to know how English attitudes towards our nearest neighbour evolved. Any ideas? Janesimon 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Philippe Contamine, emeritus professor at the Sorbonne, has a lecture he calls «La formation de l’ennemi héréditaire anglais durant la guerre de Cent Ans». One hundred and sixteen years (1337 to 1453, with some breaks for tea and two longer intermissions) is a long time for a proud nation like la perfide Albion to be at war with a neighbouring country and lose. It then took the French another one hundred and five years to get the English out of Calais, and France went on traditionally allying itself with Scotland against the English until the union of the crowns in 1603. What is now sometimes called the Second Hundred Years' War, another series of wars and conflicts between Great Britain and France from about 1689 to 1815, then set in, including of course the Napoleonic Wars. In the mean time, the French had horrified the English (or most of us) by their Revolution. On their coins, the kings and queens of England went on asserting their claim to the throne of France until (one moment, I must check my collection) about the year 1800. The Entente Cordiale and the successful but difficult military partnership with France during the First World War came as a shock to the English and French views of each other, but the day was saved by the arrival of the Second World War and the Vichy government. Few people were surprised when General de Gaulle vetoed the British application to join the old Common Market. Since then, the French and British views of each other have gone on being fed by the two governments' struggles within the European Community, by the demonstrations and blockades of French farmers and dockers, and so forth. My telephone is ringing, I have probably missed some salient points. Xn4 21:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A detail: Queen Elizabeth II still styles herself "Duke of Normandy". The Channel Islands are said to "owe allegiance to The Queen in her role as Duke of Normandy".[5] --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

True.ISTR that loyal toasts in Jersey and Guernsey are still to "The Duke". Grutness...wha? 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A few potentially relevant articles on the issue: Style of the British Sovereign, which states that the Sovereign of England's claim to France was relinquished in 1801, under George III; English claims to the French throne, which provides more detail on the nature of the claims; and List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II, which includes a somewhat more substantial list of the Queen's titles and honours, including the point regarding the Duke of Normandy. I do not vouch for any of these articles, but it seems helpful to point out that they exist. 208.114.153.254 00:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The cultural smear on the French had to do, at least partially, with French high culture itself and, partially, with the sorts of people each nation sent over to the other. I remind my fellow Americans to imagine what they would think if the only Americans they ever met were tourists with beer bellies and loud shirts and soldiers. Well, that worked the same way with England and France. The sorts of French the high society of London would see were dancing and fencing masters (the most effete of the effete), while the humbler Hugenots were quietly assimilated (usually). Who would the French see? They would see young persons of wealth bumbling around Paris looking for culture and decadence. It would be inevitable for the English to view the French as effeminate men and weak women, on the one hand, or slaves of a despot (reacting to absolute monarchy under Louis XIV-XV), which is what you see in Hogarth. The French might well think the English boorish and vulgar, just as Parisians think of Americans now. (When I was in Europe, the one group I loathed meeting were my countrymen. At least I could resent the German tourists as ill-bred, but when they were my own countrymen I could only try to stand away. Meanwhile, my French friends have said, of certain stereotypes, "That's not French: that's the French you meet in New York.") Geogre 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, I totally agree with you. I've often wanted to grab a Canadian flag pin and claim I was Canadian to avoid association with certain American countrymen. I remember being in a very nice hotel dining room in Seville (the sort with white tablecloths and crystal drinkware for breakfast), and a large group of Americans, with Southern accents, were talking loudly at their table. When they got up to leave, one went off in the opposite direction from the others, and the rest of her party yelled across the dining room asking where she was going, and she replied, equally loudly, "I have to go up to the room to pee." I wanted to crawl under the table. I also remember being on a train from Amsterdam to Germany, with a friend of mine. We were sitting on seats that faced each other, and we were both reading. An older German woman sat next to me, and after a while, she asked, "Excuse me, are you English?" My friend and I said that no, we were American, and she said, "American? But you're so quiet!" Then there's the restaurant in Kaiserslautern that refused to serve us because we were American ... Corvus cornix 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My German friends alone shared my cringe response at meeting countrymen abroad, but for different reasons ("These are our beach chairs, because we had them yesterday"). Few people seem to realize the power of tourism to make a bad impression. However, the other image people get derives from US military bases. Military bases are viewed with worry within the US (Fayetteville, NC and Columbus, GA have troubles due to their overwhelming presence), and there are nations whose sole exposure to Americans may be those bases. The Anglo-French didn't have that problem, in particular, but they had to have the distortion of ex patriots and tourists, and that only helped them sneer at the fey French and the servile French dogs. The throwing Hugenots into the galleys didn't help. Geogre 12:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Jane, Hogarth lived at a time when English perceptions of the French had acquired a most definite form; and some these were to survive until after the conclusion of the 'Second Hundred Year War' in 1815. How did the English see the French? Well, as you can guess from looking at Hogarth, they were everything the English were not; mannered, effeminite, foppish, unmanly...and foreign! Their politics were wrong, their food was wrong, their religion was wrong and they were wrong. If anything, popular perceptions of the 'other' took a more formed direction during the second great phase of the Anglo-French conflict than the first; for printing, painting, theatre and other modes of public entertainment and education had created a whole range of negative and readily understood sterotypes. By the end of the seventeenth century the abuse of the French had become so commonplace that one French-Swiss visitor to London in 1695 was to remark, "No abuse is so common, or outrageous in their eyes, as that of French Dog...and I am persuaded that they think to aggravate the title of dog by coupling it with the word French, so much do they hate and despise our nation."

At root, of course, this was all to do with politics. For many years Spain had been perceived as the greater threat. It was only from the time of Louis XIV that France became the leading challenge to English security, and the source of all that was most feared, expressed, above all, in the concept of the 'Universal Monarchy', by which the French were held to be aiming at new forms of domination and imperium. Louis' intolerant Catholicism, and his persecution of the Hugenots added to the image of negativity. His political ambitions were seen to be supported by the Catholic clergy in France, a privileged elite living off the oppressed peasants, and almost invariably depicted in popular prints as fat gluttons, as you will have noted from The Gate of Calais. (You should also pay attention to the soldier on the left, strutting along in highly camp fashion!)

So, there, across the Channel, were the poor, benighted French; ruled by a despot and exploited by priests, all held in place by a large standing army. By stages the symbols used to depict this alien system moved from guns, cannons, whips and chains, until they eventually settled on two rather prosaic items-wooden shoes and French food; yes, clogs and frogs! The wooden shoe became the defining image of French poverty and of French slavery. The most popular English slogan of all was "No wooden shoes"; and when the country was threatened with invasion, by the French or their Jacobite allies, pictorial propaganda almost invariable shows the terrible threat of the clogs!

As the eighteenth century advanced the wooden shoe was supplanted in popular consciousness by an even greater threat-French food. Here the Roast Beef of Old England stands comparison with such horrors as 'fried frogs.' The politics of food makes its first significant appearance during the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion, when prints were produced showing frogs being sold as the Pretender advances towards London. But it really begins to take off with Hogarth, depicting the wretched French glancing loongingly at a large side of beef, while they dine on soup-maigre. It was such an effective propaganda image that the authorities reissued it during the invasion scares of 1797 and 1807. More and more prints appeared in this fashion, showing well-nourished Englishmen tucking in to beef and plum pudding, while the French have their soup, their frogs and, worst of all, their snails.

'Frog', though now the common pejorative term in English for French people, did not, in fact, catch on until after the Napoleonic Wars, because prior to that time it was used to describe the Dutch. Before this the French were more commonly called toads-crapauds-and 'Johnny Crappo' the most popular nickname. They were also commonly depicted as monkeys, chattering, excitable and gesticulating, an image favoured by James Gilray. It is in the work of Gilray that all of the elements come together: wooden shoes, frogs, snails, onions and poverty; a hungry, irrational and savage nation guided more and more by the ridiculous figure of 'Little Boney.' Clio the Muse 03:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But snails are delicious! and the Roast Beef of Old England gives the French one of their happier names for the English, les rosbifs. Lately, we have become les fuckoffs, which lacks all Gallic subtlety and leaves me feeling a good deal less awkward about Mers-el-Kébir. Xn4 09:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of contemporary views, a comment I've heard about the French is along the lines of 100 years of peace isn't much set against the previous 1000 years of warfare. There's also a recurring theme that as the French and Germans lost World War Two (get the joke, very funny...) since the 1970s they've been trying to take over Europe through the EU. The latter half of this sentiment has many notable outlets in popular culture, especially in the Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister series that Margaret Thatcher famously claimed to be very realistic. --Dweller 12:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio mentioned the depiction of the French as monkeys and I just had to link to the famous Hartlepool monkey hanging incident when it appears a monkey in uniform was mistaken for a Frenchman. And I would say that our attitudes towards the French haven't evolved very much. They are still seen as pretentious and effeminate (but then surely us Northern European beer drinkers will always be more manly than the Southern European wine sippers!). We bail them out every time Germany invades and they are ungrateful (e.g de Gaulle). If they'd beaten us on penalties in any recent football matches we'd probably hate them as much as the Germans! Cyta 13:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Andorra and WWII

What was the role of Andorra during the war? Was it really involved in the international weapons trade? --Jacobstry 20:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently. "During the Second World War, Andorra remained neutral and was an important smuggling route between Vichy France and Spain." (History of Andorra.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Andorra was certainly used for smuggling, which may have included weapons, I suppose, though hardly to any significant degree. It was occupied by Free French Forces in 1944. Clio the Muse 00:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear that such a smuggling route was needed. Both Vichy and Spain were 'sort of allies' of Germany, each in their own way. Wouldn't that have made them allies? Or is this about the resistance movements in both countries? DirkvdM 07:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Spain, although entirely sympathetic with the Nazis (since they had helped Franco win the Spanish Civil War) decided to remain officially neutral in WW2. If they had allied with Germany, they would have borne the full brunt of Allied attacks, and they didn't want to risk that. StuRat 20:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The relationship between Vichy, Spain and Germany is actually quite complex, whatever broad political similiarities they might have shared. For instance, after German forces moved into the unoccupied Vichy areas in November 1942, armed units were stationed close to the Andorran border. As a counter to this the Spanish army moved into La Seu d'Urgell, the headquarters of the bishop, who, along with the President of France, is one of the traditional co-princes of the Pyreneean state.

There has been smuggling in the Pyrenees for centuries, with Andorra perfectly placed as a half-way-house between France and Spain. Given the unofficial nature of the activity, the political relations between the two countries had little direct bearing on the trade through the mountains. However, during the Second World War Andorra acquired an additional importance as a route for 'people smuggling', a way out for those trying to escape from the Nazis.

Finally, Dirk, if you are interested in this, Franco was falling over himself to enter the war on the German side in 1940; it's just that the price he was asking was more than Hitler was prepared to pay. I answered a question on this very topic not so long ago, and would be happy to look it out, if you so wish. Clio the Muse 22:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you can easily find it. I am interested in this, but mainly because I find everything interesting. :)

Smuggling is only an issue for the two countries involved. So if Spain and Vichy were sympathising with the same side and wanted to help each other with arms then they could have done so in the open. Or would that have been regarded by the Allies as a declaration of alliance with 'the other side' (although sides are indeed not so easily determined here)? DirkvdM 04:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the delayed response, but I have, as they say, been otherwise engaged!

You must remember that Vichy France and Germany had only signed an armistice at Compiègne in 1940, and were thus technically still in a state of war. Vichy was allowed under the terms of the armistice to keep a limited armed force, but the one thing that would have aroused German suspicions would have been an arms trade with the Spanish. As I have said, the political relationship between all three of the elements here is not, perhaps, as straightforward as you may assume. The smuggling through Andorra was free-enterprise and illegal. I imagine most of the light arms involved would have ended up in the hands of the resistance.

On Franco and the war here is a copy of the answer I gave to a question on this subject at the end of July. Clio the Muse 23:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It was at one time the accepted wisdom that Francisco Franco played a very close game, pro-Axis for security and apperance, but always managing to stay free of lavish commitments to Hitler. This view has largely been exploded by the work of Paul Preston, though it still manages to cling on, I see, in the page linked by Ngb.

The important point about Franco is that he was Fascist only in the most superficial sense, and would never have been moved by appeals to soldarity alone from his fellow dictators. He also was deeply resentful of German attempts to take advantage of the massive indebtedness of Spain for aid given to the Nationalists during the Civil War. What he was, though, was a good old-fashioned opportunist, one who did not want to be left on the wings in a German dominated Europe. Above all, as a former Legionnaire and an 'Africanista', he had ambitions to create a new Spanish Empire in Africa, largely at the expense of the French. Recognising that Spain was too exhausted economically to risk prolonged conflict, he was ready to enter the war, so to say, at one minute before midnight. This was the whole basis of his dealings with Hitler in 1940.

For Franco the decisive minute came in June 1940 with the fall of France. According to Ramon Serrano Suner, soon to be Foreign Minister, the Spanish government was swept by a wave of 'pro-war enthusiasm', deepened by Mussolini's entry into the conflict on 10 June. On 19 June Franco offered to enter the war in return for French Morocco, part of Algeria, and an expnsion of Spanish Sahara and Equatorial Guinea, along with substantial economic and military aid. Hitler refused to make any such commitment. Though he was angered by this rebuff, Franco's faith in a German victory did not diminish, and he was still ready to enter the war that autumn. By this time Hitler, checked by the Battle of Britain, was beginning to turn towards a wider 'Mediterranean strategy' in which the Spanish had a part to play. However, in the end, the price demanded by Franco was too high, and the risk of Spanish involvement to wider German strategic considerations too great.

The face to face meeting between Hitler and Franco at Hendaye in October 1940 failed for one simple reason: Spanish demands in Africa could only be granted at the risk of a major reaction in the French colonial empire. At Hendaye Franco was told that "the great problem to be solved at the moment consisted in hindering the de Gaulle movement in French Africa from further expansion, and therby establishing in this way bases for England and America on the African coast." In private conversation with Serrano Suner Franco gave vent to his anger;

These people are intolerable; they want us to enter the war in return for nothing; we cannot trust them if they do not contract, in what we sign, to cede as of now the territories which as explained to them are our right; otherwise we will not enter the war now...After the victory, contrary to what they say, if they do not commit themselves formally now, they will give us nothing.

Franco stayed out of the war not because he was cautious. It was rather more basic: his greed had been frustrated. Clio the Muse 00:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is a shame in a way. Had he entered the war, then the Allies would have also liberated Spain. Instead, the country suffered under his rule for another thirty years. I'm assuming the Allies would still have won, because Spain wasn't too much of a military force (yes?). DirkvdM 08:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If the Spanish and Germans had occupied Gibraltar in 1940, choking off access to the Mediterranean, the effect, in strategic terms, would have been virtually the same as if Hitler had entered London. It was as dangerous as that. Clio the Muse 22:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, of course. But then if an alliance with Spain could have led to such a huge strategic advantage, then it wasn't too clever of Hitler not to take up Franco's offer. Then again, he also attacked Russia while still fighting on the western front. Just imagine what might have happened if Germany would have had a more intelligent leader. I suppose the outcome of WWII was a close escape. I mean in the sense that if this one 'detail' had been different (assuming that Germany would also have gone to war without him) then our world would be extremely different. This in connection with the struggle between democracy, communism and fascism at the time, which I mentioned recently. Fascism could have won, and one extreme often leads to the other, so maybe we would have had a communist revolution too. Highly speculative, but I'm starting to realise more and more how pivotal WWII was. DirkvdM 09:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The fear was that if he accepted Franco's offer, and the price he demanded, the French Empire, and the French navy, would have gone over to De Gaulle, a very real prospect in the circumstances. It was balancing one set of strategic circumstances against another. Clio the Muse 03:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also an overlooked fact that the allied armies in England in 1940 from Dunkurk were very weak having left most of their equiqment on the beaches of France. This includes the RAF which had spent over half of its power at Frances aid. If Hitler had taken the inititive and invaded England soon after France had fallen the allied armies would have been crushed thus destroying any real legitiment French claim to West Africa. I believe that with England out of the way the English common wealth could have been dealt with rather than ignored and Spain's demanding could have been met. Only after closing the western front should Hitler even thought of attacking Russia. Another error in Hitlers hastiness was that Turkey befriended the Reich and pressure was never put on the turks to enter the war officially, even though the stakes would be remarkably similar to Spain's; such as expelling the british from Jerusalem. If these circumstances had been the case at the beginning of 1941, I believe that the Germans would have had enough man power to of crushed the USSR, reached beyond European Russia and with the help of Japan occupied Siberia, that is of course if Hitler hadn't been so powerful in the German chain of command.

Economics: United States Department of Defense Budget

In their annual budget reports, do they include "black projects" in their statement? I'm almost positive they do not, since I know the B2 was not and that was a black project. The more important part of my question is if this is true, does congress know about the money being spent at all? And if they do not, could it be considered un-constitutional to have a black project at all, since Congress has "the power of the purse", and no one else does. Any Info would be great.--Soj 10:51 PM GMT

The total cost of the budget does include "black" items (otherwise the books wouldn't balance), but they obviously don't have clear line items for every secret thing. Some things are funded other ways (U2 and Sr71 were funded by the CIA), and some things are funded under code names. For example, the "doesn't exist" spyplane Aurora has (allegedly) been funded under line items AURORA and later SENIOR CITIZEN. And (as Judd Hirsh says in Independence Day) "do you really think they pay $500 for a toilet seat?". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was 30,000 dollars for a toilet seat, but Thank you : D --Soj 16:19, 14 August 2007

You're right about the constitutionality of "black projects" which are constitutionally shady at best under Article I section 9.7 "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time" - plenty of people think such things are illegal. This question - of the CIA's secret budget in particular - was dodged in a 5-4 1974 Supreme Court case.[6]John Z 07:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Enckell

Who was Oscar Enckell who bribed young Mussolini into supporting Italy's entry into the Great War on the side of the Allies? --Jacobstry 21:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The only notable Oscar Enckell involved with WWII is a Lieutenant-General from Finland who signed the Armistice Agreement on behalf of Finland. -- Kainaw^(what?) 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The question was about the Great War, not the Second German War. DuncanHill 22:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's the same Enckell (1878-1960) who served as Chief of General Staff in 1919-24. I wonder whether he was a relation to Carl Enckell. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Brothers, suggests google. DuncanHill 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Here [7] DuncanHill 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jacobstry, could you please provide some context here? Mussolini supported Italian entry into the First World War out of conviction, not because he was bribed, and I have never heard of this 'Oscar Enckell'. Clio the Muse 00:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oskar Enckell (1878-1960) was during 1914-17 working for the Russian military intelligence in Italy. I would not call his impact on Mussolini a bribe... --User: Joergen Hedman

Did Aristotle know that Earth is round?

Hello all I am interested in the issue since when did old Greeks knew that Earth is round and especially if Aristotle believed in this... I guess he did, but I'm not overly sure :(

Mel

Aristotle figured it out but then rejected his own proof. He reasoned it from watching a lunar eclipse. Knowing that this was the earth's shadow, he saw that the shadow was always a half-circle. No disk could make such a shadow at all phases, and the only object that could would be a sphere. Having thus brilliantly deduced this, he figured that he must be wrong. At least that was the version I learned in philosophy class back in college. I haven't read the proof. Geogre 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Our article is at Spherical Earth. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• See [8] for more details. It's possible to perform the experiments yourself if you either (1) are patient enough to wait for a lunar eclipse like Aristotle, or (2) are resourceful enough to travel a couple hundred miles, like Eratosthanes did 100 years later. --M@rēino 15:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alan Seeger

Was I Have a Rendezvous with Death by Alan Seeger written in English? Seeger is listed as an American poet, but is seems he lived in Paris and served during WWI in the French Foreign Legion. Thanks for your help. --S.dedalus 23:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(http://www.poemtree.com/poems/IHaveARendezvousWithDeath.htm). Presumably it was written in English and this isn't a translation ny156uk 23:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --S.dedalus 20:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)