Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Humanities desk
< July 17 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 19 >
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.

July 18[edit]

how are WTO and globalization corelated?[edit]

how will globalization affect india's economy in the future?thank you--Angelofwrath 06:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like a homework assignment. --Wetman 06:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
At least two people have the same assigned question. See "What is the negative and positive effects of globalization on Indian farming sector?" above. Bielle 17:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

it isnt homework it is a project and i wasnt expecting you to give me a full answer i was wishing someone could be able to guide me in the right direction thank you--Angelofwrath 05:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You have asked two questions:
  1. what is the relationship between WTO and globalization?
  2. how will globalization affect india's economy?
I will try to outline an answer to both of these questions. I take globalization to mean the increasing foreign trade between states, that is economic globalization.
  1. The World Trade Organization is one of the motors of economic globalization. The goal of the WTO is to make trade between its member states freeer by reducing tariffs and other protectionist policies. It is also in involved in settling trade disputes to prevent or end trade war and in ensuring that the trade policy of each member state is non-discriminatory, reciprocal and transparent. The WTO promotes foreign trade, and therefore economic globalization
  2. Your second question is a speculative question. What will happen in India's future if globalization continues? This is obviously guesswork. Untill now specific sectors, classes and regions in the Economy of India have profited from increasing foreign trade and outsourcing. India has a very high growth rate, which was 9% in 2005. The IT-sector is the best example of this: computer help desks for American companies are administered by Indian IT-specialists in India, see this Dutch tv-report about this or read the first chapter of Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat (link to the first pages). However 60% of the workforce is employed in the agricultural sector, which is underdeveloped, underproductive and profits less from globalization. Moreover the profits from globalization are unequally divided between regions and classes, with 22% of India citizens still living below the global poverty level of $1/a day in 2002. Since 1990 this however has dropped from 50% to 22%. Economic pundits predict that India will continue to profit from this and grow to become the worlds fifth economy.
I hope this answers your question or gives you useful links to followC mon 08:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

thanx for the ideas and the info Angelofwrath 14:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon and Poland[edit]

I was amazed to discover that the Polish national anthem contains a reference to Napoleon Bonaparte, of all people. I would be grateful for some more information on the links between Napoleon and Poland, and why he is a cherished figure, hopefully more than I can find in the History of Poland (1795-1918) page. Thanx. Gordon Nash 07:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The article Polish Legions (Napoleonic period) may help. DuncanHill 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Although Alexander I of Russia had several children by his Polish mistress Maria Czetwertynska and his heir Constantine even rejected the Russian crown in order to marry a Polish lady, Napoleon also had connections with Poland on a more personal level: see Marie Walewska and Alexandre Joseph Count Colonna-Walewski for details. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

See Partitions of Poland for the historical background (how the Kingdom of Poland was gobbled up by Austria, Prussia and Russia) and Duchy of Warsaw for more about the Napoleonic period. The Napoleonic period awakened a spirit of nationalism among the Poles, which was kept alive after the 1815 Congress of Vienna dismantled the country by a sequence of attempted revolutions (the November Uprising of 1830, the January Uprising of 1863), but they had to wait for the 1919 Treaty of Versailles for independence again. Gdr 10:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Napoleonic period awakened a spirit of nationalism among the Poles". I'm not sure this spirit has ever been dormant. Ever heard about Tadeusz Kościuszko? --Ghirla-трёп- 16:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
We have. -- JackofOz 06:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Basically, as Gdr implies, Napoleon liberated Poland after Austria, Prussia, and Russia decided that a nation in Europe with a constitution was more than they could handle (and thus destroyed the country as an independent entity—now you see it, now you don't). Napoleon came through, in the process of kicking Austria, Prussia, and Russia's butts in the Napoleonic Wars, and propped up a new Poland, of sorts, based on the Napoleonic Code, played up their nationalism, etc. Now obviously Napoleon's motives in this were not entirely altruistic (and he never totally came through for the Poles as much as they would have wanted), but they were pretty happy with his actions, which mitigated (for a very short period — unfortunately the history of Poland is one of invasion and occupation) their domination by the three '-ias, recognized that Poland had an independent identity (and once was a great kingdom!), and put Poland "back on the map" in a literal sense. (Unfortunately it was only a few years before the Russians came in and made Poland subserviant again, but at least it was on the map.) -- 13:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the Grand Duchy of Warsaw was one of Napoleon's main jackals during his infamous invasion of Russia. Poniatowski and other Polish nobles, far from understanding how cruelly there were used, accompanied Napoleon to the very gates of Moscow. It seemed to them that the good ol' Times of Troubles returned, when they had invaded Russia, occupied Moscow, and attempted to force Roman Catholicism on the Russian population. Although the second occupation of Moscow did happen exactly 200 years after the first, there was a lot of other striking coincidences that foreshadowed the Russian victory. For instance, Mikhail Kutuzov, who led the Russian armies in 1812, was the son of M-me Beklemisheva, a namesake and distant relative of M-me Beklemisheva whose son, Dmitry Pozharsky, had driven the Poles from Moscow back in 1612. The collapse of Napoleon's Russian adventure dealt the decisive blow to the Poles' hopes of independence. The Tsar came to believe that a Polish buffer state west of the Russian border would always be used against Russia by her enemies, and the Congress of Vienna duly conferred the Polish crown on him. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's try to avoid comparing other nations to animals, shall we? Reification is not only a fallacy, but can be offensive.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Check Napoleon and Polish identity article by Andrzej Nieuwazny; History Today, Vol. 48, May 1998. Unfortunatly I couldn't find a free link, but see [1], [2] and [3].-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Gordon, Piotrus, and everyone else, I have access to the aforementioned piece by Nieuwazny, and can offer the following by way of summary. My own position is one a strict neutrality and scholarly detachment.
The important point is that Napoleon's creation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw gave every appearance of resurrecting the Polish nation from the political grave to which it had been consigned in 1795, though in real terms the 'independence' was no more meaningful than that of Congress Poland, which emerged from the Vienna settlement. However, the Duchy represented the hope of true independence, whereas Congress Poland was always in the shadow of Russia.
The other lasting significance of Napoleon's Grand Duchy is that it 'cast off' the old feudal Poland, which still existed, to some degree, under the rule of the partitioning powers. Serfdom was abolished and a modern legal code, on the French model, introduced. But the truly important thing was the contribution the Napoleonic period made towards the creation of a national legend or myth, which was to sustain and comfort Poles down the decades that followed. Amongst other things, it contributed to a belief that the rest of Europe had an abiding interest in the fate of Poland, arising from Bonaparte's support in 1797 for the formation of Polish Legions, recruited from amongst émigrés and other exiles living in Italy. The Polish national anthem is really a celebration of the Legion's commander, Jan Henryk Dabrowski, and Napoleon is only mentioned in passing. Indeed, Napoleon's treatment of these soldiers was cynical in the extreme. After the Treaty of Luneville in 1801, they were sent to the West Indies to suppress the slave revolt in the French colony of Saint-Domingue, the future Haiti. Most never returned.
Napoleon continued to use Poles where it suited him best. Of the fresh forces raised after the creation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, some 10,000 were actually sent to fight against the Spanish and the British in the Peninsular War. However, it is reasonably safe to assume that the Poles were most enthusiastic about the 1812 war against Russia-which Napoleon called the Second Polish War-as they formed by far the largest foreign contingent of the Grand Army. We have no precise information on what form the peace would have taken if Napoleon had won his war against Alexander, but many Poles held to the belief that it would, at the very least, have led to a fully restored Poland, including Lithuania; a return, in other words, to the situation prior to the first partition in 1772. The whole experience of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw is one of Polish confidence in the promise of Napoleon, a promise of a better future, though there is really nothing that proves he would have fulfilled these expectations.
It really is only fair to say that Polish national determination did make an impact on Tsar Alexander I, because he accepted that there could be no return to the position prevailing in 1795, when Poland truly had been extinguished. On his insistance, lands that had fallen to Prussia on the Third Partition, including the city of Warsaw, became part of his new 'Polish State', a satellite, yes, but one with a high degree of political latitude, and one that preserved the Code Napoleon. Alexander may have hoped to transfer some of the fierce loyalty the Poles had formerly shown towards his great rival towards himself; but he merely perpetuated a myth. The hope of a liberal Poland, of Napoleon's Poland was kept aliive, until it was all but destroyed in the uprising of 1830-1. Thereafter, most of those who went into exile sought refuge in France, the home of the Napoleon myth, which gave it fresh life. In 1834, from his Paris exile, Adam Mickiewicz wrote his epic poem, Pan Tadeusz, which celebrates Napoleon's entry into Lithuania in 1812 thus; All sure of victory, cry with tears in eyes/God is with Napoleon, and Napoleon is with us!
Although the legend declined over the years , especially as Napoleon III offerd no support to the Polish rising of 1863, it did not altogether die. It received fresh encouragent in 1918, as France was the only western power that offered unqualified support to the newly independent Poland. May 5 1921, the hundredth anniversary of Napoleon's death, was formally marked by commemorations across the new nation. And he lives, and will continue to live, in the national anthem. Clio the Muse 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Print of Mrs Duff[edit]

I remember a print of a Mrs Duff who appeared to be standing on a globe (or the earth). No further information. Does this ring a bell for anybody or where might I find out more please? - CarbonLifeForm 12:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you search Google images for Mrs Duff, it's the first hit. What exactly did you wish to know?--Shantavira|feed me 12:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You have to turn of safe search for it to come up on Google. -- Kainaw(what?) 16:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Didn't come up as the first result for me when I hit the link above.... but anyway here is a link to the picture [4] DuncanHill 17:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The picture is dedicated to "James Duff, Earl of Fife" DuncanHill 17:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Which Mrs Duff is she? - CarbonLifeForm 15:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicolas Poussin[edit]

Blind Orion Searching for the Rising Sun, 1658

What would you call the intellectual tendency of French painter Nicolas Poussin when he employs an obscure mythological theme with semi-mystical connotations, as especially in Blind Orion Searching for the Rising Sun and the ideas this has inspired in other artists and writers? Thanks.--Pharos 19:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I really do not know if these mytholgical subjects are known under a given intellectual rubric, Pharos. They appear so often in European painting, and in a whole variety of styles, including Poussin's baroque; some mystical, others simply erotic. The mythological, I suppose, was one of the better vehicles for an artistic imagination, otherwise restricted by political, cultural or moral taboos from taking too close an interest in contemporary life. Clio the Muse 02:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm thinking of something a bit more specific in this instance. For one, the mythological Orion is just so obscure—it seems like a purposeful esotericism really. It's sort of a trend I see of an exaggerated sense of allegory, a mysticism without the messy supernatural context, at work in various corners of art, literature, philosophy etc. Shades of whatever led to the Freemasonry system of symbols, perhaps. Surely there's a name for this trend, something written on the subject?--Pharos 03:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to discover the significance of Orion in painting, and of the kind of symbolism you hint at, Pharos, looking through a variety of art dictionaries, but have to report a complete lack of success. I hope you have better luck! Clio the Muse 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Entente Cordiale[edit]

How effective was the 1904 agreement between Britain and France? Queen of the Nile 22:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Entente cordiale appears to answer this question in the first paragraph. The rest of the article provides the evidence. How long an essay do you need? Bielle 23:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I personally feel that the page on the Entente Cordiale verges on the, well, banal. There is not nearly enough on the wider implications of the agreement, and nothing at all on background and context. In a sense it might be said to be England's very own version of the Diplomatic Revolution, reversing its position towards a traditional enemy; and like the first Diplomatic Revolution, it had a profound impact on international relations. It was born out of a British loss of confidence after the early humiliations experienced in the Second Boer War, and a growing fear the the country was isolated in the face of a potentially aggressive Germany. But in fact the agreement did little to advance British interests, and simply linked the country to the kind of Continental rivalries which it had managed to stay clear of hitherto. Convinced that they had British support, the French became ever more belligerent in their attitude towards the Germans, fully demonstrated in the Morrocan crises of 1905 and 1911. Concerned by possible encirclement, the Germans grew ever more alienated. The 1907 link between Britain, France and Russia also encourged the Tsar towards a new Pan-Slavism in the Balkans, to replace his disastrous far-eastern policy, with a further adverse impact on European security. An arrangement that had been intended to improve Britain's standing in the world merely added to the tensions within Europe, and became just another milestone on the road to the Great War. Is that effective enough? Clio the Muse 02:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Having copied two or three sentences from Clio's reply to Entente cordiale, I noticed that the article was moved to this title from Entente Cordiale several days ago. Unfortunately, the move was not discussed on the relevant talk page. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Mein Kampf still copyrighted?[edit]

Is Mein Kampf still copyrighted? (Not as legal advice, just curious.) Does a copyright still effectively remain in place if a works author is accused of Crimes against humanity? (And apropos of that, was Hitler actually ever convicted of any crime postmortem?) Thanks! --S.dedalus 23:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and no. The article on Mein Kampf has information on the copyright status in various states here - Mein_Kampf#Current_availability DuncanHill

Edit: I wrote this (below) before reading link (above). Imagine not. Available free online [5] which is unusual for copyrighted books to go online fully, and this obviously. It has been online for sometime - I imagine the copyright holder would probably have asked for it to be shut down by now, or deindexed by Google. Google have done that before on copyright grounds. At any rate, it is 62 years since the author (obviously Hitler's) death (commited suicide 1945), which in most countries, I think, comprises expiration of copyright (anyone be more specific?). As for date of copyright, could that be held by a translator, thereby making it more recent than its date of publication (1933)? As for his conviction... well, believe it or not, in April 1965 (I think - possibly 66) authorities in West Berlin published an arrest warrant for Hitler! The logic for this was that a 20 year limit on arresting Nazis was almost up (later extended). Do it just in case. His body was never found, as he had it burnt under 200 litres of petrol (to prevent the humiliating fate which befell the body of Benito Mussolini, so common sense says that at the time, the Coroner couldn't be absolutely certain that he had died, if he didn't have a body. I do not think the poliice were surprised when they did not find him. And how, I wonder, can you convict someone without an arrest? I would also question the point of putting a dead person on trial - they cannot be punished. Hence suicide isn't a crime. Sometimes people are re-trialed post-mortem if new evidence has arisen suggesting that they are not guilty, but I have not heard that to prove that they are guilty. Source for arrest warrant info: "Hitler and Germany", by somebody Lee. Can't recall precisely. I can tell you, though, that it is illegal to sell Nazi memorabelia in France, but is in the US under the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech. Does anyone know of any other case when people have been tried post mortem (other than on new evidence suggesting innocence, and thus miscarriage of justice)?martianlostinspace 00:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright in the EU is for 70 years from the author's death. DuncanHill 00:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I may be wrong about this, but I think copyright violation isn't the kind of a crime where the state prosecutes you automatically; it merely gives the copyright holder the right to go after you, should they choose. Thus, if there is substantial reason to expect that the copyright holder won't prosecute, no crime. Gzuckier 14:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That's no assurance at all. Create a way to make money and some sort of copyright holder/estate heir/whatever will show up and sue. -- 22:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, this isn't a particularly recent example of a posthumous trial, but there is always Pope Formosus... Carom 00:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says a dead person can't be punished? Here are a few who have! Clio the Muse 03:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and sometimes in the most suitable manner. William Burke, one of the West Port "bodysnatchers" was sentenced to death, and further, to have his body dissected for the benefit of medical students (the same fate that befell his victims.) I once had the fortune to view his preserved remains, which are held in private collection at the old University of Edinburgh Medical school, the site of the dissection in 1829. Rockpocket 06:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah!, the sack 'em up men. Yes, that's another good example, Rockpocket; and the knowledge that one was not to be buried in consecrated ground was far more dreaded then than it is now. Clio the Muse 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suppose being convicted of a crime posthumously does have some symbolic value; even if it is done for non religious reasons. How about for someone convicted of murder? Do they still retain the rights to copyrighted works? Thanks for the enlightenment. --S.dedalus 05:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in any US or international copyright law that changes the ability of an author to hold copyright if they have been accused or convicted of a crime (no matter what sort of crime). Criminal records have nothing to do with copyright law. -- 22:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Berne Convention extends copyright for a minimum of 50 years beyond the author's death, but each signatory nation can set longer limits. The EU and U.S. both extend copyright for 70 years beyond the author's death. International copyright laws Some nations, such as the U.S., also have (or had) laws related to copyright renewal. See U.S. copyright renewals. 06:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read that the copyright to Mein Kampf resides with the Land of Bavaria, which refuses to authorise new editions. Rhinoracer 11:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct, Rhino, as the link from Duncan (above) confirms.martianlostinspace 18:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, not quite, because it does not own the English language rights to the book. It is freely available in the United Kingdom, as it should be. My own copy, translated Ralph Manheim, with an introduction by D. C. Watt, was published in 1996. The most recent edition was, I believe, released last year by Jaico Publishing. It's a nonsense for any book to be suppressed in a free society, especially this one. I would give free copies to all people with fascist leanings, on condition that they remain in a locked room until they had read every boring word. I cannot conceive of a better cure for ignorance and extremism! I'm sure those of you who have read it will understand the point I am making here. Clio the Muse 22:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If they own the German rights to the book, they own the right to translation, technically. Translations are derivative works. -- 22:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed Clio, a very good case could be made for prosecuting Hitler for crimes against prose. DuncanHill 22:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for you answers! --S.dedalus 19:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
German property in the United States was confiscated at the beginning of the war, and belongs to the Alien Property Custodian. This included copyright; Max Born had to prove the date of his British citizenship to receive his royalties. I would not be surprised if Mein Kampf had been specifically released to help the war effort. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)