Humanities desk
< April 7	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 9 >

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 8[edit]

Stereotype[edit]

Where did the stereotype that Jews rub their hands and say "oi vay" originate from? Was it Nazi propaganda that entered the public consciousness? Asteriad5 (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

See Oy vey. It is a native Yiddish term, and was not invented by any outside groups. --Jayron 32 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all major stereotypes of Jews are far older than the Nazis. Hand rubbing may be explained by Stereotypes of Jews#Greed. -- BenRG (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fear mongering is inefficient when you're using something the people aren't already leaning toward fearing. Compare the War on Terror to the War on Drugs. A greedy man (of any type) would be a fool to invest in the latter. The War on Christmas is profitable, but only if you bet on Christmas getting a boost. The War on Puppies has no chance in Hell. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general persecution of Jews lasts longer than the entire history of Germany. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Economic antisemitism#Historical development may answer your question. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've know countless gentiles who rub their hands together that way, although they don't usually say "oy vey". Come to think of it, why would a Jew say "oy vey" ("oh woe") when he's happy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From where does Asteriad5 derive that "Jews rub their hands and say 'oi vay'"? I've heard of the stereotype pertaining to Oy vey but not that "Jews rub their hands". Is this a particular sect that rubs their hands? Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I think it's supposed to be a sign of greed. See e.g. wikiquote:Judaism: "they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands". Actually, I have no idea when hand-rubbing became associated with greed and it might have originated with the Nazis for all I know. See also this popular cartoon of a hand-rubbing Jew. -- BenRG (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays, tenting your fingers and saying "Excellent" is the cooler thing to do. C.M. isn't exactly Jewish, but his brother is possibly George Burns. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another CM is known for doing that Wanderlei thing with his hands. More to do with fitness than greed, but haters probably disagree. Wanderlei has also been called greedy, by his convicted money launderer rival. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who don't rub their hands or say eu, weh? The terms of oh, woe date back to PIE and have cognates in Latin, Greek, Old Irish, Welsh, Lithuanian, Church Slavonic, Armenian and Sanskrit. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know a lot of Jews, including my wife and sons and many of my closest friends. Jews do not say "oy vey" when counting money or pondering good fortune. They do say "oy vey" and roll their eyes sometimes, though, when somebody asks a silly question conflating unrelated stereotypes. Just for the fun of it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Boitano gets teased by his colleagues for rubbing his hands together. I don't think he's Jewish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Brian Boitano didn't take shit from anybody. I'm so disillusioned. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Associate monarchs[edit]

Throughout history, some monarchs have had their children made monarchs too, while the parent remains paramount; Henry the Young King was one such case (I first heard of him a few minutes ago) in England, as was the Roman Emperor Constantine Lekapenos. In many cases, these kings/emperors/etc. never had practical power, and aren't counted in the numbering — for example, Gibbon is the only one who calls him "Constantine VII" (everyone else accords the term to Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus), and Henry II and III of England were the Young King's father and nephew respectively. Is there a standard term for such a position, a generic term to embrace all countries? "Co-emperor" is often used in a Byzantine context, I've run into "coregency" for people like Jotham of Judah (but he seems to have held actual power, not being just the king's son with an exalted title), and the Young King article uses "associate monarch", but I don't know of something that fits all over the place. Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "Junior king"? There's a redirect of Junior king to Coronation#Coronation_of_heirs_apparent. Does that help? --Jayron 32 16:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanist might also be of interest. Taknaran (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "associate king" is used in our Henry the Young King article and in The British Chronicles: Volume 1 by David Hughes, The Functions of the Medieval Parliament of England edited by G. O. Sayles (p. 13), King Stephen's Reign (1135-1154) by Paul Dalton (p. 55), and Anglo-Norman Studies XXX: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2007 by C. P. Lewis (p. 27). Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regent. The term "Regency" in the UK refers to the period during which the future George IV reigned in the place of his father, the ailing George III. There were other regency periods, but this is the one you normally see capitalised. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's radically different from what I meant. I'm describing a situation in which George III (still in good health) had his son proclaimed "King George", but III reserved all powers and duties of the throne, and the future IV carried on as before, without any influence on or duties for the business of government, and essentially no practical differences whatsoever. The link to junior king, given up above, is much much more what I was looking for. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen "co-king" to describe Henry the Young King, as well as two other 12th century examples, Philip II of France and Baldwin V of Jerusalem. Our own "co-king" link redirects to coregency though, which also does not seem quite right. The Latin title, apparently, was "rex iunior", which does simply mean "younger king", but also "junior" in the English sense of a junior partner. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both "associate monarch" and "junior king" sound very modern to me, and rather out-of-place when describing medieval kings. If you're looking for a standard term that doesn't depend on the rank of the monarch, I'd have thought "co-monarch" or "co-sovereign" (both of appear to have some usage according to Google searches) would work. As an adjective, "co-regnant" (not "co-regent") would seem to be the correct term. These terms could also apply to joint rule by husband and wife (like Philip and Mary and William and Mary), though, so wouldn't specifically identify what you're talking about. Proteus (Talk) 10:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that some fathers had their daughters crowned in their lifetime too. Baldwin II of Jerusalem had his future successor Melisende crowned a year before his death. Tamar of Georgia was crowned six years before her father's death and took part in the government. Surtsicna (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tetrarchy, as in Diocletian's system with one senior & one junior emperor - an Augustus & a Caesar, for both the Eastern & the Western empires, and Diarchy, of which the Republic's Consuls were an example, may be of interest too.John Z (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Money question[edit]

If someone lends you a small amount of money and says "don't worry about it" in regards to you paying it back at a later date, do they really mean it or is it socially expected to pay it back anyway? Like how when people say "how are you?" they don't really care and are using the phrase in basically the same way as saying "hello". TVKMarkII (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is 'socially acceptable' depends (obviously) on the society in question, the relationship between the individuals concerned, the amount borrowed etc - there are too many unknowns here to give a definitive answer. And we don't answer requests for opinions. If you feel that you may be expected to pay it back, offer to do so when the opportunity arises. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When ever I have said this, is because I don't what to embarrass a friend who has found themselves unexpectedly short of ready cash and leave him feeling indebted to me. Later, they come back and usually pay back cash or sometimes in kind - if that is more appropriate. In friendship, one doesn't keep a ledger of profit and loss. It is cooperation for long term benefit because some favors do not revolve around money but the need of a helping-hand from one that you trust and can rely upon. So 'money' is just one form that that helping hand can take. So "don't worry about it" just means: don't feel embarrassed, because you'll do the same for me. Respect that and repay at the very earliest opportunity. P.S. Only do this with trust worthy individuals. Otherwise they may call on you to do them a favor to (say) fetch their sisters bag from a locker and its only when walking out of the railway station and find yourself surrounded by FBI agents that you realize its full of drugs. Just be sensible about the company you keep.--Aspro (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can get paid to pay them back, literally and figuratively, and also pay it forward to their friends, as a confidential informant. Of course, that's not acceptable behaviour, in most societies. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The exception would be if it is a really small amount of money. How small depends on your social milieu. In my middle-class U.S. milieu, you might not worry about repaying amounts less than $5 (USD) to a friend. That's a little more than €4. This is assuming that you don't habitually borrow small amounts like this, which would be annoying. In a poorer country or even in the United States among people in poverty, probably the cutoff is lower. If you try to repay a very small amount (say less than $1 in the United States), the person receiving the money might feel insulted. But anything above $2–5, in my social environment, you should repay, even if the other person says "Don't worry about it." Marco polo (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think another exception is that sometimes a richer friend will help out a poorer one with what is really a financial gift, but call it a "loan" to avoid the awkwardness that can be present in that situation. Then the poorer friend might pay it back, someday, if his/her circumstances improve, but the richer friend is not really counting on seeing it again. --Trovatore (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the concept in some soft-social-science/self-help circles called the emotional bank account The forgiveness of minor debts, as well as the debtor still paying them off, provides an important source of social bond-building. It may not be expected to be paid back as a loan would be, but it may be useful for the strength of the relationship to be sensitive to needs of the other person, and to be available for helping in what they need. This sort of give-and-take, without expectation for paying back, but willingness to provide, is useful in social networking and serves its own purposes. --Jayron 32 00:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See favourite for more on that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Looks entirely unrelated. A network of friends doing small favors for each other because they like too has nothing to do with royal companions. --Jayron 32 00:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You don't have to worry about paying me back ... because I have your credit card number". :-) StuRat (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the language can be taken at face value: an attempt should be made at repayment but without accompanying worry. Bus stop (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to the advice we don't give (and the reason why this thread has been hatted) invite them for a drink, or dinner, your treat. That way they know they have been repaid, but nobody is saying, this is purely a financial arrangement. See reciprocal altruism (a very poorly named term) and Reciprocity (evolution). It looks like we have about five articles on the subject that could be merged. I certainly can't count the number of times in NYC that I have seen someone come up short at the register, only to have the stranger behind them in line pay the difference. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it has not been "hatted". Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Mitchell (comedian) suggests that all such debts should be repaid. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]