Humanities desk
< February 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 2 >

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.

March 1[edit]

How enlightened was Sarastro?[edit]

In the Magic Flute (Zauberflöte), Sarastro answers Pamina's plea to spare her mother with the immortal words "Within these holy portals, revenge remains unknown, and if a mortal erred, he will walk cheerfully and happily into the better land." That was after he had held Pamina captive and subjected her to what amounts to psychological torture which for a mere mortal like Papageno (performed by the librettist himself) was unbearable. But when Pamina's worried and erring mother enters the holy portals, she is plunged to destruction and infinite night. Of course some standards were different then, but that clearly seems like a broken promise, if there ever was one. Was that a role model of an enlightened ruler? — Sebastian 06:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found an interesting article on Sarastro-as-tyrant here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's an excellent essay. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Jochnowitz. He concisely expresses (almost) all my concerns, even those I had only been subconsciously aware of, and opened my eyes for a number of points I hadn't even noticed, such as that all the good and life saving genii and gadgets come from the Queen. This leads to an earlier unanswered RD/H question by (anonymous) titled "Così fan tutte", which I may rephrase as: Was there any contemporary critic who objected to the misogyny of these operas or the tyranny glorified in the Zauberflöte?

But at least the idea of "revenge remains unknown" is very laudable for a worldly ruler. My first reaction was "what hypocrisy!", but maybe that was just a natural step in the process. Despite the claim that "A woman does little, chatters a lot", talking comes easier to men, too. Can it be that talking about a ruler not using revenge, even when he breaks that promise, was still a step towards true enlightenment? — Sebastian 20:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the oldest city arms?[edit]

Is the coat of arms of Košice the oldest municipal heraldic arms? Please give your view at Talk:Coat of arms of Košice! Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 09:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Coat of arms of Madrid, that city's coat of arms goes back to 1212 (easily beating Košice at 1369). If the requirement is for an unchanged coat of arms, that of Ventspils also dates from 1369 (see this site). The coat of arms of the City of London officially dates from "time immemorial" (1189), but is only recorded from 1381. Tevildo (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exotic areas within the same country[edit]

Many Finns from the Helsinki capital region think of Lapland as an exotic wilderness, even though it's in the same country. Does this happen in other countries in Europe outside the Nordic countries? Are there countries there where people in one area view another area in the same country as an exotic wilderness or a tourist resort? Do for example Berliners think this of Bavaria, or Parisians of the Riviera? JIP | Talk 10:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this is true for many city-dwellers. I'm in London, and regard anywhere outside about Zone 3 as a bit foreign (though I make an exception for Manhattan, which is clearly just another part of London, though with a tiresomely long commute). There has long been a joke that "Civilisation ends at Watford". I think of the Lake District and the Peak District as rather wild and untamed, and Snowdonia as complete wilderness. Of course, I also think that Hampstead Heath is a bit wild! This is what happens to you if you live in cities too long. RomanSpa (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Liverpool and anywhere outside our metropolitan borough is exotic, especially the places RomanSpa has mentioned, plus North Wales and Scotland. It makes us feel we are back with our Celtic roots, after this Anglo-Saxon invasion. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All nicely summarised here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think in The Madness of King George (I can't remember if it was the play or the flick, but it was probably both) somebody describes Scotland as being 'five hundred miles north of civilization'. I know we're not supposed to refer to original research, but my original research confirms this assertion. Hayttom 15:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

Well, it was the Scottish Highlands which were actually thought of as being foreign and uncivilised, and not just by the English. Before the Acts of Union 1707, Lowland Scots, who spoke Lallans, regarded the Gaelic speaking Highlanders as a breed apart, to kept in check by "Letters of Fire and Sword". The Glencoe Massacre was ordered by the Scottish government and carried out by Scottish troops. To make matters worse, the Highlanders often retained their Catholic faith, while the rest of Scotland became strict Presbyterians. Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; King James, in the Basilikon Doron, described the Highlanders as barbarous and the Islanders as utterly barbarous. 109.149.28.142 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having lived or travelled just about everywhere in the US east of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, as well as in Houston, and Puerto Rico, I don't share this view, but this is the iconic image of a New Yorker's view of the world. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese used to view the Ainu people of Hokkaido as foreign barbarians apparently. Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens of Minneapolis have been known to express similar sentiments about St. Paul. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(New Yorker observation) Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 10 Adar 5775 22:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even governor Ventura was known to make negative comments about St. Paul. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the OP's question, the U.S. tends to think of Hawaii as rather foreign and exotic, owing in part to its remoteness from the rest of the country and in part due to the large ethnic and cultural differences between Hawaiians and mainlanders. --Jayron 32 00:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of Alaska, it used to be our great last frontier, but the recent perception is more of it being bumpkin territory (especially thanks to a certain former VP candidate and reality shows on a certain channel) whereas Hawai'i is the sort of stereotypical tropics with a bit more America tossed in. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Adar 5775 01:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bayonne, NJ, an isolated little peninsula, is much more exotic than Alaska or Hawaii, assuming you've ever spoken to someone from Bayonne. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the portrayal of southerners in Asterix. —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In France, Corsica is considered somewhat of a wild frontier with very different mores than the rest of the country. Brittany used to be thought of the same way (think of Paul Gauguin starting his career as an exotic painter there before moving to Polynesia), but it's been pretty much tamed since the 1940s or so. Not to speak of the overseas departments and territories which are not in Europe and are therefore genuinely exotic. --Xuxl (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon are sometimes thought of like that. Occasionally they are thought of as foreign parts. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Toronto, everywhere outside Toronto is an exotic wonderland. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need only live in a metropolitan area of Australia (any one of the cities) to consider much of the sub-tropical rainforest, barren desert, temperate scrub-land, wetlands and forests outside of those areas to be "exotic wilderness". We have whole tourism campaigns built on the concept of our relative proximity to "wilderness". There are vast tracts of Australia that remain unexplored (European exploration, on the ground) having only ever been flown-over. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then there's the uber-exotic national capital, Canberra. I know numerous people who are regular international travellers but have never visited their own capital and have no desire ever to do so. They can give you chapter and verse about what it's like and why they wouldn't enjoy it - trouble is, those reasons usually contain very little if any truth. Sad, really. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if the OP's question was only about other countries in Europe or other countries in general. At the risk of misinterpreting the question, though, I'll say that any large and/or multi-ethnic country probably has areas considered "exotic" by the majority. India probably considers Tripura (and probably all of the Seven Sister States of Northeast India) to be exotic. Cambodians view the isolated non-Khmer mountainous regions of its extreme northeastern provinces as "exotic"; Central Thais view the remote, minority-inhabited Isan areas as well as the extreme northern mountainous regions of Lanna as "exotic". I would also guess that the Han Chinese consider many regions on the periphery of China's borders (e.g. parts of Xinjiang and Yunnan) to be "exotic" or maybe barbaric?.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 10:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Private Ryan[edit]

I watched this excellent film portraying the Normandy landings in 1944. Two scenes stick out in my mind, though I have to say that Steven Spielberg must have been devastated to lose out the Best Picture Award to Shakespeare in Love, despite winning Best Director for himself. I digress. We saw Tom Hanks collecting "Dogtags" from dead soldiers and using them to rule out the possibility that Private Ryan might be already dead. But at the beginning and end of the film, we see the survived Ryan visiting a War Cemetery in France and paying tribute to the Tom Hanks character who died in battle. My question is simply this. How were the dead soldiers' bodies identified for subsequent burial if their ID Dogtags had been removed? Is it likely that those un identified soldiers would have been buried amongst their identified fallen comrades and their headstones been engraved with the details taken from any one of the collected Dog tags? I would have no personal problem with that scenario given the horrifying circumstances and aftermath of any battle, but am just curious to know the reality of what happens in such circumstances. Many thanks in anticipation. 92.239.221.31 (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In WW2, the dogtags were collected to show the commanding officer the number of casualties, and the names of such. When bodies were finally retrieved and buried, they were essentially unknown, unless someone could come and identify them. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected. But thanks for your early confirmation. I know that when I visit a cemetery and read the inscription, I am thinking of the person I remember, not the contents of the gravesite. A bit like the Westminster Abbey Grave of The Unknown Soldier. Thanks again. Jaspergardrum (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're right KägeTorä; our dog tag article says (in the lead paragraph) that tags are "designed to break easily into two pieces; some nations use two identical tags. This allows half the tag (or one of two tags) to be collected from a soldier's body for notification, while the other half (or other tag) remains with the corpse when battle conditions prevent the body from being immediately recovered". Apparently, the US Army dog tag adopted "...in 1942, the first tag is to be suspended on a necklace 25 inches in length, while the second tag is to be fixed to a separate necklace extension not further than 2 ½ inches under the first one...", according to WW2 US Medical Research Centre - U.S. Army WW2 Dog Tags. Unknown soldiers would have lost their dog tags, easy to imagine if you get blown up by a mine or high explosive shell. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought that was what I said, tbh, just shorter. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 02:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't thjink Alansplodge was the only person confused, as you said "When bodies were finally retrieved and buried, they were essentially unknown, unless someone could come and identify them", which I too assumed to mean that you were suggesting the soldiers would generally no longer have their dog tags at all when buried but could only be identified if someone recognised them rather than as Alansplodge mentioned, the soldier would keep one dog tag and either be buried with it, or it removed just before burial so their identity would be known, unless they lost both dog tags some how such as due to an explosion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Alan said, though - not all armies use dogtags. I don't think the British Army does. We're not all living in Amerika. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 18:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the movie was specifically about American soldiers and thus the practices of the British aren't relevant. --Golbez (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have my father's Royal Engineers dog tags from 1939. There are two of them, made of a fibrous material rather than the metal ones used by the US. Alansplodge (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"My father's dog tags issued in the summer of 1939" (These are not actually my father's but pretty much the same). Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During Henry VIII's reign, what areas did he control besides England?[edit]

During Henry VIII's reign, what areas did he control besides England?Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Henry VIII of England begins "Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547) was King of England from 21 April 1509 until his death. He was Lord, and later assumed the Kingship, of Ireland, and continued the nominal claim by English monarchs to the Kingdom of France.". --ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Wales had been incorporated into the English Crown some while before, but Scotland was a separate country with its own monarch. --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He would have also had control over a smattering of other areas not formally part of England proper, including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which were not then (as they are not now) part of England, and the Pale of Calais in what is now France, but which had been controlled by the English crown since early in the Hundred Years War. In his various wars, Henry also at times expanded or lost land in and around Calais, including Boulogne, which Henry had taken control of for a few years in the 1540s, see Sieges of Boulogne (1544–46). --Jayron 32 00:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Ireland, Henry only had any real control over The Pale in the east of the country, and even that was delegated to Hiberno-Norman lords. After assuming the Kingship of Ireland in 1542, the policy was to bring the native Irish nobles under royal control by the grant of titles, privileges and outright bribes, which was only partially successful. Henry's successors would use more repressive methods - see Tudor conquest of Ireland. Alansplodge (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find a copy of the 1964 Constitution of Haiti in English?[edit]

Where can I find a copy of the 1964 Constitution of Haiti in English? Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here. 3rd result on a google search for "1964 Constitution of Haiti". Nanonic (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who controlled Aquitaine in 1066?[edit]

Who controlled Aquitaine in 1066? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.84.28.198 (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you mean something I'm not picking up on, it was William VIII, Duke of Aquitaine. Deor (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]