Humanities desk
< November 13	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 15 >

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.

November 14

Student protest chants: history

I recently heard on the news US student protesters at theUniversity of Missouri chanting "Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go!" Similar student protester chants with various targets along with "What do we want?"" (some demand)!" "When do we want it? "Now" were common on US campuses in the 1960's in protests over civil rights, opposition to the Vietnam war, anti-nuke,and countless other issues. This led me to wonder where and when did this pair of call-and-response chants originate? They sound like they could have been used by striking workers at any point in the growth of labor unions,by suffragettes or by any protesters led by someone with an amplifier or a strong vocal apparatus, as an alternative to just milling around muttering like a western movie lynch mob, while causing the target of the protest to have to hear them as opposed to just closing the blinds and ignoring them. So are these two chants ubiquitous in the English speaking world, or only in the US, and what is the earliest recorded place and time for these two protest chants? Do they predate the Berkeley California Free Speech Movement of 1964? ~~

"What do we want !" ... "Politeness !" ... "When do we want it !" ... "Whenever it's most convenient for you !" StuRat (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Edison, earliest I can find for “hey hey ho ho” is 1956: [1]. And earliest I can find for “what do we want” is 1963: https://books.google.com/books?id=JtgvAAAAMAAJ&q="when+do+we+want+it+now", see also https://books.google.com/books?id=AC80AQAAIAAJ&q="when+do+we+want+it+now". (sorry about the links, no idea how to fix. both should end with the phrase in quotes after the final q if you want to see what I saw). All three sources suggest the chants originated in the American Civil Rights movement, though perhaps from opposite sides. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were chants like this on the Aldermaston March in the 1960s, and I would think also in the 1950s when it started. I had a booklet of songs for one of the marches - some were popular songs e.g. by with pro-peace lyrics, for example Down by the Riverside, others were new lyrics for songs. I definitely remember the "out out out" format. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently at a protest where, much to my embarrassment, "The people - united - will never be defeated" was chanted: click for its origin. (The people - united - get defeated on a regular basis.)

Although only used in a limited context, I'm rather fond of "What do we want?" "Brains!" "When do we want it?" "Brains!"--Shirt58 (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If defeated, the people were ipso facto not sufficiently united. What do we want? Better memory! When do we want it? When do we want what? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I offer this with some diffidence, since I'm not finding any really good sources; but I'm pretty sure that the "Hey hey ho ho ..." form, at least, originated as a school cheer for sports teams (here is someone's memory of such a cheer being used, I think during the Great Depression) that was later adapted for protest rallies. I wouldn't be surprised if other protest chants had a similar origin, since sports cheering is one of the few forms of mass chanting familiar to folks (and especially to youth) throughout the United States. Deor (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Election Day in the USA scheduled for the Tuesday right after the first Monday in November?

When Election Day rolled around, I read up on it a bit. And, in the USA, it's scheduled on the Tuesday right after the first Monday in November. (I think I have also seen this for other holidays and such, but none come to mind right off hand.) So, my question is: what would prompt such an odd schedule? Why not simply "the first Tuesday of the month"? What's the point here? What's the reason or rationale, if any? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:C192:5F05:ECE8:1646 (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 1st is All Saints' Day, so perhaps they wanted to avoid doubling up (when the first Tuesday is November 1st) ? (Although apparently they didn't mind doubling up with All Souls' Day on November 2nd.) StuRat (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a website that offers plausible reasons. The standard nationwide federal election date was set in 1845 when the economy was heavily but not totally agricultural. November was a "slow month" for agriculture, after most harvests were complete, making it easier for farmers to take time off to travel to the polls. November 1 was to be avoided, both because of the Catholic All Saints Day (mentioned above), but also because businesses closed their books for the previous month that day, which was a big deal before computers. Tuesday was seen as the best day of the week because isolated rural farmers often needed a full day of travel by horse or on foot to reach the polls. Most would not travel on Sunday, the Sabbath, so Monday was the day to travel to the polls. They could vote early Tuesday and then travel home. Wednesday was out of the question, because it was the traditional market day. Later November dates increased the chances of early wintery weather. That led to the standardization of the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal general election day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That makes sense. But as much as that was applicable in 1845, none of that is applicable today. Why is it still like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:C806:E841:D393:A093 (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody has found a persuasive reason to change it. Or in other words, why not? --70.49.170.168 (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Election Day fell on November 8 in 1853, 1859, 1864, 1870, 1881, 1887, 1892, 1898, 1904, 1910, 1921, 1927, 1932, 1938, 1949, 1955, 1960, 1966, 1977, 1983, 1988, 1994, 2005, and 2011. The next time that Election Day will fall on November 8 will be in 2016. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way, GeoffreyT2000: The algorithm calls for election day to fall on November 8 once every seven years on average, but not every seven years like clockwork. Over the long run, the date falls equally frequently including and between each of the seven dates from November 2 and November 8. And that is just how it has gone, for 170 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really pedantic comment: The Gregorian calendar has a 400-year cycle with 400×365 + 100 - 4 + 1 = 146097 days. This happens to be divisible by 7, and that means the days of the week must have a 400-year cycle for the dates they occur on. 400 is not divisible by 7 so the dates cannot be exactly equally distributed. If the number of days in 400 years had not been divisible by 7 then there would have been a 2800-year cycle with exactly equal distribution. Exercise: How many times in 400 years will Election Day (United States) be on November 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friday the 13th#Occurrence mentions a related phenomenon. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Election Day falls on November 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 56, 58, 57, 57, 58, 56, and 58 times respectively in 400 years. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't compute it myself but will take your word. The counts assume all years are included. Presidential elections are only in years divisible by four, and most other elections are in even years, but off-year elections can also follow the election day rule. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit strange there's a bunch of speculation, and some sourcing, but no one linked Election Day (United States) which says and has since long before this discussion [2]:

The actual reasons, as shown in records of Congressional debate on the bill in December 1844, were fairly prosaic. The bill initially set the day for choosing presidential electors on "the first Tuesday in November," in years divisible by four (1848, 1852, etc.). But it was pointed out that in some years the period between the first Tuesday in November and the first Wednesday in December (when the electors are required to meet in their state capitals to vote) would be more than 34 days, in violation of the existing Electoral College law. So, the bill was reworded to move the date for choosing presidential electors to the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, a date scheme already used in New York.

This is a bit ORish but does include a link to the debate so you can check it out yourself and see if you agree with the intepretation of our article as to the reason as per the debate [3].

Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many things are scheduled for the 2nd through the 8th day of a month, as compared to the first day of a month? This really doesn't require any knowledge beyond the second grade to answer. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does. The question becomes: What is "wrong" (i.e., undesirable) with the first day of the month? And why is the schedule purposefully trying to avoid that first day of the month?

Yeah I don't really understand μηδείς's point. There are obviously many possible reasons why it could have been scheduled from the 2nd through 8th avoiding the 1st as opposed to the 1st to 7th. Hence why there has been some other suggestions in this thread, and even our article mentions there have been many theories (although some of these may also related other aspects of the scheduling). I'm sure people could come up with more theories in this thread, although it would be offtopic. But our article, supported by a reference to debate (which as I indicated above, I didn't bother to read) claims a specific reason. I guess the later part of μηδείς's point was correct, although I don't think for the reason they were making it. Nowadays I think many second graders (depending somewhat on what that means where you live) could probably find the answer to the question by searching on the internet and reading our article. Or at least if they could understand our article sufficiently to get the answer. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Election Day (United States) does not explain why election day is a rigidly predetermined day at all. In many countries general elections are scheduled within a "window" of several months rather than one preordained day. Choosing the actual election date within the window is up to the legislature or the executive and is not announced until a fairly short time before (several weeks or a month or two at most) which launches the actual campaign period. The effect of always knowing the exact date of upcoming elections is that all politicians are always busy campaigning (sucking up to their voters) instead of spending at least some time serving their entire constituencies. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You state: "The effect of always knowing the exact date of upcoming elections is that all politicians are always busy campaigning (sucking up to their voters) instead of spending at least some time serving their entire constituencies." If we had an uncertain ("floating") date, wouldn't that simply exacerbate the problem that you cite? They (the campaigning politicians) would never know when the actual date would be, so they would always be "on" and "prepared" (and, therefore, campaigning more, not less) (in case the election sneaks up on them sooner rather than later). I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:4085:35B1:37E0:4972 (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That has never been the case in Westminster jurisdictions, which typically do not know their election dates until relatively close to the date. Some of them now have fixed election dates, but that hasn't suddenly meant they're always in campaign mode. Except, that is, to the degree that most politicians, no matter which system they inhabit, are always in campaign mode, even when they're in bed with their spouses. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One aspect of the Westminster system is that the party in power can choose an election date it considers favorable to itself. It seems plausible that one reason for having a fixed date (as per Roger's query) is to avoid giving anyone this ability, assuming it is considered undesirable. I don't know whether that's the actual reason, but it's at least a possible reason. --Trovatore (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:15F0:B708:6FCF:CE1C (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is "E-cash"? Is there a defined meaning?

Is there a defined meaning of the term E-cash? At Talk:Electronic money#What to do about redirect "E-cash" I try to find a solution for this redirect, but I'm overall unsure. --KnightMove (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is no, there is no defined meaning of "e-cash." I suppose that "e-cash" simply means "electronic cash," and "cash" means "ready money," so a redirect to electronic money seems appropriate. That leaves as an unresolved question what is the meaning of "electronic money." The first paragraph of our article has three different definitions, which are inconsistent with each other, and then it has a sentence of examples that are inconsistent with any of the definitions. The fact is that, for decades, most money has been stored electronically and most transfers, as measured by volume, have occurred electronically. John M Baker (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a pretty clear-cut definition of "e-cash" via an online dictionary: noun 1. money that is exchanged electronically over computer or telecommunications networks. 2. any of various systems of payment for purchases made on the Internet. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/e-cash

Here is another definition from a more financial based-site: DEFINITION of 'eCash' An Internet-based system that allows funds to be transferred anonymously. Similar to credit cards, eCash was free to users, while sellers paid a fee. Because of security concerns, eCash remains more of an idea and less of an actual payment system. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/ecash.asp

Here is a scholarly source regarding e-cash: One is the on-line form of e-cash (introduced by DigiCash) which allows for the completion of all types of internet transactions. The other form is off-line; essentially a digitally encoded card that could be used for many of the same transactions as cash. http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/jason.frand/teacher/technologies/goshtigian/define.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calebell (talk • contribs) 04:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These prove there is one bottom line when regarding ecash, the internet. Calebell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cross volunteers

Generally, during humanitarian crises or major incidents and disasters, do Red Cross volunteers deal with minor injuries etc so that the more experienced full time emergency services can deal with patients in more serious conditions? Or do thud walk with both? 2A02:C7D:B8FF:7E00:11FD:E116:9BC:F69E (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"thud walk" = "they work" ? Do you have autocorrect run amok ? StuRat (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For that particular organization, see Emergency management#The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The page on Field triage is also enlightening. It's likely that "volunteers" are pre-registered, vetted for qualifications, perhaps trained, and coordinated in teams before undertaking activity under the auspices of the IRC or any formal organization. Deborahjay (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is, if they actually do anything meaningful, rather than focusing on getting in front of the cameras in order to drive donations. On that note, these articles read like a hagiography. Anyone feel like taking a chisel to them? Probably could stand to give everything in here a once-over. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many have previous qualifications. They're all new & just trained in disaster and emergency management, first aid and giving general support. That's why I'm wondering how they work with full time emergency services and aid agencies or the military. 2A02:C7D:B8FF:7E00:1DCD:E5A7:5665:CFB9 (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I guess this question must have at least partially arisen because of the recent horrific attacks in Paris, you ca see the IFRC's view of their involvement here [4] in particular [5] and [6]. If you understand French, you could probably find more info on how ARAMIS works by search the French Red Cross website and other such places. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]