Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 January 23

Can someone find the Victor Hugo quote from Les mis where he says communism is lie a butcher killing the cow to divide it up. he mentions the brits can create wealth but dont know how to distribute it. and then gives his vision of socialism. --Gary123 (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social prosperity means the man happy, the citizen free, the nation great.

England solves the first of these two problems. She creates wealth admirably, she divides it badly. This solution which is complete on one side only leads her fatally to two extremes: monstrous opulence, monstrous wretchedness. All enjoyments for some, all privations for the rest, that is to say, for the people; privilege, exception, monopoly, feudalism, born from toil itself. A false and dangerous situation, which sates public power or private misery, which sets the roots of the State in the sufferings of the individual. A badly constituted randeur in which are combined all the material elements and into which no moral element enters.

Communism and agrarian law think that they solve the second problem. They are mistaken. Their division kills production. Equal partition abolishes emulation; and consequently labor. It is a partition made by the butcher, which kills that which it divides. It is therefore impossible to pause over these pretended solutions. Slaying wealth is not the same thing as dividing it.

There's a lot more being discussed in that part. I suggest you go and check the whole thing. — Kieff | Talk 06:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's Les Misérables, chapter iv. --Wetman (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be the origin of the You have two cows joke?  ;-) AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the senators of Washington? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.209.199 (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the US Senators for the State of Washington? Or do you mean one of various sporting teams which have been named the Washington Senators? Or the US Senators for Washington, DC (in which case, there aren't any). FiggyBee (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The poster could also be asking for a roster of members of the Washington State Senate. But if you're reading The Old Man and the Sea, he's talking about the baseball team. (Don't remember if the Sens are mentioned, but I know the old man feared "the Indians of Cleveland." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He should have feared the Florida Marlins. --M@rēino 02:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They also may have meant the members of the United States Senate since they meet in Washington. Dismas|^(talk) 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela brown (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Does anyone know a book / concordance in which I could look or references to specific wines and foods mentioned in plays?[reply]

Try Norman Kiell's Food and Drink in Literature: A Selectively Annotated Bibliography (Scarecrow, 1995; ISBN 0810830302), which Amazon has new for $32.14. I don't know how it's formatted, but I bet it has an index. A little more specialized is Robert Palter's The Duchess of Malfi's Apricots, and Other Literary Fruits.

The Library of Congress catalog also has well over a hundred books listed under the subject heading "Food in literature." --zenohockey (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And someone at the University of Kansas wrote an M.A. thesis on food in contemporary drama. --zenohockey (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In United States Electoral College#Appointment by state legislature, it mentioned several cases when states admitted too late for an election had their electors chosen by the state legislature. Since new states have been admitted between Election Day and the meeting of the Electoral College before, couldn't a majority party in Congress abuse this to change an election when they apparently lost the electoral vote in a close presidential election, by admitting a new state between Election Day and the meeting of the Electoral College, if they know that the new state's legislature would select electors for their party and that it would be enough additional electors to change the result of the election? --Spoon! (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could Congress change the result of a presidential election? Sure. Why not? Your Supreme Court seems to be able to!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Article II, Section I of the Constitution says "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States." Emphasis mine, of course. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, there are ways Congress could try to "overturn" a presidential election. Congress is in charge of counting Electoral College votes. Congress could find some excuse to throw out some of the votes. Look at the 1876 presidential election. There was a dispute over who really won some states, and a special committee formed by Congress decided who would be president. You may remember that in 2000 and 2004, some Congressional Democrats (with plenty of reason) tried to stop Congress from certifying George Bush's victory. Imagine the crisis that would have resulted had most members of Congress decided to throw out Ohio's electoral votes in 2004! Undoubtedly, Bush would have challenged (again) to the Supreme Court, which could have found a reason to cancel Congress' decision. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mwalcoff's first comment is relevant. The words "which Day" (note the singular) mean that the rule about "shall be the same" applies only to the second part of the sentence: the Electoral College has to vote on a single date, but they don't have to be appointed (or elected) on a single date. Say that one party controls both houses of Congress but their candidate for President trails 271-269 in electoral votes. So just after election day, they approach Puerto Rico and offer some sort of bribe to the PR economy if PR will ask for statehood immediately. The PR legislature goes for it and both houses of Congress accept their application effective immediately. PR gets 7 electoral votes based on its population, appointed as its legislature may direct (there's no constitutional requirement for them to be appointed through an election) -- and swings the presidential election. As long as all this happens before Electoral College Voting Day and before the authority of the lame-duck Congress expires, it ought to be legal.

Of course it's also completely undemocratic. Not only is the presidential election subverted, but the residents of Puerto Rico have a habit, when asked in referendums whether they want statehood, of voting against it. But elected officials are given wide latitude to do things that might be undemocratic or unpopular. If the public doesn't like it, they can try protesting, they can attempt a recall vote or call for an impeachment in places where those are available, and there's always the opportunity to kick them out at the next election. (Well, almost always.) But in the meantime, the action stands as legal.

Another variation of the scenario would involve an existing state splitting itself into two states, in order to qualify for two extra senators and therefore two extra electoral votes. It seems harder to imagine any state legislature accepting any sort of persuasion to do this, though.

--Anon, 06:13 UTC, 01/23, 2008.

What's it called when an author inserts a character recognizable as him/herself into his/her work? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-insertion or Author surrogate. FiggyBee (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Mary Sue Bovlb (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I need those links for an WP:Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there for possible contacts between the ancient Chinese and the Roman empires? Viola 3 (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One place to start is Sino-Roman relations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and also Daqin, the archaic Chinese name for Rome. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also the archaeological site in the Mekong Delta, Óc Eo where Roman coins were found. --Wetman (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Silk Road. Corvus cornix_talk 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that Christians claim that there are alot of signs, for example in the Bible, when the End of the World will occur soon. I've also heard that many and most of these signs have already occurred, come, and been fulfilled and the End of the World will indeed come soon nowadays.

But what about other religions? Christianity is just one of the many religions in the world today. There are so many religions in the world today. Do other religions also claim that there signs, for example in their holy religious books, when the End of the World will occur soon? If so, then do they also claim that many and most of those signs have already occurred and the End of the World is coming soon?

If not, then why? If other religions don't claim to have signs for the End of the World, and only Christianity does, then why? If other religions don't claim that many and most signs of the End of the World have already been fulfilled and it is coming soon, and only Christianity does, then why? Why would only Christianity claim to have signs for the End of the World, and other religions don't? Why would only Christianity claim that many and most signs of the End of the World have already been fulfilled and it is coming soon, and other religions don't?

When I mean the "End of the World", I mean the end of world as we know it today and we have always known it throughout human history, or something like it. When I mean religions, I mean only religions that do indeed talk about the End of the World, not those that don't. So don't mention anything here about religions that don't. I'm not asking if other religions do talk about the End of the World or do not. And by other religions, I mean many and most other religions, usually, in general.

Bowei Huang (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the New Testament says there's no way to know when the day might come (Mark 13:32 etc.), but that you should act like it could come any day. So the "signs" are actually somewhat useless for the purpose of future prediction, according to Biblical Christianity.

However, in Islam there are traditions about signs that will occur before the day of judgement; here's one link that I turned up quickly in Google searching: http://www.inter-islam.org/faith/Majorsigns.html -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christians have been claiming all that for centuries, and the Apocalypse never came. There's no particular reason to believe in any of these modern claims. — Kieff | Talk 08:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a classic history book about how nuts people went around the year 1000AD; a good contrast to how worried people got when it turned 2000AD. See The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article you want should be Eschatology (which sucks), but is actually End time (which contains information and links to articles about many religions' eschatological beliefs, like Islamic eschatology). --24.147.69.31 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The signs of the End of the World in the Bible are mainly, but not all, from Matthew Chapter 24, Mark Chapter 13, and Luke Chapter 17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowei Huang (talk • contribs) 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The signs of the End of the World don't say what particular specific exact time or date it will come, but they tell, show, and and give us a clue that it will come soon when they occur.

But do Muslims actually say that their signs in Islam have already ocurred, that the End of the World will come soon, or their signs show that? That website doesn't say. Bowei Huang (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most religions have some form of account for the end of the world. The particular brand of story that the Christians have is just a different story than others have, and is more well known. John the Baptist was an apocolypticist. He preached that the end would come within the lifetime of his followers, of which Jesus was one. In the gospels we see that Jesus is often frustrated with his apostles' not fully understanding his message. In these instances it is interesting to note that it takes the form of a sense of urgency. He portrayed to his apostles over and over that the end would come upon his death. This was the notion "kingdom come." at the time. This is why Jesus laments "Why hast thou forsaken me?" when the end of the world does not come. When the apostles realize that the end has not come, they have a meeting in the upper room to get their story straight. This is portrayed in Acts. They shifted the meaning and message of Christianity, so as to adapt and continue to exist and be believable. The same type of thing happened with Rastafarianism, when Haile Selassie denied to them that he was their massiah. They continued to believe with a new interpretation.

The laws of physics, specifically the Law of conservation of matter and energy, and the Second law of thermodynamics together tell us that there will in fact be an end of time, rather than an eternity of anything. However, there is no reason to believe that any interpretation of the Bible, or of historical events supports any particular fate. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody please provide any information on the painting or tapestry that is used as a back drop for the recent article on the UN Security Council... [1]*References

Thank you and I look forward to being enlightened!

user name Kanyawest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanyawest (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the UN website -

"The Security Council Chamber was a gift from Norway, designed by the Norwegian architect Arnstein Arneberg.

A central feature of the Security Council Chamber is the oil canvas mural painted by the Norwegian artist Per Krogh. It depicts a phoenix rising from its ashes, as a symbol of the world being rebuilt after the Second World War. Above the dark sinister colours at the bottom different images in bright colours symbolizing the hope for a better future are depicted. Equality is symbolized by a group of people weighing out grain for all to share.

The blue and gold silk tapestry on the walls and in the draperies by the East River windows features the anchor of faith, the growing wheat of hope, and the heart of charity." Hope this helps, DuncanHill (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This information should go into a new section Security Council Chamber. --Wetman (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know where I can find a copy of volume 7 of this, preferably online. I need the accursian gloss on the distinction between roman actions of the actio de recepto and actio furti. Its a gloss to the Digest book 4.9. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.238.157 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be online, not even on Google Books...but it seems to be available in lots of academic/legal libraries, if you live near one. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am compairing and contrasting the two countries. Egypt and Thailand.

Clothing. Food. Money/Economics. Ideas. Climate. Beliefs. People. population. Transportation.

Not their history, how they are today.

Thank you Michii5760 (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't actually asked a question, and this looks a lot like a homework assignment. You should be able to find at least some of the information you are looking for in the respective articles for each country, Egypt and Thailand. If you have specific questions after performing the basic research, please feel free to come back and ask. --LarryMac | Talk 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request to redraw the Coat of arms of Nepal in vector form has been made at the graphics lab. [2]. Which we've got figured out, except for one thing. What is the object on the female arm? Suggestions are a ribbon, a bracelet or bracelets, or beads. Can you help us out? Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 22:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's considerable support for a glass bead bracelet from this google search. Little support for a ribbon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I don't know why I didn't think of google for the bracelet, I did use google images for the rhotodendrons. I found some images that explain the object in the low resolution image from which I am working. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 20:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this recent Slate column by Christopher Hitchens, he says the following:

By a vote of both South Carolina houses in the year 2000, the Confederate battle flag ceased to be flown over the state capitol and now only waves (as quite possibly it should) over the memorial to fallen Confederate soldiers.

Do any other memorials to fallen soldiers for now-reviled causes feature the flag or other symbol of that cause? I'm guessing not in Germany (they seem far more ashamed of their past than we Americans do of ours...), but maybe someone knows something about the Imperial Japanese flag, the Soviet flag, etc. Thanks in advance.--zenohockey (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is illegal to fly the swastika and other nazi symbols in Germany, so certainly not there. That's not true in the other places you mention. In Japan, the Yasukuni Shrine commemorates soldiers, and is accused of (at the least) glossing over the misdeeds of Japan's Manchuko/WW2 era; in general Japan does not accept the unambiguous Japan-bad-allies-good view of WW2 held in, for example, the US. In Russia at least the memory of the great patriotic war is somewhat decoupled from Stalin and communism (it's more a "fighting invading nazi monsters" than "protecting socialism" thing, now), but in general Russia retains a rather ambivalent attitude even to Stalin. And of course don't forget that the UK, the US, France, Turkey, Belgium, and every other imperial or post-imperial power has done all manner of unspeakable things under flags they still proudly fly. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point (which I seem to have neglected to actually make, above) is that bad historical events that you might expect to be reviled aren't necessarily, particularly by the decendent peoples and states of them wot done the deed. The communist time isn't reviled in Russia (indeed somepeople downright hanker for it), and while most Japanese regard the military acts of the Shōwa period as excessive that's as much because it ultimately brought defeat, shame, and occupation upon Japan than actually for the moral evil it did. British war memorials proudly list battles fought in the Boer War; those actions certainly aren't reviled in Britain. And I guess South Carolina is the same; they're not super proud of their history of slavery, but many folks are proud (and don't revile) the exploits of the Confederate Army. Perhaps Mark Anthony was wrong; it's the evil that men do that is oft interred with their bones. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is, The Evil That Men Do, for those like me who find themselves saying "good grief, Finley, now I'll have to check out what Mark Anthony actually said". Enforced English Literature 101 :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Soviet war memorial at Treptow, Berlin still fly Soviet flags? Corvus cornix_talk 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not when I was last there, Corvus cornix (2004). Incidentally, in response to a point made above, the central theme of the Great Patriotic War was always the salvation of the motherland, not socialism or communism. Even the Orthodox Church, the very symbol and life of the old Russia, was released from former restrictions. Stalin's vital wartime role is still acknowledged, and the Battle of Stalingrad is still the Battle of Stalingrad. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]