Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 December 12

Hi, an issue that came up when I was composing a response somewhere else that I've been unable to answer from wikipedia or any of my seaches. Does anyone know how elections for filling casual vacancies of Australian (Federal) senators before 1977 were carried out?

According to what I've read, casual vacancies were at first filled by appointment as they are now but they were subject to election at the next regular Federal election (be it a House of Representatives or half-senate election or a simultaneous election). Thinking specific when a half-senate election was held (be it simulatenous or alone) I would presume the "by-election" will just be part of the regular election and the first loser for a full term seat will fill the vacancy and serve out the remainder of the term (i.e. basically a half term) somewhat akin to what is done with double dissolutions at the moment (except that is for all senators obviously and also I guess they would have used the old method of sorting not the new). Alternatively two seperate elections could be held simultaenous, one for the casual vacancy and one for the regular election with different ballot papers.

My reading of Australian referendum, 1977 (Senate Casual Vacancies) "or at the next election of senators for the State, whichever first happens, a successor shall, if the term has not then expired, be chosen to hold the place from the date of his election until the expiration of the term." is that the senator elected as the replacement does serve out the remainder of the term rather then getting another full term so that's not a possibility I think.

Years when this would have arisen for example are 1953, 1958, 1961, 1970 [1]

Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The State's Electoral Commission would choose the way to do it. Either your first way, which is the simpler or your second with two Senate voting papers.
Sleigh (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that for the state concerned, there'd be effectively 2 Senate elections occurring simultaneously: one for the 5 senators being elected in the usual half-senate cycle (there were only 10 senators per state back then), who would take their place on the subsequent 1 July; and a different ballot paper for the remainder of the casual vacancy - that senator would take their place immediately and serve till 30 June (it could be the same person who'd already been serving after being chosen by the state parliament, or a different person). The first possible method you mentioned would not have worked, because candidates for a full-term vacancy commencing on the next 1 July could not default (by failing to be elected) into becoming candidates for a different and shorter vacancy commencing immediately. That would not have satisfied anyone - the candidates, the voters or the Constitution. If a person wished to be a candidate for both vacancies, they would have to have nominated separately for both. I've just made an amendment to Australian referendum, 1977 (Senate Casual Vacancies) because it did not tell the whole story. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds rather similar to the procedure under the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 1913, providing for the direct election of Senators. When a vacancy (e.g. Edward Kennedy's) occurs in the middle of a six-year Senatorial term, the state legislature can call a special election or authorize the Governor to fill it until the next Congressional election. [ Massachusetts' overwhelmingly-Democratic legislature first took away this power from the Republican Governor in 2004 and then restored a more-limited power to a Democratic one in 2009—both times for clearly-political purposes.] When the next election coincides with the expiration of the other Senator's term, voters cast two Senatorial ballots, one to complete the interrupted term and the other for the full regular six-year term. Since someone couldn't fill both such seats at once, I've never heard of anyone running on both ballots.—— Shakescene (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who were the Somerset County commissioners on September 11, 2001?24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we assume you mean Somerset County, Pennsylvania? If so, there are links to all the local government web sites on that page. Emailing them would probably get you the answer quickly and it should be correct. Dismas|^(talk) 04:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's more fun to find it yourself, though: they were Brad Cober, James (Jimmy) Marker, and Pamela Tokar-Ickes. --Anonymous, 06:16 UTC, December 12, 2009.

Okay, so here's what I did. First I googled the county to find its current official web site: http://www.co.somerset.pa.us. Following the Commissioners link under the General menu, we reach this page that names the current commissioners (two are the same, but John Vatavuk has replaced Cober) and mentions that they are elected for 4-year terms.

Now I used the Wayback Machine at http://www.archive.org to find older versions of the official web site. Unfortunately the oldest one on the site was from April 2002. It listed the three people I named, but I didn't know when they were elected.

I now tried the Google News Archive Search, which is here. I don't remember exactly which search that I did there was the most fruitful, but I was able to determine that 2007 was an election year for commissioners in that county (they take office the following January), and therefore that if Cober, Marker, and Tokar-Ickes were elected in 1999, they must be the right answer. I couldn't find any articles about the 1999 election itself, though. That would have been too easy, right?

I then did a regular Google search on each of their names together with "somerset county". Cober was the easiest to confirm: this page, last updated in 2006, was one of several that mentioned his long career as a commissioner from 1984 (1983 election) to 2008 (2007 election).

This news story from the 2007 election (PDF) refers to Marker as a two-term incumbent and speaks of his goals "over the past eight years". So that confirms that he was elected in 1999.

And when I did the third search, for Pamela Tokar-Ickes, I got dramatic confirmation that she was in office on 9/11: this news story from one year later in which she describes her experiences on that day.

One thing I did not find was a statement of which commissioners held which of the three commission slots in the 2000-2004 term. However, in one of my searches I did come across these minutes of a meeting showing (in the signature block) that in 2005 Marker was chairman, Cober vice-chairman, and Tokar-Ickes secretary. --Anonymous, 06:57 UTC, December 12, 2009.

Why was he numbered the Seventh? He wasn't a ruler of Austria.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the number is used because he was the seventh Albert in the family, even if he was not the ruling archduke of Austria. Apparently, all males Hapsburg heirs came to be styled "Archduke" even if they did not actually rule Austria. See Archduke#Other_dynastic_Habsburg_use. Non-ruling princes using ordinal numbers would be unusual, but by no means unique. See Reuss Junior Line, which follows the practice of giving ordinal numbers to non-ruling family members. I poked around on google, and found some websites which were not obvious Wikipedia mirrors which used Albert VII, so apparently its a valid name. Print sources which use it would be cool too. --Jayron32 03:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Holy Roman Empire, all male direct descendants of the ruling sovereign states used the ruler's title but only the ruler held voting rights in the Reichstag. I don't know if this also applied to Kurfürst (Elector) but it did for Erzherzog, Großherzog, Herzog, Pfalzgraf, Markgraf, Fürst, Landgraf and Graf.
Sleigh (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy is aware that all legitimate male-line descendants of an archduke of Austria were themselves archdukes of Austria. It certainly wasn't Habsburg practice to give ordinals to non-ruling members of the family. I myself was puzzled by Albert's ordinal. Several books refer to him as Albert VII of Austria, but much more books refer to him as Albert of Austria. To be honest, I would prefer having that article titled Albert of Austria, because the current title is obviously confusing and misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Biblical name "Eber" in any way connected with the name "Eber" or its derivatives in Germany? 71.100.160.161 (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The name to which you refer is an Anglicized version of the Hebrew word which is pronounced with a fricative v sound, and not a labial b sound, in case that plays into your question at all. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone has tried to prove that German is descended from Hebrew using that word as one piece of evidence. That seemed to be a popular thing to do in the nineteenth century. British Israelism had a German equivalent, didn't it? I can't think of where to look for it though. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Among Protestants it was common to give Old Testament names, even those of quite obscure figures, to children: "Call me Ishmael". The unconnected consonance of Eber/Heber and the eber- element in Germanic names like Eberhard may have provided additional impetus.--Wetman (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German word “Eber” has an unkosher meaning. --84.61.183.89 (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the eighteen hundreds, here in Christchurch, New Zealand, there was a famous case in which an Indian servant killed a fellow female servant, because she rejected him, and was hanged for it. As he was condemned, he uttered curses from the dock, before being carried down. The young lady victim was buried in the Barbadoes Street Cemetary, and in the years to come an urban legend sprung up about there being a bloody hand shape appearing on her grave. My mother used to cycle past that cemetary at night, after her shift at Bascands printers, and said the legend was known in that time. The only thing is, I cannot remember the names of any of the pricipals involved in the case - the Indian servant, or the girl, but I believe the owner of the house the murder occurred in, their employer, was a well known lawyer or politician. No one knows now where the grave is. I recall seeing a current affairs item about ten to fifteen years ago on a group of people who went out at night to find it, but it appears the officials in charge of the cemetary ( perhaps the Christchurch City Coucil, have dug her up, and or removed the grave stone, to discourage scavengers. The cemetary is in fact in two parts, being dissected by the soutward running one way Barbadoes Street. Could anyone out there know any details of the case, so I can look it up on Wikipedia ? Thanks . The RussianC.B.Lilly 06:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

I deleted the Wikipedia logo that you presumably did not intend to insert in the middle of your question.

Again this is a case for Google News Archive Search (see the "fateful day" item above). Searching on "servant", "murdered", and "christchurch", and then picking the earliest date range, I easily found this article from January 17, 1871, which says that the murderer was Simon Cedeno and the murder victim Margaret Burke. The owner of the house is identified only as "Mr. Robinson" in this article.

I then did a second search on "robinson", "murder", and "christchurch", used "search other dates" to restrict the results to the year 1871, and the "timeline" link to put the articles in order. Just from the excerpts presented, without even following any links, I find that the owner of the house was the Honourable William Robinson, station owner, and that the crime occurred on January 10. Some of these articles spell the killer's name Cedino or Cedench, and there also seems to be some confusion as to where in Latin America he was from. He was convicted and condemned on March 8, although I don't know when he was executed. Or where or when anyone involved was buried.

--Anonymous, 07:23 UTC, December 12, 2009.

Curses from beyond the grave are featured in colorful pulp magazines and popular movies, not in the real world.--Wetman (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you've tried asking at the Christchurch City library (in Gloucester St if my memory serves me right)? If it's anything like the Dunedin one there'll be a big local history archive there. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why you've wikilinked so many terms? For example, did you think that we would not know what the terms "bloody", "lawyer", "politician", or "curse" meant? Dismas|^(talk) 03:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all who have answered, thank you so much. I had not realised the killer was perhaps Latino. My understanding was he had been Indian ( Asian Sub continent ), so I apologise since unlike Susan Smith my intention had not been to discredit any particular race, nor to vilify this particular killer because of his race, but just as information I thought might be useful. According to Wikipedia's list of people executed in New Zealand, Simon Cedeno was hanged on April 5, 1871, at Lyttelton, for killing the maid due to racist insults on her behalf. He was South American and Black. If this is true, what she did was wrong, but what he did was far worse, and even due to such provocation, he had no right to kill her. That seems to be the trouble with some people. Someone wrongs them ? Answer : kill the sod. No regard for human life. This was the type of defence Dr. Clayton Robert Weatherstone tried as his excuse for murdering his student and ex girlfriend Sophe Elliot early last year. I didn't believe that one, but even if the victim in 1871, Margaret Burke, had done as was said, again, no excuse for killing her. The Columbine murderers carried out their spree to avenge wrongs done to them, as they said, so where do we draw the line ? Ideally, if true, Mr. Cedeno should have gone to the boss, and complained, Miss Burke may have been reprimanded or even discharged, but killing her was an overreaction, and ultimately, didn't do him any favours. I apologise also for suggesting it was because she had refused his advances, but I am sure that is what I had read somewhere years ago. On the other hand that may be true, and Cedeno may have lied about the racist taunts, and just used his race as an excuse. After all, when people face the gallows, they can get pretty desperate. I shall look into this furter and get my facts straight. Of course, even a newspaper report at the time may not have all the truth. Dr. Weatherstone may even have had some people fooled as to what really occurred up in Sophie's room that day, and say he had been acquitted due to that, then the official report may even have been a lie. To answer some of the comments, I never said I believed that the killer's curse had worked, nor did I say I did not. My belief is that there are some very strange things that do occur. I had never seen the grave in question, even though I have driven past the cemetary dozens of times. I can't remember whether I have even walked into there, but I have been in the Bromley Cemetary ( or Ruru Lawn - the one by Buckleys Road), at night, cutting through there. Not advisable since the Police may think one is up to something. In any case I have therefore never seen the bloody hand in question, nor am I sure it is even true, but I was merely trying to find out more about this story which I am sure is well known to even the majority of those here in Christchurch. The only reason I put links in, was not because I thought any one was stupid, and I apologise if you got that idea. My sole reason, which I shall continue to do, because I think it is cool, is for anyone who all of a sudden wants to reference those words anyway. That was my intention. To make life easier, and nothing else. I should definitely have mentioned that the story was also in book of New Zealand Events I once owned, but have since lost. It may have been written by someone like Ron Palenski, and it had a photo of the Rainbow Warrior on the cover, since it had been published in 1986. So to sum up, I heard the story, and what I initially recalled was that one servant of a house killed a young lady servant who may have refused his advances. ( I read nothing about any racist taunts on her part, whether true or not ) He was found guilty and condemned to hang. He screamed curses from the dock, and it has been said ( but not verified beyond any real doubt ) that the shape of a bloody handprint had appeared on the innocent young woman's grave. This is the shall we say urban legend that has gone the rounds in Christchurch perhaps even since 1871, and as I said, in the early 1960's, as my then in her late teens mother cycled past there at night on her way home to Heywood Crescent, Richmond, she was mindful of the story. I felt it unreasonable for an innocent victim ( or at least relatively innocent ) to have any thought of some bloody hand print on her grave, as if she had done anything wrong. Of course, if she had taunted Mr. Cedeno, that might be a different matter. But most killers are selfish, and don't see things in reasonable ways, so that even if she had behaved badly, he behaved shockingly. Just as likely, nothing like a bloody hand ever occurred of the sort, but again, who knows ? I had heard of another case I believe in England in which a condemned man cursed the Judge who sentenced him, and the judge died as the man predicted. Coincidence ? I know not. As a Christian I do not dabble in those kinds of things, but that does not mean I may not be curious as to the real details. As a Christian, I also believe that there are some things in this world that even science cannot explain. Think of it. If they drained Loch Ness tomorrow, and found no beast, what would be the fun in that ? Perhaps we need some mysteries in life, even if we do our best to solve some of them. So once again I thank you all, and apologise for any confusion and trouble I may have caused. The Russian.C.B.Lilly 12:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

HA! The mention of the New Zealand Book of Events did it. page 279 contains the following: "1879, Dec 26: The fatal stabbing this year of Margaret Burke, a Christchurch servant of Parliamentarian William Robinson, was the prelude to two curious events. The convicted murderer, an indian kitchen boy on Robinson's staff who was infatuated with Burke, uttered a curse from the scaffold and, later, the imprint of a bloodstained foot appeared on the headstone of the victim's grave. Its source was never discovered." Hopefully you can find out more info from that. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, Grutness. So I was right. As I was typing it, though, I thought I might have confused that book with another, cover in black and white, which I believe was a photo of Wahine Survivors. ( The Wahnine happened when I was three months old - my later aunt was on it before she ever met my uncle - twas the day after my brother in law was born. He says his two older siblings therefore blamed the disaster on him as the new baby, and dug a grave for him. ) There were then two books on NZ historical events - the one I mentioned, and this second one with the black and white cover, which itself detailed the misdeeds of the Burgess Gang - the Maungatapu killers, whom a teacher I had in Standard Three ( when I was nine ), mentioned, since he came himself from that area between Reefton and Nelson. It also detailed the fact that Richard Pearse admitted to NOT flying first of all in the World back in March 1903. ( Or was it also a picture of Jean Batten on the cover ? ) See, the first mentioned book of New Zealand events - with the Rainbow Warrior on the front - that is where I got the idea Mr. Cedeno was an Indian, and that he was in love with Miss Burke, but then which version is correct ? Was he Indian in the sense of being a dark skinned native South American, and not sub continental, as I thought, were their racist taunts as well, in spite of which he loved her, and since he may have pestered her, this could have been why she unwisely spoke to him in that way. But then, this latest book says 1879, " this year ", whereas the other record gives the killing and later hanging as all occurring in 1871. And a foot as opposed to a hand ? I probably read about the foot myself when I read the book in question over twenty years ago, but later heard people talking about a hand, which sounds creepier. The inference in either case is that it is supernatural, but of course, someone could just as easily have done it in the real world by hand - so to speak. But this seems to be it. I wonder where my NZ events book disappeared to. Yes, thank you all. I just wish I could get enough info to write up an article about it. C.B.Lilly 09:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The book I have is the blue cover one with the Rainbow Warrior (and Von Tempsky, Ngauruhoe, Tangiwai and the land hikoi) on the cover - Fraser, B. (ed) (1986) The New Zealand Book of eventsChristchurch: Reed Methuen, ISBN 0 474 00123 7. With the info you've got here, it's quite possible you could turn up more either from the library of from a Canterbury historical society - or online. This has some information about the grave (which seems to be no longer marked), and this gives far more info about the trial. I thought the South America/Indian confusion may have come about if he was from what is now Guyana (which has had a big Indian/Pakistani population for many years), but according to the latter of those two links: Originally. Cedeno came from Santa Fe Bogota, the capital of New Grenada, in South America. He was of negro extraction, and was about twenty-eight years of age.Any confusion about whether it was South or Central America is cleared up with the "New Granada" reference, though, since that included both Colombia and Panama. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks even more so. Now it is all beginning to come together. The two links you have provided give a fair bit of the information I had been aware of all this time. I even believe I have seen the photo mentioned on page 14 of the section on the Barbadoes St. Cemetary, but cannot remember where. Some of it sounds supernatural, whereas the rest seems prankish. A number of famous names seem to appear in the article. Ruddenklau is a cul de sac off Greers Road, and Oram is a long avenue that travels down the Brighton Spit. I see a Lilly in there too. I shall send that to my father, to see if he is related. As for the trial, it certainly appears it was not as fair as it should have been, but it also appears there are differing accounts. Based on what Cedeno was claiming, they were provoking him, but was the provocation grave ? Was he insane ? I know the burden for proof of guilt lies, as it should, on the Crown, but what about the proof of insanity? Is the onus then not on the defence ? Certainly if he was really insane, he should not have been hanged, although that does not make the victim any less dead. Now my thought is, if he was the kind to have lashed out, just because they made fun of him, which itself may not have been kind, he should not have been walking around free in the first place. Now if he did so, is this " with malice aforethought " ? Certainly if he had premeditated the murder, as some of the witnesses claimed, he got what he deserved. A life for a life. We are too unmerciful on ourselves these days, when trying to show mercy to those who neither merit nor appreciate it. My concern is also in locking up a person for being insane enough to commit a homicide they could not help, but then releasing them when they are well, and then the same pressures come upon them on the outside, that were controllable inside, and it may occur again. I hear they are thinking of, or may already have, releasing one who carried out a massacre in NZ some years ago, because he was insane at the time. What if he snaps again ? The same with John Hinckley. Looking at Mr. Cedeno, it is certain the jury was biased due to his race, among other things, just as occurred to Sam Shephard in Cleveland over fifty years ago, and DNA has since cleared Dr. Shephard. This jury bias in 1871 was inexcusable. Did they have the option of changing venues in those days ? I guess it all boils down to whom you believe, and even then, the whole affair is just an unfortunate series of events. These days people rib each other in the work place all the time, and maybe once in a while someone reacts, but as for lashing out at two young ladies, killing one of them, even if the testimony of the Crown witnesses, that he stabbed Miss Burke when she was already down is a lie, that is extreme. Many things in hindsight could have been done to avoid this, and if Mr. Robinson had been aware of what was going on, he should have put a stop to it. When all is said and done, it appears Mr. Cedeno had a short fuse, and perhaps even a violent streak. If what the Crown's witnesses had said was all true, he was definitely guitly of murder, but even if not so, I believe that any reasonable person would not have reacted the way he did. Do all mentally unfit people lash out and commit murder at the slightest provocation ? In trying to protect such people, society seems to stigmatize them. Not all people with such problems are even violent, and then there may be different levels of insanity or mental illness, which detemine the possible reactions of such people when provoked. After all, he did kill, so this is not a did he or didn't he like Arthur Allan Thomas ( whom my late uncle met when Mr. Thomas visited Australia once ), or David Bain ( whom my middle sister saw once while she was visiting someone at Addington Prison), rather it is more like a was he or was he not provoked like Clayton Weatherstone. What if Mr. Cedeno was just like him ? Dr. Weatherstone came across at his trial like an arrogant narcissist who appeared to enjoy his fifteen minutes in the spotlight, detailing his exploits with women, among other things. Was Mr. Cedeno any different ? Again, as stated in the article, can we rely 100% on what the papers at the time tell us, especially if they may have been trying to shape opinions ? Well, thank You everyone. That has been rare. I appreciate all your help and information. I never thought this one question would garner such interest, and uncover so much. I appreciate that. I shall try to look more into this. I wish we were the type of country that made interesting movies of the week, since this would be a cracking story to portray, just as Peter Jackson has done with another aspect of Christchurch History, which occurred eighty years after those events. My brother in law's late father used to train horses for Mrs. Hulme. It's a small world. The Russian.C.B.Lilly 04:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Amerigo Vespucci, "A letter published in 1504 purports to be an account by Vespucci, written to Soderini, of a lengthy visit to the New World, leaving Spain in May 1497 and returning in October 1498. However, modern scholars have doubted that this voyage took place, and consider this letter a forgery". But this 1562 map says (upper-center box): "This fourth part of the world remained unknown to all geographers until the year 1497, at which time it was discovered by Americus Vespucius..." ("incognita permansit, quo tempore iussu Regis Castellae ab Americo Vespuccio inventa est..."). So there is no forgery? And why that map does not mention Columbus and 1492? Brand[t] 14:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Columbus always believed that he was somewhere in Asia. It was Vespucci's writings that led a geographer to the "New World" conclusion. Rmhermen (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, a 1562 attestation to Vespucci having been to America is no more proof that he was than any other. I believe that the modern scholars are contesting that the Vespucci voyage was a fraud contemporaneous with Vespucci, so the forged record of that voyage would have fooled 16th century map makers as well. I have no personal opinion on whether or not Vespucci really visited the New World, but the controversy is a real one, and there are real reliable historians who doubt the validity of it (as well as real, reliable historians who believe it). Just pointing out that there is no inconsitancy between this. Also, the idea that Columbus thought he was in Asia has been doubted by some historians as well. Some suspect that he may have thought so after his first voyage, but on subsequent voyages came to accept that he had found new land. Some also claim that he concealed this belief from his financial backers, as they didn't fund him find new land, they funded him to find Asia... --Jayron32 15:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the expression, "Eureka - I have fund it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if she said anything to justify that statement.--Loserofnothing (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote apparently appeared in the journal Partisan Review (Winter 1967), p. 57. You'd have to read the entire journal article to get the context of what Sontag was saying. --Jayron32 17:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy is not hard to make sense of, though identifying it with the "race" seems like the wrong level of analysis and primarily to provoke (it was the 1960s, so that was part of the point). Here's a longer quote:

The white race is the cancer of human history: it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. What the Mongol hordes threaten is far less frightening than the damage to that Western 'Faustian' man, with his idealism, his magnificent art, his sense of intellectual adventure, his world-devouring energies for conquest, has already done, and further threatens to do.

—Susan Sontag, "What's Happening in America (1966)"

If I were teaching this in a class, I would emphasize reading it in light of the Vietnam war in particular, as that is the explicit context which the essay is trying to address/affect. It's the kind of quote that looks especially off-color today with our current hesitation at associating anything with "race", though for its time it would have been primarily shocking in its association of negative activity with the white race in particular, as associating negative historical trends with other races was still something that was being done in many parts of U.S. culture. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "upset the ecological balance of the planet", a cliché concern today, was extraordinarily forward-looking in 1966; it would have been forward-looking even in 1986.--Wetman (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After Silent Spring?—eric 01:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The zeitgeist of the sixties called for excess. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If India and China start consuming resources and exercising power at the rate the USA has done, Susan might want to rethink that theory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I think that's partially why it looks so odd today—there's obviously nothing specific to the white race when it comes to overconsumption, it's just that we've been doing it a bit longer than most. If she had changed it to "the West" it would work a lot better. (Yes, China is "the East" by definition, but they have very self-consciously taken on "Western" approaches to things like economics.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like communism? Oh wait they largely abandoned that... Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if she weren't dead, she might work metastasis into it. The metaphor works for me. PhGustaf (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Met"-anything and the late 60s are a nightmare combination, to this old Cubs fan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as her being dead... well, I can't top Groucho's line: "I'll bet she's just using that as an excuse." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think one reason is because it needed to be said. To Caucasian people can be attributed some wrongdoings. Yet like most people Caucasian people are smug. She refers to their "magnificent art" and their sense of "intellectual adventure." She is of course being sarcastic, because her sentence trails off into their "world-devouring energies for conquest." She is a good writer and I think it is clear that she felt she had to knock the "white race" down a notch. You can't fault her for utilizing art to make a political statement. The opinions expressed are of course not mine but Susan Sontag's. Bus stop (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such talk should no longer be tolerated. I am opposed to white supremacists putting down all other races, but I am equally opposed to anyone, ( unless you can tell they are joking, then it should work the same for all ), putting down any race, even if they are a member of it. Being proud to be white, because that is what one is, if they are, and cannot change it, should not be the same as being a white racist. That is different. It seems some people expect all whites to be ashamed for being so, just because some other dumb crackers have stuffed things up. Blaming one race over another is not the answer. In much the same way that the white race has not been responsible for all that is good in the world, neither are they for all the bad. It is still cool to be white, as long as you don't disrespect anyone else for not being so. I will not be blamed for filthy slave traders and ridiculous looking honkies in white robes setting fire to crosses. Let each man or woman admit their own folly, and let us concentrate on what unites us, according to God's will.C.B.Lilly 09:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To understand why people feel the need to react the way they do, I suggest you check out this classic essay [2] and scroll to page 2. Read from there. Obviously you are not responsible for the things people did in the past, but that isn't really what this is about. 86.178.227.230 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr David Suzuki once compared humaity as a cancer. I just found a site that has this as a video. www.infowars.com/david-suzuki-humans-are-maggots-living-in-their-own-defecation/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} "humans are maggots living in their own defecation"].
:-D
Paul Watson might have similar negative views.Civic Cat (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]