Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 December 21

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.

December 21

Countries

Why do you guys believe in countries? Countries aren't real. They're just pieces of land surrounded by imaginary borders. 58.165.54.132 (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

People believe in countries because nationalism is the key to rule over masses of people. It leads to self-identification with the state bureaucracy. --Taraborn (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Like the equator, countries do indeed have imaginary borders. Unlike they equator, they seperate land that is goverened by individual countries, staties, or counties, and laws apply therein. Countries are indeed real. Whether you like the idea or not, they're 100% vital and important. How else would you be able to know where you were going to? You'd hear "A car bomb went off in that desert place nowhere near you killing 12" on the news and go WTF!? We couldn't use coordinates, they are imaginary, too. Perhaps a good read on countries would aid your misconception. Oddeven2002 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Tinkerbell effect? William Avery (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading a piece by Buckminster Fuller, in Evergreen Review, I think, in which he argues that borders drawn upon the Earth's surface are meaningless. His argument is that if the Earth were a cube instead of a rough sphere, it would be impossible to divide the solid earth beneath the surface since each face could claim it as lying directly beneath its land area and thus within its borders. And therefore we cannot divide the Earth into countries. I had to go through his argument several times to convince myself that that was what he was really saying. Hm. Perhaps I'll read it again and see if it wasn't I who was mistaken.--Rallette (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be best. With all due respect to Bucky and yourself, one of you must be mistaken imo. I don't see how whatever might be the case if the Earth were cubical could possibly be relevant to our actual non-cubical world. The logic is a bit like "If a cat were a dog, it wouldn't miaow, and therefore cats don't miaow". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article on Nationalism outlines a number of rationales. The presence of people greatly complicates things beyond "just pieces of land". William Avery (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are countries not real? Countries have just as much a claim to reality as the territorial boundaries of a wolf pack or the nesting grounds of Emperor Penguins. The lack of there being actual demarcated lines drawn on the surface of the earth to distribute the land according to different social groups does not mean that those boundaries do not exist. Throughout all of nature we can find the existence and importance of geographical boundaries, from the plant, insect, reptile, fish, mammal and human levels. Humans are no different from any other species in wanting to set up boundaries where others may not come and exploit resources or impinge their will. If you're looking for something that is "real", then perhaps the best approach would be to try to come up with a definition of what you believe "reality" is, which is much more difficult than it may seem at first glance. If someone used the same measure that you have in discounting national boundaries as being "not real", then there would be many things that would also fail that test such as language, love, beauty, and yes "truth" itself (which after all is a concept, not something that you can point at). -- Saukkomies 12:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nation-states assert sovereignty over their claimed land and are able to enforce this by using coercion if necessary. At the bedrock that is what makes the lines non-arbitrary and non-imaginary, though in reality it is extremely rare that it has to come to that. In the end it comes down to a projection of power, a projection which has real effects over people's lives and how they live them. You can't call power of that sort "imaginary." --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We have been around this, though, in another way: privileging nation-state over other ethnic/national identity. For example, we describe Salvador Dalí as a "Spanish" painter rather than a "Catalan" painter. (Although we usually don't push that to the point of absurdity: Antoni Gaudí, an arch Catalan nationalist is at least described as "a Spanish Catalan architect"; he would certainly have rejected the former term, though there is no question that it was legally his citizenship. - Jmabel | Talk 03:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hair dyeing and straightening cost

I'm a guy with curly brown hair and I want straight blond hair. How much is the cost generally of both hair dyeing and hair straightening?--69.148.16.245 (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Where do you live? There is a huge difference in price from city to city, between city and small town and between say New York and London. In southern Ontario (Canada) I can pay $400 for a haircut or $15. It depends on the salon, the sytlist, the part of town and sometimes, the day of the week. Bielle (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course if you skip the straightening it will be cheaper. I quite like guys with curly hair. :) --Candy-Panda (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a guy with long hair, it stops just before my butt. I went for a cut-and-colour I also had it straightened, it cost me about £70 and the straitening only lasts one day. it would be easier to buy your own straiteners and do it yourself everyday. I am sure your sister/girlfriend can show you how to use em, as you dont want to burn all your hair off. GHD make good products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You can get your hair permanently straightened - it uses the same chemicals as perming. Bear in mind dying and perming your hair can wreck it's condition. Exxolon (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Parents Rights

There are all kinds of articles and laws to protect children's rights when there is seperation in the family. I have been looking all over for parent's rights when it comes to abusive or disrespectful children. Specifically what are the obligations of a child towards his parents. And in my case where the marriage ended up in seperation, what are my obligations towards a disrespectful child. If more clarification to the question is needed, please let me know. I live in Canada in the province of Quebec if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easyone49 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Your child has obiligation to follow the law of Quebec and Canada which means, for example he or she probably can't do things like hit you. However your child has no specific obiligations to you as an adult that I'm aware of anymore then you will have obligations to your child once your child reaches adulthood. 'Dispectful' or not you will likely be required to financially support your child if you are able to do so. Ideally you should also provide a home and the other necessities of life (including an education to your child) but if you are unable or unwilling to do so and attempts to patch up your relationship fail, most likely the other parent will be given sole custody or if this is not an option, another guardian may be appointed if there is an interested party or if not, your child will probably be places in foster care. If it helps, remember that you're the one who chose to have sex or otherwise have a child. Your child didn't chose to be born or have you as a parent. Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Your obligations towards your child? To love & cherish him, to put food in his belly, clothes on his back, and a roof over his head, to be on his side no matter what. I could go on, but we have a rule against posting diatribes - so I'll just add that Nil Einne got it pretty much right. DuncanHill (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, here in France there is an actual legal obligation for children to care for aged and/or infirm parents-- the principle is that of "solidarity between generations". Rhinoracer (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the child, you may want to ask the child's other parent to take custody. You would still be obligated to contribute financially toward the child's support, probably until the child finishes university, if the child attends university. If the other parent won't take custody, if you can afford it, you could try sending the child to boarding school and/or hiring a nanny who could look after the child when he/she is not in school. However, this solution, while getting the child out of your hair, would not really solve any of the child's problems and would keep you from healing what after all should be one of your most important relationships. As for the child, the child has no legal obligation toward you except to obey the law, as has been said. Once the child reaches adulthood, you could cut off contact with him/her, but that would be a sad step.

A better course might be to seek counseling, both for yourself and for your child. You might want to see one counselor (psychologist/social worker) on your own, preferably a person who can help you develop parenting techniques that will improve your relationship with the child. You might want to hire a separate counselor for your child, who can help to uncover the reasons for the child's animosity and to help the child (and you) toward a more positive relationship. If these options are too expensive for you, I still think that you should seek outside help from someone with wisdom on these matters, preferably someone with parenting experience. (That would rule out Catholic priests.) Perhaps you could try talking to older women (grandmothers, for example) where you work or that you know in your life. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This questionner appears to be looking for advice about what a child's obligations towards his parent(s) are, if any. The only enforceable obligations would be legal ones, I suspect, if there are such things under Quebec's Napoleonic Code. (Quebec is not governed by variations on English Common Law, as are the U.S. and the rest of Canada, for example.) Wikipedia does not offer legal advice. Everything from "Honour thy father and thy mother" on out is a moral (ethical, social) constraint, and is not enforceable except by the child's acceptance of a community standard of behaviour. Bielle (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. I think Bielle is the one who got it right. I am very well aware of my obligations towards my child DuncanHill and that was not my question in the first place; it was the other way around. What amazes me though are the rules and laws in place that obligate parents to thier children regardless what but there is none in existance for the parents that say to get what you want you have to meet certain rules. What you are telling me is that a child can call his parent an "idiot" and not talk to him and get away with it and the father, in this case myself, is to bite the bullet and pretend nothing has happened. I am talking of an 18 year daughter here and not a child of 6. I have another child who is 14 and thank god he is the opposite of his sister with lot of respect for his parents.Easyone4969.157.238.44 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

My father announced that I was disrespectful when I was a teen-ager. I was severely abused. Disrespectfulness is a completely subjective concept. Children neither ask to be born nor do they voluntarily engage in overt acts leading to conception. Laws protect children not because children are powerful but, rather, because they are so powerless. Be of good cheer, your child will soon reach majority and be free. I literally counted the days on a calendar until I was eighteen.

75Janice (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Theories about Values and Ethics in Youth Work

I am currently working with a group of youth workers and want to explain, in simple terms, values and ethics in youth work, linking theory to this. Does anyone know of any simple explanations of different theories or sites where I can get this information from? Would like the information to be referenced accurately. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by SMansell (talk • contribs) 11:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you want an ethical justification of youth work? Or reasons why youth work is valuable and ethical?--droptone (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the OP is asking for a discussion of the ethical considerations and questions which arise in the pursuit of youth work. SaundersW (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Livy in english

Is the historian Livy "ad urbe condi" books in english online someplace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.205.64 (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out the links at the bottom of our page on Ab Urbe Condita. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just in case, this is another link, from the Perseus Digital Library. Pallida  Mors 04:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Lasting legacy of our greatness

Is there an organization that proposes to rebuiild or restore the seven wonders of the world. Or an organization that would like to create and 8th, to leave a mark, of our society, for the rest of time, much like the egyptians left us the pyraminds. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The wonders are restored over time. Consider the Great Wall of China. It was falling apart and the stones were being taken for other construction. The Chinese government stepped in and restored a large section of the wall. As for building new wonders - you don't build a wonder just to build a wonder. The pyramids had a purpose. The Great Wall had a purpose. Building a wonder just to build a wonder would be a stupid waste of energy and resources. However, it is possible that something we currently have that meets some purpose (such as the International Space Station) could be considered a wonder at some time in the future. -- kainaw™ 16:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In the creation of monuments such as Mount Rushmore National Monument, the Crazy Horse Memorial, or the monumental bust of dictator Ferdinand Marcos at Benguet in the Phillipines, there was a desire to create a monument which would stand for millenia. History shows that this desire sometimes ends like the statue of Ozymandias, as in the destruction of the Marcos bust after his fall from power [1], [2]. "The rest of time" that a "wonder of the world" survives can be very short given politics and modern explosives, like the Taliban destruction of the 1700 year old world's largest statues of Buddha at Bamiyan. Edison (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the remnants of the Apollo 11 lunar module in the Sea of Tranquility Base is a pretty good bid for one of the Great Wonders of the World. -- Saukkomies 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong world! --Anon, 19:07 UTC, December 21, 2007.

Heh. I take your point. Perhaps there ought to be another list of the Wonders of the Universe that include non-Terrestial artifacts. -- Saukkomies 20:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol cats! 82.198.250.4 (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm - the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World are not restored over time - the Pyramids are the only one of the seven to have survived into mediaeval times, and the Great Wall of China, being unknown to Europeans until rather recently, was not among them. --ColinFine (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the Pyramids have been restored before. bibliomaniac15 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

to restore the pyramids we will need to cover them in Limestone slabs, and top them with gold. i thing can be done for a few million, which is not all that much. as long as we use as few beaurocrats as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.151.98 (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you use the (few) bureaucrats instead of limestone slabs, or as cement to hold them on? SaundersW (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well according to [3] the price of gold per kg is about NZ$33590.78 (you didn't specify what dollars so I'm guessing NZ dollars). So for a few million (let's say $3.359078 million for the gold which gives a few more million for the rest of the stuff without going over the 'few' limit) then you can buy 100 kg of gold. How many pyramids do you intend to cover with this? Also, it's all very well covering the pyramids in gold but who is going to pay the long term cost of keeping a large security team for each pyramid to stop people stealing the gold? Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Further to my reply, according to Gold, the density of gold at r.t. is 19.3  g·cm⁻³. This means your 100 kg is ~ 5181.3 cm³ or 5.1813 litres. Okay perhaps I was a bit too stingy earlier let's say you use ~NZ$6.7 million on the gold. You now have ~10.4 litres to cover however many pyramids you want to cover. Yeepee... BTW, re: Saunders above another factor you haven't considered is the poor alien archaelogists. "I can get why they emtombed these people and why they put servants their to 'look after them in the afterlife'. But why did they stick people on the outside a few thousand years later that I don't get" Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

novelists getting published in C17 Europe?

How would a writer have gonebout getting published in 17th century France? Did he/she submit to a slushpile? Were there editors, subeditors etc in the publishing houses? Who were the publishing houses one was most likely to submit to?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You might take a look at French literature of the 17th century, which gives a lot of context as to who would have been writing in the first place. I don't know the 17th century very well but I do know that publishing was still extremely expensive and had a very small audience until the 19th century in general; most of our ideas of how publishing works or should work come from this later period, when publishing becomes effectively "modern". --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That is some help, and a great article, thanks for that Adambrowne666 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Captives in the war of the kingdoms

The massacres of the Irish royalists at Drogheda and Wexford by Cromwell have left a lasting impression. I was wondering if a different standard applied in England, or in Scotland, over the treatment of captives at this time? Irishbard (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have always felt, and please forgive me for saying so, that what happened at Drogheda and Wexford has been accompanied by a 'mood of martyrdom’, if that's the right expression, which has done more to obscure than reveal the historical significance of these events. Yes, they were bad; yes, there was a mood of deep hostility in the English Protestant army to Irish Catholic rebels; but in themselves these incidents were not untypical of warfare in the seventeenth century. Indeed, as I have said before, they are as nothing compared with the truly dreadful Sack of Magdeburg during the Thirty Years War.

Generally speaking, though not always observed, soldiers taken captive in wars between nations could expect to be treated with a degree of mercy, especially where some ransom could be obtained. Civil war was different for the simple reason that those in rebellion against the legitimate authority of the state were technically traitors. At the beginning of the English Civil War there were those on the Royalist side who were tempted to take such an approach towards captured Parliamentarians, though a sense of realism prevailed, an understanding that reprisals would only be followed by counter-reprisals. Both sides, then, accepted the principle that those who surrendered on quarter were safe.

However there were degrees of surrender; surrendering at quarter, was one thing; surrendering at mercy, quite another. In the latter case-defence to the last extremity-it was up to the victorious commander if the prisoners lives were spared or not. Mostly they were, but sometimes they were not. There were notorious massacres in England at Hopton, Bartholmey, Bolton, Leicester and elsewhere. In Scotland the fall of Aberdeen in 1644 and Dundee in 1651 were followed by a sack, in which at least some of the civilian population was caught up.

There was also the more general problem that arose from the capture of large numbers of prisoners. Many died from neglect, not because of the deliberate cruelty of their captors, but simply because there was no process and system in place for dealing with captives on any scale. After his victory at the Battle of Dunbar in 1650 Cromwell attempted to deal with the problem by allowing many of those considered less dangerous to go home. Even so, a great many of those who were left died in captivity. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this information, Clio. Who, I wonder, do you think was the worst in the treatment of captives, the royalists or the roundheads? Irishbard (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)