Humanities desk
< April 13	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 14

Sovereignty definitions

My political science professor was teaching a first-year intro course for the first time, and basically everything he said was way over our heads, even when we ask for clarification. He gave us the following definitions for sovereignty (which were just one group of definitions among many! --he's not much for pinning things down):

International/legal- mutual recognition, more form than content
Westphalian- establishing law, religion, taxation, etc. within own territory
Domestic- something about political authority, and something about others stepping in, and I also have something written down about Rwanda and the Congo????
Interdependent- political regulation of flow of goods, capital, information, etc. across borders

So as you can probably see, it's the third one (domestic) that makes no sense to me (I included the others for context--all paraphrased and simplified from my prof's long and rambling musings). Anyone have an idea of what he's trying to get at there? Thank you so much! (P.S. My final exam is in about eight hours so if I could get an answer before then please? Thanks, you ref desk people rock!) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a rushed answer: from http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Krasner/krasner-con3.html, domestic sovererignty means that a (1) a country has infrastructure (government, police, courts, etc.) that enforces its authority over the population, and (2) the infrastructure is effective. I suspect the reference to Congo and Rwanda was because these countries' presidents, due to wars, have little control over the areas affected (see http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/11/12/edmvemba_ed3_.php). The comment on others "stepping in" is related to this; governments don't have sovererignty over an area that rebel groups constantly capture, lose, retake, etc. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have left it till 8 hours before an exam to learn a key concept then you dont deserve any help. I presume your university has a library. Go to it and find out yourself! Willy turner (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-amalgamation Ottawa

Does anyone know what the boundaries were (what streets/rivers/lines) of pre-2001 Ottawa? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This description is based on city maps in three pre-2001 road atlases (Rand McNally Ontario RoadMaster, and AAA and National Geographic atlases of North America) and is somewhat simplified in order to keep it reasonably short. Distances are approximate; directions like "south" and "east" follow the street grid (and therefore are not at right angles to each other!) except as noted; and I don't clarify whether the boundary follows a street exactly or only roughly.

0.2 km south from the Ottawa River ending at the corner of Carling Av. and Bayshore Dr. (Where "south" means parallel to the streets, not true south, and similarly for the rest of this description.)
0.2 km east along Carling.
2 km south roughly along Roseview Av. and other minor streets to Base Line Rd.
7 km east along Base Line to Fisher Av.
2 km south along Fisher to the corner of Viewmount Dr.
0.2 km east to the Rideau River.
3.5 km upstream along the Rideau River.
2 km mostly east, but with some small zigzags, cutting across the airport, to near the corner of Royal Route and Breadner Blvd. in the military base.
zigzagging about 1.5 km north and east, cutting across the base, to Hunt Club Rd. near the corner of Paul Anka Dr.
7 km east along Hunt Club to Hawthorne Rd.
1.5 km north along Hawthorne to the corner of Ages Rd.
1 km east to the railway tracks just west of where they cross highway 417.
2.5 km mostly north, first following the curve railway and then angling off to the east of it, roughly true north, as if following a railway not shown on my map and perhaps no longer existing. This bit crosses the highway.
1.3 km mostly west, on a curve, recrossing the highway and coming back to the railway, again as if following a disused railway line.
0.2 km north along Star Top Rd.
1.5 km northwest (parallel to Cyrville Rd.) to near the corner of St. Laurent Blvd. and Tremblay Rd.
1.7 km north along St. Laurent to just before MacArthur Av.
2.5 km east, cutting across the National Research Council property, to Blair Rd.
2.5 km north along Blair Rd. back to the Ottawa River.

But that is not the complete boundary, because it did not just return to the starting point along the Ottawa River. Rockcliffe Park and Vanier were not part of Ottawa; they fitted in between Ottawa and the river. Their boundaries are not shown clearly on my maps and are too irregular to be well suited to the above style of description. But Vanier was roughly 2 km across, extending east from the Rideau River and centered around Montreal Rd.; and Rockcliffe Park was a bit smaller, between Vanier and the Ottawa River.

--Anonymous, 07:44 UTC, April 14, 2008.

Thanks! I had no idea the lines were that squiggly. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most city limits are, especially where the city has grown by many amalgamations and annexations of towns and villages over time. Simple cases like the present Toronto limits are the exception. (For Toronto it's because of the reuse of old township boundaries originally drawn in rural areas.) For Ottawa at least most of the segments were parallel to the street grid, making them easier to describe. --Anon, 23:10 UTC, April 15, 2008.

Translations of Dream of the Red Chamber

Are there any translations to English of Red Inkstone Study (脂硯齋)'s commentaries on Dream of the Red Chamber? 130.85.251.16 (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Court Hierarchy

Hi,
I've had a look through [1] but I couldn't find the answer to my question. Which is to what extent are state level courts in the Australian legal system bound by federal courts? For example is the Victorian Magistrates Court bound by the Federal Magistrates Court? If so what about the County Court? The Supreme Court? Also which state courts are bound by the Federal Court? Thanks! --58.175.34.222 (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found this[2] and this one from the second par[3]. Hope it helps, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting expression

Hi, If a company has written-down an asset (such as a lease-hold improvement) they would usually take it off the books. But if they want to keep it on their books for administrative purposes, they may keep it there for e.g. $1. What is that amount called under US GAAP or IFRS. A "symbolic value", "memory value" or ??? I tried googleing it, but without the correct expression, that's pretty futile. Hope s.o. here can help. Lisa4edit--Lisa4edit (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might find more in our article Peppercorn (legal) which refers to the minimum legal amount to keep something contractual. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I really need the accounting term. Peppercorn only worked with "rent". I also found "nominal value" but that turned out to be something else. A colleague suggested "reminder value" but that doesn't seem to be it either. --Lisa4edit (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notional value. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case s.o. else needs to know "notional value" is what it was. --Lisa4edit (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I said. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 17:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richardr, I think that Lisa4edit was just confirming that, of all the suggestions, yours was the correct one. That's a thoughtful thing to do. Often, the readers are left unsure as to which, if any, of a series of proposed answers is the right one. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was "nominal value", the same as how a transaction where money has to change hands is often $1 and is called a "nominal fee". But this is in the UK, so it the US it couldbe different. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-modern revolution

So the article on the EZLN says

Some consider the Zapatista movement the first "post-modern" revolution: an armed revolutionary group that has abstained from using their weapons since their 1994 uprising was countered by the overpowering military might of the Mexican Army.

And after reading the article on postmodernism, I'm still a little confused about how it supposedly applies to the Zapatistas. Non-violence existed before postmodernism, as did the idea of abandoning tactics that don't work. So what's so postmodern about the Zapatistas? --superioridad ^(discusión) 12:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It went underground (addn: using the internet). In the article Metanarrative Lyotard explains: "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives." So it seems that the Zapatista movement no longer believed in the master-narrative, or the old heroic real-world, real bloodshed way of carrying out a revolt. By turning to the internet, they entered a post-modern strategy best explained (for me anyway) by taking a lateral action as given in the writings of postmodern philosopher Gilles Deleuze and his ideas about the progression of a rhizome with its unpredictable growth; he also describes lateral solutions as a "line of flight" away from the linear arboreal model of hierarchies and historic progressions. Compared with these old models of action and reaction, the rhizome is a model of an underground way of life or action, " that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation" which the internet provides. Deleuze develops this in A Thousand Plateaus and his book Rhizome. In a way, it's postmodern to enter into your quest/question not through the main article Postmodernism but through the links in this answer. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the civil war in the Solomon Islands, see History of Bougainville. Surprisingly, we don't have an article on the war itself, but it started with a group of local landowners turning guerrilla and shutting down the environmentally damaging Rio Tinto mine. They then fought off various private and state security forces with home-made guns. It does help that Bougainville is an island. Their power came from coconuts, which makes it a surreal if not pomo war in my book. They made coconut oil into biofuel and used that in looted jeeps, and scavenged the deserted mine for equipment they could remake. Fascinating stuff. I read up on it after the recent Radio 4 serialisation of Mister Pip, a novel with the war as its backdrop. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congress and Amritsar Massacre

how did congress party respond to the massacre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Godberly (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre article, specifically the "Reaction" and "Monument and legacy" sections, may help, likewise Non-cooperation movement and History of the Indian National Congress. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congress organised its own inquiry into the massacre, headed by Chittaranjan Das, and Swami Shraddhanand, supported by Pandit Nehru, which began work on 16 October. Ghandi joined the following day after the order prohibiting him from entering the Punjab was lifted. Unlike the official inquiry, Congress allowed the victims of General Dyer's actions to give witness. Ghandi, true to his legal training, kept matters as precise as possible, admitting only that which could be proved, frustrating some of his colleagues, who were looking for something altogether more lurid. This inquiry was particular importance for the future political direction of Congress; for it turned Ghandi from an imperial loyalist into an unremitting opponent of British rule. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clio's answer is as sharp as ever. I'd also like to draw your attention to an extraordinary libel case which lasted for a remarkable five weeks in the High Court in London in 1924, called O'Dwyer - v. - Nair. Sir Michael O’Dwyer, Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab until 1919, successfully sued Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair. You'll find it worth reading up. Xn4 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organisations looking forward to human dieback

Dieback is the phenomenon where a species with excessive numbers dies back to a level more supportable by its environment. Human dieback has been predicted by all sorts of doomsayers, though is now looking more and more likely -what with climate change, peak oil, resource depletion, emerging avian flu and other possible pandemics. I'm just wondering if there are any organisations or groups out there planning for this and actually looking forward to it, any links or details you can give would be welcome. Thanks AllanHainey (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VHEMT... AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excessive example. There are various organisations that are acting to reduce the human birthrate though better access to contraception, family planning, abortion, and so on. The history of the movement can be traced through to eugenics, which is a dirty word, as often it is assumed eugenics=negative eugenics, whereas negative eugenics is merely a subset, and this should rather be considered under liberal eugenics. I am not a dog (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From misanthropy: The Finnish eco-philosopher Pentti Linkola is considered as the most influential misanthrope currently living. He has openly advocated genocide as means of population control, Social Darwinism to promote euthanasia campaigns for extermination of life unworthy of living,[...]

Not exactly an organisation but I guess he's got some followers so he could be considered as being part of a group of people. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not meaning organisations trying to reduce human birthrate or human population, rather organisations that believe its inevitable it'll happen through natural (or unnatural man-made) events or as an inevitable consequence of overpopulation and are looking forwards to it and preparing for it (either with a view to being part of those who survive or just looking forwards to it as a general good thing). Though VHMET is interesting to hear about. AllanHainey (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a less extreme group, see Population Connection though they, too, are actively encouraging smaller rates of reproduction. I don't know if anything satisfies all your requirements? Any group that sees a smaller human population as a good thing would almost certainly be actively working towards that goal, no? --D. Monack | talk 02:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to necessarily see it as a good thing, just something that's inevitable & if inevitable therefore better sooner than later. But it doesn't look like there is anyone. AllanHainey (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

François Mitterrand

I vaguely remember reading somewhere (don't remember the quality of the source), something to the effect that Mitterand said, on his deathbed, that "50 families" control the world. Now, ths sounds really conspiracy theory, but does anyone know whehre this might stem from? Is it a recurring theme in political CTs? Or maybe this is a question rather for WP:RD/E than here? Dorftrottel (troll) 15:51, April 14, 2008

I can't find any reference to such a quote from Mitterand, even when I search in French. The idea seems to me highly implausible. Conspiracy theorists often point to the Bilderberg Group, an exclusive and secretive organization, as the vehicle by which a small elite controls the world, but even the Bilderberg Group involves more than 50 families. This kind of conspiracy theory is certainly a recurring theme in fringe discourse, but I have never come across the "50 families" claim before. Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks very much. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 02:15, April 15, 2008

Engelism

To what extent was it Engels who really invented Marxism? Is there any truth to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.38.245 (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks quite interesting: [4]. PeterSymonds | talk 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is to Friedrich Engels that we owe the materialist interpretation of history. Not only did he invent the term, but he refined and, more important, interpreted the work of Karl Marx, handing it down like Moses in tablets of stone to the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the leading left-wing movement of the day. The problem is that Engels, while he tried to be true to the thinking of his mentor, began to act as if it was sacred canon, introducing a degree of rigidity that was not in the original; turning fluid observations into concrete precepts, what he called 'the great law of motion in history.' Marx’s sociology was thus transformed into a kind of deterministic science, comparable, in Engel's view, with the laws of energy.

It was Engels, not Marx, who saw economics as the ultimate foundations of all social and historical structures. He attempted, towards the end of his life, to correct some of the damage done in turning Marxism into a materialist pseudo-science, though by this time it was altogether too late. His earlier interpretations conveyed a simplicity readily understood by those with less subtle intellects, those looking for straightforward dogmatics; people for whom notions of base and superstructure offered a short-cut to understanding. Yes, he might very well be said to have 'invented' Marxism; and, yes, he might also claim the right to be its earliest gravedigger. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heidegger and language

How does language fit in to Heidegger's general concept of being? F Hebert (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This probably does not answer your question, but, I went to the Heidegger article, pressed Ctrl F (something you may want to learn), typed in language, and scanned, and copy/pasted select sentences. Here are my results.

For Heidegger, unlike for Husserl, philosophical terminology could not be divorced from the history of the use of that terminology, and thus genuine philosophy could not avoid confronting questions of language and meaning.

The existential analytic of Being and Time was thus always only a first step in Heidegger’s philosophy, to be followed by the “destruction” of the history of philosophy, that is, a transformation of its language and meaning, that would have made of the existential analytic only a kind of “limit case” (in the sense in which special relativity is a limit case of general relativity).

(About Die Kehre) In his later work, Heidegger largely abandons the account of Dasein as a pragmatic, engaged, worldly agent, and instead discusses other elements necessary to an understanding of being, notably language, the earth (as the almost ineffable foundation of world) and the presence of the gods.

He wrote a book called: On the Way To Language, published without the essay "Die Sprache" ("Language") by arrangement with Heidegger. Neal (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

It was one of his central preoccupations. In A Dialogue on Language he wrote "Language is the house of being. Man dwells in this house...In language there occurs the revelation of beings...In the power of language man becomes the witness of Being." Being or Dasein-the central concept in his ontology-is revealed through language.

He also spends time discussing the vacuity of ever-day language, where words lose meaning through overuse. One only has to consider here the use of 'love' in relation to all kinds of experience and tastes, so much so that the original intensity of meaning has been sucked dry. Heidegger says that the key to self-understand is to rediscover the original link between the word and the experience, when, as he puts it, 'Being first spoke' in words like 'peace', 'love', 'truth' and 'compassion'.

It is in the area of the Language of Being, in Heidegger’s own philosophical vocabulary, that his thinking tends to become particularly opaque. His use of all sorts of obsolete and compound expressions makes the English translation of his work problematic, particularly that which he wrote after Being and Time. It's only for the most determined of Beings in the world! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The language and monstrous sentences in Sein und Zeit inspired German comedians Thomas Pigor and Benedikt Eichhorn to perform Heidegger's lyrics over a soft reggae beat. It works surprisingly well, and everything makes more sense, all of a sudden! Here are the lyrics, his website has the leadsheet, piano score, and a mp3 recording as well, if you want to learn it in order to impress the philosophy undergrads at the next dorm party. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin, those guys must have spent hours on that! They really know the work of the boozy begger [5]! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Pigor is a perfectionist (and physicist by training). here is the more relevant link, by the way (piano score, leadsheet, and short sound sample). I just noticed that the lyrics aren't quite accurate, as often. Instead of "Mamma" the song actually has nasty little chorus interjections going "Hannah, Hannah". The leadsheet has the right lyrics though. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents and recessions

When was the last time a U.S. president presided over two recessions? Any recession agreed on by consensus will do--the two-quarters-of-GDP-declines-in-a-row definition is too strict. Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give your definition of recession if you are refusing to use the proper definition. Otherwise, you are actually just trying to spark a debate about what an alternate definition of a recession could possibly be. -- kainaw ™ 22:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really the "proper" definition? The last recession I think saw only one quarter of negative GDP growth. I don't think the NBER, to whose opinion I'll defer whatever it is, thinks it is the primary determinant. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See recession. There is only one case where the NEBR felt it necessary to rule a contraction as a recession when it didn't fit the normal definition. I don't consider one exception to the rule to be reason to toss the rule out all together and start making up our own rules. -- kainaw ™ 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in List of recessions in the United States. -- kainaw ™ 23:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kainaw, I didn't know that. Ok. So now, why does the above list differ from http://www.nber.org/cycles/ ? Which do you prefer? Imagine Reason (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing a list of recessions to a list of contractions. Contractions are normal and happen all the time. The economy goes up and down over and over. The proper term for going down is a contraction. A recession is a specific type of severe contraction. While contractions are considered normal and no cause for concern, a recession is cause for concern. If nothing is done, a recession may not naturally rebound into an expansion. Similarly, expansion is normal. However, severe expansion is cause for concern. That is commonly called a "bubble" and it wasn't too long ago that we learned what happens when the bubble pops. -- kainaw ™ 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thanks a lot! Imagine Reason (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 14

Contents