Humanities desk
< December 25	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 27 >

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 26

The Prince Father?

Should Elizabeth (God forbid) predecease her husband, would Prince Philip be referred to as the Prince Father in the mode of the Queen Mother? μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question. The Queen Mother isn't a peer whereas The Duke of Edinburgh is a peer. Therefore he would be styled the Duke of Edinburgh. Bloody Mary predeceased her husband King regnant Philip II the Prudent.
Sleigh (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose then I should look at Style_(manner_of_address)? The issue rarely comes up this side of the pond, although my mother had to call around to find out how to address a friend of the family who is a deputy of the Surgeon General. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He could become the King's Father (or Grandfather), and I suspect he will be referred to as such informally if not formally: he will still be Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as that title will not die. I also believe that it will be up to the incoming monarch (whether it be his son or grandson) to decide on the official title he receives. So while it's not without precedent (see the Mary I reference above), it is unprecedented in recent history. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are big differences between the two. Before the accession of the current queen, her mother had been known as Queen Elizabeth (as the wife of King George VI). There was an obvious need to change this, to avoid the confusion likely to be caused by having two people, both active royals, known as Queen Elizabeth. It would not have been appropriate to take away the title of queen, so Queen Mother was a solution which maintained her status as a queen, while avoiding confusion with her daughter. Prince Philip is in a different position: if he lives longer than the queen he will still be Prince Philip and he will still be Duke of Edinburgh. Neither of those titles could be confused with that of King Charles, so there would be no reason to make any changes. Wymspen (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer. By the way, it's often suggested that Charles might take the regnal name of George VII rather than Charles III - see Regnal_name#United_Kingdom. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, and it also avoided the more usual solution in that situation, titling the widowed queen the Queen Dowager. I gather that the Queen Mother didn't much like that term. For a brief time, Queen Mary, the Queen Mother, and Queen Elizabeth II were all alive, but it's because the Queen Mother hated being referred to as a dowager, rather than because of the ambiguity of two dowager queens, that the term Queen Mother was decided on. - Nunh-huh 17:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or the regnal name Arthur.
Sleigh (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, she never went by Arthur! - Nunh-huh 22:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC) :)[reply]

Arthur was Ringo's haircut. —Tamfang (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. Isn't dowager specifically a feminine title, deriving from the same root as dowry? And isn't the term dowager usually associated with the regency, as in the Empress Dowager of China? Calling Philip the King's Father while he's still alive strikes me as implying his son's bastardy, although I suppose that problem wouldn't arise if Philip could abdicate. Perhaps he could be the Pop Emeritus?

μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But he will never cease being Charles's father, unlike Benedict XVI, who abdicated. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, JackofOz, dowager is a female title; but that's arguably not intrinsic to its meaning, but just because there are hardly any cases of a husband acquiring title or rank from his wife. The word's origin, like that of "dowry", is the same as "endow", which doesn't have anything specifically feminine about it. And in the UK the word is familiar enough in the peerage (certainly for anybody who reads historical novels) that the concept of "regency" not arise. --ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my question, actually. The "two things" person didn't sign. I was just "butting" in. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't sign, but have fixed it. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Medeis. You will always remain "the two things person" to me. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just picked up on the nuance of Jack's penultimate post. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theory about clash between liberals and conservatives in the United States

I've been trying to search for an essay without any luck. It was about how the present day culture war between the liberal north and conservative south in United States could be traced back to the time of the American Civil War. Anyone know how I can find it?Uncle dan is home (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your premise is questionable. The divide is largely between urban areas which tend to be Democratic versus "small town" areas which are more conservative. Because large cities tend to be on the coasts (even Chicago is historically a port city) the most recognized dichotomy is between the coasts and "flyover country".

Even what is meant by liberal and conservative has changed of the years. Many people say JFK would have been a Republican were he in office today. The founding Republicans opposed slavery, favored high tariffs, and were sympathetic to prohibition, while Democrats favored free trade (traditionally a classical liberal position) while paradoxically supporting slavery, even though few southerners owned slaves. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The premise is that an article exists. This cannot be questionable, merely accurate or not. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Republicans were not a party at the time of the founding of the US. They replaced the Whigs circa the 1850's. 2601:645:4300:A094:5524:F58F:7CA9:A84E (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a grain of truth somewhere to it, but it's certainly not as simple as that. For a long, long time, the South was a traditional Democratic stronghold, and wasn't all that "conservative" on a lot of issues - except for racial segregation. Otherwise, the South was hard-hit by the Depression (which led to an exodus of poor African-Americans heading north to large cities such as Chicago, Cleveland, New York, etc.) and was widely supportive of New Deal programs like the Tennessee Valley Authority and farm subsidies, as long as you didn't explicitly call them "socialism." It was only in the 1960s, when Democrats became broadly identified as the party of racial integration and equality, that Southerners abandoned it in droves. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraged to do so by the Southern Strategy, which signalled quite clearly "racists aren't welcome in the Democratic party anymore; may as well join the GOP." --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer to the origin of the culture war between liberal north and conservative south related to the Republican and Democratic parties can be found at Democratic Party (United States)#1828–1860. FactStraight (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urban public transport before 18th century

Today, buses and rapid transit form the backbone of urban public transport. But I want to know what was the primary mode of urban public transport before the 18th century when there was no automobile, no railway. I do not have any knowledge on this topic. However, from a quick reading of Public_transport#History, what I can see is that the Stagecoach, drawn by four horses, was a popular mode of public transport before the advent of automobile and railway. But after reading the article Stagecoach, what can be seen is that the stagecoach was primarily used for long-distance inter-city travel. It does not shade any light on intra-city travel before the railway-era. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urban public transit as we know it, with vehicles running on fixed routes in a city, was invented in Paris by Blaise Pascal, even though his English Wikipedia article omits to mention it. See fr:Carrosses à cinq sols, a name that refers to the fare of 5 sous. (Compare the etymology of our word jitney.) His system used 8-seat carriages drawn by four horses and operated from 1662, the same year he died, until 1677. One reason it was a failure was that it was only open to privileged classes of people and not the general public.

Urban public transit was not revived until the 1820s when fr:Stanislas Baudry introduced horse-drawn buses in the French city of Nantes (and gave us the name "omnibus" for them, which in turn became "bus"). This time they were quickly copied in Paris and London.

Until then, most people in cities got around on foot. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"An Ordinance for the Regulation of Hackney-Coachmen in London and the places adjacent" was issued by the UK parliament in 1654 - and shows that they were already in use by then, and were causing problems. A Hackney carriage corresponded to a modern taxi rather than a bus - and did tend to be used by the wealthy. The poor walked. Wymspen (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do remember that many cities were smaller back then, so the only issue was often intercity travel. As to Hackney carriages, odd... wouldn't the wealthy own a carriage of their own? I could imagine the middle class having use for such a service, but the wealthy? Of course, once the railway arrived and shook up long-distance travel, the entire dynamic changed (people could visit towns and cities far away, and would not have their horse and carriage with them, thus necessitating local hire transport, or public transport), but that was a long time later. Eliyohub (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do be careful about the multiple meanings of "public" transport - that which anyone can use, as long as they have the money; and that which is organised to some degree by the municipality. Also, think laterally: one form of transport that is easy to forget these days is water. London River Services have a long history; half a millennium ago the king awarded the London ferrymen an exclusive licence. Watermen across the United Kingdom had guilds from medieval times. As for land transport, city streets were narrow and congested, so large vehicles such as carriages would have a hard time making their way through. See for example the coach-builder George Shillibeer: this 1829 review concludes that his new "Omnibus is a handsome machine, in the shape of a van. The width the horses occupy will render the vehicle rather inconvenient to be turned or driven through some of the streets of London." Only the New Road, built to by-pass London, made the omnibus practical. Cities were, as said above, small in population and compact in size, limited to a certain extent by how far its residents could reasonably walk. See List of largest cities throughout history. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was Hitler unaware of Soviet tank force before invading USSR?

I was reading Operation_Barbarossa#Soviet_preparations. It says Hitler later declared to some of his generals, "If I had known about the Russian tank strength in 1941 I would not have attacked". Does this mean Hitler was unaware of the number of Soviet tanks? How could German intelligence fail to provide such a vital information before a large invasion? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 08:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer to your question, but Hitler was personally stung by the withdrawal of Yugoslavia from the Tripartite Pact, and in his rage, ordered the Invasion of Yugoslavia (he saw it as politically vital that enemies of the Reich be taught a lesson), diverting precious resources which had been built up to launch Operation Barbarossa, and delaying the operation by six precious weeks. Meanwhile, the weather and seasons wait for no man, no mater how great he may think himself to be... and the infamous Russian winter, long-time thwarter of invasions, was approaching... and hit hard during Operation Barbarossa! It remains speculation, had Hitler had those extra six weeks to push in, would the outcome have been any different, at the critical points of Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad? Would the Germans have broken through? Eliyohub (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The Germans were aware that the Western allies had more and better tanks in 1940. That didn't stop them from invading France. Considering Hitler's view of Untermensch, I suspect he worried even less about Russian armor. Also, it wasn't the sheer number of tanks, but rather the excellence of the T-34 that came as a big shock to everyone. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this referenced article which has been reproduced in the Axis History Forum:

"...reports from the intelligence services had to pass through senior staff officers who were completely controlled by Hitler and only told him what they knew he wanted to hear. Hitler only wanted his own convictions confirmed and he was convinced that the Soviet Union was weak..."

"German intelligence on the Soviet Union prior to the attack was severely lacking... The Soviet Army radio security was poor and by the time of the attack in June the German intelligence services had a fairly complete order of battle of all the Soviet units in the frontier area. German communications intelligence, however, could not pick up the Soviet reserve units deep in the interior of the country. This led to a gross miscalculation of the Red Army’s strength. The Germans estimated Soviet strength at 200 divisions a month prior to the attack. In the first six weeks of the war, the Germans already encountered greater than 360 divisions".

"General Heinz Guderian, the foremost armored warfare expert in the German Army, had published a book in 1937, Achtung – Panzer! which estimated Soviet tank strength at 10,000, a figure he altered from intelligence reports of that time which gave the actual strength as 17,000. He even had difficulty using the more conservative figure in his book, as the then German Chief of Staff General Ludwig Beck thought it vastly exaggerated. General Beck was in complete agreement with Hitler in respect to the overall military ability of the Soviet Union. In 1938 he wrote that the Red Army was a disgrace as a military force and was not a factor to be reckoned with.

Hitler was obviously disdainful of both the numbers and the quality of Soviet tanks because he launched Operation Barbarossa with only 3,200 tanks, while yearly German production was only 1,000. In 1933, eight years prior to the attack, Guderian had visited a single tank factory in Russia that was producing 22 tanks per day".

The German intelligence system in the Second World War was not very intelligent. German efforts to insert spies into mainland Britain to prepare for Operation Sealion, the projected invasion, resulted in every single agent being captured, some of whom couldn't even speak English; a number of them were turned into successful double-agents in the Double-Cross System. See Operation Lena. Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a graphic insight into how decision-making can go horribly wrong in dictatorships? Dictator-led Groupthink. The concept of Executive privilege is that people can advise the leader on matters of national importance with absolute candour and honesty. Otherwise, yes, things will go horribly wrong. Eliyohub (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's list of pre-departure commutations and pardons - released yet? And if not, when?

Long-standing tradition is for a voted-out President to issue a batch off commutations and pardons before he leaves office. I presume Obama will be no exception. Has his list of these commutations and pardons been released yet? If yes, where can I find it? And where can I find sources analysing the names of those on the list, and their crimes?

If not, when is it expected to be released? Is there an unwritten convention on Presidential practice in the matter? Eliyohub (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obama issued 78 pardons and 153 commutations about a week ago. I haven't seen a list. This article discusses his philosophy of who should be pardoned in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.60.210 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See List of people granted executive clemency by Barack Obama or [1].--Wikimedes (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The economic illogic of racism in business - so why did it exist so widely?

A highly defamatory hoax once went round that Tommy Hilfiger said "If I had known that African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians would buy my clothes, I would not have made them so nice," and "I wish those people would not buy my clothes – they were made for upper-class whites"

Now to make it clear, this was a HOAX. But when someone who thought it was true mentioned it to me, I thought it strange, and was sceptical. Whatever feelings Tommy might have against blacks, why in heaven's name would he want to kill his own sales, if they make up a sizeable portion of his clientele?

Back in the 1930s, and probably much later, many businesses, particularly in the south, would not serve blacks, and if they would, would treat them horribly. Now, whatever the feelings of the business owner towards blacks, why would he want to turn away potential paying customers? That some isolated individuals might have such extreme prejudice that it overtakes their desire for money, that I can understand. (Henry Ford said "I'll take every factory down brick by brick before I let any of those Jew speculators get stock in the company" - and he may have been serious). But the phenomenon I'm describing was not isolated, from what I gather - it was widespread, at least in the South. So my question stands: what drove so many business owners to turn down business? (Religious belief, I could see being a different issue. People may be willing to pay financially for such beliefs. But did many people feel the same way when it came to their racist beliefs, however strongly held - "I'll pay the price to hold on to them"?) Eliyohub (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in a prejudiced community, serving minorities can cause white customers to stay away. (I grew up in the American south, in earlier times.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hard pressed to think of any sector in which it's logical to be racist. Racism doesn't exist because of logic based on fact; it's more usually an irrational position adopted on the basis of misinformation resulting in a bigotted world-view which fulfills someone's psychological needs at the moment. There's a recent news event that wasn't a hoax - the Barilla pasta boycott. Guido Barilla (an owner of the company) said in a radio interview "I would never do a commercial with a homosexual couple, not for lack of respect, but because we don't agree with them. Ours is a classic family where the woman plays a fundamental role. If gays don't like it, they can go eat another brand." Now, that last sentence is clearly not a wise business-logic based sentiment; it's based on Barilla's own prejudiced beliefs, which caused him to overlook the business implications. - Nunh-huh 18:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SBHBoris had it right up there. I'll repeat it. If you live in a sufficiently racist community that people won't patronize your business because you're willing to serve the target of their racism, it's entirely logical to go along with the prevailing attitudes. It's not good or decent, but it's entirely logical. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that archaic an attitude in the U.S. It's amazing how many folks are against Obamacare, and about to repeal it, because they didn't like feeling they were in a waiting room with a bunch of "free clinic patients". And bars and nightclubs in many cities still have to avoid drawing too black a crowd, lest people start pointing fingers and trying to get them shut down over some incident. Having rap performers can be ... problematic. Wnt (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that what didn't make sense yesterday makes sense today and vice versa because racism and the absence of racism varies with time. An institution like slavery sets up a highly discriminatory relationship between black people and white people in the United States and it takes time for it to "unwind", so-to-speak. Bus stop (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a large part segregation was forced on businesses that did not want it by the government. That is, for example, train carriers after the Civil War were forced to have all white crews on all white passenger trains, not because they wanted it, or that it made economic sense. ref μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely sure the word "segregation" is being used in that article the way we're used to; rather, it seems to be saying that the railroad industry and the railroad employees are segregated from the rest of the business community; "the general public has neither sympathy nor patience with either whenever a proposition concerning them is represented as adding to the general public cost." The article is primarily about "full crew laws". I'd be curious about sources for "in a large part" segregation was forced on businesses; I've heard that too, but I grew up in 1950's Virginia, and we heard a lot of Dixie apologia. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 06:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  but wow, that's a fascinating magazine. It's the union organ of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (from 1914). Fun reading. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 06:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I don't think that magazine is talking about the racial sort of segregation, but I agree that at some level there was forcing — Jim Crow laws were mandatory, and even if a business owner *wanted* not to segregate, they'd face both the opprobrium of the dominant social forces and the full weight of state government regulation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the assumption that for-profits' segregation in the American South was forced on them is revisionist history: it simply would not have occurred to most business owners to risk offending their predominant and wealthier customer base, Whites, by treating Blacks equally. While the bigger stores (I recall Sears & Roebuck) had "White" and "Colored" water fountains and bathrooms for their customers, most businesses did not undertake that doubled expense, so Blacks could not use those facilities in their establishments. My grandmother took us to these bigger stores because she had to take into consideration that the youngsters she cared for might need to use the facilities: if there was no "Colored" sign on the water fountain or bathroom door, we Blacks could not use it -- the presumption was discrimination. If I just had to "go" and we were not near a business that Grandmother knew would have Colored accommodations, she headed for the nearest government building like City Hall or a post office, because Plessy's "separate but equal" ruling meant these always had "Colored" facilities we knew we would be allowed to use, whereas most private proprietors did not not. Also (although this was not a consideration to pragmatic Grandmother) those accommodations would be equal to those available to White consumers, which was sometimes not the case in private facilities where, in a legitimate effort to serve potential Colored customers, they might install a fountain or toilet labelled "Colored", but saved money by making them inferior or less well kept up. Government had to keep them exactly alike. FactStraight (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

two things: 1) Italy is special, businesses there are most of them not public, even big ones. 2) the question only shows that business has more than just the economic dimension to it - precisely as Leftists generally want it anyway (corporate social responsibility, environmental responsibility etc), so I'm tempted to see the economic argument as a red herring. Asmrulz (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting thought, your second point. Leftists want business to be about more than money - rightists, racists and many others (not saying all rightists are racists!) may view it in the same light. Though many businessmen, I'd say, do not - for them, it is about money, regardless of their ideology. Eliyohub (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite get your first point, either. Most businesses in the US aren't public, either -- fewer than 1% are. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Asmrulz' point is that in Italy, even big companies like the Barilla Group, which sells huge amounts of pasta worldwide, are still often privately owned, whereas in the U.S., large companies of this sort are often (though not always) listed on a stock exchange. Your "fewer than 1%" would obviously be 100% accurate if you include every business, no matter how small. The difference between Italy and the U.S., I gather, is that in the U.S., companies with billion-dollar-plus Market capitalization (or potential market capitalization, if privately owned) are generally publicly owned, correct? (Facebook "going public" badly ruined the original ethos of the project, but money talks, even if many would see Mark Zuckerberg as some sort of traitor "defecting to capitalism"). Whereas in Italy, this is not necessarily the case? Eliyohub (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you live in a prejudiced community, the best strategy to maximize profits (not to erase prejudice), may well be race-based market segmentation. For the example of the diner in the segregationist South, they may serve only whites at the counter, but still be willing to sell sandwiches to blacks out the back door. Presumably the whites wouldn't mind this, and the blacks might not be happy about it, but if that was their only choice they may pay up, too. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 December 26