Humanities desk
< June 18	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 20 >

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.

June 19 Information

Which Shi'ite Muslims are non-Hazara?

Almost all of them. See Demographics of Islam for a distribution. Hazara are only found in Afghanistan (mostly), Pakistan and Iran, so you can safely assume that the Shia elsewhere are not Hazara. It is also worth noting that not all Hazara are Shia, some are Sunni. - Banyan Tree 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi! I'm looking for recommendations for long poems, preferably Romantic and in blank verse, but really anything will do. To give you an idea, here's a list of my favorites:

• The Biblical books of Isaiah and Hosea
• Shakespeare's later Romances, especially The Tempest and Cymbeline
• Paradise Lost and Comus by Milton
• The Complete Poems of John Keats
• Byron's Don Juan and especially Childe Harold's Pilgrimage
• Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark
• Eliot's poetry, especially The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock and The Four Quartets
• Spenser's The Faerie Queene
• Whitman's Leaves of Grass
• Goethe's Faust, the first half of it

Thank you again everyone! :-) MelancholyDanish 02:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish reply

Horatius has always been one of my favorites. See Horatius Cocles for the background. 152.16.59.190 05:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Also, you might be interested in checking the links at Epic poetry. 152.16.59.190 06:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

One of my favorites: long and Romantic, but not blank verse: The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. -- TotoBaggins 15:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Take a look at the list at Epic poetry, but I would highly recommend The Mahabharata and The Ramayana. Corvus cornix 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Well, Romantic and long would give you The Prelude (or "the two part quaalude," as we used to call it), In Memoriam, and Idylls of the King. The Bell and the Book by Browning is actually good. Geogre 21:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Christopher Smart's Jubilate Agno--it's, to quote I can't remember whom, "to all other poems about cats what the Iliad is to all other poems about war." Cyrusc 21:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I think it was T.S. Eliot who said this about the cats... Cyrusc 21:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Eliot said that? That's hilarious, and uncharacteristic for him. Jubilate Agno is a great poem, no doubt. "I'd as soon say my prayers with Kit Smart as anyone," Johnson said. I suppose, given MelancholyDanish's other indicated tastes, Marriage of Heaven and Hell might be on the card, as Joyce was certainly aware of it, and it is long and a bit lysurgic. It's not for me, but, well, my idea of a long, Romantic poem is Station Island by Seamus Heaney or The Dream Songs by John Berryman. Geogre 11:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• If you like The Tempest, you might check out Auden's The Sea and the Mirror. Cyrusc 22:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Wolfram's Parzival. Maybe you'd enjoy The Golden Gate by Vikram Seth. 85.0.209.171 11:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Here's a slightly simpler one... I'm baffled by this passage in Finnegans Wake (imagine that) and I really want to know what it's trying to parody:

Timple temple tells the bells. In syngagyng a sangasongue. For all in Ondslosby. And, the hag they damename Coverfew hists from her lane. And haste, 'tis time for bairns ta hame. Chickchilds, comeho to roo. Comehome to roo, wee chickchilds doo, when the wild- worewolf's abroad. Ah, let's away and let's gay and let's stay chez where the log foyer's burning!

I'd like to say it's some form of pastoral, but it seems most pastoral poetry is written in poetic form. It's obviously some sort of British or Anglo-Saxon folk-writing (among other things), but does anyone know the name? Thank you! 66.112.244.146 04:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish reply

It looks to me like a combination of fragments from nursery rhymes, reworked in an inscrutible Joycean manner. I'm not convinced that it is a good idea to recommend a book to read a book; but there are some labyrinths that need a thread! Ariadne suggests that you might try A Reader's Guide to Finnegans Wake by W. Y Tindall, which may help you find exactly what you are looking for. I suppose it is worthy of merit that you have journeyed as far as you have without an explanatory mentor. But what baffles me is why you believe this question to be simpler than your previous request, which merely asks for a list of epic poems. Clio the Muse 05:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Clio - sometimes I wonder if you're really the person who wrote Wikipedia ;-) 66.112.244.146 05:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish reply

Only the bad bits, MelancholyDanish; only the bad bits! Clio the Muse 07:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The first sentence in the passage from Finnegans Wake looks like The Bells, by Edgar Allen Poe, while some of the rest seems inspired by Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll. StuRat 02:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

That's interesting. Sergei Rachmaninoff composed a choral setting of "The Bells", and believed it was one of the two best things he ever wrote. I wonder how he, or anyone, would have fared with setting "Finnegan's Wake" to music. The mind boggles. -- JackofOz 02:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I see that some people have based music on bits of it; but I wait with baited breath for the first person to be mad enough to set the whole book to music. -- JackofOz 02:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Someone was foolish and foolhardy enough to attempt a movie in the 1960s. It would be interesting to see, although I'm sure it's as unwatchable as the book is unreadable. Incidentally, Rachmaninoff is the best. 66.112.244.146 06:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish reply

You surprise me, MelancholyDanish; I thought you and Joyce were 'trotting along nicely'. Have you given up? In any case, I would be interested to know if this is your first approach to his work? Clio the Muse 02:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I really enjoyed the first half of the novel, till about page 260, but after that it became slightly obnoxious and the phrases weren't nearly as moving or delightful as they had been before. I read for hours without alighting on anything that caught my eye. So I did eventually make it to the end, but I skipped pages 415 - 530 and 592 - 600. I give the first half of the book five stars and the second half only two. I had tried reading Ulysses once before but found it hard to get into, so I think I shall try again later in the summer. By the bye, what are a few of your favorite works of fiction? (addressed to Clio, but open to all)

I would have replied on your talk page, but you don't have one! Unfortunately, this thread is about to disappear into the archives, so it is unlikely that much more will be added. Anyway, have a look at my User Page, where you will discover a full list of Clio's favourite fictions (and non-fictions), which, incidentally, includes Ulysses. I have to say that I admire your courage in tackling Finnegans Wake without having covered the foothills, so to speak. I read Ulysses for the first time last summer, after Dubliners and Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. I knew it would be difficult; my friends told me it was unreadable. I decided, however, that the problem was less one or 'readibility' than how it is read, if you understand my meaning. I decided, therefore, not to approach it as I would any other novel, in a single glorious debauch, but to read one section at a time, punctuated with other things, chewing slowly and digesting even more slowly. It worked! All of the meanings began to fall into place, and my admiration for Joyce increased by several degrees. I did the same thing with Finnegans Wake, though the whole process took slightly longer. Might I suggest that you put Joyce aside for a time, returning at some future point and reading in the manner I have suggested? I think you find that you eventually uncover the mysteries of the Rosetta Stone! Good luck with your future reading, MelancholyDanish, and if you ever wish to discuss any of these-or other-matters with me personally, just leave a message on my own talk page. Clio the Muse 23:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

72.78.158.8 04:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)My question is that I recently came across a copy of this song that attributes the writing to Jason Upton. The copyright is 1966, and according to his biography, he was born in 1973. Could you tell me if the original songwriter was a different person or just someone with the same name. reply

Thank you.

Alfred Smith 72.78.158.8 04:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

A quick google search turns up a lot of sites listing Peter Scholtes as the original author. There are, however, many websites that contain the song along with additional text. Often, in these cases, the copyright notice usually mentions only the person's name who wrote the additional text on that page and does not correctly attribute the source of the song. 152.16.59.190 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I recently edited United States public debt; I am looking for an Wikipedia Article that states the debts of each of the 50 states, respectivly? Thanks. -- Savedthat 04:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The Federal government of the United States is (and always has been) required by law to operate in debt, but the states are not. So, why do you assume that each of the 50 states has a public debt? -- Kainaw ^(talk) 12:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure about your assertion about the requirement to operate in debt, but as for individual state debts, even those states with balanced budget requirements in their constitutions have debt, in the form of bonds. I don't think that there is any state which does not have bond debt. Donald Hosek 16:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I am looking for an article that has information regarding why the UK decided to not adopt the Euro. I just want to read what was going on why the politicians decided not to adopt the Euro. Thanks. -- Savedthat 05:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The present government has decided that Five economic tests will have to be met first. Even then, Britain will only join if the matter is approved politically in a referendum. You might also wish to look at Euroscepticism. Clio the Muse 06:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello. I was reading an unnamed short story where it had a character named Lou Parvizian. This story took place on an ocean liner going from San Francisco to Yokohama just after World War I. Even though, the narrator dislikes Lou Parvizian, Mr Parvizian assumes that the narrator enjoys his presence. Later, Lou Parvizian controls all events within the ship. He meets the Ramsays. They were talking about Japanese pearls. Mr Ramsay, came from a military post in Japan and brings his wife over to Japan for business purposes, claims that his wife's pearl necklace is authentic and was bought for an undervalued price of $18 from a department store. Mr Parvizian unsuccessfully bets Mr Ramsay $100 that the necklace is a fake. News spread throughout the ship. Mr Parvizian is humiliated. At the end, the narrator doesn't dislike Mr Parvizian as much as before. What is the title of that story? Thanks. -- Mayfare 16:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You want to know the title of an unnamed short story? ◄ Zahakiel ► 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

lol, I like where this is going. 161.13.6.4 17:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish reply

Mayfare, the story is Mr Know-All by William Somerset Maugham. The character in question is not Lou Parvizian but Max Kelada. The way you tell it is not quite right. Kelada, an expert in pearls, and most other things, accepts Ramsay's bet to determine if his wife's are real or not. Mrs Ramsay, who lived apart from her husband while he served in the American Consulate in Kobe, is reluctant to hand the pearls to him, but Ramsay insists. Mr Kelada looks at them, smiles and is about to say something when he notices a look of terror on Mrs Ramsay's face. "'I was mistaken', he said, 'It's a very good imitation; but of course as soon as I looked through the glass I saw that it wasn't real. I think eighteen dollars is just about as much as the damned thing's worth.'" Whereupon he hands over the $100 forfeit to the triumphant Ramsay. Kelada is duly humiliated. The following morning he receives a letter, pushed through the door of the cabin he shares with the narrator of the story. It contains a $100 bill. "Were the pearls real?", the narrator asks. His only reply is "If I had a pretty little wife I shouldn't let her spend a year in New York while I stayed in Kobe." The narrator then no longer has the same degree of dislike for Mr Know-All.

You should find this in any decent collection of Maugham's collected stories. The one I have is in the first volume of Collected Short Stories, published by Vintage Paperbacks in 2000. Best wishes from Miss Know-All, otherwise recognised as Clio the Muse 18:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, that was a bit confusing to read. I take it that it was actually Kelada who bet that the pearls were real, and Ramsey who insisted they weren't -- because his wife had told him she'd bought them for $18 in a department store.

Now there's one question left. Is Lou Parvizian also a character in this story, and if not, where did the original poster get that name from?

--Anonymous, June 20/07, 01:28 (UTC).

That's what comes from trying to condense things! This is how the bet emerges. During dinner, with Kaleda, the Ramsays and the narrator present, the conversation touches on subject of pearls, particularly on the quality of cultured pearls compared with the real thing. Kaleda, stung by a remark of Ramsay's, reveals his knowledge of the industry:

"They'll never be able to get a culture pearl that an expert like me can't tell with half an eye" 'He pointed to a chain that Mrs Ramsay wore.' "You take my word for it, Mrs Ramsay, that chain you're wearing will never be worth a cent less than it is now."

'Mrs Ramsay in her modest way flushed a little and slipped the chain inside her dress. Ramsay leaned forward. He gave us all a look and a smile flickered in his eyes.'

"That's a pretty chain of Mrs Ramsay's isn't it?"

"I noticed it at once", answered Mr Kelada. "Gee, I said to myself, those are pearls alright."

"I didn't buy them myself, of course. I'd be interested to know how much you think it costs."

"Oh, in the trade somewhere around fifteen thousand dollars. But if it was bought on Fifth Avenue shouldn't be surprised to hear that anything up to thirty thousand was paid for it."

'Ramsay smiled grimly.'

"You'll be surprised to hear that Mrs Ramsay bought that siring at a department store the day before we left New York, for eighteen dollars."

'Mr Kelada flushed.'

"Rot. It's not only real, but it's as fine a siring for its size as I've ever seen."

"Will you bet on it? I'll bet you a hundred dollars it's imitation."

"Done."

Matters then proceed as I have already paraphrased. There is no Lou Parvizian in the story, Anonymous. He may be a character in another of Maugham's tales, but it is not a name that I am familiar with. Clio the Muse 04:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

As a matter of curiosity, was the above passage scanned rather than retyped from the book? --Anon, June 21, 08:16 (UTC).

Typed laboriously by hand, Anon, with the book propped open at the side of my computer! Clio the Muse 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I thought that human (and probably other images of living things) were banned in Islam. This gave rise to the distinctive decorative style found in mosques and so on. Yet television seems to be very common in the Arab world, and is used even by the most fanatical and the most religious. Clearly, television represents people. How is this inconsistency accounted for please? 80.0.98.213 18:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The concept of "images" in monotheistic tradition is tied to a desire to avoid objects of worship (e.g., the worship of idols, the veneration of saints - in some cases - or other distinguished figures). This leads to the abesence of portraits, statues, in some cases photographs, etc. Television, like radio, is viewed more as a communication medium, and there is no lasting "object" that could potentially be the target of undue praise. ◄ Zahakiel ► 18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

TV and movies can lead to one of the worst forms of idolatry (celebrity worship), IMHO. StuRat 02:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I also remember finding years ago on a seat in the London tube a discarded Arabic newspaper. It had a seductive picture of an attractive young woman in it - it seemed just put there to titilate rather than having any news value or any story with it. She did however have her legs covered. Wouldnt this have been un-Islamic? And in Iraq there seemed to be many images of Sadaam Hussein, and in Iran posters of various religious leaders. So even still images are commonplace. Even this site http://www.islamicity.com/ abounds in images of humans, including even a "picture gallery" of women's faces in its marriage section! This is still an inconsistency even given the comment above. And this site http://islamicacademy.org/html/Articles/English/Picutres_in_Islam.htm says pictures are wrong because they replicate creation, and the punishments are severe. So I'm still confused. 80.0.132.197 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Both this and your initial question constitute insightful observations :) The reason for your confusion is because not every sect within Islam, or, indeed, every member of a particular sect, necessarily interprets the doctrine in the same way, or to the same degree. For example, Hussein was, by most accounts, a rather secular Sunni; he had pictures and statues of himself up all over the place, one now made famous for being pulled down during the U.S. actions in Iraq. The core doctrine as I understand it, to which most Muslims would agree to one degree or the other is that images are to be avoided. How strictly this doctrine is applied in life, that is a matter of personal, cultural and traditional values. ◄ Zahakiel ► 20:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Zahakiel has missed one important point that is important for a Westerner to appreciate when studying the Islamic world. Just as the opinions of different groups are not always uniform, they are also not always consistent. The inconsistency can range from simple blending of (apparently) contradictory attitudes and values to (occasionally) outright hypocrisy. Lord Curzon in Persia and the Persian Question explains that men on pilgrimage to Mashhad, could be forced to travel long distances without their wives, so to accommodate their needs, they were allowed to contract temporary marriages while staying in the holy city. There was a permanent population of "wives" ready, for a fee, to provide this service. It was all accepted quite openly, in conformance with ecclesiastical law (it was arranged to be so). None of this is to criticise Islam, only the fallibility of human beings. Today, the confusion of values, or tension between the old and the new, is displayed prominently in the phenomenon of the so-called "muhajababes". These are women who wear the veil, but still dress sexy. This is roughly what you saw on the tube. These sorts of women go further, and produce extremely titillating pop videos and the like, yet do not openly flout Islamic law. See the following reviews of Muhajababes by Allegra Stratton: [ [1]] (from The Australian) and [ [2]] (from The Guardian). Memorable quotes from the second of these: "As a guide to the preoccupations of young Arabs, the Middle-Eastern chaos currently splashed across the front pages is only part of the story. Vying with bearded Hizbollah commanders for the hearts and minds (or at least cash and attention) of Middle-Eastern youth is a well-funded and altogether better-looking army: a gang of half-naked girls."

"It is hard, as Muhajababes demonstrates, for secular observers to appreciate the genuine force of belief, however clumsily or confusedly it may be expressed. In the summer of 2004 when I was living in Cairo, I was surprised to meet engineering graduates who believed in djinn with green claws and veiled girls who swapped oral-sex tips."

As far as the use of images in concerned, I know of no prohibition in the Qur'an. It is a later tradition that has developed. Throughout the whole history of Islam, I believe all its practitioners have adhered strictly to the code of not portraying the Prophet in any artistic or dramatic work. The use of other images has varied, I believe. The Mad Echidna 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC) [also note: just corrected typos and errors, hope that's ok] The Mad Echidna 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

That's a useful clarifiation. Most of that I had conceptualized as "personal values," which I mentioned above. Those may certainly reflect the tension between individual desires, traditions, and the change in either of those over time. ◄ Zahakiel ► 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks Zahakiel. I noticed that you had basically done this, but my wording came out badly. I meant to say that you hadn't directly emphasised the potential tensions and contradictions that can exist. This is something that I have always found incredibly difficult to understand when talking with my Middle Eastern friends (mainly Iranian Baha'is). I finally began to "get" it when I compared to our own Western foibles, hypocrisies and contradictions, and realised that the same general muddle exists in my own society. So I was adding emphasis for a confused Westerner. The Mad Echidna 22:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, In wich countries in Europe women is the head of state? And is Micheline Calmy-Rey the head of state of Switzerland? Thanks.

Yes, Mme Calmy-Rey is the President of the Swiss Confederation for 2007. Other female heads of state are:

• Queen Elizabeth II of the UK
• Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
• Queen Margrethe II of Denmark
• President Mary McAleese of Ireland
• President Tarja Halonen of Finland
• President Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga of Latvia (term of office ends on 7 July 2007)
• Several women have been Captain Regent of San Marino, holding office for six months, but none currently are. -- Arwel ( talk) 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The President of Switzerland is not really a head of state (see article). -- Cam 20:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Germany has a female chancellor, Angela Merkel. Though I'm not sure if this qualifies for the original question. She is also the head of the European Council. You may also be interested in the Council of Women World Leaders article. Dismas| ^(talk) 20:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think Merkel does really qualify as a president - Germany has a separate President [3]. The closest thing that exists in most other countries to the Chancellor is more likely a Prime Minister, who isn't really considered a head of state. Most heads of states are either Presidents or monarchs. martianlostinspace 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, Horst Köhler is the President of Germany, and thus the head of state; the Chancellor is the head of government - not the same thing at all! -- Arwel ( talk) 22:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

So if the President of the Swiss Confederation is neither a Head of State nor a Head of Government there is not any head of state of the Swiss Confederation?

You could say that the Federal Council of Switzerland is a seven-member collective Head of State of the Swiss Confederation; see the section on Multiple or collective Heads of State in our Head of State article.  -- Lambiam ^Talk 06:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Is anyone familiar with the contents of Quatrefages's 1871 essay La race prussiene? It was published during the Franco-Prussian War, so I imagine it must be quite hostile? Friedrich James 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You will find some information on this, Friedrich James, in chapter eleven of Leon Poliakov's book, The Aryan Myth. Armand de Quatrefages was head of of the French school of Anthropology, and one of the many academics of the day who was a firm believer of the alleged Aryan origins of the European people. He was so shocked by the Prussian bombardment of Paris during the Franco-Prussian War that he wrote his essay, La race prussiene, in response, arguing that such conduct was unworthy of a civilized people, and thus the Prussians could not possibly be Aryan! They were, rather, Finns or Slavo-Finns, in his view, "Men who preceeded all history", and carriers of ancient forms of barbarism. He later changed his mind, at least as far as the Finns were concerned, in his Historie générale des races humaines. So much of the anthropology of this time was based on a bogus and pseudo-scientific racial taxonomy. Clio the Muse 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Miss Clio. Do you have any information on racial anthroplogy, or racial theories in general, in Great Britain at this period? Friedrich James 05:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, Friedrich, Continental-style racial theories made their way into England from about 1840 onwards. One of the earliest exponents was none other than Thomas Arnold, the famous headmaster of Rugby School, and a leading historian. He advanced a universal theory of world history, in which he assigned a special role to the Aryans, specifcally the Germanic races, which included, of course, the Anglo-Saxons. Race theories in general made their way into the oddest corners of British intellectual life. Consider the following;

You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews; that mysterious Russian diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organised and principally carried on by Jews; that mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is as yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolise the professional chairs in Germany...

Who wrote that? Why, none other than Benjamin Disraeli in his 1844 novel Coningsby. His view, for all its fancy, was benign: it was to find a malign echo in the coming development of European anti-Semitism.

But we have to go further north, to Edinburgh, in fact, to discover the man who has been described as the "real founder of British racism." His name was Robert Knox, a leading anatomist and an anthropologist, best known now as the chief client of the Edinburgh body-snatchers, Burke and Hare. His published work included The Races of Men, in which he described the Jewish race as 'sterile parasites.' For Knox, race was the key to all human activity-"...that the race in human affairs is everything, is simply a fact, the most comprehensive, which philosophy has ever announced. Race is everything: literature, science, art-in a word, civilization depends on it." (1862, second edition, preface, p. 1) The highest races were the Germans, the Saxons, and the Celts; the lowest were Black Africans. Though now Knox's work is almost completely forgotten, it was widely admired at the time, by Charles Darwin, among others. Clio the Muse 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Aside. Would you let me correct some spelling: La Race prussienne and Histoire générale des races humaines. AldoSyrt 07:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Of course! My apologies for any error. Clio the Muse 07:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Orwell was known to be anti-Stalinist. However, during the Spanish Civil War he served in the Trotskyite POUM. Does this indicate a general sympathy for the politics of Leninism and the Fourth International in general? Fred said right 20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You should be looking for a copy of Orwell's posthumous Notes on the Spanish Militias:

At that time I was only rather dimly aware of the differences between the political parties, which had been covered up in the English left-wing press. Had I had a complete understanding of the situation I should probably have joined the CNT militia.

I cannot find anything online, but they're published in The collected essays, journalism and letters of George Orwell. Vol.I, An age like this, 1920-1940 OCLC  59144643— eric 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I have always felt it to be wrong that Orwell has been classified as an anti-Stalinist, when a reading of his work gives plenty of indications that he was opposed to Communism in general. Even Animal Farm is only in a partial sense a parable against Stalinism, though this is the form in which it is generally understood. But careful reading will show that the ideal is corrupted well before Napoleon takes absolute power.

On the wider point, let the author speak for himself;

It is probably a good thing for Lenin's reputation that he died so early. Trotsky, in exile, denounces the Russian dictatorship, but he is probably as much responsible for it as any man now living, and there is no certainty that as a dictator he would have been preferable to Stalin. (New English Weekly, January, 1939)

The fact that Trotskyists are everywhere a persecuted minority, and the accusation usually made against them, i.e. of collaborating with the Fascists, is absolutely false, creates the impression that Trotskyism is intellectually and morally superior to communism; but it is doubtful if there is much difference. (Notes on Nationalism, October 1945)

Now, as far as his membership of the POUM is concerned, this seems to have come about largely by accident;

I was associated with the Trotskyists in Spain. It was chance that I was serving in the POUM militia and not another, and I largely disagreed with the POUM 'line' and told the leaders so freely...(Partisan Review, Sept.-October, 1942)

Orwell's own politics are neatly summarised in two of his essays, The Lion and the Unicorn and The English People. He draws his inspiration from a long native radical tradition, a tradition deeply hostile to the abstractions of alien political theories;

The various other Marxist parties, all of them claiming to be the true and uncorrupted successors of Lenin, are in an even more hopeless position. The average Englishman is unable to grasp their doctrines and uninterested in their grievances. And in England the lack of a conspiratorial mentality which has developed in police-ridden European countries is a deep handicap. English people in large numbers will not accept any creed whose dominant notes are hated and illegality. The ruthless ideologies of the Continent-not merely Communism and Fascism, but Anarchism, Trotskyism, and even ultramontane Catholicism-are accepted in their pure form by only the intelligentsia, who constitute a sort of island bigotry amid the general vagueness. (The English People). Clio the Muse 23:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I would speculate that George Orwell, like many others alive at the time, first believed the promises of communism, that everyone would live in a world of total equality. However, when confronted with the genocidal realities of Stalin and others, the dream died. Animal Farm can be seen as a description of this journey, where, in the beginning, optimism runs wild, but, by the end, all hope has been dashed. See George_Orwell#Political_views for more info. "Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss ... I just hope and pray, we don't get fooled again." StuRat 01:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I would speculate that, in the absence of any concrete evidence that Orwell "first believed ... that everyone would live in a world of total equality", the above is senseless speculation.  -- Lambiam ^Talk 06:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

That hardly seems necessary, Lambiam. Didn't StuRat commence his post with a disclaimer that what was to follow was speculation? All speculation is a belief without supporting evidence; who decides which speculation is sensible and which is senseless? -- JackofOz 10:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Firstly, thanks for that note of kindness, Jack - it's good to see Wikipedians being supportive. It is nicer for those of us following the thread, not just the individual in question.

I have the Penguin 20thC. Classics Edition of Animal Farm (1989). Here are some quotes from the introduction by Malcolm Bradbury (the third is from "A Note on the Text" by Peter Davison)

"Yet as Orwell indicates - in a polemical preface on censorship he wrote for the book, but fortunately did not publish, for it would have narrowed the book's meaning - he had conceived the central idea for it in 1937, when he fought with the POUM ... militia during the Spanish Civil War, and saw Communist purges of the Spanish Leftists at first hand."

"But the crucial point Orwell wished to make - though since the point was rarely taken, he did not get it across - is that the failure frequently lay within the revolutionary process, as its leaders fought to perpetuate themselves as opposed to the interests of those whom the revolution was meant to serve. Orwell shared the familiar twentieth century hope of a socialist revolution capable of transforming or reconstructing society. His concern was that those for whom such revolutions were intended were more often the victims than the beneficiaries,..."

[a quote from Orwell himself] " 'I meant the moral to be that revolutions only effect a radical improvement when the masses are alert and know how to chuck out their leaders as soon as the latter have done their job. The turning-point of the story was supposed to be when the pigs kept the milk and apples for themselves,' and he referred to the naval mutiny at Kronstadt in 1921..."

Orwell, when he realised that the turning point wasn't clear, added extra lines for a radio adaptation, but I'm now sick of typing, so you'll have to all look them up, or beg me on my talk page :-). As for analysis of the above quotes, I think they are self-explanatory for the most part, but I would add that the reference to Kronstadt suggests that this had some influence on Orwell's own views, even though what he saw in the Spanish Civil War was obviously more important. Hence, the specific course of the Russian Revolution, not the bare fact of ideology, was probably the more influential condition. On the whole, I think StuRat's speculation has been upheld, although "total equality" is going too far. The Mad Echidna 01:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I can remember nothing from my reading of Orwell, Echidna, that would suggest that he was ever, at any point in his career, attracted by Communism, as an ideology or as a political practice. However, I will have another look through his Collected Essays and Journalism, just to make absolutely sure. I have always believed, though, that in the concluding words of Charles Dickens he revealed as much about himself as the subject of his essay-"It is the face of a man who is always fighting against something, but who fights in the open and who is not frightened, the face of a man who is generously angry-in other words of a nineteenth century liberal, a free intelligence, a type hated with equal hatred by all the smelly little orthodoxies which are now contending for our souls." Clio the Muse 02:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

In response to the extra information, Clio, perhaps I should withdraw anything about communism. But the quote I gave from Orwell: "I meant the moral to be that revolutions only effect a radical improvement when the masses are alert and know how to chuck out their leaders as soon as the latter have done their job," is hard to ignore. I don't know where it is [originally] from, but I feel obliged to trust the source. It doesn't show he necessarily wanted revolutions, but it does mean he was quite open-minded about them. I know you didn't specify that he was against revolutions, but I am inferring that this was one of your contentions in arguing he was not a Trotskyist. Regarding his membership of the POUM, you quoted that it came about by accident, but our article on Orwell puts a different spin on it:

'..By his own admission, Orwell joined the POUM rather than the Communist-run International Brigades by chance — but his experiences, in particular his narrow escape from the communist suppression of the POUM in June 1937, greatly increased his sympathy for the faction and made him a life-long anti-Stalinist.'

Unfortunately, your quote does not clarify what his objections were to the POUM 'line', so I would be interested if you could add to this, but otherwise I will have to accept the strong possibility of revolutionary sympathies. It is also conceivable (I feel) that his opposition to Trotsky shown in your quotes can be reconciled with my quote from Orwell. Perhaps his idea (at some point) was that the revolution itself was OK, but Trotsky himself was not, and would have had to be "chucked out" just like Lenin or Stalin, by the "alert masses".

As for the quote: "...a type hated with equal hatred by all the smelly little orthodoxies which are now contending for our souls." I would accept that it even says a lot more about Orwell than about Dickens. However, these could be the words of someone who was bitterly disillusioned at the time of writing. Disillusioned, in that he may have at least been tempted once by these "smelly orthodoxies", and then regretted it. Not a certainty, but certainly a possibility.

I agree that the ideal in Animal Farm is corrupted early. But Orwell could have gone further; instead he stayed his hand. I believe if you read Animal Farm backwards, you get closer to the true history of the Russian Revolution. Start with the pigs in control (the Tsar), progress through towards democratic reforms, then have a revolution, and the new dictators (starting with Lenin) are in control. The real Russian Revolution was looking dubious from the moment the Bolsheviks closed down the Constituent Assembly, in other words almost immediately, and this against a backdrop of a country that had been moving (unsteadily) towards democracy for some time. Orwell's criticism is fairly mild, considering how he paints the previous regime in Animal Farm. In reality, the Tsar had already abdicated, and the revolution overthrew the Provisional Government of Kerensky, which was no dictatorship. All in all, this gives me at least something to go on. The Mad Echidna 21:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC) [added correction in square brackets above] The Mad Echidna 22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Reply lodged on talk page of The Mad Echidna. Clio the Muse 00:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

As a personal note, I think that Orwell best expressed his personal politics in his book/essay The Lion and the Unicorn. It mainly deals with domestic politics, but is essential reading for anyone interested in his thoughs. Best regards. 195.137.96.79 05:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I am in the art world, and I have been wondering if being a porn model is ethical or not? 80.0.132.197 20:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

That's up to you. — Lomn 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

To expand on Lomn's comment, there is no single accepted set of ethical principles. Moral relativists believe that ethical standards depend on a given cultural, or even personal context. A moral relativist might say that whether such modeling is ethical depends on your personal values and principles. For example, if you are a devout Muslim, you might find porn modeling unethical and even sinful, since it violates Islamic principles of modesty. However, if you are a liberal and you are comfortable with nudity and the commercialization of sexual desire, then there might be nothing wrong with such modeling for you. Moral objectivists believe that there are universally applicable moral and ethical standards. Some would base these standards on whether a given action does any harm to oneself or to others. It is unclear pornography causes harm, except to the extent that the consumption of pornography may become addictive. It is questionable whether such addiction can be seen as the responsibility of the person producing the pornography. In this view, modeling for pornography might be seen as ethically equivalent to producing wine, some of which might end up being consumed by alcoholics. However, some moral objectivists believe that moral and ethical standards should be based on religious teachings (usually the teachings of the religion to which the moralist subscribes). Since many more conservative religions call for modest behavior, porn modeling could fall afoul of a set of ethical principles based on religious teachings. So you need to decide first on your own moral philosophy. Are you a relativist or an objectivist? Do you think that ethical decisions should be made based on objective assessments or based on religious teachings? Once you have answered those questions for yourself, the answer to your more practical question should be clearer. Marco polo 20:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

One friend of mine defined the difference between ethical and moral thus: "Ethics is what I require of others; morality is what I require of myself." Since modeling is essentially WYSIWYG, I can't see much scope for anything unethical, but you might consider any participation in the porn industry immoral because it encourages the customer's baser nature or whatever. — Tamfang 06:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• "Ethics" is social. "Morality" is generally supernatural and universal. It's right & wrong vs. good and bad. At any rate, the problem with modeling is that it isn't a solitary action. It all depends upon what the artist is going to do. If the photo/painting/film is going into a private collection, and if the artist never sees the model again, it's close to a solitary action. However, the artwork's propagation means that it has an effect on other people. Strangers getting bad ideas, or bad ideas about the model, etc., are going to change the framework. It can be dangerous for the model, because a lot of people are now thinking things that they wouldn't, otherwise. It can be dangerous, ethically, because it can lead to lowered expectations and images of the model's sex/class/ethnicity.
• As for morality, Christian churches have no prohibition against modeling nude. Some Christians have very strong denunciations, but none of the churches that I know of have a particular problem with the posing/art. The questioner says "porn," though, and that implies fornication, and all of the Christian churches have a big problem with that. Additionally, if the questioner is Muslim, or in a nation with a strong Muslim practice, a woman appearing naked is immoral, and fornication is, of course, very, very immoral. Geogre 11:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I would personally consider it unethical or immoral -- but what I find even more disturbing is that you seek moral advice from Wikipaedia. I would recommend you discuss the subject with a parent, pastor, teacher, old friend, respected acquaintance, etc. where you will get advice that is actually worth something. 209.190.233.66 21:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

A good point. Just as we're not qualified (or permitted) to guide you in medical or legal matters, we really shouldn't be guiding you in moral matters either. There's no harm in asking, and none in answering, but you should keep in mind that you have no idea who we are. Ask a few people you can trust (as 209 suggested, perhaps parent, priest, friend, etc) and decide for yourself. Black Carrot 03:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

If its not unethical, why is it considered scandalous and shameful? Why would having such a background disbar anyone from later getting a responsible job or being involved in politics for example? 80.0.101.211 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

It doesn't. -- mglg_{( talk)} 20:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I love how the guy above spelt it "Wikipaedia." Sorry, I just had to make sure that wasn't missed. ( Eeesh 23:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)) reply

Does anyone know if there has ever been any official confirmation of the Goatse Man's identity? There is a particular name that has been added to the Goatse.cx article on more than one occasion with linked 'evidence' that does show a certain similarity to the G-Man from behind - but AFAIK, the individual concerned (let's not name him here - in case it's not true) has never commented on the issue. Unless anyone knows better, that is... -- Kurt Shaped Box 22:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I believe I had read an interview with the goatse man. I know a couple of people who would almost certainly (worryingly) be able to track it down (or have it bookmarked or something), check back tomorrow :) 213.48.15.234 07:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Did he really open up for the interviewer? Edison 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I've decided to let that crack slide. :-) StuRat 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

He's dead, according to this: http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Timothy_Goatse_Simmons_dies_at_79

I remember seeing that 'report' when it first appeared on stileproject. It's fake. -- Kurt Shaped Box 21:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply