Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< December 16 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 18 > |
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. |
I hope this is the right place to ask this -- I'm trying to draw a gondolier (in the act of rowing a gondola, naturally) and I've just realised I am not terribly good at drawing figures while they're inside a boat. I'm not so much asking for a step-by-step thing as perhaps some tips on what to do. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
For hundreds of years up to now, Western and European civilization has dominated the world. The richest and most developed countries in the world are all mostly and mainly Western or European countries. Europe and European countries have controlled and ruled most of the world through colonialism and colonization. Europeans colonized and settled in overseas lands such as the Americas and Australia. Europeans and European countries have become the masters of most non-Western countries and peoples through colonialism. In the West, in Europe, in Britain, there first developed in Industrial Revolution, where people lived mostly in cities and worked mostly in factories. In the West, in America, Britain, Rome, and Greece, democracy first rose, grew, spread, and developed, and it was the West where the world's democracy came from. Most of the world's scientific research, advancement, and knowledge and technological invention, development, and application came from and occurred in the West and Europe. Most of the world's science and technology, scientists and inventors, are in the West or from the West. The West has led much in humanity and the world's development and progress. From Europe came the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the Agricultural Revolution. The most powerful country in the world, the United States, is a Western country.
I have three questions to ask you about this:
1. Why has Western and European civilization been so great and powerful currently in the past few hundred years? Why has it dominated the world? Why had it contributed so much to humanity and the world's development and progress? Why?
2. Is there any evidence, for example, historical, political, social, cultural, anthropological, or geographical, that it is not inevitable that Western and European civilization dominated the world? Is there any evidence that other civilizations can also or are also able to or capable of being so great and powerful or contributing so much to humanity and the world's development and progress?
3. Will Western and European civilization be so great and the greatest civilization in the world for ever? Will there be other civlizations that will be or become as great or greater than Western and European civilization?
Bowei Huang (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Your question touches on what has been perhaps the single most important aspect of my own personal lifelong study of history, namely: the transition of non-"Western" societies that encounter and are ultimately absorbed into the spreading society of Western Civilization. I have yet to find a society on earth that has been able to successfully sustain itself independent once it comes into contact with Western Civilization. I would say, from what I have been able to understand from having studied this so extensively, that your premise that Western Civilization's spread throughout the world was indeed "inevitable". Or rather, after a certain point it was. However, when discussing this, I really don't like to use the term "Western" or "European" or "Civilization", since from my perspective, it is neither exclusively Western or European, and to call it a Civilization is to mislabel it, I think. But for purposes of clarity, let's call it this here for now... This is explained a little better in the Wiki article Sociocultural evolution. However, I do have to say that even in this I find that the term "evolution" is unsatisfactory, since it implies that there has been a progression from early "bad" societies to "better" ones. Instead, the term Social change is probably better to use, but it is rather general and vague...
Western Civilization actually did not begin in the West, nor even in Europe. Instead, it probably began in the Fertile Crescent and adjacent areas. During a very pivotal time in ancient history, from about 2000 BCE to 600 AD (but most especially from around 1800 to 1200 BCE), a series of migrations and invasions took place among a group of nomadic warriors known as the Indo-Europeans from their probable homeland north of the Black Sea into areas stretching from the Indian sub-continent to Ireland. Some of the early invasions of the Indo-Europeans took them over the mountainous region of Turkey, Iraq and Iran and down into the lands of the Fertile Crescent where more sedentary and agricultural societies fluorished. The nomadic Indo-Europeans had a couple of technological advantages at first that greatly helped them in their warfare: they had developed the knowledge of how to smelt and work iron, and they had domesticated the horse. Along with this they also were nomadic, and nomads are typically very good warriors. Unable to fend off these highly proficient warriors, many of the communities in this area were rubbed out. One such example of this is the ruined city of Ebla, which was destroyed in 1750 BCE by the Hittites, an Indo-European tribe. Although there had been much competition between societies in the Fertile Crescent before the arrival of the Indo-European invasion, the level of devastation and social upheaval brought about by these nomadic warrior barbarians coming from the north was unprecedented for this region.
If a society wished to stand up against these invaders in an attempt to keep from being completely wiped out, they had to change how their society functioned in order to do so. In other words, they had to adopt the very techniques that made the invading armies so powerful, and try to improve on them. In the end this basically destroyed their old culture, and supplanted it with that of the invaders' even though they had not been conquered. By becoming the same kind of society as that of their enemies, they stopped being the society that they once were. To stand up against these nomadic warriors, the societies in this region had to become "machine-like". Before this, the typical person in this area had a life that was quite diversified. People would perform many different activities throughout their day, and their lives were not very regimented. In order to withstand the constant threat of invasion, though, these societies had to reshape themselves so that they created specialists. The ruler (typically a King), would establish a well-trained standing army of soldiers who could respond at a moment's notice to any threat, and who did not produce anything other than safety from outside invasion. Instead, these soldiers consumed - and it was very expensive for these societies' economies to equip, train, and maintain armies large enough to prevent invaders from destroying them. This meant that the average person no longer was occupied with various and sundry activities, but would be regulated to a particular livelihood such as farming, metal crafts, etc. Taxes became even more critical, so a larger bureaucracy had to be established to keep track of this. In short, "Western Civilization" was created. Unfortunately for these people in the Fertile Crescent, the invading Indo-European tribes began settling down and started the process of turning their societies into machines as well.
Eventually what ended up happening was that another Indo-European society invaded the Fertile Crescent - the Greeks under Alexander the Great. The Greeks' society was even MORE "machine-like" than other people - and because of this they were more successful. But then another Indo-European society came along that, for a variety of reasons, was the most efficient machine-like society to yet - namely the Romans. It would not be for centuries later that another society could match the great advantage that the Romans had over their competeting rivals in terms of being efficiently organized. After the collapse of the Roman Empire under the hands of yet more Indo-Europeans (the Germanic Tribes), "Western Civilization" continued to spread, but more subtely - mostly through the Christianity (which carried with it Roman culture) and Commerce. Even though other societies embraced the techniques of "Western Civilization", such as the Medieval Muslims, the societies of Northern and Western Europe managed to take the lead in developing these techniques, and by the Age of Exploration, were poised to spread its influence all over the entire globe.
It so happens that a couple of other phenomena occurred that have had a huge impact on the course of world events over the past couple of hundred years - the rise of the Middle Class and the Industrial Revolution - both of which occurred mainly in Northern and Western Europe. The conditions that created both of these things were optimized by Western Civilization, and then both the Middle Class and the Industrial Revolution (with their emphasis on mercantilism and exploitation) went on to make Western Civilization even more powerful than it had been before by making the societies in which these things occurred become even more "machine-like". Today, the most machine-like society that has ever existed is that of the United States. The U.S. embodies the epitome of a society that has incorporated both of these forces. It may well be that some other forces might come along that will supplant the Middle Class's powerful position, or to supplant the Industrial Revolution - but whatever force this is, it will certainly still be an integral part of Western Civilization. Communism, after all, is just another form of Western Civilization, for example... So perhaps a better question would be: "What, if anything, will supplant the Middle Class?"
As different societies initially encountered Western Civilization, there were mixed reactions. Some societies embraced it fervently (such as the Romans), while others opposed it violently (such as the Gauls). Still other peoples had a mixture of embracing and opposing its cancerous spread (such as the Britons). However, nobody has been able to ultimately resist embracing it. All a society can realistically hope for is that it can hang on to many vestiges of its earlier unique character, while trying to incorporate the aspects of Western Civilization in as seamless a way as possible. Always this process of transformation from earlier society to Western Civilization is filled with huge social upheaval and violence. This cannot be changed, as it is in the very nature of why societies must adopt Western Civilization in the first place: to prevent themselves from being annhilated. Today we can see this same process as it works its way through societies that are in various stages of embracing Western Civilization (notably in places such as Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia). All are fraught with violence and upheaval. This process usually lasts a couple of hundred years, and then relative stability ensues. Perhaps the day will come when some future generation will no longer be faced with headlines from around the world that speak of societies' violent encounters with Western Civilization, as it will be a done deal. I just do not see how any social or historical interference can possibly stop the spread of Western Civilization until it has been embraced by every last society on the planet. It is a cancer that cannot be stopped without becoming part of the cancer itself.
You asked if it is possible whether something else could come along that could be as strong or stronger in terms of social influence as Western Civilization, and my answer would be no. At least not for the next thousand years or so. The reason is that Western Civilization turns societies into machines. By doing so, the machine-like society becomes so efficient and so powerful that it cannot be successfully opposed. The other reason is that in doing this, the society also achieves a level of security that allows for the flow of commerce and the development of culture, which are very powerful enticements for the average human being. Having a steady income and being able to enjoy entertainments regularly are highly valued things. In order for another system to be able to be as strong as this, it would basically have to replicate what Western Civilization does - and in so doing, it would actually become part of Western Civilization, too. (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...). Forever, though, is a long time. I am sure that some time in the distant future there will emerge some social force that will supplant Western Civilization, but I cannot envision it happening for centuries, if not for millenia.
This is written from my own opinion, but I am not writing this as "original research" by any means! There have been many books and articles that have stated the same thing I just did. Indeed, this is such a pervasive theme that unless someone requests, I shall forego citing any specific works, alhtough the aforementioned "Guns, Germs and Steel" is probably just as good a work as any.Saukkomies 16:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Beware always, Bowei Huang, of the illusion that history always moves in one direction. For that which rises also falls and the owl of Minerva only ever flys at dusk. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You said that Western countries and societies rose and flourished because they were more machine-like. I don't understand. Weren't many other countries and civilizations such as China also very machine-like or just as machine-like as Western countries and civilization? I mean, the Chinese had a large empire and ancient civilization that was as complex, sophisticated, and advanced as the Romans were and had. So how and why were Western countries and societies more machine-like than other countries and societies, like China?Bowei Huang (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
To respond to your second query, Bowei Huang, I would say that each civilization that has sprung up on earth has its own unique characteristics. It is probably not wise to generalize by talking about civilizations as diverse as the Chinese, or the Indus Valley, or the Incan as the same thing, even though they do have certain similiarities. The reason that China did not become the same kind of civilization as "Western Civilization" is not because it did not have a "machine-like" society, nor that it had access to technology and raw resources, or that they explored the world to some degree - all of which they did have. The most likely reason that the Chinese didn't follow the same course that Western Civilization did was that Chinese society was very self-absorbed. They did not have a lot of motivation to go out and find new lands, but repeatedly chose a path of isolating themselves from the outside world. The only real exception to this was when outsiders, the Mongolians under Genghis and Kublai Khan, conquered China and then went on to conquer a huge amount of real estate elsewhere. However, they could not maintain their hold on their conquered lands due to the fact that they assimilated and fought amongst themselves. We could examine each of the various histoical civilizations that have come and gone, and each has the seeds of its own destruction.
However, Western Civilization is not like that. Why? What makes it different from, say the Chinese civilization, or the Aztec civilization? It is due to the fact that it is actually NOT a "civilization" in the first place. At the beginning of my previous response above in this subject I mentioned the fact that I did not like the term "Western Civilization" because it is neither Western nor is it a Civilization. So what is it? I won't talk about the various definitions of the term that go into other subjects. What a civilization is defined to be in this regard is a distinct society that shares the same culture, and often the same language, as well as having a degree of sophistication (to differentiate it from tribal societies). We can say that there was a Roman Civilization, or a French Civilization, or a Portuguese Civilization, etc. But they ALL belonged to what we call "Western Civilization", right? How can such diverse societies as Catholic Portuguese-speaking Brazilians and Lutheran Finns be included in the same society or culture? And yet they are part of "Western Civilization". See what I'm saying?
The big mistake that people often make when they talk about "Western Civilization" is that they think of it as a civilization, instead of something else. Western Civilization is much bigger than just the various societies and nations that are part of it. It represents a shift in the way that human society works - much the same way as the Industrial Revolution was a shift. This shift that took place back in the Fertile Crescent in ancient times where the whole thing started was a transformation of society into a machine, making the people who live in the society all cogs of the machine - each with his or her own specialization. But the difference between why "Western Civilization" fluorished and spread all over the planet is not just due to that - it is also due to the nature of reaching out to new lands that was imbued in it from the very start.
If you examine history, you'll find that there were times when societies that were part of Western Civilization reached out and conquered new lands (or tried to conquer them). One such example was when the Persians tried to conquer all of the Middle East and then the lands of the Greeks. The Persians were indeed part of Western Civilization - they were the inheritors of centuries of struggle on the plains of the Fertile Crescent and surrounding mountains and deserts. There had been others before them - the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, Phoenicians, etc - all trying to establish control over these lands. Eventually the Persians came out on top for a while. Then they reached out to the West. And when they did they ran smack into the Greeks. And then the Greeks realized that they, too, had to transform their society in order to survive - adopting the methods of Western Civilization - almost deliberately so. And then of course Alexander came along, and "good-bye Persians".
Another "reaching out" came when the Europeans Christians began their Crusades into the Holy Land. This set in motion events that would ultimately result in the Conquistadors of Spain reaching out even further to conquer the civilizations of the New World. I won't go into the details about all that here, though.
Then another "reaching out" took place when first the Portuguese, then the Dutch and English, sailed off to distant lands to set up colonies where they could raise precious spices and other commodoties that could be traded for a high profit back home.
This, then is the real difference why Western Civilization has spread all over the globe when such things as the Chinese civilization did not. The Europeans had the technology to sail around the world, and they had the motivation to do so, and they had societies that were organized such that they could carry with them a system of governance that could stand up against threats from other peoples they encountered. All three of these things were necessary for what happened. Having just the technology and motivation alone was not enough to accomplish what Western Civilization has done. The systems in place within Western Civilization make it so that it is an unstoppable force - as I outlined above, in order to stop it, you have to become like it, and once you become like it, you've lost - you are assimiliated - like the Borg! -- Saukkomies 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Why were Western countries and civilization so good at assimilating other countries and people? Why is it that the only way to stop it is to be like it?
Another thing is, I've heard the European Union will probably become the next superpower in the world. This means that America might not be the world's superpower any more, but this doesn't say or mean if another civilization will probably become the world's most powerful civilization.Bowei Huang (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Can any user please tell me that based on the increase in the Cost of Living Index, what is the equivalent today of one pound sterling in 1978 in Britain. Thank you.
Simonschaim (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
There's rather a lot of information on the Retail Price Index, from 1800 to 2007, at www.statistics.gov.uk. According to one of the tables I requested, the RPI stood at 197.1 in 1978, and in October this year was 824.1. Which suggests that one pound sterling in 1978 would have felt, in purchasing power, like 4.20 does today.
Obviously that only works as a generalisation - property prices have increased more like tenfold, while video cameras have gone the other way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[2] is a UK House of Common Research paper giving the value of the pound sterling from 1750-1998. If the 1974 index is taken as 100, then the 1970 is 68.2 and 1978 is 181.7
[3] is a paper from the Office of National Statistics on inflation from 1947 to 2004 in the UK. It gives the 1970 index as 18.5 and 2004 as 186.7.
Thus if I calculate right, referring both back to 1970, (186.7/18.5)/(181.7/68.2) = 3.80 approx. A pound in 1978 would have been worth nearly £3.80 in 2004, which is not much less than today's value in these times of relatively low inflation. SaundersW (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Who was the medieval city ruler who forced the population to look after his many dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.9.98 (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the term used in the English speaking world to the relationship that exists after a marriage between the bride's parents and the groom's parents - i.e between the two respective sets of in-laws?Peterjames wilson (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In the movie The In-Laws, one of two characters related in this way simply refers to the other as "my in-law". (And hence the title.) The dialogue goes something like "He's going to be my in-law; his son is marrying my daughter." However, as noted above, this is not standard English usage.
In Yiddish the word you want would be "machatunim". (I don't speak the language; that's one transcription into the English alphabet, but there may be others.)
--Anonymous, 06:12 UTC, December 18, 2007.
The transliteration is open. There are, besides the plural you cited, also male and female singular forms "machutin" and "machatennista". The relationship is/was very important among the Jews of Eastern Europe, where aranged marriages were common, and a wedding united two families. The go-between who served as a match-maker recieved the gratitude of both families. Too Old (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm researching the history of naval operations during the World War One and am trying to discover what and where the very first British naval victory over the Germans was. The obvious biggie was the battle of Heligoland Bight in late August 1914, but is there anything before this, no matter how small? (even the sinking of a single U Boat or gunship.)81.156.3.207 (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I can give you, I think, an unambigious British victory, 81.156, from a theatre of operations that you might not even have considered. The facts themselves, fantastic as they are, read like something that might have arisen from the fiction of William Somerset Maugham.
Anyway, the theatre in question is German East Africa, which did not learn of the outbreak of the European war until several weeks after the event. On Lake Nyasa there was a British gun-boat by the name of Guendolen, commanded by the red-headed Captain Rhoades, known throughout the area for his Rabelasian wit and his filthy songs. On 19 August Captain Rhoades took the Guendolen into Sphinxhaven Bay, at the German end of the lake, there disabling the Hermann von Wissmann with a single shot from a range of 2000 yards. Captain Berndt, the commander of the German vessel, an erstwhile drinking partner of Rhoades, rowed out to the Guendolen to remonstrate, shouting as he pulled alongside "Gott for damm, Rhoades, vos you drunk?" Rhoades, full of apologies, explained that he was not. He had, rather, received orders to take control of Lake Nyasa. Berndt and his crew were duly taken prisoner, with even more apologies. This small encounter was hailed by The Times as the British Empire's first naval victory of the war. The details can be found in Edward Paice's superb Tip and Run: the Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa, London, 2007, p. 20. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I am purchasing a German Shepard Puppy,female. She is about 6 weeks old and I will get her at 8 weeks. I need a german name, a strong name, a loving name Thanks!Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
How about Ingrid? Or Sabine (pronounced Sa-been-eh)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Helga? Heidi? or the loveliest of all (cough ,mine) Hannah? 86.53.57.148 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
(re-indent) Hertha, a Germanic fertility goddess. AecisBrievenbus 00:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Charles Dickens never wrote a sequel to "Tale of Two Cities"; but I heard from somewhere that another author did (and I think it was fairly recent). I cant seem to find any info though - how many sequels to "Tale of Two Cities" have been published, and what are the names of the authors/title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.223.87 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Could somebody please point me in the direction of information on the (17th century-ish? English?) practice of naming children things like Praise-The-Lord Smith and God's-Judgement-Is-Mighty Jackson? (I've made those examples up, but hopefully someone knows what I'm on about.) I don't think there's anything about it on Wikipedia (I have looked), and it's the sort of thing I imagine would be swiftly struck down as non-notable if anyone did try to write about it, but maybe the brains of the Reference Desk can tell me where else to look for this kind of thing. It's a pain to try to find this sort of thing on search engines because all the phrases I try bring up religious tracts rather than references to people. -88.109.63.214 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Here [5] are a few for you, on a baby naming forum. [6] and a few more. I googled "Puritan names". [7] here is an article with more examples linked to it. Not exhaustive, but a start for you to follow! (see also [8]SaundersW (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC) By the way, see also Ankh-Morpork City Watch#Constable Visit-the-Infidel-with-Explanatory-PamphletsSaundersW (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Praise-God Barebone, or Barbon, is thought to be the father of the economist and physician, Nicholas Barbon, whose full name was Nicholas Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned-Barbon. Indeed it was! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Your article on Stewart Headlam says next to nothing about his particular contribution to Christian socialism. Can someone please tell me some more about his teachings? Lady Electric (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Question .... If a foreign born person is in the postion of the vice-president and something happens to the president, can a foreign born person them assume the presidency as an interim president not elected to the office but there by circumstance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.49.106 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What are the known beliefs about human evolution of each candidate? - Joseph Edwards
Why should you care? I understood that the idea was to select the best candidate based on the needs of the nation as a whole. However as a UK citizen, I also understand that you are allowed to pick and choose the constitutional items you want to follow or not. Like separation of chirch and state - most citizens appear to select candidates who are main line christians - even if they are buffoons.83.148.88.37 (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I just heard a rumour that Barack Obama believes in hinduisim, and he beleives in a giant eight armed elephant god called ganesha. (Superawesomgoat (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
Why Henrik Ibsen is considered as "father of modern drama"? If you going to refer ma to the article of him, then I would suggest you where it says or which paragraph does it say. Another question: How does Ibsen develop his characters in A Doll's House? What steps does he take? and Can A Doll's House be seen as a tragedy? Yes, I have read it but don't know how he developed his characters and steps does he take. What kinds of human beings does Ibsen satirize, mock or make of fun of his plays? What are some issues and themes that are addressed in Ibsen's works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.26 (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC) These are not homework questions and please answer them, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.26 (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)