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.
If you look at this map on the left and compare it with this map on the right, you will see a pretty interesting correlation between the fact that in contrast to most other African countries, most French-speaking (Black/Sub-Saharan) African countries (regardless of whether they are majority-Christian or majority-Muslim) don't have any anti-gay laws at all (of course, they also don't have any pro-gay laws, but they appear to be more pro-gay than most other African countries). This is even more true for Black/Sub-Saharan countries which were (already) under French rule/control in 1913 (right before World War I began). Even the French Black/Sub-Saharan African countries which were under German control/rule right before World War I but came under French rule/control right after World War I ended are more anti-gay than the Black/Sub-Saharan African countries which were under French control/rule (even) before World War I began. Is this fact/observation simply a coincidence or is there something more behind this extremely interesting correlation? For instance, did (previous) French and Belgian imperialism in these areas teach these African countries to treat gay people better than their African neighbors? Or, for instance, was there less anti-gay preaching and evangelism in these countries in decent decades? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice finds on the maps! I see that sub-Saharan former English and German colonies seem to be equal or greater in rights as the former French colonies. Looking at the map I suspect this has more to do with colonial religion when contrasted with the present reach of Islam rather than which ethnic group colonized each nation. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way00:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by greater in rights? The former English and German Black/Sub-Saharan African colonies are more anti-gay than the former French Black/Sub-Saharan African colonies. Also, in regards to Islam, this would be inaccurate, since the former French Sub-Saharan African colonies of Niger, Mali, Chad, Djibouti, Burkina Faso, et cetera are Muslim-majority and yet do not have anti-gay laws. In contrast, the former non-French Sub-Saharan African colonies of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, southern Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia, et cetera are all Christian-majority and yet all of them have anti-gay laws. Thus, my point about how former French Sub-Saharan African colonies (regardless of their religion) are more pro-gay than former non-French Sub-Saharan African colonies still stands. Futurist110 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A map of Africa in 1913.
It's quite incredible and amazing. If a Sub-Saharan African country was under French rule/control in 1913 (right before World War I began; see map), it would be very unlikely to have anti-gay laws today. In contrast, if a Sub-Saharan African country was under non-French (British, German, Italian, and even Portuguese) rule in 1913, then it would be likely or even very likely to have anti-gay laws today. Futurist110 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mauritania is an exception to this rule (and I'm not even sure if it is considered Black). Look at all of the other Sub-Saharan African countries which were French colonies in 1913. Futurist110 (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-Saharan Africa.
Here is some more detailed data:
Sub-Saharan, French colony in 1913, currently has anti-gay laws: Mauritania, Senegal, and Guinea (3 countries).
Sub-Saharan, French colony in 1913, currently does not have anti-gay laws: All other Sub-Saharan African countries which were French colonies in 1913 (11 countries).
Sub-Saharan, not a French colony in 1913, currently does not have anti-gay laws: Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, and South Africa (5 countries).
Sub-Saharan, not a French colony in 1913, currently has anti-gay laws: All other Sub-Saharan African countries which were not French colonies in 1913 (25 countries).
I excluded small island countries in my data here. Someone can double-check my calculations, but even if I made an error or two somewhere in my calculations, my overall point here still strongly stands. Futurist110 (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If my data here is correct, 3/11, or 27%, of France's 1913 Sub-Saharan African colonies currently have anti-gay laws, while a whopping 25/30, or 83%, of Sub-Saharan African countries which were not French colonies in 1913 currently have anti-gay laws. 83% is more than three times larger/greater than 27% is, and there are many African countries who were and African countries who were not French colonies in 1913 (so it's hard to argue that the sample sizes here are too small). Oh, and here is a map of Sub-Saharan Africa. Futurist110 (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be hesitant to interpret this as indicative of any social/cultural difference between Francophone and Anglophone Africa. Rather the difference would lie in the role of the judiciary, and the process of decolonization. Overall, gay rights is a non-issue in African politics. It plays out in places like Uganda and Zimbabwe, but only as a result of activities from Western pressure groups. In many places were anti-gay legislation exists, it's rarely enforced through the official legal system. The fact that many French-speaking countries don't have any explicit legislation against homosexuality is probably more related that they haven't seen the need for it (existence of homosexuality in African societies is often denied) than a sign of acceptance. --Soman (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See LGBT rights in France. In 1791 no law was passed against it, so it remained legal. Not called the Age of Reason for nothing. As I recall, quite a few famous American expatriates sought freedom on this issue in France, but alas, I forget the details. Wnt (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to agree with Soman, there may be some relation to encoding such laws but the effect with things like LGBT rights in Mali and LGBT rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have about an equal effect as those encoded in all the nations listed in yellow on your map.
Just as Alansplodge gave you an exception earlier to your Francophone thesis, the most glaring exception to your thesis is South Africa (the 4th most populous sub-Saharan), which by your map up above actually provides more rights than the majority of the United States and the majority of the world and yet was English and Dutch a century ago.
That doesn't mean that the French influence did not play a part in the current status but given the wikipedia articles on how those former colonies of France and Belgium are in effect the same as nations such as Namibia with the only difference being unenforced legal codes, the real effect of French/Belgium influence doesn't amount to much especially when confronted by South Africa's status as the only nation on the continent to embrace such rights. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way14:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this whole topic needs some work, because Wikipedia's summaries may be misleading. For example, Congo is listed as one of the "legal" countries, and I see no reports that a 2010-2011 drive to pass a bill against it was successful, but when I look I find sources with bizarre statements like "A Congolese journalist Blaireou Kajam explained that there was no law against homosexuality, but it was a taboo and anyone found practicing homosexuality was immediately arrested and jailed for not less than three years."[1] Supposedly they are so anti-gay that the hotels have a policy against letting two men share a room, which is a level of weird the U.S. never knew. Wnt (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You will never be as smart as they. Whatever language the laws are written in is for the benefit of those who understand that particular language. Of course this will not appear in any French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.149.160 (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I presume from your source you're referring to the DRC. Our article LGBT rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo explains the situation. While there are no laws explicitly banning sex between people of the same sex, various more general laws are used to persecute those found. (This of course isn't uncommon, in fact even in countries where laws exist others laws may be used for a variety of reasons including for cases where it's no clear conduct violating the specific laws has taken place.) And it's perhaps worth remembering that some countries have very general provisions allowing people to be arrested and jailed without actually having clearly violated any law, so the idea that it's not against the law but people who do it are arrested and jailed isn't actually that contradictory.
And in many ways it's about more than laws. Consider for example that South Africa was the first country in the world to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation in their constitution and the fifth to allow same sex marriage, yet it's perhaps better to be LGB in a number of countries with discriminatory laws than in a number of communities and areas in South Africa LGBT rights in South Africa.
This is of course one of the problems with trying to summarise complicated situations so simply.
You get similar problems in other areas. For example the law in Malaysia on abortion [2][3][4][5][6][7] is not that different from the law in New Zealand (Abortion in New Zealand). In fact in some ways the law in Malaysia is more tolerant as it only requires one doctor.
Yet the actual implementation is vastly different with the mental health provision very commonly used in NZ to the extent that some opposed to abortions say it's basically abortion on demand and those who want to liberalise the law aren't really that strong a voice probably because most people aren't that concerned, it's only really doctors who generally express significant concern. (And definitely I think many people who may want one don't really think it's difficult or likely to be against the law.) But as the links attest, the availability in Malaysia is far more limited, particularly from what I've heard in government hospitals, with as the source attesting private hospitals and clinics quietly offering abortions while taking advantage over the unavailability and confusion over the law. (The sources suggest it's improving a bit but the law has changed since 1989 and by comparison I don't think the situation in NZ is that different from 10 years ago. If anything it's perhaps gotten a little harder due to concerns from doctors.)
The time periods when homosexuality was decriminalized in various countries worldwide.
I think that you guys and ladies are correct in your analysis -- http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/258.pdf (this research (on page 35 of this link of mine) shows that certain French-speaking African countries (though I wish that more French-speaking African countries were surveyed here) have equally anti-gay views among their populations than certain non-French speaking African countries (as stated above, South Africa is a huge exception)). You are also correct that France and Belgium de-criminalized homosexuality in the 18th century, which was much sooner than even some other Western countries decriminalized homosexuality. If this map (which shows the de-criminalization of homosexuality worldwide) is correct, then it appears that most French and Belgian (which was led by Francophones until the 20th century) colonies appear to have simply "followed the lead" of their colonizing countries and never officially specifically criminalized homosexuality (while still enormously disapproving of it in many cases). Also, you guys and ladies might be correct that homosexual behaviour might be punished in at least some of these countries through the use of other, less specific laws (I suppose sort of how incest with minors was punished in France by less specific laws until 2010, when a more specific law in regards to this was written and passed). Thank you very much for all of your help in regards to answering this question of mine, everyone. I strongly appreciate it. Futurist110 (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotal evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to noise causes psychological damage. As in reports of victims of noisy neighbours committing criminals acts (brick through the window), becoming depressed and homicide and suicide. All these acts suggest being committed "when the balance of mind was upset". Out of all the knowledge of impaired pscyhological conditions, that psychologists/psychiatrists can identify (they can identify depression, PTSD, schizophrenia, etc) is there a known measure for identifying the psychological damage caused by long-term noise and that a given person is suffering from it. 31.25.4.14 (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the shorter term there is a lot of science about the Long Range Acoustic Device and other Sonic weapons. For more long term exposure you also have such phenomenon as the so-called "Suicide Song" of Gloomy Sunday that radio stations actually went to the extreme of banning it, there have been a lot of scientists that have studied these effects such as Vladimir Gavreau.
An additional curious way one can "go mad" with sound is the case of the Milgram experiment which had test subjects react to pre-recorded sounds and screams of pain followed by banging on walls of their "victim" for just $4/hour. There were a variety of emotions and psychological responses and effects on the test subjects from those experiments.
Hey JackofOz, on the article for Milgram Experiment there is an ad stating $4/hour (actually less than an hour), then again it was in the early 60s so we've progressed hopefully. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way20:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noise is a type of psychological stress, and its effects have mostly been studied in that context -- the article summarizes them. The most important effects are an increase in emotional reactivity and difficulty sleeping. It's worth noting that many people with schizophrenia experience hallucinatory noise -- including hearing voices but also many other types of noise -- and the stress that induces is one of the most distressing aspects of the disease. Looie496 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Define noise? I was thinking of neighbour noise specifically. Continuous traffic noise; disco at high volume from 6pm in the evening to 6am in the morning, immediately below you; noise pest upstairs, continuously slamming doors, banging, clattering, dropping objects; loud music. Noise, 24/7, for, ah, 10 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that it? OK. I was a bit surprised at the interpretation of the Milgram experiment as testing response to noise. I thought that experiment was stimulated by the Nazi's at the Nuremburg Trials claiming - they were only following orders. The experiment was to see if ordinary people out of respect for authority would obey orders, even if they were outragous - like giving a life-threatening electric shock to someone with a heart complaint, for failing a laboratory word test. The majority of people followed orders. So, your conclusion is that out of all the knowledge of psychology/psychiatry, no-one has noticed a relationship between noise and pscyhological damage, either short or long term. OK. Thanks very much.
Who transforms gold scraps into gold bars, if at all?
What happens to the gold scraps being traded through pawn shops and the like? Does it get transformed into gold bar that can be traded as bullion in a regulated market? 15:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The simple answer to this is that anything the new buyer of "gold scraps" wishes to happen to it. Gold is like any other commodity on the marketplace, like sugar, brent crude oil or pork bellies so like those markets you do have "regulation" in the market but it has nothing to do with gold specifically--since at least the Democratic Party's Gold Reserve Act was truncated. I think part of what you are asking is if the price or state of gold is regulated . . . not officially but the market dictates what may be more useful for anyone buying or owning "gold scraps" in terms of both putting it on or taking it off "market" and whether to make it into gold bars. Gold bars simply being more efficient ways to trade or store larger quantities since they are all uniform weight and can be divided or combined into more easily marketable or accountable units. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way16:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it is made into jewelry, some into coins or gold bars. The big problem with gold bars is that they are extremely expensive -- a 10 lb bar, which is not very large at all, is worth a quarter of a million dollars. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If gold is like any commodity, I still wonder where it gets transformed into a commodity. I know that for agriculture commodities you deliver your wheat or pork bellies to an regulated warehouse, where you get a warrant stating its specific characteristics and quantity. When people trade commodities, they trade these warrants and emit futures, or other financial product based on this. I wonder if there is a list of official banks (or whatever, I have no idea) that accept gold and emit warrants. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's all a commodity. See Wickard v. Filburn (a "regulation" that deems every piece subject to the largely self regulated market), even gold you may wear on your ring is a commodity that affects world prices (or at least interstate commerce), not to the same degree perhaps as stacks of bars but any gold (or anything else) in any form is legally (and in many schools-economically) a "financial product" as you put it. Also much of the "regulation" you speak of isn't about the market price (with "pork bellies" "warehouses" being inspected by the USDA etc.) The physical place gold changes form is usually a mint, private or public. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way03:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep a commodity complete with cheats who try an make their money by selling tungsten bars coated with gold. Gold foundries are regulated but for a bar in the market it needs to be checked or bought from someone who'll guarantee it. Dmcq (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading some of the responses I see a point of potential confusion, technically speaking most everything is "regulated" by the U.S. Government and to my knowledge it is the same throughout the first-world and through the UN and NGOs in other parts of the world.
The point I tried to make above however with the Supreme Court Case is that there is no difference between a warehouse of say Pork Bellies and a pork belly in a can on your kitchen counter when it comes to effecting and being effected by the market pricing of demand and supply--same with gold and other commodities.
"Regulated" is omnipresent but largely irrelevant when asking about price or demand and supply, though government regulators may be the ones physically setting prices of some commodities, they rely on market forces (supply/demand) to set those prices. The government regulators may be the biggest single force in a market but they follow the tidal wave of a thousand or millions of individual whims effecting supply and demand.
In short the same gold traded by the billions in London or Hong Kong is effected and effects the price of gold in your cabinet at home, "regulations" on the commodity itself really isn't on the minds of commodity traders nor the people in your home using the gold except possibly just one of several "cost of doing business". Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcq is on the money, but User:Marketdiamond not. It's not about governments regulating prices. As said, everything that's bought and sold is a commodity. But some have an underlying standard and are traded in a commodities market. It doesn't matter if the pork belly in a kitchen is the same as the pork belly in an official warehouse. The former cannot be traded on a regulated market, contrary to the latter, which can. Fulfilling a standard makes it different. Compare trading shares of a limited company with trading shares of a corporation with shareholders on a stock market. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OsmanRF34, lol you pull a quote from me just after you say I'm not "on the money" (As said, everything that's bought and sold is a commodity). Your conclusion later is correct, but is it relevant to what happens to a commodity at a pawn shop, and why it happens (my point about price & markets)?
I'd be cautious calling "on the money" a comment from another editor that starts with "a commodity complete with cheats", a bit hyperbolic, not limited to gold & potentially actionable. Interested in seeing a cite or 2 about "underlying standard" & how it may be different then what I mentioned that every commodity type has the same market price (and thus incentive for what a pawn shop or I may do with said commodity) in spite of its form. Is there an effective difference between the "underlying standard" & the spot price of gold aside from where the buy/sell takes place (one at say a regulated pawn shop the other at a regulated commodities market)? On that, your "cannot be traded on a regulated market, contrary to the latter, which can." & yet there are hundreds offering to buy my gold & pork bellies in my area all offering me market price + commission despite none of them or I being regulated/licensed nor having your "underlying standard" in the same way the actual market for these commodities are/do, both platforms dictating the same price & thus incentive/disincentive to "transform" it as OP asks.
Your "compare trading shares of a limited company with trading shares of a corporation with shareholders on a stock market." I see what your getting at, the contrast of 'privately held' & thus SEC & exchange "unregulated" (however a 'privately held' US limited company would still be "regulated" by the IRS, Attorney Generals office etc.) the larger point I was trying to clarify is public or private, SEC or just IRS/AG none of those "regulators" would effect the day to day price of the companies products (commodities) & thus a pawn shops incentive to "transform" its gold. The other important way this privately held/publicly traded comparison falls down is companies get listed on all types of exchanges (Amex, Nasdaq, Toronto etc.) all of which have different listing requirements, there is/was even the "pink sheets" where a "public corporation" can thumb its nose at all exchange listing requirements & trade without exchange & many SEC regulations (the equity equivalent of your "underlying standard"?), those "public corporations" then trade much like your private "limited compan[ies]" which actually do "trade" but unlike commodities all gold companies/corporations have their own & different price. Gold & pork bellies etc. don't lobby exchanges/work to meet listing requirements/play exchanges off each other to get listed, they trade on commodity boards that place them there by default.
Most importantly, commodities are complex & confusing enough & trade much differently than equities (your "limited company" & "trading shares of a corporation" examples) & sometimes on separate markets in separate cities. Gold the commodity trading ripples through every gold transaction in equal ways be it pawn shops or commodity exchanges, doing so 'globally' & in a 'pure play' way. In contrast a gold mining limited company goes down in its (privately held) say Australian market price due to CEO malfeasance while a lets say African gold miner or processor "corporation with shareholders on a stock market" remains unchanged because they are losing marketshare or ending its dividend--both of which aren't always global & almost never commodity price ripples. Gold the commodity (both in warehouses & on your kitchen table) is not effected by such "equity" concerns & thus doesn't effect a pawn shop's incentive to "transform" their gold. I understand the larger point you're trying to make but crossing the commodity/stock divide is always a confusing task. BTW, nice find on the pork bellies update, I was unaware of that. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way03:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can you know if you "dr"? Perhaps there are too many questions being asked but my intent was to summarize some of the things I hit on in response to A) your own question B) your confusing equities with commodities in a comparison that raises many more questions than answers and C) your response to a "complete with cheats" comment by a 3rd editor. Yesterday I did consider adding a few Bloomberg or CNBC transcript links but they are about 2x longer then my summary, so I'll keep your tl;dr preference in mind. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way09:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, how does one regulate a pork belly? If it is too large, do they lop some off and sell it for scrapple? Or are they sold in large lots that average out? μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pork belly has the answer, although they were delisted for trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange: "The unit of trading was 20 short tons (40,000 lb or 18,000 kg) of frozen, trimmed bellies. Pork bellies can be kept in cold storage for an extended period of time, and generally it was the frozen bellies that were most actively traded." OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The most famous French writer was probably Voltaire, but he wrote mainly prose. The most famous French dramatist was Molière, I think. I'm not sure that French literature had a proper "Shakespeare". (For German literature, it would unquestionably be Goethe.) Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
French is referred to as "La langue de Molière". Apparently, "Langue de Voltaire" is also used but I've never actually seen that used. Cervantes, Goethe, Shakespeare and Moliere are probably the four writers that are most strongly associated with their respective languages - at least in French culture, where their names are used to refer poetically to their language. Effovex (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, the French would never say that Molière was the French Shakespeare. But Moliere is to French what Shakespeare is to English. Effovex (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly alright to just explain that Pushkin is simply the Russian Dan Brown (or Shakespeare, or whoever you prefer). IBE (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same Romanization the English-language publisher Slavica of my Po-Moskowski 101 textbook., and it allows reserving y for ы. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I retract my German reference, but I still think that a system in which the sounds "ya", "yu" and "oy" are spelt that way - and not "ja", "ju" and "oj" - is a better one for anglophones. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]01:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to argue the point, since I knew what Jack meant. The bottom line for those who are interested is that as with Arabic there is no single accepted standard transliteration, which Russian grammar textbooks make clear. See Romanization of Russian. Ruthenian is even worse, as it has three i letters instead of two (и, і, and ы), and two geh's (г and ґ). Not that I was schooled in it. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Щербачёв requires only 8 letters in Russian but 12 in English (Shcherbachov) and 17 in German (Schtscherbatschow). There are probably even better examples of the typographical economy of Russian. OTOH, some of their words are sesquipedelian, so there are probably more letters overall in most Russian texts than their German translations. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]11:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Hawaiian, the ʻokina ‹ ʻ › is a full and independent letter of the alphabet. It represents the glottal stop /ʔ/, which is a phoneme, meaning that if you omit a glottal stop or if you insert one where it shouldn't be (like mixing up ‹ʻa› /ʔa/ and ‹a› /a/), that makes the word a new word. In older texts, like the Bible, the glottal stop is not represented at all in spelling, making /ʔa/ and /a/ orthographically indistinguishable: both are spelt ‹a›. So, the letter ʻokina in old texts is infinitely many times longer when written in modern texts (1 ÷ 0 = ∞). --Theurgist (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a transliteration a la Jack, although it still has issues:
Ya Vas Lyubil
Ya vas lyubil: lyubov' eshe, byt' mozhet,
V dushe moei ugasla ne sovsem;
No pust' ona vas bol'she ne trevozhit;
Ya ne hochu pechalit' vas nichem.
Ya vas lyubil bezmolvno, beznadezhno,
To robost'yu, to revnost'yu tomim;
Ya vas lyubil tak iskrenno, tak nezhno,
Kak dai vam bog lyubimoi byt' drugim.
with its eshe which is pronounced YISH-SHAW and a hochu which would be jachú in Spanish or chotschuh with a final accent in German. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the French wiki actually has an article on the subject, and Pushkin or Tolstoi are used to refer to Russian. However, the ones that I've actually come across in my lifetime are those I named, plus Homer for ancient Greek and Virgil for Latin. Dante for Italian seems also fairly obvious but I don't recall having ever seen it. Effovex (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dante was perhaps just a little too early, almost 300 years before Shakespeare. His writing is surprisingly readable given that early date, but there was no unified Italian language at the time — you can argue that he wrote in "Florentine". --Trovatore (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the US independence, has the unification (or even invasion) of Canada been ever a topic of political discussion? When the US was already independent, Canada was still British colony, couldn't that be a reason to try to conquer it? Was there any reason why the Thirteen Colonies expanded west and south, but not north? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is only useful when there actually is a draft, though. Also, technically speaking, only a part of Canada needs to remain independent in order for this "release valve" for the U.S. to remain in place. Futurist110 (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My international law lecturer used to say that the only successful acquisition of territory by conquest in modern times was the British acquisition of Canada from the French, and that a good deal of the reason that it was successful was that the British government offered to ship any French settlers who wished to go back to France gratis (I haven't found confirmation of this, though I suspect that Treaty of Paris (1763)#Canada in the Treaty of Paris is the relevant clause). According to my lecturer, many of them took up the offer, and when the Southern colonies rebelled a few years later, those who had chosen to remain in Canada stayed loyal. --ColinFine (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting Adam Bishop never knew of those, thou War Plan Red also included the rest of the British Empire . . . you just left out Canadian Bacon, or as President Alan Alda put it: "Surrender pronto or we'll level Toronto". Hacker Hailstorm, activate! lol. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way03:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Adam did know about them. He just told you about them. ........ Oh, I think I get it ("Interesting, Adam Bishop. I never knew of those ..."). Tricky stuff, this language thingamy. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]06:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly there was quite a serious movement for the annexation of Canada before the US Civil War. However because of the Missouri Compromise; any new states admitted to the Union from the north would be a 'Free State': a state without slavery. This was opposed by the Southern states, in particular US Senators from the south who were afraid of being outvoted in Washington over the slavery issue. Furthermore the Southern states have strong economic links to the British Empire— Southern cotton and British mills. So generally the Southerners were unwilling to go to war over Canada and any attempts at annexation were thwarted. Sodacan (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's also convenient cause Canadians can play the same game most of Europe does, where they act disgusted at the U.S., but essentially live under it's protection and benefit from its success. Not saying we're the best boyfriend in the world, but there are a lot of worse partners to have. Shadowjams (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well much of western & central Europe also "live[s] under it's protection and benefit from its success" with the US since World War II (see NATO, Berlin airlift, Marshall Plan, Irish tax laws re: Apple, US bases in Europe etc.), thou proximity also matters especially in matters like taxes, regulations for companies say in Maine or Minnesota that move across the border but still stay in the same general area. To be fair to Europe however it may be a case of the US needing them more then them needing the US, lots of NATO generals begging Congress not to end their so called "Kings in a fairy castle" duty stations. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way03:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You must not be very familiar with Canadian politics if you think Canada acts disgusted at the US. In terms of foreign policy, the Harper government has been the most rabidly pro-US and pro-unilateralist (the two are often synonymous) to date. Canadians don't like certain aspects of US economic and foreign policy, but being a protector, not that Canada has many credible military threats to fear, does not make one perfect in every way. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The greatest tragedy of the English-speaking peoples was the secession and cessation of the American colonies. Had they remained part of the British Empire, slavery would have been abolished two generations earlier, the Civil War avoided, the Plains Indians left in peace, protected as equal subjects of the King, as they were in Canada, and much of the malignant politics of race which scar this nation avoided. Questions like this raise the tantalising possibility that there are some Americans who realise the terrible mistake that was made two centuries ago and wish to rectify it. That would be possible, I suppose: both the USA and UK suffer from pretty second-rate politicians, but there is no reason why a figure such as Her Majesty should not be a unifying figure. A good start might be for the Americans to apply to join the Commonwealth, and later to repudiate the Declaration of Independence. On the other side of the coin, the American constitution, based as it is heavily on the Bill of Rights, could be transposed to English law, which would have the beneficial (and salutary) effect of rearming the citizenry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.25.36 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joining the Commonwealth would not be beyond the bounds of possibility. But repudiating the Declaration of Independence would be whole 'nother ballgame, involving becoming a colony of the UK once more. There's no evidence the UK would be remotely interested in gaining such a colony, and plenty to suggest the opposite. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]20:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Americans have any interest in joining the Commonwealth. Nationalism aside, I don't think we could get over that "queen" thing, even at the level of just having her titular head of a club we're in. --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You both raise profound and disturbing points. However, I should like to suggest that we might offer either the Duchess of York, apparently well known in the United States for her appearance on the 'Oprah' television show and commercials for the 'Weight Watchers' Corporation, or Prince Harry, who is apparently very well known in Las Vegas, and is said to be very popular amongst pre-pubescent girls.
The great advantage of having a constitutional monarchy, and a monarch as head of state, over an elected head of state, is that immediately a President is elected, all those who did not vote for him consider him an idiot and unrepresentative of their own views. Over time, even those who did vote for him also come to this conclusion, so that by the end of his term in office almost every voter considers their own head of state an incompetent charlatan. Worse still, this unflattering opinion is broadcast in newspapers and on the television, and is reported abroad, which reflects poorly on the nation as a whole. Compare this with the respect and admiration in which Her Majesty is held, above the sway of domestic politics. In addition, by and large, our monarchs are people of taste and refinement and thereby exert a beneficial influence over the culture of the nation; would you not, after all, prefer to be known as members of a nation represented by someone who has a private art collection which includes 6 Rembrandt's, 26 Van Dyke's, and 13 Rubens' rather than such individuals as Kim Kardashian and Hulk Hogan?
Whoever you are, comparing the UK Royal Family with those other personages is fallacious and absurd (unless Kardashian and Hogan have been elected to public office lately and the news didn't make it down here?). Maybe that's why you didn't sign your post. How about comparing the taste and refinement of Ozzy Osbourne or Vicki Pollard with Eleanor Roosevelt or Jackie Kennedy? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]18:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't absurd at all; just as Her Majesty has not been elected to office, but is seen as exemplary of her nation so, unfortunately, are various ugly Americans seen as exemplary of theirs. Australia, of course, most people foreign to that country associate with such cultural titans as Dame Edna Everidge and Sir Les Patterson; Shane Warne, perhaps. It might be fair to add that Australia is not only largely a desert in a geographical sense. And finally, I can't really see what the difference is between not signing a post and hiding behind a pseudonym; but, in an effort to be pleasant - 86.183.79.59 (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell did Australia get into this discussion? The only possible connection is the nationality of your interlocutor, and if that isn't playing the man rather than the ball, I don't know what would be. Pleasant? Hmmmmmmmmmm .............. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]21:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that the loss of the Thirteen Colonies might have been at the root of the later doctrine of allowing Dominion status, self-government and eventual independence to Canada, Australia et al. Alansplodge (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's more than possible, it's actually quite likely that the British Empire developed the doctrine of Responsible government in response to American Independence. The loss of the Thirteen Colonies was a bit of an debacle, and Britain found that managing its colonial empire a bit differently in other places had a better result... --Jayron3202:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
