I am looking for anything on the popular reaction to nazi agressions of the jews. I've read somewhere around wikipedia that the attacks of the SA against jews were not popular. What did the general public think about the nurember laws ? About concentration camps ? About the final solution ? Cold Light (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See German resistance and related articles. Bear in mind that german peoples opinions may have been swayed by domestic Nazi propaganda. In a totalitarian state with no freedom of speech or freedom of the press, people tend to think what their told to think. Willy turner (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise looking for multiple respected opinions on this before forming your own. I've looked into this a few times over the years, and some historians insist the German people were totally devoted to Hitler until the bitter end, while other's claim they were more like collaborators, going along with him out of fear, not respect or adoration. Whether the antisemitic actions were a reflection of a minority or the majority (even given the propaganda element, which further skews interpretation) is very much still debated. Add in the fact that Germans tend to claim post-war that Hitler was the root of all evil, and that they were unwillingly dominated by him possibly as a national coping mechanism, and finding meaningful answers is very hard. Prokhorovka (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that people "tend to think what their [sic] told to think" in a totalitarian state, it's that there is not a lot of opportunity for different actions. If you spoke up or protested in even the most minor way, poor fortunes would await you. One nice example of this is when the Nazis took over the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, full of scientists, many of whom were not fans of the anti-semitism at all. Hitler had them do things like sign petitions saying how great Hitler was, taking loud and public oaths to how great Nazism was, publicly salute the flag and etc. If you had reservations, if you disagreed—it would go on your record, and that could be used against you in the future. In this way, partial collaboration in the Nazi activities by anyone who didn't or couldn't flee the country was assured.

Keep in mind that of the things you've mentioned, about half are public and half are secret. The general public had some inclining (and a lot of fear) of camps (they could be sent there themselves), but that they were specifically being used as death camps (rather than just labor camps or prison camps) was not so obvious. (Consider that the US also had "concentration camps"—e.g. Manzanar—but they weren't being used as death camps. Just because you have camps doesn't mean you have a final solution.)

But as User:Prokhorovka points out, this is a highly contentious matter and one of the great, great debates amongst professional historians. How much did the German public know, how much were they complicit? There are a lot of very well-argued answers to this that disagree with each other entirely. Because of the nature of the Nazi state, actual polling, or even things like party membership, etc., are useless indicators. Even someone who was an active member of the Nazi party might have been doing it to save their own skin alone or to save their job. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's a complicated issue, anti-Semitism was at least a part of the views the Nazis campaigned democratically on. Some, but (importantly) not all, of Hitler's and the Nazi Party's views towards Jews was known, when people voted for them. SA attacks had started before Hitler's chancellorship in a capacity - although I'm not sure whether some of these were anti-Semitic. While not all plans were known, some of them were. I forget exactly what is said in Mein Kampf on this issue, but our article certainly says it had anti-Semitic elements to it: "In Mein Kampf, Hitler uses the main thesis of "the Jewish peril," which speaks of an alleged Jewish conspiracy to gain world leadership. The narrative describes the process by which he became increasingly anti-Semitic...". Hitler did win votes, so those people either didn't understand his views or at least were prepared to put up with anti-Semitism. We're talking around 45% of the voting public voting for Hitler in normal democratic elections. That may help you to draw answers. Of course, people's views change. There must have been people who were happy to have Jews discriminated against, but not killed. Reaction to different events or ideas would have been different. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 16:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a different thing to be anti-Semitic and to be genocidal. (As a parallel, there are plenty of people in the United States who would describe themselves as "anti-immigrant." But very few of those people would want them rounded up and actually shot.) The most common German sentiment I have seen written about is the idea that they thought Hitler would mellow over time, or that his policies would not be nearly as radical as his rhetoric. These are not ridiculous notions—they are true in almost all political situations. The Third Reich was not exactly business as usual, politically speaking; they are one of the few (only?) examples of an advanced industrial democracy transforming into a completely centralized totalitarian state. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a reply to me, that's not what I was saying. The question was everything anti-Semitic, from the minor to genocidal, and this must include measures which people knew about and voted for. Good points on rhetoric, though. I'm not suggesting people were voting for genocide, far from it, but by the laws of probability, some would have known and approved of some policies when they voted for them. As a bonus, parties weren't going to mention unpopular policies, so if you look at what they were offering, as it were, you can gauge what they thought would be popular, to a fair extent. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 20:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, though I'd always heard (ie, I found a good level of agreement on this) that a good portion of the German population believed the more racist policies of the Nazis to be the more racist wing speaking, and that Hitler would move towards the centre once elected (a not uncommon thing for elected leaders to do). Also, one must remember the lack of serious possibilities to lead Germany circa 1932, the country was in a bad way and almost all political parties were too. Prokhorovka (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's controversial book, Hitler's Willing Executioners contains much source material of relevance to this question. The book's title says it well, but if I may generalise a complex book into a trite half sentence, Goldhagen does not believe there to have been popular opposition to the persecution of the German Jews. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For lack of a better headline. :P

What is it called when fabric is woven so that it shines in two colors, like this? I seem to recall how you do it, which is that the warp and weft (horizontal and vertical threads) are just different colors, but what's the name of the technique? Or to be more specific, how can I go about google-searching for more of it? --Masamage ♫ 01:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Iridescent fabric" turns up many Google hits involving fabrics of the type you're looking for, some even stating that they're made in the manner you describe. The humanities desk doesn't seem the right place for this question, though. Deor (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try "taffeta", though not our article of the same name, which has no sources and no pictures (sigh). // BL \\ (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was growing up in 1970s UK, two-tone trousers and Crombie coats were all the range. I thought someone had trademarked "two-tone" as a trade name for this fabric at the time. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's "shot taffeta". (Taffeta is just the type of fabric weave; shot refers to the variety with differing colours.) Can come in a variety of fibres: the luxury version is made with silk, but you can get it in synthetic fibres. A similar effect is gained in chambray: a cotton with white/unbleached in the weft, and colour in the warp, but it's not iridescent. Since this is a reference desk, I'd better find you references: shot taffeta cf. taffeta and chambray. Gwinva (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabric stores may describe it as "changeant" which is just French for "changing". It most commonly comes in silk (or substitutes). It requires fairly thin yarn and close weave to achieve the affect, with warp and weft the same thickness. Taffeta is the name of the weave pattern used. There is depressing little about this, both in Wikipedia and in Google. - KoolerStill (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faaaantastic! Thank you, that gives me a whole lot more to go by than I had before. :) --Masamage ♫ 19:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharkskin fabric is also known to have a two-toned woven appearance. Moiré pattern notes that In textiles, a moire is a fabric with a wavy (watered) appearance, caused by varying the tension in the warp and weft of the weave. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<BLP violation removed> Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original question was asking whether two African presidents had met, and then complained about their rule. (Which I'm not sure was a BLP violation, though it is certainly soapboxing). The more interesting general question was asked about whether most leaders in Africa were "good or bad." That's a pretty big question but one that has been asked before—African nations have had some notoriously poor leaders (defined in their ruthlessness, corruption, and anti-democratic ways, for example), and the exact reason for that probably lies somewhere in the general poverty of the continent, its unfortunate colonial history, and it general lack of strong democratic and reform-minded institutions. Still, this is a vague answer, and plenty of more qualified people have written entire books on the subject. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for example, a book about racism which sparked national debate and led to change in mindsets and laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.226 (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Tom's Cabin. Tempshill (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're looking for examples from any country, then Cathy Come Home is often cited as having made a significant contribution to a change in British public attitudes towards families with social and economic problems, particularly those caused by unemployment and homelessness, and towards the taking of such families' children into the care of the authorities. Karenjc 16:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And some of those listed here may be of interest. Karenjc 16:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a lot. i forgot to mention, i particularly appreciate examples where there were attempts at censoring the publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.226 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The publication of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems led to a theological debate and a trail on charges of heresy - see Galileo affair for details. Of course, heliocentrism is now the accepted truth. Astronaut (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and the propoganda films made by Leni Riefenstahl in the 1930's no doubt contributed to the consolidation of power by the Nazis. Astronaut (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of controversial books that led to forms of social change one way or another. Perhaps if you are a little more clear about what your intention is, we could be of more help. Otherwise this will just be a poorly organized listing of important books. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upton Sinclair's The Jungle had a lot to do with federal food safety laws... AnonMoos (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Spring led to a wave of antipesticide sentiment and contributed to the evvvvvvvvventual popularity of organic produce. Actually our article says it's popularly credited with helping start the environmental movement itself. Tempshill (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cry, the Beloved Country and apartheid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the TV miniseries Roots, which generated astounding viewership ratings, had an impact in the perception of African-American history among both blacks and whites. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am writing an essay about censorship. one of my points is that censorship prevents open discussion which is needed for society to progress. so i need examples for this argument. here, there was this movie criticising the government and education system, and people expected it to be censored, but the government reformed the education system instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.254 (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In almost all of these cases though you are talking about works that ended up undermining the government that was trying to censor them. That's not the kind of "progress" that a censoring government wants. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Origin of Species is still promoting debate and changing mindsets. Steewi (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense (pamphlet)? Tempshill (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Beauty apparently had a direct effect on British cultural attitudes towards cruelty to horses, and subsequently (it would seem likely) to other animals; it seems to have prompted changes in laws regulating horse-drawn taxi cabs (benefitting the horses), which likely led on to more general animal welfare legislation. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's List of banned books has some examples that look suitable for your study, and links to other resources. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone recall the case above? It was several years ago - can't be more specific than that - but I'm hoping one of you can. My memory might have embroidered the details, but I think the person in question was also having trouble getting the labyrinthine govt. system to have him declared alive, despite that he was standing there talking to them.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that was Lal Bihari. See also No. 6 here. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the man, Jack, thanks so much. Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related question: are there articles on other people with the same fate? I'd guess bureaurcracy anywhere would find it hard to bring back someone from the "dead". One fictional case I can think of right away is the pathetic Doc Daneeka. Jay (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many inferior tribes and civilizations have a ritual or ceremony when they meet an explorer and do not understand the technology that they have is man made. they believe the technology (such as rifles) to be gifts from gods, in response they then do a ritual or ceremony.

what is the term used to describe this?

i think it is two words and has culture or ceremony used in the phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.118.125 (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be looking for cargo cults. Algebraist 23:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to avoid 'inferior' in this context. I also understand that cargo-cult practice is quite rare, so your assertion that 'many ... tribes and civilisations have a ritual...' might benefit from being revised. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you mean "technologically inferior". You really should specify that, otherwise it looks rather racist. --Tango (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarke's Third Law may also be relevant. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]