text:
Platanus

Platanus is a genus consisting of a small number of tree species native to the Northern Hemisphere. They are the sole living members of the family Platanaceae.

All mature members of Platanus are tall, reaching 30 - 50 m in height. All except for P. kerrii are deciduous, and most are found in riparian or other wetland habitats in the wild, though proving drought-tolerant in cultivation. The hybrid London plane (Platanus × acerifolia) has proved particularly tolerant of urban conditions, and has been widely planted in London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom and Europe.

They are often known in English as planes or plane trees. A formerly used name that is now rare is plantain tree (not to be confused with other, unrelated, species with the name). Some North American species are called sycamores (especially Platanus occidentalis), although the term is also used for several unrelated species of trees. The genus name Platanus comes from Ancient Greek πλάτανος, which referred to Platanus orientalis.

Botany
The flowers are reduced and are borne in balls (globose heads); 3–7 hairy sepals may be fused at the base, and the petals are 3–7 and are spatulate. Male and female flowers are separate, but borne on the same plant (monoecious). The number of heads in one cluster (inflorescence) is indicative of the species (see table below). The male flower has 3–8 stamens; the female has a superior ovary with 3–7 carpels. Plane trees are wind-pollinated. Male flower-heads fall off after shedding their pollen.

After being pollinated, the female flowers become achenes that form an aggregate ball. The fruit is a multiple of achenes (plant systematics, Simpson M. G., 2006). Typically, the core of the ball is 1 cm in diameter and is covered with a net of mesh 1 mm, which can be peeled off. The ball is 2.5–4 cm in diameter and contains several hundred achenes, each of which has a single seed and is conical, with the point attached downward to the net at the surface of the ball. There is also a tuft of many thin stiff yellow-green bristle fibers attached to the base of each achene. These bristles help in wind dispersion of the fruits as in the dandelion.

The leaves are simple and alternate. In the subgenus Platanus they have a palmate outline. The base of the leaf stalk (petiole) is enlarged and completely wraps around the young stem bud in its axil. The axillary bud is exposed only after the leaf falls off.

The mature bark peels off or exfoliates easily in irregularly shaped patches, producing a mottled, scaly appearance. On old trunks, bark may not flake off, but thickens and cracks instead.

Phylogeny
There are two subgenera, subgenus Castaneophyllum containing the anomalous P. kerrii, and subgenus Platanus, with all the others; recent studies in Mexico  have increased the number of accepted species in this subgenus. Within subgenus Platanus, evidence from both chloroplast and nuclear gene  sequences suggests that the P. racemosa species complex in Western North America (including P. racemosa, P. gentryi, P. wrightii) is more closely related to the Western Eurasian P. orientalis than it is to the other North American species (P. mexicana sensu lato, including up to four species: P. chiapaensis, P. lindeniana, P. [×] mexicana sensu stricto, P. oaxacana; P. occidentalis s.l. with two [sub]species: P. occidentalis, P. palmeri; P. rzedowskii). The two groups form genetically and morphologically distinct evolutionary lineages (sister clades), informally called the “ANA clade” (Atlantic North American lineage) and “PNA-E clade” (Pacific North American-European lineage). Both lineages have been affected by reticulate evolutionary processes in the past (ancient or recent hybridization and introgression):
 * Platanus palmeri (= P. occidentalis var. palmeri) – forming the southwesternmost populations of P. occidentalis s.l. – carries nuclear intron sequences (second intron of the Leafy gene) of PNA-E origin. It lacks the plastid haplotype specific for the northeastern populations (P. occidentalis s.str.)
 * The internal transcribed spacers of the nuclear-encoded rRNA genes of P. occidentalis s.l. and P. rzedowskii include ANA-specific variants with functional 5.8S rDNA as well as PNA-E-specific variants showing signs of pseudogeny. The latter are shared with P. gentryi, the PNA-E species closest to the ANA clade area and the northern/ interior populations of P. mexicana s.l. This indicates that already the common ancestor of P. rzedowskii and P. occidentalis s.l. had been in contact with a member of the PNA-E clade.
 * Likewise, P. rzedowskii from Nuevo León is a genetic mosaic, and may have originated from earlier hybridization within the ANA clade, between southernmost P. occidentalis s.l. (P. palmeri) and P. mexicana s.l., or their ancestors. Today the ranges of P. occidentalis s.l. and P. mexicana s.l. are mutually exclusive. Platanus rzedowskii is geographically and morphologically intermediate between P. occidentalis s.l. and P. mexicana s.l.
 * Morphological reinvestigation including the originally collected material revealed that the interior populations of P. mexicana (northern Querétaro and northern Hidalgo; P. mexicana var. interior according Nixon & Poole) mark the hybrid zone between P. rzedowskii and P. mexicana s.l. and the (former) contact zone to the species of the PNA-E clade (P. gentryi, P. wrightii). Since the holotype of P. mexicana is from this zone and shows the characteristical intermediate morphology, P. mexicana s.str. would represent a nothospecies: P. × mexicana. The remaining populations of P. mexicana s.l., P. lindeniana, show no sign of introgression from either P. rzedowskii, P. occidentalis-palmeri or the Western North American species (P. racemosa species aggregate), with the exception of one heterozygotic P. oaxacana population from northcentral Oaxaca.

The genus Platanus exemplarily illustrates the concept of a Coral of Life, a species network. Its modern-day species are not only the product of evolutionary dichotomies (cladogenesis), the splitting of an ancestral lineage into two (Tree of Life metaphor) but also evolutionary anastomoses: hybridization and introgression.

The fossil record of leaves and fruit identifiable to Platanus begins in the Paleocene. Despite the geographic separation between North America and Old World, species from these continents will cross readily resulting in fertile hybrids such as the London plane, which is an anthropogenic hybrid (cultivar) between the North American P. occidentalis sensu stricto (ANA clade) and the Mediterranean P. orientalis (PNA-E clade). Widely used as a park tree across Europe, it frequently backcrosses with its native parent.

Species
The following are recognized species of plane trees:

Diseases

Planes are susceptible to plane anthracnose (Apiognomonia veneta), a fungal disease that can defoliate the trees in some years. The most severe infections are associated with cold, wet spring weather. P. occidentalis and the other American species are the most susceptible, with P. orientalis the most resistant. The hybrid London plane is intermediate in resistance.

Ceratocystis platani, a wilt disease, has become a significant problem in recent years in much of Europe. The North American species are mostly resistant to the disease, with which they probably coevolved, while the Old World species are highly sensitive.

Other diseases such as powdery mildew occur frequently, but are of lesser importance.

Platanus species are used as food plants by the larvae of some Lepidoptera species including Phyllonorycter platani and Setaceous Hebrew Character.

In the 21st century a disease, commonly known as Massaria disease, has attacked plane trees across Europe. It is caused by the fungus Splanchnonema platani, and causes large lesions on the upper sides of branches.

Effects on humans
There have been cases of "platanus cough", symptoms of shortness of breath, coughing, and irritated eyes, which may affect several people in a place, and have led to initial suspicion of an attack with an irritant gas. After one such mass attack which affected schoolchildren in classrooms with open windows densely surrounded by plane tees, children had to be admitted to hospital, where they were treated and recovered without ill effects. It was found that the symptoms were due to the fine star-shaped trichomes (hairs) on all parts of platanus trees, which are broken off by strong wind after a prolonged dry period. The dust created causes direct irritation and scratchiness in the eyes, throat, and nose, but not the runny nose and itching eyes and nose caused by an allergy. The school incident took place after a dry period, with a fairly high temperature of 29°C, and wind gusting at 50 km/h.

Protection against platanus cough is provided by avoiding contact and wearing protective glasses and masks under weather conditions promoting release of trichomes. When cleaning in an urban environment, sweeping up fallen leaves and branches can release hairs; cleaning by suction is preferred. It is not recommended that trees in cities be felled, as they are beneficial; in particular the platanus trichomes act as biofilters for air pollutants. Where there are urban concentrations presenting a risk, seasonal spraying of trees with a solution of apple pectin can prevent the star hair from breaking off.

Uses
The principal use of these trees is as ornamental trees, especially in urban areas and by roadsides. The London plane is particularly popular for this purpose. The American plane is cultivated sometimes for timber and investigations have been made into its use as a biomass crop. The oriental plane is widely used as an ornamental and also has a number of minor medicinal uses.

Cultural history

Most significant aspects of cultural history apply to Platanus orientalis in the Old World. The tree is an important part of the literary scenery of Plato's dialogue Phaedrus. Because of Plato, the tree also played an important role in the scenery of Cicero's De Oratore. The trees also provided the shade under which Aristotle and Plato's famed philosophical schools were held. Handel's opera Serse has a famous aria, "Ombra mai fu", which the title character sings in praise of his favorite plane tree.

The plane tree has been a frequent motif featured in Classical Chinese poetry as an embodiment of sorrowful sentiments due to its autumnal shedding of leaves.

The legendary Dry Tree first recorded by Marco Polo was possibly a platanus. According to the legend, it marked the site of the battle between Alexander the Great and Darius III.

The German camouflage pattern Platanenmuster ("plane tree pattern"), designed in 1937–1942 by Johann Georg Otto Schick, was the first dotted camouflage pattern.

title: Platanus


text:
List of national forests of the United States

The United States has 154 protected areas known as national forests, covering 188336179 acre. National forests are managed by the U.S. Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The first national forest was established as the Yellowstone Park Timber and Land Reserve on March 30, 1891, then in the Department of the Interior. In 1897, the Organic Act provided purposes for which forest reserves could be established, including to reserve a supply of timber, protect the forest from development, and secure water supplies. With the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, the president of the United States is given the power to set aside forest reserves in the public domain. With the Transfer Act of 1905, forest reserves became part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the newly created U.S. Forest Service.

By 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt had more than doubled the forest-reserve acreage, and Congress responded by limiting the president's ability to proclaim new reserves. The National Forest System underwent a major reorganization in 1908, and in 1911 Congress authorized new additions to the system under the authority of the Weeks Act. The management goals provided by the Organic Act were expanded upon by the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 to include "outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes" as well as for the establishment of wilderness areas.

As of September 30, 2014, the Forest Service manages a total of 192922127 acre, 188336179 acre of which are national forests. The additional land areas include 20 national grasslands, 59 purchase units, 19 research and experimental areas, five land utilization projects and 37 other areas. The National Forest System has an extensive and complicated history of reorganization, so while there are currently 154 named national forests, many of these are managed together as either a single forest or separate forests.

There is at least one national forest in all but ten states: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Dakota, and Rhode Island (although Kansas and North Dakota have national grasslands). In addition, Puerto Rico contains El Yunque National Forest, the only tropical U.S. rainforest. Alaska has the most national forest land, with 21.9 e6acre, followed by California (20.8 e6acre) and Idaho (20.4 e6acre). Idaho also has the greatest percent of its land in national forests, with 38.2 percent, followed by Oregon (24.7 percent) and Colorado (20.9 percent). On maps, national forests in the west generally show the true extent of their area, but those in the east often only show purchase districts, within which usually only a minority of the land is owned by the Forest Service.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Culture theory

Culture theory is the branch of comparative anthropology and semiotics that seeks to define the heuristic concept of culture in operational and/or scientific terms.

Overview
In the 19th century, "culture" was used by some to refer to a wide array of human activities, and by some others as a synonym for "civilization". In the 20th century, anthropologists began theorizing about culture as an object of scientific analysis. Some used it to distinguish human adaptive strategies from the largely instinctive adaptive strategies of animals, including the adaptive strategies of other primates and non-human hominids, whereas others used it to refer to symbolic representations and expressions of human experience, with no direct adaptive value. Both groups understood culture as being definitive of human nature.

According to many theories that have gained wide acceptance among anthropologists, culture exhibits the way that humans interpret their biology and their environment. According to this point of view, culture becomes such an integral part of human existence that it is the human environment, and most cultural change can be attributed to human adaptation to historical events. Moreover, given that culture is seen as the primary adaptive mechanism of humans and takes place much faster than human biological evolution, most cultural change can be viewed as culture adapting to itself.

Although most anthropologists try to define culture in such a way that it separates human beings from other animals, many human traits are similar to those of other animals, particularly the traits of other primates. For example, chimpanzees have big brains, but human brains are bigger. Similarly, bonobos exhibit complex sexual behaviour, but human beings exhibit much more complex sexual behaviours. As such, anthropologists often debate whether human behaviour is different from animal behaviour in degree rather than in kind; they must also find ways to distinguish cultural behaviour from sociological behaviour and psychological behavior.

Acceleration and amplification of these various aspects of culture change have been explored by complexity economist, W. Brian Arthur. In his book, The Nature of Technology, Arthur attempts to articulate a theory of change that considers that existing technologies (or material culture) are combined in unique ways that lead to novel new technologies. Behind that novel combination is a purposeful effort arising in human motivation. This articulation would suggest that we are just beginning to understand what might be required for a more robust theory of culture and culture change, one that brings coherence across many disciplines and reflects an integrating elegance.

title: Culture theory


text:
Talk:Platanus

Where do they grow? It just says "Northern Hemisphere" and "wetlands." Is that as specific as we know? Torie 14:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, we can be more specific, but the specific habitats are for the species. This is the talk page for the genus. (btw, please start new topics at the bottom of the page, and add a header.) Imc 23:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Names
I believe the agreed-upon convention for genera and species is that, when there is a common name, that they would be placed under the common name rather than the scientific. Are you justifying this move on the basis that sycamore is more an American name (aka plane tree)? By the way, please register and sign your work. --jaknouse

 * I think it's confusing to describe three separate types of tree in one article, especially when there's a taxobox for one. But maybe there's a better name that could be used for the Platanus article?

This article conflicts with the article Sycamore. --dunnhaupt (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

 * In what way? This article is about the genus Platanus, of which some American species are called "sycamore", as Sycamore says. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Pic. of trees in London
I added "Alexandra park avenue.jpg" which I came across in another article. However, I know nothing about trees so can someone else check the trees depicted are planes? --A bit iffy 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

thumb|A plane-tree lined avenue in [[Alexandra Park, London]]
 * I removed this;
 * They are not planes, the trunk and bark are quite different. They may be a maple, since some of the leaves in the foreground could be plane leaf shaped. Also, I know the park somewhat, and I don't remember any avenue of planes. Imc 08:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * They are a Tilia species (lime/linden) - MPF 10:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

this should be mentioned !!!
(Herodotus (7.31) reports that at Callatebus in Asia Minor, the Achaemenid Xerxes (486-65 B.C.E.) found a plane tree so beautiful that he decorated it with golden ornaments and put it under the care of one of his Immortals.)

from www.authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2017/08/07/immortality-tree-symbolism-in-the-zoroastrian-sacred-lore-and-the-tree-of-the-mythical-falconeagle-simorgh/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.236.134.199 (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not an article for fictional trees.-- Kev min  § 22:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 * That Me, Again ...

Welp I'm Not sure if you are Confused or Either didn't bothered to read the Article to begin ! , But the Article is clear and is Not Mentioning Any Fairy Tale or Fantastical Description Nor imaginary Talking Trees, The Article is Obviously pointing out how Ancient Rulers (Šâhanšâh) of Persia Adored Dignified and Even Worshiped Trees in Ancient Persia As did many Past Cultures ,That Not Hard to understand , Correct ? Or Should I say Christmas Trees are Fictional and It's Trees accessories are Meaningless, According to Your Logic ???

Overview photo
The article would benefit from photos showing one or two typical species in maturity. That would make it easier for the reader to get a sense of the general size and habit ("look") of the genus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.131.205.113 (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Pliney
Potential material, use it or don't:

The Georgics - Virgel, annotated translation, 1830 ''The platanus is our oriental plane-tree. Pliny tells us that this tree was first brought over the Ionian sea into the island of Diomedes, for a monument for that hero: thence into Sicily, and so into Italy. Pliny likewise mentions that the ancients had so profuse a veneration for this tree, as to irrigate it with wine. — Martyn.''   (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Reduced flowers
What does "flowers are reduced" mean? I cannot find any definition of "reduced flowers" on the internet.

If you are using a technical botanical term then you should be sure that its definition is either readily available or included in the article. agb 173.233.167.50 (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Platanus


text:
Weighted average cost of capital

The weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is the rate that a company is expected to pay on average to all its security holders to finance its assets. The WACC is commonly referred to as the firm's cost of capital. Importantly, it is dictated by the external market and not by management. The WACC represents the minimum return that a company must earn on an existing asset base to satisfy its creditors, owners, and other providers of capital, or they will invest elsewhere.

Companies raise money from a number of sources: common stock, preferred stock and related rights, straight debt, convertible debt, exchangeable debt, employee stock options, pension liabilities, executive stock options, governmental subsidies, and so on. Different securities, which represent different sources of finance, are expected to generate different returns. The WACC is calculated taking into account the relative weights of each component of the capital structure. The more complex the company's capital structure, the more laborious it is to calculate the WACC.

Companies can use WACC to see if the investment projects available to them are worthwhile to undertake.

Calculation
In general, the WACC can be calculated with the following formula:

$$\text{WACC} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^N r_i \cdot MV_i }{\sum_{i=1}^N MV_i}$$

where $$N$$ is the number of sources of capital (securities, types of liabilities); $$r_i$$ is the required rate of return for security $$i$$; and $$MV_i$$ is the market value of all outstanding securities $$i$$.

In the case where the company is financed with only equity and debt, the average cost of capital is computed as follows:

$$\text{WACC} = \frac{D}{D+E}K_d + \frac{E}{D+E}K_e$$

where $$D$$ is the total debt, $$E$$ is the total shareholder's equity, $$K_d$$ is the cost of debt, and $$K_e$$ is the cost of equity. The market values of debt and equity should be used when computing the weights in the WACC formula.

Tax effects
Tax effects can be incorporated into this formula. For example, the WACC for a company financed by one type of shares with the total market value of $$MV_e$$ and cost of equity $$R_e$$ and one type of bonds with the total market value of $$MV_d$$ and cost of debt $$R_d$$, in a country with corporate tax rate $$t$$, is calculated as:

$$\text{WACC} = \frac{MV_e}{MV_d+MV_e} \cdot R_e + \frac{MV_d}{MV_d+MV_e} \cdot R_d \cdot (1-t)$$

This calculation can vary significantly due to the existence of many plausible proxies for each element. As a result, a fairly wide range of values for the WACC of a given firm in a given year may appear defensible.

Debt
The firm's debt component is stated as kd and since there is a tax benefit from interest payments then the after tax WACC component is kd(1-T); where T is the tax rate.

Increasing the debt component under WACC has advantages including: no loss of control (voting rights) that would come from other sources, upper limit is placed on share of profits, flotation costs are typically lower than equity, and interest expense is tax deductible. But there are also disadvantages of the debt component including: Using WACC makes the firm legally obliged to make payments no matter how tight the funds on hand are, in the case of bonds full face value comes due at one time, and taking on more debt = taking on more financial risk (more systematic risk) requiring higher cash flows.

Equity
Weighted average cost of capital equation: WACC= (Wd)[(Kd)(1-t)]+ (Wpf)(Kpf)+ (Wce)(Kce)

Cost of new equity should be the adjusted cost for any underwriting fees termed flotation costs (F): Ke = D1/P0(1-F) + g; where F = flotation costs, D1 is dividends, P0 is price of the stock, and g is the growth rate.

There are 3 ways of calculating Ke:
 * 1) Capital Asset Pricing Model
 * 2) Dividend Discount Method
 * 3) Bond Yield Plus Risk Premium Approach

The equity component has advantages for the firm including: no legal obligation to pay (depends on class of shares) as opposed to debt, no maturity (unlike e.g. bonds), lower financial risk, and it could be cheaper than debt with good prospects of profitability. But also disadvantages including: new equity dilutes current ownership share of profits and voting rights (impacting control), cost of underwriting for equity is much higher than for debt, too much equity = target for a leveraged buy-out by another firm, and no tax shield, dividends are not tax deductible, and may exhibit double taxation.

Marginal cost of capital schedule
Marginal cost of capital (MCC) schedule or an investment opportunity curve is a graph that relates the firm's weighted cost of each unit of capital to the total amount of new capital raised. The first step in preparing the MCC schedule is to rank the projects using internal rate of return (IRR). The higher the IRR the better off a project is.

title: Weighted average cost of capital


text:
User:LincsAthlete

Why bore you about myself?

title: User:LincsAthlete


text:
Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 1

1 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 1 (You are here.) Talk:New Imperialism/archive 2 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 3 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 4 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 5 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 6 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 7 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 8 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 9 Talk:New Imperialism/Linking to the alternative version from the top of the article Talk:New Imperialism/archive 10 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 11 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 12 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 13 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 14 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 15 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 16 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 17 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 18 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 19 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 20

This article, besides being highly NPOV, reads like a copyright violation. --

Not a copyright. Vast majority of article is mine. 172

The title is a mess also. It should be European imperialism in the 19th century or something like that. -- Zoe

--- Zoe, apparently you don’t know much about “European imperialism in the nineteenth century”.

Read the first paragraph of the article you want to rename:

"In a scramble for overseas markets between the Franco-Prussian War and World War, Europe added almost 9 million square miles—one-fifth of the land area of the globe—to its overseas colonial possessions. Ushering out the cavalier colonialism of the mid-Victorian era, the age of Pax Britannica, the late nineteenth century Romantic Age was an era of "empire for empire's sake". But scholars debate the causes and ramifications of this period of colonialism, dubbed “The New Imperialism” to distinguish it from earlier eras of overseas expansion, such as the mercantilism of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries or the liberal age of ‘free trade’ colonialism of the mid-nineteenth century."

--- New Imperialism refers specifically to the era of imperialism between 1871-1914, between the Franco-Prussian War and World War I.

I deleted an editorializing comment in the first graph, and added a reference to Spain. this is an important article, but it is woefully not NPOV -- I have two suggestions for the original author: first, delete sentences like "non one owned Africa" which are utterly Eurocentric (some Africans surely claimed to own at least parts of Africa; many Europeans owned property in Africa at that time) and uncritical (there are very complex issues in the very notion of "ownership". Second, distinguish between historical facts and interpretations/explanations.  The author herself admits in the beginning that there is scholarly debate over the causes and consequences -- but the article provides a unified account, and obscures those debates. Slrubenstein

Were does the term New Imperialism come from ? Who has references ? User:Ericd

--

Where does the term "American Revolution" come from? Come on! It's a common term. Go online. Type in "New Imperialism". You'd see how common it is.

---

the article addresses the complex issue of ownership, esp. toward the end

I will take 172's word for it that this work is original, though it reads like it was copied from a textbook. Still, this article is a mess. Not only is it too dense for anyone but a historical scholar of the era to understand, but it makes oblique references to tons of things that aren't spelled out here. I have many questions:
 * 1) Britain was the "workshop of the world", meaning that its finished goods were no longer produced so efficiently and cheaply that they could often undersell comparable, locally manufactured goods in almost any other market. - Britain was the workshop of the world BECAUSE her goods were no longer produced so efficiently?  The two halves of this sentence don't seem to make sense.
 * 127-I want a source for "workshop of the world" so we can quote it-I dont like using " " without somebody or something to attribute it to. Vera Cruz
 * 1) If political conditions in a particular overseas markets were stable enough, Britain could its economy through free trade alone without having to resort to formal rule or mercantilism. - Britain could WHAT its economy?
 * Britain could force its eonomyVera Cruz
 * 1) We need an article on the Long Depression, since you refer to it so often.
 * It's linked
 * 1) Rhodes and Milner also advocated the prospect of a "Cape to Cairo empire - Who's Milner?
 * 2) I took out the slam of Roosevelt's racism, but I left in the Kipling one. Can someone look at it more balanced?
 * Didnt read it, but why is kipling different than roosevelt?Vera Cruz
 * 1) We need an article on the Second Industrial Revolution, which you keep refering ot.
 * Yes, we do. We also need to somewhere note that medieval historians refer to the first industrial revolution as occuring during their period. Vera Cruz
 * 1) the interwar Great Depression beginning in the US - I thought the Great Depression began in Europe. Wasn't German hyperinflation ahead of 1929?
 * 2) Porter, however, notes that Britain, "Struck with outmoded physical plants and outmoded forms of business organization… now felt the less favorable effects of being the first to modernize." Who is Porter?
 * 3) What was the Crystal Palace Speech?
 * 4) What is the Dependency Theory?
 * 5) What were the Moroccan Crisis and the Tangier Crisis?
 * 6) What was the Roosevelt Corollary?

This needs a lot of work. Your NPOV anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism is blatant. -- Zoe

Searching for "New Imperialism" does no good. There are too many articles talking about 21st century new imperialism to weed out those talking about the era you're refering to. -- Zoe

we should use neo-colonialism and globalisation for 20th/21st century issues. Vera Cruz

Quit making large changes under the guise of Minor changes. Whether you think the old headers were "more attractive" or not, they're not in the style of Wikipedia. You also deleted all of the markup in the first paragraph. -- Zoe

"Jewish Conspiracy" use two common words is it neutral ? An article about Colonialism seems more adequate. User:Ericd -

There is already an article on colonialism. NEW IMPERIALISM REFERS TO A SPECIFIC ERA OF COLONIALISM BETWEEN 1871-1914!

Yelling does no good to anyone.

I see that you reverted every single change I made. This is going to the mailing list for resolution. -- Zoe

I don't think it is appropriate to refer to this era as a "scramble" except when discussing World War I causation or some source prior to WWI which for whatever reason felt that this was an era of hectic scrambling. Im sure somebody out there thinks this was a slow, calculated, and methodical era. Vera Cruz

--- Vera Cruz:

New Imperialism and "Scramble for Africa" are very common terms in the historiography on the subject. The Scramble for Africa often refers to the Congress of Berlin in 1885, for instance.

“Workshop of the world” is a common cliché in the era’s historiography as well.

Yes, I am not disagreeing that these are very common. However they need more context around them before they should be here, in short instead of

The scramble for africa ...blah blah blah.. blah blah. africa.... blah blah. empire

We need

The Scramble For Africa
blah blah blah scramble blah blah blah blah blah 1885 blah blah blah blah blah rhodesia blah blah blah great adventure blah blah blah capitalism blah blah blah world war blah blah blah

Do you see the difference?

Vera Cruz, I will try to clarify all the flaws that you've pointed out. Let me do it some other time though when Zoe is offline.

She’s got a vendetta against me or something.

Just a passer-by and read a few paragraphs. The text really look like copies with comestic edits from a book or some copyrighted sources, though 172 said it is original. If you want to see Wikipedia succeed, it's very important that you don't add material restricted by others' copyrights. The legal liability could really hurt the project, so please don't do it.

By luck a lot of USSR printed books are de facto public domain ;)

-

I really appreciate the allegations of copyright violations! Unwittingly, you people are complementing my prose!

172

Yah, plz refrain from copyright violation accusations unless you have some substantiated reason for such. Vera Cruz

---

172, you are not being fair to Zoe -- I have been following this exchange and she does not have a vendetta or anything against you. This is a community in which no article has an author, and all people work together to improve articles. As I have said before, this article covers an important phenomena, and has a lot of important information. But it is not by any means a finished article, and it has serious NPOV problems. Zoe has raised important questions, and I have made a couple of constructive suggestions. Please do not get defensive: others will work on this article, and will appreciate your contributions if you respond to questions and suggestions without getting defensive. Slrubenstein

I disagree. I think both are being unfair. I think 172 is being unfair because he would rather tell zoe to go read history instead of re-writing text so that one doesnt ever need to go to another source BUT zoe is also throwing out little bits like "Wow! You are an annoying user!" which is not appropriate. Vera Cruz

 * Agree. Although I don't really know the grudges between Zoe and 172 yet reading 172's text is a bit painful. He/she can explain the specific terms and trim the verse a bit. The general idea is making the article readible and scholastic for newcomers without showing off the contributors expertise. People come to wikipedia to learn, contribute and get their question answered but not being intimidated by wikipedian veterans!!! Others just have to be patient; editing long articles needs time. cybercavalier

--

I'll clarify the article myself, alright? Vera Cruz's above suggestions are more than enough.

 * Okay, Don't get annoyed. Oh you can quote some fo your USSR public domain text here so Zoe won't bitch on your scholarship.-- cybercavalier.

Some say that my prose is painful while others say that it reads like a copyright violation or a textbook. Some say that I'm being Eurocentric while others say I have an anti-Western bias.

This is a bit reassuring.

172

The American Revolution discredited mercantilism <POV Vera Cruz

Yes, I agree Vera Cruz. That's why I took it out of the article 8 hours ago... Vera Cruz

--

I revised that statement already.

It reads:

The American Revolution discredited mercantilism at that time to many observers in Britain and contributed to the appeal of the classical liberalism of Adam Smith

Im going to sleep

By this paragraph

cavalier colonialism of the mid-Victorian era, the age of Pax Britannica, the late nineteenth century Romantic Age was an era of "empire for empire's sake". But scholars debate the causes and ramifications of this period of colonialism, dubbed “The New Imperialism” to distinguish it from earlier eras of overseas expansion, such as the mercantilism of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries or the liberal age of ‘free trade’ colonialism

I think you confuse things

At the very least-it should be rewritten without the words:

 * cavalier and liberal

these words will siply lead to debate over whether they are properly applied-in short they are pov

furthermore,

the reader who knows what Pax Brittanica is, or who knows what free trade colonialism is, they are simply bored and irritated by having to read, yet again, that yes, the New Imperialist Age followed the Pax Britannica age, yes yes, i know already

and the reader who doesnt know is left wondering, without even a link to click on

 * Victorian Age?
 * Romantic Age?
 * Mercantilism?
 * Free trade colonialism?

Put it in another part of the text if you must

Comparisons between the New Imperialist Age and earlier imperialist eras
but the opening paragraph is not a good place for even mentioning these

-

I fixed the opening according to your suggestions. 172

---
 * In midst of Britain’s relative industrial decline, the fact that invisible financial exports actually kept Britain “out of the red” is somewhat indicative of both Britain’s pressure to secure overseas markets in both nominally independent states and colonies and its newly precarious hegemony over overseas markets.

This sentence is rather muddy. What is it actually saying? What are "invisible financial exports"? How did they keep Britian out of the red? How is this "indicative of pressure"? I think it should be turned into a paragraph, broken into about five shorter sentences, and replace allusions to something we don't know with plain English and/or fuller explanations. --Len

--

Vera Cruz,

Please don't butcher the article.

Your versions leaves little information and conveys little understanding

 * Wow, now even 172's ally gets attacked. Don't you see a theme here, 172?  You're all alone here, there must be something wrong with you.  -- Zoe

I continue to have two major problems with this article. First, although the opening claims that there is scholarly debate over the causes and functioning of this form of imperialism, the actual structure of the article obscures all debate. I suggest it be reorganized to signal clearly points of contention. Otherwise, it lacks NPOV. Second, there are too many sloppy phrases like "became known as." As we edit Wikipedia we ought to scrutinize use of the passive voice -- passive voice usually goes along with lack of clarity. Known by whom/to whom? Views must be ascribed, or again, we enter into NPOV problems, Slrubenstein

Absolutely. Vera Cruz

I've read all the sarcastic responses and I still don't see what is "new" about New Imperialism. Since there have been empires since before Philip of Macedon, there has been imperialism in the general sense of the term throughout recorded history. However, this article simply covers what most people, including most political scientists and historians, would simply call "imperialism", the expansion of the British Empire, the French Empire, and the German Empire into Africa and Asia, along with pathetic tagalong attempts by the Belgians, Russians, and Americans, Europe-envy by Japan, and colonial leftovers from the Dutch. This imperialsm "ran" from the mid-nineteenth century to the end of World War II. Mercantilism and colonialism have names of their own and need not be distinguished further from imperialism by this confusing use of "new". When something old and familiar picks up a new name suddenly, one can only wonder why. Ortolan88

--- Ortolan88- the term "New Imperialism" is the most common term referring to the era of imperialism between 1871-1914 ---

Vera Cruz’s revised version is worse than no version. Nobody but an expert on this era would have any idea why such a list of historical trends is listed in an article pertaining to New Imperialism. It’s not illuminating by any means.

My version, however, clearly spells out why each trend under a certain heading is thought to have contributed to an era of formal colonialism. My version chronicles the history of the era, describes a range of competing theories, and lists causes.

Vera Cruz’s version only looks like an improvement superficially because it’s shorter. Saying that the article is too long is an arbitrary excuse for systematically wiping out my contributions. I’m sure people are deleted to dismantle this article in particular because it is one that I started. There are other even longer articles on more obscure topics after all.

172

 * It's not going better !

Ericd

---Ortolan--New Imperialism is not an article title I like, Im simply not interested in getting into an edit war over the name, however, this name is commonly used to describe an imperialist period, which, at the time, was considered to be a new revivial and intensification of imperialist activity. Vera Cruz

 * What makes you think I want to get in an edit war? I have come here to discuss the article and, as a fairly well-read individual, I believe the term new imperialism will be confusing to ordinary encyclopedia readers.  It is confusing to me, and makes me suspiciouus.  By some simple research I find that the term imperialism itself was first recorded in 1858 (Oxford English Dictionary) and that Hobson, who pretty much invented scholarship in this area wrote a book called Imperialism in 1905, not "new imperialism".  There is already an article on Imperialism and while it is a briefer article, I honestly believe it has the better title, by far.  Calling imperialism new imperialism has the paradoxical effect of denying the fact that it was imperialism itself that was new.  The previous Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch empires were never called imperialist; they were called colonialist.  I don't think I have an ax to grind, other than a belief that clarity is better than obscurity, in an encyclopedia at least.  Granted, the expression new imperialism is used from time to time (tellingly, often in "quotes"), but I believe those usages are also ill-advised.  Ortolan88

172-try being more specificVera Cruz

Vera Cruz: Vera Cruz: tell me you SN so that I can contact you via AOL instant messenger.

Tell me on the talk page: 172

what vital section have i removed?Vera Cruz

- Vera Cruz, it doesn't seem as if you've read the version that I keep restoring.

New Imperialism had its origins in the breakdown of Pax Britannica; your revision not only fails to indicate this, but also leaves a lay reader with the impression that the era of Cobdenite imperialism was the opening phase of New Imperialism. It is the broad consensus of scholars that New Imperialism was rendered feasible by the breakdown of the concert of Europe, but your version does not illuminate whatsoever to the changes of continental balance of power that allowed other industrialized nation-states to compete with British influence overseas, despite her centuries of longstanding naval and maritime superiority.

Your article progresses according to this list of topics: Pax Britannica, Loss of Britain's Comparative Advantage, The Long Depression, The African Power Vacuum, Increasing Competition, Chamberlain, Hobson, Capitalism, and Finance, British Strategic Expansions, Social Darwinism, and Human Rights. This is a jumbled, utterly incoherent mess of topics that no lay reader would be able to put in context after reading your version. My version, however, listed causes, but wove the text together so that there would be a natural progression to the next cause. My version demonstrated an appreciation for the interconnectedness of history.

If your so convinced that the version that I keep restoring is biased, what is the bias then?

I dont think your version is very biased, I do think it needs improvement. So far, I have not seen the words Cobdenite Imperialism within this article, so I doubt that it leaves anyone with the impression that New Imperialism is even related to Cobdenite Imperialism.

The fact that I am even mentioning Pax Brittanica in the article is a clear indicator that they are related. As the Franco-Prussian War is clearly noted as a "beginning" for the New Imperialist Era, and this same war is noted as a major even in the end of Pax Brittanica, I do not think the reader will doubt that the era of Pax Brittanica ended and resulted in an era of new Imperialism. I urge you to clarify this issue, but by editing my version, rather than continuing with yours.

I believe my version does illuminate the changes of continental power which allowed other nation-states to compete with Britain - of prime interest here are:

 * Formation of Germany and Italy
 * Increasing industrialization of the United States, Germany, France, and Italy
 * Increasing independence in south america and india
 * The end of a war between France and Prussia
 * The surplus of capital and production, partly due to the Second Industrial Revolution
 * An increasing fear amongst British politicians that they must obtain "strategic colonies" and a similar fear amongst Germans that they must counter the British and their "unfair advantage"
 * a sense of financial "investment" being at stake in the colonies
 * a fear of russian expansion

As for the progression of topics in the article, you can see by scrolling down that I am hardly done editing your version, and so naturally things are not in any sort of permanent position within the framework of a final article

So I ask again, what vital information have I left out?Vera Cruz

---

Historians debate the Latin American wars of independence too much to claim that the fall of Spanish colonialism contributed to the attack on mercantilism. We shouldn’t get into this debate here.

You mention these causes, but you don’t weave them together well. Hence what I said about the jumbled list.

And regarding that article in the talk page, I don't feel the need to define everything because I'm not engaging in a discussion with a lay reader.

Don’t divert the issue. Your article is too disorganized to clearly spell out to the reader why all these trends led to the breakdown of Pax Britannica and why all these trends might have been interconnected.

Why don't you suggest improvements, and let me edit the article.

I suppose the reason, 172, is that even though I do highly value your contributions, I think I'm a better editor than you. One reason, which is very important is that I am very much aware who my audience is, we are not simply writing to the lay person we are writing to Juanita who knows nothing about european history and happaned to come here and click on "random page"-and we want to make damn sure she doesnt think, 'sheeit, this shiznizzle be whackner my book'

You state that I didn't weave the article together well, certainly it is unfinished which is why im asking what in particular you feel is left out, oh we can weave here 172-but first we have to take apart your entire work, because your audience was yourself, who knows what you are talking about, and your audience should have been some kid in 2nd grade.Vera Cruz

Now, i had a rather long discussion with 172, in which little, but some, was accomplished. I think reading this will be quite useful for wikipedians, and I suspect it hints at a method of editing that most of you fail to do when an edit war occurs. Vera Cruz

 * Talk:New_Imperialism/veracruz and 127

 * You know with your sweeping edits, literally incomprehensible, and crookedly disguised as minor changes, you really don't have anything to teach us about solving edit wars, unless it is through the miraculous power of the negative example. At this point, this whole article is so poisoned that I can't imagine that anyone would want to work on it.  Ortolan88

For starters you could lose the attitude. Vera Cruz

Vera Cruz:

You’re disguising major changes as minor ones.

Your sweeping edits have left the text, which had been meticulously organized in order to weave all the sections together, utterly incomprehensible. You’ve made little progress in conveying any understanding whatsoever of what could possibly expalin the shift toward formal colonialism after the Franco-Prussian War. As I’ve said earlier, you’ve left a jumbled mess of topics that no lay reader (lay means someone who is NOT an expert) could understand in context.

I’d like to ask an objective observer whether or not any non-expert could be able to discern off-hand how these factors pertained to the shift to formal empire (Vera Cruz lists these topics, giving little insight as to why): Pax Britannica, Loss of Britain's Comparative Advantage, The Long Depression (now historically inaccurate), The African Power Vacuum (now historically inaccurate), Increasing Competition, Chamberlain, Hobson, Capitalism, and Finance, British Strategic Expansions, Social Darwinism, and Human Rights.

History, however, is interacting whole. That’s why my article expecitily stipulates under each topic how each historical trend is considered a cause. Thus, my article is actually more comprehensible to non-expert readers.

Someone else with a PhD in any specialization pertaining to modern European history should have a look at this article.

Im willing to go through this line by line with anybody who is interested. Im not willing to sit and bicker with a bunch of egoists who would rather talk about "poisoned articles" and "butchering of articles" or any other such childish drivelish nonsensical trolling. Vera Cruz

Furthermore, 172s version clearly states, "Kaiser Wilhelm II was pigheaded" so I hardly think his version is NPOVVera Cruz

 * Well, speaking for the childish drivelish nonsensical trolls:
 * Why not stop marking huge and complex changes as "minor"?
 * Why not explain what it is you are trying to do on the talk page rather than bulling ahead and boasting of your private pacts with your fellow "non-troll" 172?
 * Why not answer a reasonable question about what makes the topic of this article "new" imperialism, since it was imperialism itself that was new?
 * Why make a meaningless offer to go over your changes line by line?   If this article weren't so fishy (term copyright by Trolls associated), people wouldn't be so suspicious and ill-tempered about what you are doing?
 * Why not scrap the whole article, post a proposed outline, and then collaborate with others in filling it in? No one could possibly follow all the changes you and 172 have made.  You might as well be the same person, muddying the water, poisoning the well, confusing the issue beyond all redemption.
 * Why not replace this article with #REDIRECT Imperialism ?
 * Tom Parmenter, Ortolan88

 * Tom, the people on recent changes dont want to see 10,000 reminders that Im working on this article. Ive posted the occasional major edit so that they can be aware.
 * 1) You are being absurd talking of pacts and such inanity.
 * 2) I have answered this question, but you are so bent on being a jerk, Im sure you didn't read it very carefully. So here it is again:

Vera Cruz
 * ---Ortolan--New Imperialism is not an article title I like, Im simply not interested in getting into an edit war over the name, however, this name is commonly used to describe an imperialist period, which, at the time, was considered to be a new revivial and intensification of imperialist activity. Vera Cruz
 * I hardly think imperialism was new at this time, seeing as how imperialism was existant thousands of years ago. Was the term "Imperialism" new in 1900, I have no idea as I havent read many history books from that period, but as we identify imperialists of 3000 BC, we certainly don't want all this information on the same page as a discussion of the Assyrian Empire
 * 1) By discarding my offer to go over this line by line, as meaningless, you seem to indicate that you don't really want to discuss the topic, you merely want to be disagreeable
 * 2) Scrapping the article...hmmm...thats...yah....lets delete wikipedia and start over...that'll solve all our problems
 * 3) As I mentioned, imperialism is not the same topic-this is a history article on a period such as the Computer Age Nuclear Age Victorian Era World War I or Middle Ages This is a subage-the late Victorian Era-the period of the "New Imperialism" that is-the resurgence of great clashing nation-states and an uncertain balance of power

title: Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 1


text:
Cultural behavior

Cultural behavior is behavior exhibited by humans (and, some would argue, by other species as well, though to a much lesser degree) that is extrasomatic or extragenetic—in other words, learned.

Learned behavior
There is a species of ant that builds nests made of leaves. To build a nest, some of these ants pull the edges of two leaves together and hold them in place, while others carry larva in their jaws and 'sew' them together with the silk they secrete. This is certainly a complex feat of engineering, but it is not cultural. This behavior is instinctive, built into the ants' behavior mechanisms. They cannot alter their plans or think of better ways to join leaves. They cannot teach or be taught to do so.

But there are examples of animals that can learn behaviors, such as dogs and cats. A dog doesn't know instinctively not to urinate or defecate indoors, but it can be taught not to do so. Dogs are capable of learning specific behaviors.

Concepts, generalizations, abstractions and ideas
A dog's acquisition of a behavior satisfies one of the requirements of culture, but it also fulfills another. If you were to take a dog that has learned not to eliminate indoors to a different house, it would still know not to urinate there. This is because the dog has made a generalization. It knows not to urinate or defecate in any house, not just the one in which it was taught. However, this behavior only makes two of the four requirements.

Behavior shared through extragenetic transmission
For a behavior to be considered cultural it must be shared extragenetically; that is, it must be taught. If a trained dog is introduced to a puppy that doesn't know not to urinate in a house, it cannot teach it not to do so. A particularly intelligent puppy might eventually get used to not eliminate in people's houses by observing the older dog, but no active teaching would have taken place.

Contrast this with an observed group of macaque monkeys. Some scientists wanted to learn about eating behaviors in macaque monkeys, so they put some sweet potatoes on a beach near where they lived. The sweet potatoes got sandy and, as the monkeys disliked dirty food, they would spend some time picking the sand off. One young female, however started taking her potatoes to a freshwater pool to rinse off. She showed the others how to do so as well. The scientists then threw wheat on the sand, hoping the monkeys would spend more time picking the food out so they would have more time to observe them. The same young female just scooped up handfuls of wheat and sand and dumped them in the water. The sand sank and the wheat floated, which she ate. This practice also quickly spread through the group. This is what humans could call a proto-cultural behavior. It is learned, it involves concepts and generalisations, and it is taught. There is only one thing missing.

Artifacts, concrete and abstract
Cultural behavior must involve the use of artifacts. The most famous example in the animal world is the termite stick. Some chimpanzees in Tanzania have learned to fish termites out of their nests using sticks. They select a stick and modify it to fit down an opening in a termite nest, insert it, wiggle it around and withdraw it, eating the termites that have attacked the stick and stuck to it. This fits our criteria for cultural behavior. It is not genetically programmed. Not all chimpanzees do it, as would happen if it were built into their genes. It involves several complex generalisations and ideas, involving understanding the termites' behavior and how to exploit it, and conceiving of a tool with which to do so. It is taught by mother chimpanzees to their offspring and involves the use of an artifact: the stick itself.

The difference between the culture of humans and the behaviors exhibited by others is that humans cannot survive without culture. Everything they see, touch, interact with and think about is cultural. It is the major adaptive mechanism for humans. They cannot survive winters in upper latitudes without protective clothing and shelter, which are provided culturally. They cannot obtain food without being taught how. Whereas other organisms that exhibit cultural behavior don't necessarily need it for the perpetuation of their species, they absolutely cannot live without it.

Language is an important element in human culture. It is the primary abstract artifact by which culture is transmitted extragenetically (fulfilling points 3 and 4). Only so few can be shown, much more must be explained. Most transmission of the knowledge, ideas, and values that make up a given culture, from the ten commandments to this entry, is done through language. Again, language is an aspect from which humans differ from other animals in degree rather than kind. Once more it is other apes who share the greatest similarities with humans. Though these primates lack the larynx structure that allows for sophisticated vocalization, there are other ways of communicating. The famous female gorilla, Koko, was taught to communicate in American sign language, and she taught it to other gorillas as well.

Culture does not mean civilization. It's not necessary to have cities in order to have a culture. Every society does the best it can with its circumstances. Any given social group, and therefore the culture that reflects it, is therefore neither more advanced nor more backward than any other; it is simply the way it is because that way works. If the circumstances should change due to environmental change, population pressure, or historical events, then the culture changes. From an anthropological perspective, none is wrong, and none is right.

title: Cultural behavior


text:
Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 2

A second page (!) of archives from Talk:Christopher Columbus.

03:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)03:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)03:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)03:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)~`

Someone asked, "If he was a slaver, why would he destroy his stock?"

Well, it was cheaper to work a slave to death and buy a new one than to feed and maintain the slave. Lir 01:14 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

First of all, Lir, it took me three minutes according to Wikipedia's clock (based on my above sig and the one in this paragraph) to find a secondary source (I admit, not great, but proves you did make up a baseless claim) that utilizes direct quotes from Jacob Cain Barrett and other sources to prove what you are claiming. I did a google search for "Hitler" and "Native American" and it was the seventeenth result. Here it is 1 (you have to scroll down a bit). Tokerboy 01:20 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

 * I repeat, TokerBoy, Hitler is no authoritative source on CC. FvdP

 * Perhaps I misunderstood the argument. I thought it was that Hitler admired Columbus.  He may have done so for factually wrong reasons, but the evidence is that he did so.  If I misunderstood, sorry. Tokerboy 01:25 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

 * Ah, yes. No, the argument was that since Hitler admired Columbus, then there must be a reason. And the reason, according to Lir, must be that Columbus killed millions too. That was the argument I was opposing to. I do not oppose to the idea that Hitler admired Colombus. FvdP

In 1991, the sociologist Ward Churchill and other leaders of the American Indian Movement disrupted the Columbus Day parade in Denver Colorado. They were arrested, but argued that theirs was a legal action against a celebration of genocide. Churchill published a brief in support of a motion to dismiss the charges as an essay in his edited volume, Indians Are Us, in which he argues that as Viceroy (the crown's representative) and governor of the Caribbean Islands, and the Mainland of America, Columbus was (according to current international law) directly responsible for genocide, and that he has served as a model for genocide against Native Americans since.

I find these claims convincing. I also agree with remarks made earlier that the way Columbus has been represented in the US has more to do with 19th century politics than with 16th century realities.

I agree with others above that Hitler is a meaningless source. There is enough good scholarship in the 15th and 16th centuries to support these claims. I think it is important that the article develop them in a non-hystirical way. One way to do this as others have suggested is somehow to distinguish between the real Columbus and what we know he did, from the mythologization of Columbus in the late 19th century in the US and elsewhere.

As far as I am concerned there should be no debate at all on the fact that Columbus took slaves and encouraged genocide. The only question in my mind is, how much of the historical context for these actions is needed in an encyclopeida article, and where in the article should these aspects of his career be discussed. Slrubenstein

---

I concur. I believe the article should mostly focus on his biography with further discussion going under an existing or to-be-made article on the Amerindian Holocaust. I also think this page should be named properly.Lir 01:42 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

 * More specifically, I do not think that COlumbus' biography should end wiith the last of his voyages. I think that before a discussion of 19th century mythologization of Columbus, there should be a section in his biography of his deeds as Viceroy and Governor of the Americas -- this is an important part of his life for which there is an historical record.  One need not even apply the lable of "Genocide" to him, one could simply describe what he did and leave others to judge, if need be. Slrubenstein

How about:
 * this which uses primary sources, but I don't see any total--it's clearly quite a few from direct orders, personally and what his men did, probably with his knowledge.
 * or this with the same caveats as the above.
 * this one gives sources citing Las Casas (the first European historian in the New World) that Columbus' rule (over the Taino Indians) resulted in the deaths of five million in three years. It is certainly unfair to say that he was directly responsible for all those, however as ruler he certainly must have known what was going on and allowed it to happen (and, as the sources above show, participated in his own, small way) so he does bear responsibility.  However, he certainly allowed it to occur (except the disease factor, which he was still partially responsible for, though he couldn't have known it since he was not aware of the germ theory of disease).  Since the original question was about a source from the old talk page that cited nine million killed by Columbus, I suppose it's all in which numbers you count and which ones you don't.  I don't think it's unreasonable to say "millions" however.  The main point of the above exercise was to prove to Lir that it is possible and pretty simple to find reasonable sources to back up claims--none of these are direct, but can give you something to go on to find a primary source, and is IMHO enough to make it apparent that this is something that serious people have looked at the evidence and believe in.

 * Relevant quote from Question #2 at the third source listed above: "In a survey conducted in 1496, (Las Casas) estimated that over 5 million people had been exterminated within the first three years of the Columbus rule. [Actual survey conducted in 1496 by Bartolome de Las Casas, cited in J.B. Thatcher, Christopher Columbus, Vol. 2 [Source: New York: Putnam Sons Publishers, 1903-1904), p. 348ff. cited in Churchill's linked essay.]" Tokerboy 01:47 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

Tokerboy, independent of your comment I put some of this information in the article -- please review it, it could use some editing and maybe expansion. As for the "Genocide" issue, Churchill and others do point out that many victims of the concentration camps died of starvation and diseas; this does not exclude those deaths from the final tally of victims of genocide since the concentration camps deliberatly created conditions that led to death by disease and malnutrition. I believe the same argument could be made about Columbus (and other examples of colonial conquest); in the early stages when the indigenous population is large and does not represent a market for European goods, you often find the creation of work-camps (or plantations) with very high death-rates, and it is deliberate calculus because labor is so easily replacable, a pantation manager can make more money working people to death (this calculus changes over time as European countries start exporting manufactured goods to their colonies and seek larger markets, and as a local infrastructure develops, and as scarcity of labor makes life more valuable). Churchil et. al. also make the argument (and it seems well-supported) that according to UN conventions neither Hitler nor Columbus need not even have explicity ordered the deaths, let alone directly executed people, to be held legally accountable for genocide. Slrubenstein

 * It should be noted that at least in Mexico small pox killed *many* more people than Cortes and his men killed. In fact were it not for the disease, the spaniards probably would have lost!  I suspect that Columbus inadvertantly brought with him some terrible diseases which probably contributed to a lot of deaths.  Of course I have no statistics, but this should probably be kept in mind. -- Ram-Man

 * I think this raises a few different issues. Certainly, in some purely amoral objective sense, Europeans were responsible for the deaths of millions of Indians in that they were the transmission vector of the disease.  Whether this makes them morally responsible is another matter, although there is some historical documentation that Europeans quickly realized that Indians were susceptible to European diseases, and that Europeans set out to infect Indians deliberatly (germ warfare, as it were).  There is also a question of whether Europeans were legally responsible (I mean under international law).  The case is not so clear-cut even when it comes to unintentional infection, because even if Europeans did not intentionally infect Indians, Europeans did change the livign conditions of Indians in ways that clearly had negative effects on their health. Slrubenstein

 * I don't think that's controversial at all (that many Indians died as a result of European diseases, first accidental and then somewhat to largely deliberate). The number may vary, but that it was high is an accept fact AFAIK--I've never heard of it being disputed.  (BTW, in my searching I discovered an earlier comment I made was wrong--syphilis was possibly the only disease brought from the New World to Europe) Tokerboy 02:20 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

 * I do not think that this fact is at all controversial -- but I do think that whether it makes Columbus legally culpable for genocide according to the UN is a matter of debate. I am inclined to say guilty, but I recognize that this is not so cut and dry.Slrubenstein

Jared Diamond puts the numbers for disease-related casualties at 95-98% in Guns, Germs and Steel. I don't think the Spaniards can really be held responsible for disease. Yes, they brought it, but they didn't know what it was, and the deaths of the natives were completely baffling to them. Debatable whether the spanish would have lost - they did have weapons and armor vastly superior to the natives. Pizarro and a handful of men decimated an Inca army merely by superioriy of armament and use of cavalry. Anyway, I don't think that most of the deaths can be laid at Columbus' door. I also don't think this means he wasn't an evil murdering imperialist, but that's different than genocide. While I'm at it, the passage near the end (How responsible was columbus) seems to me to be totally whacky - I don't think anyone is blaming Columbus because of WHAT he did, the simple act of stumbling across the New World, but rather HOW he did it. He arrived and proceeded with enslavement, colonization, theft of gold and land, population transfer and forced conversion. So... I don't see the point of the last bit. No one is saying that without Columbus, colonization of the West would not have happened. But he's still a symbol of the brutality of that colonization, and this is why people protest him. Graft I cut phrase "intended to support Columbus' conquest of the Americas", as it seems very dubious to me. Columbus and the Spanish didn't even know they'd reached the Americas yet, they still thought they'd arrived at some islands in Asia. Infrogmation 02:37 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)
 * The 1493 voyage included seeds, far more livestock than necessary for the voyage itself, as well as soldiers -- the intent was to conquer and colonize, regardless of what they called the territory the planned on colonizing. Slrubenstein

Did Columbus sell and profit from the 300 slaves he shipped over to Spain, as the introduction claims, or did he simply hand them over to the Spanish crown which had financed his trip? AxelBoldt 02:39 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC) ---
 * Columbus then made several journeys of exploration and trade across the Atlantic, amassing a fortune from profits on stolen gold and kidnapped natives whom he sold into slavery. However, Columbus died in poverty.

This was removed by an anonymous user. It is POV but I would like to still have this info in the intro while adhering to NPOV. Unless somebody beats me to it I will work on this later (as this requires some research on my part. My primary school taught that Columbus was a saint and then in high school I was told he was a rapist murderer. I don't buy either extreme.). --mav

Why was "Columbus began shortly thereafter to enslave them. " removed from the First Voyage section? It is my understanding that Columbus did in fact force the natives to work for him. Perhaps "Columbus shortly thereafter began to force some of the natives to work for him." would be better? --mav

There aren't any opinions there. Its fact. Lir 04:16 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that Columbus was never rich. --rmhermen

 * The Native Americans he encountered, the Taino or Arawak, were peaceful and friendly.

This could be interpreted in more than one way: 1) the Arawak, as a race of people, were peaceful and friendly. This strikes me as "noble savage" thinking and is almost surely wrong.  I can not imagine characterizing an entire race of people as "friendly"--surely, there were some mean Arawak.  On the Carib page, it says that the Caribs and the Arawak were warring.  2) The Arawak treated the spanish peacefully and friendlily (?!). If so, we should make this clear. DanKeshet
 * The Arawak were friendly toward Columbus (at least in the beginning) and they were the ones that claimed to be poor peaceful people being preyed upon by the evil flesh-eating Caribs (so won't you, great Columbus, with your magic weapons please solve our little problem). Or that sort of thing so draw your conclusion. --rmhermen
 * So, we'd be basing the claim that the Arawak were "peaceful and friendly" on the fact that that's what Columbus says they told him? DanKeshet

There's some confusion about Las Casas that needs to be cleared up, relating to Columbus. First, his date of birth is variously given at 1474, 1484 or 1490. I have some sources saying he sailed with Columbus on his third voyage, in 1498. Others say he was still in school then (and some would have him at 14 years of age at that point, hardly the sort to be traipsing off to the New World). Others say he sailed in 1502 with the conquistador Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo to Hispaniola. In the article we have him conducting a census in 1496. Anyone got some good digs on this? Graft 17:06 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

---

I'm taking out the "some say slaves" in the opening paragraph. There is really no doubt about the fact that he enslaved at least some Indians and sold many, thereby making him a slave trader. I typed "Christopher Columbus" into google and checked the first forty results, and stopped as the results started being geared primarily towards kids. Out of the forty results, not one denied his involvement in the slave trade. Most glossed over it by saying he was a trader but not specifying (or specifying that he traded "in such commodities as gold" or something to that effect) what he traded. Many also claimed he "took," "captured" or "brought back" Indians to the New World without using the word "slavery." Of the sources that mention it specifically, not a single one denies that he did enslave Indians and sell many of them. This did include quite a few sites which were pro-Columbus, usually focusing on combatting the politically correct philosophy of denigrating Columbus Day. Even these sites either didn't mention slavery or glossed it over using words like "took" or "captured". The closest thing I found to a denial was here, where it says his involvement in slavery was brief and unsuccesful without denying that he did bring slaves from the New World to the Old, and doesn't cite any sources for that particular section. This appears to be the Encylopedia Encarta article, which, way down near the bottom, claims that he did take slaves without mentioning any controversy (the same article does discuss other factual controversies, such as where he landed and his nationality). Because of this, I am removing the "some say" because there does not seem to be any ambiguity about this whatsoever--even the sites that would, if they could, deny his involvement in the slave trade do not do so. It is undisputed fact. Tokerboy 18:12 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

 * It's uncontroversial that he enslaved people to work for him in America, and that he had 500 slaves shipped to Spain. Did he "trade in slaves" and "profit from the trade" as the introduction suggests? What happened to the 300 slaves that arrived in Spain? Who sold them, and who received the money? I would assume that the crown laid claim to them, since they had paid for the party after all. AxelBoldt 18:50 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

 * Yes, he sold slaves in Spain. Some of the money may have been given to the Spanish crown, but he did profit off the trade of slaves for money.  The introduction is correct. Tokerboy 19:36 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I gotta agree with you guys: Columbus enslaved people. That said, it doesn't make much difference whether you call him a "slave owner", "slave trader", "slaver" or what. That would be like trying to sort out what category to put in the 2 million Cambodian civilians murdered by the Communist government there: hmm, was it "genocide" or merely "an atrocity"? Who cares, you killed 2 million people to prop up yer filthy regime. (my 2 cents) --Ed Poor

 * I agree. Trying to find a dividing line is difficult to impossible, and inherently subjective.  For example, under the "encomieda" system, Indians were forced to mine gold and whatnot, and were slaughtered if they did not mine enough.  They were not slaves, but they were forced to work for others and were not paid except with survival.  Encomieda and slavery were two different institutions that were identical in practice.  The fact is that Columbus was a slave owner, slaver trader, slaver, enslaver, transporter of slaves and manager and inventor of a system of slavery, all by the modern perception of the definition of the word.  It is possible to quibble over details about how much he did of what, but the fact remains that Columbus was all those things (and an explorer). Tokerboy 19:36 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

I've just finished reading a lengthy excerpt from Columbus's log of his first voyage across the Atlantic, and my impression is that Columbus was seeking glory for himself by finding another route to "the Indies". Upon landing in the Caribbean, he found the inhabitants friendly and primitive. He figured: I don't think his original motive was to find slaves. But for those of us who oppose slavery, there's no little or no doubt that he "brought back" a whole lot of slaves later on. --Ed Poor
 * 1) the natives could benefit from being converted to Christianity
 * 2) the natives could be servants (I guess this means "slaves")
 * 3) there was lots of good things in the land, like fruit and exotic fauna
 * 4) there might be gold thereabouts

 * His original motive for going to the New World was to find a route to Asia, so that he and others could trade with the people there, primarily for spices but also slaves, gold and other commodities. His later trips to the New World were for the purpose of acquiring slaves and gold, and not so that he could hoard them both--so that he could keep some, sell the rest and become rich. Tokerboy 19:36 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

 * Okay, find a source to back up that view, and make sure it gets into the article.

 * The article already says the above. It says that after his first voyage, he told the queen that the Taino could be "subjugated" with fifty men.  He then made preparations to do so.   The article then says that he returned three times, acquired gold and slaves and profited off those commodities.  As far as sources, as I noted above with checking the first forty hits on Google, nobody, even pro-Columbus sites, doubt that he enslaved Indians and attempted to profit off slaves.  They disagree about how much money he made from that, and how much of an effort he tried--but I was not even able to find a single site that mentions the existence of a controversy over the above.Tokerboy 19:49 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

 * Ed, I agree that "original intentions" are hard to know -- but given his log entry on Oct. 14, I'd say the "intentions" developed pretty quickly. Personally, I think they were there, although in an unarticulartated fashion.  The entry from the day before, I think Oct 13 (I looked at the same web-source as you) has this gem:
 * I saw some with scars of wounds upon their bodies, and demanded by signs the of them; they answered me in the same way, that there came people from the other islands in the neighborhood who endeavored to make prisoners of them, and they defended themselves. I thought then, and still believe, that these were from the continent.
 * Unfortunately, the web version cut an important phrase that immediately follos "from the continent," namely, "to take them for slaves." There is a fascinating contradiction here -- he interprets them as having said that other indians came from another Island to take prisoners.  But immediately after, he tells us that he doe not quite believe them.  Without any evidence at all, he changes their story from "people from other islands" to "people from the continent," and he changes "to make prisoners" to "to take them for slaves."  Why does he make this change without evidence?  What could possibly have motivated him?  I guess we will never really know, but it is an obvious question and I do think that his log entry from the next day provides a clue: Columbus came from "the continent" (not Asia, but Europe), and Columbus wanted to take them as slaves.  His re-interpretation of what the Indians told him simply has others doing in the past what he intends to do in the future.  Why would he do this?  Again, who knows for sure -- but I do know that one way people excuse oppression is by saying that what they are doing is nothing new; some people have defended the taking of African slaves by Europeans by pointing out that long before the transatlantic slave trade, Africans were already taking Africans as slaves.  I know you and most other wikipedians would dismiss this logic as ludicrous -- I do not bring it up as a valid explanation of slavery, but rather as an example of one way that slavers rationalize their behavior.  Maybe Columbus was doing the same thing here?  As Tokerboy correctly points out, Columbus's original explicit intentions were to open up a new trade route.  But this does not mean that Columbus and his supporters did not have other fantasies of what might come from this exploration.  Such fantasies are seldom articulated explicitly, but careful reading sometimes give us good hints. Slrubenstein

Columbus cannot be guilty of anything under the UN Genocide convention simply because it did not exist then. We don't even need to mention the convention in an article on Columbus -- we can just say "his actions would constitute genocide under current international law." Reader can refer to the genocide article if they want to know the content and sources of that law (i.e. the UN Genocide convention). But I'm afraid to say under international law as it existed then, his actions may well have been perfectly legal...
 * not necessarily. The prisoners on trial at Nuremburg made exactly the same points in their defense, and these points were rejected.  I am not saying that Columbus would have no defense at all, I am saying that the scope of international law is not as clear-cut as other laws.  In any event, you miss the point of the paragraph, which is to say that there are plenty of people who blame Columbus for things he did, and not for things he did not do.

It can be said there was no way the native peoples could have resisted the Europeans - the Europeans had a decisive advantage because of their diseases. Due to their late settlement of the continents and lack of domesticated animals, the native Americans lacked any immunity to most Old World diseases, which meant a catastrophic population collapse (definitely higher than 50%, and perhaps more than 90%) in the first generations following contact. Deaths on a similar scale will necessarily follow *any* extensive contact between the hemispheres.
 * I find this a load of hooey,
 * why? explain
 * not that it's relevant to the article, necessarily. Las Casas managed to empathize with the natives. Certainly we can expect the same of Columbus.
 * unclear -- what do you mean? We can expect Columbus to empathize with the natives?  But he did not.  What is the point?

It wasn't impossible. This is like saying we should excuse Tomas de Torquemada because his attitudes were "common at the time" - same for Nazis in Germany.
 * Ah, you seem to think that this point "excuses" Columbus. I agree that it does not, but I do not think the paragraph is quite making that point. Slrubenstein

Don't forget that his name wasn't Columbus... Lir 12:58 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

 * 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
 * Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
 * What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
 * Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
 * Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
 * What's in a name? that which we call a rose
 * By any other name would smell as sweet;
 * So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
 * Retain that dear perfection which he owes
 * Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
 * And for that name which is no part of thee
 * Take all myself.

But all the same they never did change his name to Robert... Lir
 * I'm glad you haven't started working on all the pages that mention Jesus, you would have quite a lot of editing to do.Slrubenstein

Yes, im trying to start with the less controversial topics. Lir 18:00 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)

oh good!

--- Paul Melville Austin

Hey, everybody, that reminds me: I saw Shakespeare In Love this weekend on DVD. It was excellent! --Ed Poor

Someone made what was identified as a "minor edit" that turned out to be a substantial deletion of material. I reverted to the previous version. Feel free to make minor edits without explanation. Feel free to add significant material, too. Also feel free to edit the article, or even make cuts, if it leads to a more accurate and NPOV article -- but if you change what someone else put in, or cut it, please provide an explanation. And please be selective in your cuts, when so many others have worked on this. Slrubenstein

I deleted this quote:
 * Columbus wrote in his diary, "As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts."

I have no objection at ll to including it in the article (although it seems redundant); BUT the date of the journal entry should be provided, and the quote belongs in the body of the text, in its proper context -- not in the introduction. Slrubenstein

Well, the debate over whether Columbus was a bad guy is now going on over in Arawak so I added it here just in case somebody tried to "purify" the opening paragraph that they would see, 'oh look he wrote a diary!' but no, it doesnt belong in the first paragraph
 * I agree that we need to keep an eye on this article -- but I do think as it stands it does a pretty good job of representing the issues. Slrubenstein

So, regarding that bit in the opening paragraph that AxelBoldt just changed... is that even true? Did Columbus earn profits from any of his activities, or did it all go straight to his creditors (i.e., the Spanish Crown)? I think the latter is more likely, unless someone can provide a good link to the contrary... I'm making appropriate edits. Graft

Obviously, you don't know whether the money went to repay the creditors. Why then do you edit the article as if that were fact? Reverting. AxelBoldt 02:53 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have made my statement stronger - in fact I DO know that the money went to repay his creditors, because this is what he says in his diary - the slaves and gold he sends back are for the Crown, not for himself. So, I know that he definitely sent slaves and gold back to repay his creditors. I do not know whether he also, later, reaped his own profits. Graft

My understanding is Columbus earned profits. If he didn't Im curious why because he was promised a fortune. The Crown itself offered him a fortune. Lir 04:37 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)

Where in his diary? He was supposed to be receiving a percentage Lir 18:41 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)

Okay, here is a letter to F&I where CC discusses the disposition of gold. It doesn't state things directly, but from it you can learn that only a portion would go to F&I, so some of it would presumably fall into the control of Columbus. Also this letter to a Spanish lord is worth reading, gives some sense of the way Columbus thinks, as does his diary. Anyway, I am not sure whether the presentation of him as rapaciously acquiring gold is justified (although I will retract my previous bit about him primarily wanting to pay back creditors given the letter to Ferdinand and Isabella) ... I think his motivations were more of a religious and imperialist nature. Graft

 * He did indeed profit from some of the gold: on p. 178 of [3], "He was enjoying unwonted material prosperity because of the remittances in gold which reached him from Hispaniola". This is after the last trip. AxelBoldt 02:09 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

A clarification of the economics: On his first voyage, Columbus set out hoping to return with his ships loaded with gold and spices, because that was the most profitable thing you could fill ships with at the time. Some spices could be worth their weight in gold in Europe. Slaves were taken as a reluctant 3rd choice. Gold & spices get more money per pound, you don't have to worry about feeding your gold & spices, a third to half of it doesn't tend to die and become useless on the voyage back. Columbus's initial goal was gold and spices, not because Columbus had anything against the institution of slavery (clearly he didn't), but because he hoped to get even richer than he could with the slave trade. -- Infrogmation

Columbus also believed the journey to India was only a few days, if so, that would have made a superb slave-trading route.Lir 20:09 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)

 * Where did you get this information? AxelBoldt 22:53 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)

Re: the last addition, CC was made Admiral of the High Seas and governor of all lands he discovered BEFORE he began his journey, as he records in his diary while en route there for the first time... quoted:
 * So after having expelled the Jews from your dominions, your Highnesses, in the same month of January, ordered me to proceed with a sufficient armament to the said regions of India, and for that purpose granted me great favors, and ennobled me that thenceforth I might call myself Don, and be High Admiral of the Sea, and perpetual Viceroy and Governor in all the islands and continents which I might discover and acquire, or which may hereafter he discovered and acquired in the ocean; and that this dignity should be inherited by my eldest son, and thus descend from degree to degree forever.

Moving the info to the appropriate place... Graft

 * Thanks for catching that one. AxelBoldt 02:09 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

title: Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 2


text:
Talk:Cultural behavior

[Untitled]
By definition, cultural behavior is a subset of human behavior, so it is incorrect to assert that cultural behavior "is exhibited by other species, though to a much lesser degree." Rather, "other animal species, notably primates, exhibit many behaviors that are similar to cultural behaviors." Indeed, this is one of the reasons why primatology is so often studied under the auspices of anthropology. -- NetEsq 21:52 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

 * One could argue with that definition, but as long as the animals (especially primates) get a mention, I'm cool with it. By the way, how do you get the automatic date/time stamp?  or are you typing that by hand each time?  Theanthrope

A series of tildes: (three tildes> = username alias and ~ (four tildes) = username and time stamp.  You might want to take a look at your user preferences as well to customize the alias for your username. -- NetEsq 22:04 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

I deleted the following -- not because it should not be in the article, but because it must be rewritten before it is put back in.

 * Generally speaking, for a behavior to be considered cultural, it must have four characteristics:

 * It must be learned.
 * It must involve concepts, generalizations, abstractions, and ideas.
 * It must be shared through extragenetic transmission.
 * It must be realized through the use of artifacts, both concrete and abstract.

I and Netesq have made the same point numerous times: this is unacceptable for failure of NPOV. a behavior does not have to have all four characteristics, "generally speaking." SOME people claim that behavior must have all four characteristics, or even some of these particular four. The article must specify clearly which anthropologists or social or behavioral scientists make this claim, and why -- and allow room for a representation of other views. Slrubenstein

I am just as much at fault for not holding the article's content to the full scrutiny of NPOV principles. Indeed, even the comparative analysis of animal behavior to cultural behavior is a style indicative of the bias of a particular school of anthropological thought, the name of which still escapes me. Such a discussion belongs in the article, but it must be presented in an expository tone, it must be balanced by other points of view, and it must include specific references to the "anthropologists or social or behavioral scientists [who] make [these] claim[s]." -- NetEsq 05:33 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cultural behavior