Difference between revisions of "Talk:World History Lecture Nine"

Revision as of 01:41, April 6, 2009

I've never before heard it said that the Whigs were the anteedents of the Labour Party. The conventioanal argument is that Whig=Liberal and Tory=Conservative, but even that is a gross over-simplification of the changes in political allegiance during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is probably far truer to say that Whiggism led to economic and political Liberalism in the mid-19th century which in turn greatly influenced the 20th century Conservative Party with its individualist, free trade, laissez faire policies. Mrs Thatcher was nothing if not a classic nineteenth century Liberal. Also, in the late 19th century the Liberal Party split over Home Rule for Ireland and a large faction - known as Liberal Unionists - joined the Conservative Party (hence its full name, the Conservative and Unionist Party - nothing to do with Ulster Unionists). Yes, the late 19th century Liberal Party had trade union candidates, known as 'Lib Labs'; some of these joined the Labour Party when it was established (as the Labour Representation Committee) in 1900. But to say the Whigs developed into Labour is simply not the case. (unsigned)

Reply by Aschlafly 10:48, 27 June 2007 (EDT):

Of course, the lecture's statement that the (leftist) modern Labour Party is a substitute for the (leftist) Whig Party of old is a simplification of this interesting facet of English history. But it is a correct simplication, as confirmed by the Columbia Encyclopedia quoted below. Admittedly, there is a step in between that entailed the more conservative Liberal Party. But the migration from leftist to Liberal to leftist does not break the chain.

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

The Liberal party was an outgrowth of the Whig party that, after the Reform Bill of 1832 (see Reform Acts), joined with the bulk of enfranchised industrialists and business classes to form a political alliance that, over the next few decades, came to be called the Liberal party. Much of the Liberal program was formulated by an important manufacturing middle-class element of the party known as the Radicals, who were strongly influenced by Jeremy Bentham. The Liberals distinguishing policies included free trade, low budgets, and religious liberty. Their anti-imperialism reflected confidence in Britain's economic supremacy. Most Liberals believed in the economic doctrines of laissez-faire and thought labor unions, factory acts, and substantial poor relief a threat to rapid industrialization. ...

By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party. The party's stubborn adherence to the doctrine of free trade, arguments between the Lloyd George and Asquith factions of the party, long years of depression, the Irish problem, growing labor radicalism, and the rise of a working-class party all account for the rapid postwar decline of the Liberals. ...

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright© 2004, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. All rights reserved.

Apologies for omitting to sign above. I think (perhaps mistakenly) that you are drawing your argument and inferring a link from this section of the quotation:By 1914 the Liberal government had passed substantial welfare legislation but, unwilling to adopt a full socialist program, the Liberals began to lose support to the new Labour party. Certainly there was a radical interventionist wing of the party, under Lloyd George, which fostered this 'welfare' legislation; but (as with Lloyd George's post WW1 housing programme) this was to prevent socialism by improving living standards for the poor, rather than to encourage socialism. Some individual liberal politicians moved 'left', but I maintain that there is a much stronger philosophical link between nineteenth century classical economic Liberalism and modern UK Conservatism, and indeed even between mid-C19 radicalism - most of whose exponents were enthusiastic individualists and anti-Socialists - and modern Conservatism. Anyway... thanks in any case for your considered response. Pachyderm 11:01, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Religious Persecution

In the 1600s in England, there was some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world, as Protestants harshly persecuted each other and there was also continuous conflict between Protestants and Catholics. The conflict between Anglicans and Puritans in England was particularly severe, causing many Puritans to flee to New England.

To class the examples you give as "some of the worst religious persecution in the history of the world" is completely alien to the facts. Conflict between Anglicans and Puritans was not 'particularly severe' by world standards, or even Englsish standards: no executions were involved, by contrast with the hundreds of Catholics killed in the Elizabethan and 17th century persecutions and scores of Protestants killed in the 16th century Marian persecution). Contrast that with the Holocaust, with Tsarist antisemitic pogroms, with the butcheries of the Crusades, with the massacres perpetrated during the German Religious Wars, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War; the killings of Chinese Christians during the Boxer Rising - I could go on and on. Pachyderm 12:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Corrections

• You simply eliminate Edward VI and Mary I as not being 'noteworthy'. They may have had relatively short reigns but they were important nonetheless.
• To say Elizabeth I is the most popular would need some sort of reliable survey to back it up, and to clarify whether that is from a contemporary perspective or not.
• As it stands the wording suggest she was formally excommunicated before 1559, in fact this took place afterwards in 1570.
• You completely omit the Gunpowder Plot, probably the defining event of James' reign, which is still commemorated to this day.
• Charles I did accept the Petition of Right, though he never intended to abide by it.
• You label the first civil war as purely religious. This was not the case. Yes Cromwell was a Puritan but to say all Parliamentarians were is incorrect. Although there was a split along religious lines the names used for either side, Royalists and Parliamentarians tells the story much better.
• The 'remainder' of William Prynne's ears were not removed but were branded with SL for 'seditious libeller'.
• You jump straight from describing the power wielded by certain Puritans to saying that this caused them to emigrate, though this makes no sense.
• Although Cromwell was essentially a dictator it should be noted that he refused the offer of Kingship.
• The US was not the only example of a revolution that did not lead to dictatorship. Venustiano Carranza became president of Mexico after overthrowing a dictator but did not become one himself. There are of course also many non-violent revolutions that did not lead to dictatorships, especially in recent decades.
• Charles II did not immediately take over after Cromwell's death.
• The Labour Party did NOT form from the Whigs. The Whigs developed into the Liberal party (even then not a straightforward matter), which has under gone many changes to become the Liberal Democrats today, the 3rd largest party. The Labour Party was not created until the early 20th century.
• You fail to mention the Battle of the Boyne. This was a hugely significant battle between Protestant and Catholic and has ramifications to this day. It was also the last battle in which two English kings faced each other.
• Your statement regarding the French revolution "ended up with nearly everyone being executed by the guillotine" is an overstatement to say the very least!
• You criticise the arbitrary nature of some of the French declarations, but most such statements are arbitrary. The phrase 'pursuit of happiness' is extremely vague for instance.
• I think you are mistaken in attributing any significant credit to Adam Smith for economic expansion as part of the industrial revolution. He was really more of an observer of it such that his ideas were significant later on.
• The vast majority of the cotton for Britain came from its colonies, not America, with the USA being independent by pretty much the start of the industrial revolution. Britain was also engaged in hostilities with the US for some time and so significant trade of cotton was unlikely between them.
• I think your claim that Britain tried to hide the secrets of the Industrial revolution is woefully inaccurate. This portrays it as if the revolution was a single event that was tightly controlled by single group, which of course it was not.
• You suggest the industrial revolution was simply built on the use of iron for example, neglecting the fact that revolutions in the extraction of iron for instance were part of the revolution.
• James Watt did not invent the steam engine (a common misconception), he simply improved it.
• You get into a discussion on the agrarian revolution after discussing the industrial revolution, which is odd given how they occurred the other way around.
• You characterise enclosure as simply the buying up of land. In fact much of it was simply the pre-existing owners enclosing their land. Certainly much buying and selling then occurred but this was not the defining feature of enclosure.
• Again when referring to Spain and Austria-Hungary you put far too great an emphasis on the role of Adam Smith and simply dismiss the consensus amongst historians in favour of said mistake.
• This sentence "If you are a businessman or investor, then you love the industrial revolution because it enables you to make money without being a farmer, and gives you access to all sorts of goods and products that might not otherwise be available, such as computers" seems to be mixed up in its temporal context.

I hope this has been of use. RobertWDP 23:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)

The Virgin Queen?

Is it worth mentioning Elizabeth I's reputation as "The Virgin Queen"? I know historians debate how true that was, but its why one of the colonies that caused Great Britain so much trouble later on is called Virginia. ArthurA 10:34, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Revolution versus Civil War?

Might it be worth differentiating between revolutions and civil wars, since both are covered here?

My personal definition is that its a civil war until the rebels win, then the victors get to call it a revolution, but I'm little more than an amateur historian with specific interests (mostly American history, from the Late Unpleasantness Civil War on.) ArthurA 10:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Prussia vs. Germany

To call Prussia the former name of Germany is like calling Maryland the former name of the USA... ClementB 09:20, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Look up "Prussia" in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster, 10th Ed., second meaning: "former kingdom and state of Germany." Now complain to it if you still insist on your incorrect view.--Andy Schlafly 08:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

The same Merriam-Webster has this entry on Hesse: "state of Germany & formerly of West Germany including larger part of Hesse-Darmstadt & part of Hesse-Nassau "

Prussia was a state in Germany. Prussia was never the state of Germany. Hesse, neither. So Bavaria.

To emphasize: the kingdom of Prussia was never identical to Germany. In fact, Prussia could only become a kingdom in 1701 as it lay outside of the German Empire.

Clement ♗ 11:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

The lecture doesn't say Prussia was "identical to Germany." But Prussia was the leading state in the German empire, and hence is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany. Your analogy to Maryland is, frankly, beyond absurd.

Let me know when you assert your same complaint to Merriam-Webster.--Andy Schlafly 11:50, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

The lecture states Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria. Does this make Frederick II a former king of Germany? Or a king of former Germany? It gives at least a wrong impression.

I have no problems with the Merriam-Webster, as this dictionary (not an encyclopedia, BTW) states that Prussia was a German state. That's absolutely correct, but you seem to misread it as the former kingdom of Germany, when all it implies that it is a former German kingdom.

Clement ♗ 12:12, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

As you're so adamant, I changed the entry on Germany to include this point. Clement ♗ 09:29, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Interestingly, I wasn't allowed to introduce this insight into the article on Germany. In the discussion on my home-page, Karajou linked to the MSN encarta. As the Merriam-Webster, it starts with

Prussia (German Preussen), former kingdom and state of Germany.

But then, you find the line

Modern Prussia was successively, with geographical modifications, an independent kingdom (1701-1871); the largest constituent kingdom of the German Empire (1871-1918); a constituent state, or land, of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933); and an administrative division, comprising 13 provinces, of the centralized German Third Reich (1934-1945).

Do you see how the first sentence never implies that Prussia is the predecessor (or former name) of Germany?

Please, allow me to change the lecture accordingly, i.e., from Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (the former name for Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria. to something like Examples were Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (a former kingdom in Germany), and the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of Austria.

If you insist on your view, the line A former name of Germany is Prussia should be added to the article on Germany.

Clement ♗ 14:51, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Clement, your suggested replacement is not an improvement on the lecture. An encyclopedia entry about something (e.g., Germany) obviously goes into more detail, with greater precision, than a lecture should. A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. This lecture has done that, just as the dictionary has, and your suggestion is not an improvement. Please move on, at least for now. If this still bothers you after you've focused on other issues, then we can always revisit this. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 15:28, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Dear Andrew Schlafly, I'm afraid that the matter still bothers me. I thought about it for quite a while and to get counsel, I've talked to the pastor of my former youth group. He took some time to read my entries - and some of yours - and we discussed the whole exchange at length.

• He scolded me for being overly aggressive in my replies. Even if mocked, I should have been more humble and considerate. Therefore, I apologize.
• I apologize to R. J. Jensen, too. It became obvious that he didn't want to be involved in a discussion of the statements of your lectures, but kept his contributions and these lectures separate. I should not have tried to drag him into this argument.
• You said: A good lecture informs with the goal of making something easy to learn and remember. We seem to disagree where there is the line between an allowed (over-) simplification and the outright distortion of facts. I'd like to point out that the statement ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was kept in biology text books around the world because it is easy to learn and remember, though there was no truth in it.
• I'm thankful that you considered my note on the Red Cross in your next lecture. On the other hand, you ignored my question on the beginning of the industrial revolution in Germany: There are discussions whether it was as early as in the 1830s or as late as in the 1850s, but I found no one who gave 1870 as a date. But looking back, it seemed to be prideful to expect that you'd follow all of my annotations: reading the talk pages of the other lectures shows that - seemingly - good advice is often ignored.

This said, I'll follow what I see as an example set by R. J. Jensen, i.e, I won't comment on the further World History Lectures.

Yours Clement ♗ 13:05, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Clement, your conclusion is backhanded at best, and you still seem to push a double standard. I repeat: have you complained to Merriam-Webster yet? It says the same thing the lecture does, as I demonstrated. That you insist on complaining only here without complaining to Merriam-Webster suggests you have two different standards.--Andy Schlafly 13:36, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I won't complain to Merriam-Webster. Why? Because the statement: Prussia: former kingdom and state of Germany. is true. It just doesn't mean what you read into it! Merriam-Webster states that Prussia is a former kingdom. And that Prussia is a former state of Germany. It is possible to misread this very short statement as Prussia is the former state of Germany. But your background in history should prevent you from such a misinterpretation! Clement ♗ 13:57, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Do you actually want editors to help?

Mr Schlafly, before I go any further in helping to edit your encyclopedia, please could you let me know if you actually want to use information contributed by editors. On the specific points you reverted,

• Mohammed is not and never has been the most common boy's name in Britain. It has regularly been in the top 20 for the last 30-40 years and famously overtook John about 10 years ago. But the most common name on a long-term basis continues to be James, as it has been for centuries, while Biblical names like Joshua and Adam and Celtic or Saxon names like Liam and Kevin are currently popular.
• There is no bar on a catholic being Prime Minister. As you surely know, the UK has no written constitution and there isn't even an official position of Prime Minister (his official title is First Lord of the Treasury). If a catholic (or muslim, hindu, sikh, jew, etc) became Prime Minister, the Queen could choose to be advised on ecclesiastical matters by the Lord Chancellor or another senior minister. Blair has never revealed why he chose to leave converting to catholicism until he left office but it wouldn't have affected his position as P.M.

So Mr Schlafly, if you'll accept input from an editor who knows what he's talking about, I'll gladly continue to contribute to Conservapedia. Otherwise, I won't waste my time. (I've read some of your talk pages and I see you're inclined to get into pointless arguments with editors who know more than you do about the subject in question. All I need to know is, do you accept input from people who know more about a subject than you do, yes or no.) JosephMac 17:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

If you think you're such a genius, JosephMac, let's see how well you can do on the World History Midterm Exam. Or perhaps your skill is only acting like you know it all.

The evidence is against both of your claims above. Moreover, you censored the statement about Muhammad rather than improving it.

We don't welcome falsehoods, even by people who pretend to be know-it-alls. Now let's see if you even do as well as the top homeschooled students on the exam. I bet you'll run away from that opportunity to prove your immense knowledge.--Andy Schlafly 17:53, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

• No, the evidence isn't against either of the statements above. They're both correct, as I think you actually know.
• As you also know, I didn't censor the statement about Mohammed; I improved it to say it's in the top 20 of boy's names.
• I'm not pretending about anything.
• I would do your exam if I were confident that your historical knowledge was accurate enough to mark it correctly.
• Mind your language, please.JosephMac 17:58, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm a Brit (English) and I have nary a clue as to where you got that 'Muhammad' thing from. I don't personally know anyone called Muhammad, and I've never heard of a Christian with that name (unless they converted from another religion). In support of JosephMac, I know many people called James, so many that I call them by their last name instead of their first. LeslieHoyson 18:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

I'd too see if either you could even score 50% on the World History Midterm Exam. Looks like both you won't dare display your real knowledge.

It only took 30 seconds to confirm that "Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year [2008], a study by The Times has found."[1]

1 c. 2 d. 3 a. 4 c. 5 c. 6 e. 7 d. 8 e. 9 c. 10 b. 11 b. 12 d. 13 b. 14 b. 15 d. 16 a. 17 d. 18 e. 19 b. 20 a. 21 e. 22 c. 23 c. 24 d. 25 d. 26 c. 27 d. 28 a. 29 b. 30 c. 31 b. 32 e. 33 d. 34 d. 35 a. 36 e. 37 a(*). 38 a. 39 b. 40 e. 41 d. 42 c. 43 d. 44 c. Extra (male) e.

(*) Your numbering is muddled. You've labelled Song as VI before Tang as V in the list. The order is Qin, Han, 3 kingdoms, Sui, Tang, Song.

JosephMac, your score is is 40, and you got some of the most challenging questions! That makes a new second place among internet submissions, and ties for second best among all submissions. Good job.

Also, thanks for catching the error about the dynasties! AddisonDM 19:13, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

I'd be happy to help set future exams to help you avoid ambiguous or erroneous answers, of which there are several in this exam.

As for Mohammed, here's a table from the Office of National Statistics, which is the definitive record for England and Wales. [2] Mohammed is no. 17. JosephMac 19:30, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

I noticed several of your edits as being incorrect (e.g., replacing "Anglican" with "Protestant") or censoring information (erasing statement about Islam in France). Accordingly, I had to revert your edits. Some revisions of value may have been lost and I'll revisit Saturday. I suggest you be more careful.

Muhammad has several different spellings, obviously. Your failure to recognize that, even after I gave you an article explaining this, suggests you're more interested in censoring the truth here than in advancing knowledge. Please move elsewhere if you continue to have that attitude.--Andy Schlafly 23:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Actually, JosephMac is pretty much right in his 2 original points.

There does not appear to be any data suggesting that Muhammed is currently or has ever been the most popular boys name in the UK. In 2007 it (including 14 spelling variations, although some might argue against doing this) was ranked 2nd for newborn boys. Although some said it would overtake the top name, Jack, this does not appear to have happened as of yet.

And there is NOT any legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister as he also correctly stated. This is often mixed up with the laws affecting the monarchy, for which reform has recently been discussed. RobertWDP 07:24, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Sorry but speaking as a Catholic from England I can confirm that JosephMac is quite correct there is NO legal obstacle to a Catholic becoming Prime Minister in the UK. We potentially had an atheist as Prime Minister and the main objection to him (Michael Foot) was his duffle coat! BrianNTS 07:31, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

This story from the BBC states precisely this point about Catholicism at the end. [3] The belief by some that there was some sort of legal restriction appears to have been heightened by the fact that Blair waited until he left office to convert to Catholicism. RobertWDP 07:36, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm just pleased that JosephMac corrected the statement Prussia (the former name for Germany) to Prussia (the most powerful of the German states), and that A. Schlafly doesn't object any longer. Clement ♗ 07:51, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

How does "40" by JosephMac become a "new second place" among all submissions? We already have a 40 for second place, so JosephMac would tie for second place. Still a great score.

People are denying too much the ban on Catholicism for the British Prime Minister. The ban plainly does apply to the monarch and spouse of the monarch, and Tony Blair plainly did delay until after abdicating as Prime Minister before converting, and there plainly are legal restrictions that would kick in if a Prime Minister were Catholic. Why do so many Brits insist on denying the ban??? The denial is odd in itself.

ClementB's comment is misleading as I do still object to his suggested change to the Prussia/Germany statement.--Andy Schlafly 22:06, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

You're still clinging to your statement that Prussia is a former name for Germany? And your only justification for doing so is the short entry on the Merriam-Webster, stating

Prussia: former kingdom & state of Germany * Berlin

You misread this entry. This becomes clear when you have a look at the entry on Waldeck:

Waldeck: former county, principality, & state of Germany between Westphalia & Hesse-Nassau * Arolsen

Your reading of the Merriam-Webster would make Waldeck a former name of Germany, too.

Clement ♗ 07:04, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Andy, I'm afraid on the point about Catholicism and the Prime Minister you are wrong. There is NO legal restriction against a Catholic Prime Minister. The reason so many Brits 'deny' the ban? Because there isn't one. Sorry, but that fact has to be cleared up. RobertWDP 11:20, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

If this point is so important to you, then suggest more precise wording that does not censor the facts that the British Prime Minister has basic duties that could not be fulfilled if he were Catholic, that Prime Minister Tony Blair delayed converting to Catholicism until after he abdicated, and that there has never been a Catholic Prime Minister. And, by the way, the language obscuring how Brits celebrate the anniversary of the alleged "discovery" of the gunpowder plot is going to be corrected also.--Andy Schlafly 14:53, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

This was widely discussed at the time that Iain Duncan Smith (a Catholic) became leader of the Conservative Party, and the conclusion of constitutional scholars was that there is no barrier to a Catholic becoming prime minister -- the largely ceremonial role of the government in giving ecclesiastic advice to the monarch could be performed by any minister. Tony Blair has never given a public explanation for his decision to wait until he left office, although two explanations have been given by his friends: It had the potential to upset the delicate negotiations in Northern Ireland, and he did not wish for a purely personal decision to be interpreted as a political manoeuvre. Jalapeno 15:09, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

"Constitutional scholars" make all sorts of claims, including silly ones. Nothing you say refutes the three facts I cite above, and I welcome alternative wording that does not censor the facts.--Andy Schlafly 15:23, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

(unindent) Ignoring the new material above for a moment, I should like to point out that both Joseph and I defeated Mr Schlafly's challenge of gaining more than 50% on the Midterm Exam (he with a score of 40 and I with 37), and I think that in light of his insulting and unchivalrous behaviour towards we who were trying to help, we both deserve an apology so we can all move on. LeslieHoyson 15:45, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Apologies for my absence (owing to a misunderstanding about dynamic assignment of IP addresses). Mr Schlafly, this discussion exemplifies exactly what I said above about "pointless arguments with editors who know more than you do about the subject in question". You 've now had numerous British contributors telling you there's no constitutional bar on a catholic becoming Prime Minister. Ian Duncan Smith illustrates this perfectly. He's a Conservative (and conservative) politician who's highly respected across the whole political spectrum. Although he was a poor party leader, the fact that he's catholic was never once considered to prevent him becoming Prime Minister. Why Blair chose not to formally convert to catholicism until after he left office was entirely his own business, which he has never discussed. If the Queen had been concerned about it, she could have chosen any other minister to advise her as Head of the Church of England (although there's no sign she would have been concerned, as her PMs have included two Presbyterians, a Baptist and a Methodist). I must ask you to respect the knowledge of British people on this subject. I will edit Lecture 9 appropriately. JosephMac 16:49, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

If I may add my six-penn'orth, Schlafers is completely wrong on this (as he is on the Prussia/Germany question too). Some humilityy and open-mindedness, such as he demands of Liberals, wuld be welcome. ThomasF 18:06, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Godspeed to you, ThomasF. You are the classic definition of a troll. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 19:07, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Religious Conflict: Ireland

I've started improving the part of the 'Religious Conflict in England' section that deals with Ireland. There's a lot of work to do so if anyone else would like to help out, that would be great (I'll be away for a few days). The Protestant/Catholic thing needs to be toned down a bit. Although that dispute is highly visible, the origins of Irish Republicanism were more political than religious - Wolfe Tone was a protestant, the original Fenians were protestant industrial workers from Belfast, etc. JosephMac 20:12, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Non-German 'Great' Composers

I notice you claim that "most great composers were German". Musicologists, composers, music students and fans of Boulez, Borodin, Berlioz, Bartok, Mahler, Liszt, Karajan, Holst, Haydn, Grieg,Gould, Vivaldi, Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Sullivan, Stravinsky, Strauss, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Schubert, Schoenberg, Satie, Ravel, Rachmaninoff, Puccini, Prokofiev, Penderecki, Mussorgsky, Paganini, Mozart, or Monteverdi would disagree with you, I suspect. KBinbota 21:25, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Good list of mostly obscure composers. Only a few of them would be considered to be in the same league as the great German composers, and even they wouldn't be considered as great as the Germans.

I know, I know. You probably think all languages are equal, all religions are equal, and ... all nationalities are equal with respect to composers. Well, we tell the truth here. I recommend Wikipedia if you prefer pushing political correctness instead.--Andy Schlafly 21:32, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

You certainly seem to have a very unusual definition of 'obscure'. KBinbota 21:41, 5 April 2009 (EDT)