Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 26

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 26

North Korean Opinion on Chinese Socialism since 1980s

Does anyone have quotes or speeches from the North Korean government, or Kim Jong Il, or Kim IL Sung expressing their opinion on Chinese socialism and the market reforms? Do they consider China socialist? --Gary123 (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jong-il briefly discusses the issue in this speech, in which he proclaimed to Hu Jintao, "Touring various special economic zones making a great contribution to the socialist modernization drive with Chinese characteristics, we were more deeply moved by the Chinese people’s enterprising and persevering efforts and fruits born by them." --Bowlhover (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Southern star

For those who are confused by the following, this question refers to Advance Australia Fair. Gwinva (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the "glorious southern star" that McCormick's 1879 lyrics refer to? Sirius? --Bowlhover (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sirius is just as prominent in the Northern Hemisphere and not unique to the South. The Southern Cross and the two pointers, especially the very bright Alpha Centauri (one of the closest stars to Earth), are more likely as they are only visible in the south. Our Australian flag article says "The Southern Cross (or Crux) is one of the most distinctive constellations visible in the Southern Hemisphere and has been used to represent Australia and New Zealand since the early days of British settlement." However this 1879 lyric predates Federation and the current flag by two decades. New Zealand's national anthem has a "triple star" reference that is also unexplained. My guess is the stars in both aren't literal but are metaphors, despite AAF's lyrics being more of a simile (the country will "shine like our glorious southern star"). Perhaps "glorious southern constellation" was too difficult a rhyme. I'd say that perhaps the lyrics of both country's anthems have as much astronomical veracity as thay do artistic merit. What really baffles me is who Joyce is and why we are all enjoined to ring her in the first line Mhicaoidh (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mhicaoidh, I'll never hear that the same way again. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

something to do with the eckcent I think : ) Mhicaoidh (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably those who are old and married can't ring her (just the young and free). Gwinva (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about the lyrical issues, but as to the astronomical one: Sirius is at declination -17° (to the nearest whole degree). It is therefore visible on a clear night at any time on any night (what is called circumpolar) from latitude south of 17°S; and some of the time from latitude 17°S to 73°N, with the amount of visibility decreasing as you go north. Alpha Centauri is at declination -61°; therefore it is circumpolar only south of latitude 61°S, and visible some of the time from 61°S to 29°N. Although Sirius is a southerly star for those of us living in the Northern Hemisphere, Alpha Centuari is a much more southerly one. --Anonymous, at about 44°N, 00:37 UTC, April 27, 2008.

Interesting to note the current revised updated etc official version has a verse starting "Beneath our radiant Southern Cross..." Mhicaoidh (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Anynomous: that is not exactly true. For a circumpolar star, the complementary angle of the observer's latitude plus the complementary angle of the declination must be less than 90 degrees. The minimum altitude of a star is reached when the observer is opposite to it. At the time of minimum altitude, the observer sees the star across the south pole. If there is more than 90 degrees of latitudal distance between the star and the observer, the former cannot be seen.

Sirius, then, can only be circumpolar south of 73 degrees S (90-17). Alpha Centauri can only be circumpolar south of 29 degrees (90-61). The further south in declination a star is, the further north an observer on Earth can be for it to still be circumpolar. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Damn, you're right. Thanks for the correction. I should have drawn myself a diagram of the sky before posting, instead of one of the Earth; it's much easier to think about it that way. --Anonymous, 07:10 UTC, April 28.

By the way, why is there no mention at Advance Australia Fair of the traditional lyrics Brittannia then shall surely know,/Beyond wide ocean's roll,/Her sons in fair Australia's land/Still keep a British soul.? Republican POV pushing, perhaps?! Gwinva (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this seems to have been part of the original lyrics, I've added it to the article. --Bowlhover (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The "traditional lyrics" mentioned by Gwinva were not part of the original lyrics. They were a modification by Professor Stuart Blackie of Edinburgh.[1] The original wording was as shown in verse 4 at Advance Australia Fair#Original. To Bowlhover, you didn't add those words to the article. You duplicated verse 4 of the original lyrics as verse 5, which never existed, and changed the reference from the original 1879 lyrics to the 1900-1909 version. I've reverted the changes so the article is, once again, correct. The "Blackie" version is not shown in the article.

Addressing the original question, my grandfather corresponded with Peter Dodds McCormick, the composer of Advance Australia Fair. The original correspondence is now held in the National Library of Australia.[2] Although the correspondence doesn't mention what the "southern star" was, I remember being told as a child that Amicus had said that it referred to the Southern Cross, not an individual star.

Thanks, and sorry for the mistake. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem of Poverty

When and why did poverty cease to be a natural condition and become a social problem? Miranda Angel (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm…good question. I would guess that it came largely with industrialization and the urbanization that ensued. Poverty in rural societies can often be blamed on natural phenomena like crop failures, the weather, and so on. And the feudal system which upheld it was regarded as being divinely ordained from time immemorial. But when vast numbers of peasants began to move to the cities and work in factories, the exploitation of man by man became transparently obvious, and the new classes of capitalist and entrepreneur did not have the reinforcement of long centuries of tradition. Thus, the 19th Century saw new formulations of political theories which stressed the nature of social classes. Some of these philosopher economists called for a revolution (like Karl Marx) and others just wanted society to take on a more responsible and Christian approach to the newly dispossessed in the large slums of the city. It should be added however, that all three of the main monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – exhorted the faithful to charity towards the indigent, the orphaned and widowed, and the sick. Traditionally, these religions did not see such problems as essentially “social”, that is, typical of a class or social structure, and symptomatic of man’s oppression of man. Nevertheless, when such secular interpretations of society began to prevail, they gained considerable force from the altruism of these spiritual beliefs. Thus, the Christian Church had great influence in the abolition of slavery, and in the institution of welfare state ideals of social democracy.

If you wanted a “best fit” date, I would opt for somewhere about the 1870s, after the Paris Commune, the inauguration of the Working Men Unions, and the publication of Das Capital. Myles325a (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

When peasants did something about it? See Popular revolt in late medieval Europe, (addn) then, Peasant revolts for dates and Crisis of the Late Middle Ages. cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Origins of the Poor Law system. That just deals with England though; provisions for doing *something* with the poor (giving them free food, rounding them up and having them watch chariot races all day, or whatever) go back to at least ancient Rome. As long as there has been urban civilization, the poor have existed as a social problem. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know just how well Tacitus's famous comment about "bread & circuses" fits the definition of a poverty program. On one hand, its intent was not to stamp out poverty -- the bread dole & the entertainments were available to both rich & poor Romans alike -- but to keep an idle populace too busy to riot over the latest political scandal. On the other, in order to get a token for the bread dole, one had to deal with a government apparatus that operated through political influence and patronage: the average citizen needed the help of a patron in order to get this token, & if one had that kind of connection, she/he wasn't poor. The need for connections also meant the quite real possibility of abuse, so that some had more tokens than they were entitled to.

That said, Helping the poor because they were poor was not a new idea to the audience of the Christian gospels; empathy has been part of humanity as long as history has been recorded. I'm not sure anyone has looked at the history of the perception of poverty; it's only been within the last few generations that "real" historians have looked beyond the affairs of court, battlefield, and cathedrals. -- llywrch (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer is actually remarkably simple when you think about it, and when "poverty" is viewed more prosaically, for example as the near-fatal lack of food. Sometime in the nineteenth century communication and agricultural productivity had grown such that the world in general could always feed itself - if it wanted to. The extreme case is illustrative: prior to that period famine might occur because of a shortage of food due to climatic conditions, and an inability to transfer sufficient foodstuffs to the area in time. After that period, famine became a purchasing power problem, and thus depended strongly on the social and political system in place. The classic example is famine in India, where Amartya Sen has won the Nobel in economics for demonstrating that devastating famine in British India - especially in the 1890s, but also the horrific 1942 famine, which came because of wartime restrictions on food import and transportation - were not problems of production, but problems of distribution. A standard and well-accepted corollary is that famine since the mid-19th has only been found in oppressed societies. Cf India and China over the past 50 years.

Basically, there was once a time when extreme, life-threatening poverty was something nobody, even visionary ethicists in Tiberius' reign, could believe would never be with us. Sometime in the past few generations it has become possible to believe that the persistence of such poverty is a product of our social structure rather than mechanistic necessity. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Insert - hang on; the 1942 Indian famine was, fairly obviously, caused by the loss of Burma to the invading Japanese, it acting as a 'bread basket' to India. The lack of famine since Indian independence almost certainly has more to do with the 'Green revolution' than exceptionally sagacious politicians. --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Economists disagree with that on most counts. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer, Miranda, is that ceased to be a 'natural condition' when it became a matter of intellectual debate and then a subject of social policy. And the debate on the 'mischievous ambiguity of the word poor' really takes shape in the period between the late 1700s to the publication in England of the Poor Law Report. It was Edmund Burke who was among the first to raise the issue when he objected to the 'political canting language' of the expression 'labouring poor', thus highlighting the confusion between those who worked for their living, and were thus properly labouring people, and those who could not work, and were thus dependant on charity. For him the word 'poor' should really only be used in reference to the latter.

It was a standard later taken up by the poor law reformers, who aimed to end this ancient confusion for good and all. Pauperism and poverty would never be perceived in the same terms again. Both those who supported the Poor Law Amendment Act and those who opposed it, from Dickens to Disraeli, met in a battle where poverty, and all the things associated with poverty, were brought ever more directly into the public consciousness. In future it was no longer a case of the poor always being with us, but the manner in which they are with us. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the days of the week

Today is a Saturday because yesterday was a Friday. Yesterday was a Friday because the day before was a Thursday - and so on backward through the centuries. But at some point, the system must have had an arbitrary starting point - someone must have decided that some day was a Monday and future days would follow that order. When did this happen, and has the sequence ever been broken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyroclastic (talk • contribs) 06:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

calendar is a useful article to read along with days of the week. There have been and continue to be a wide variety of calendars in use around the world, the dominant one reflecting the hegemony of that century's (or millenium's) particular dominant culture . The continuity of our Western one has been "broken" from time to time through calendar reform and you would find gregorian calendar interesting Mhicaoidh (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Can vegans use bone china?

I never thought about it before, but recently read that up to 45% of the mass of fine bone china is ground ox bone, which is mixed with clay and other compounds. As vegans do not use dairy, honey, silk, or leather, I was wondering if they avoided such other products as crockery made from bone ash, with the ox of course being an especially holy animal in many parts of the world. And where does all that ox bone come from anyway? Google sources seem rather reticent on this. And why ox bone, when surely cow and sheep bones would be much more plentiful? Myles325a (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You've started something now, Myles. Speaking as a member of the food chain, would a vegan shake hands, ride horses, or maybe it's only "products" that count? Julia Rossi (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Shaking hands would definitely be fine; it's between consenting agents. Riding horses is probably not very vegan—using animals as beasts of burden and all. Anyway, it's clearly not an issue of just "products"—Veganism is meant to be a holistic philosophy, an approach to life. As for bone china, the answer sounds like no to me—they won't wear leather shoes, they sure won't like pottery made of bones. --75.36.41.18 (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OP myles325 back here. Of course, we could just look up a Vegan website, but that would be cheating wouldn't it? Myles325a (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving companies sell lists of new addresses to marketers?

In a recent Popular Science article [3], it is mentioned that "moving companies sell lists of new addresses to marketers". How prevalent is this in the United States and elsewhere around the world? --203.10.47.15 (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In the USA, the official government post office change-of-address process is funded and run by junk mail companies (famous Direct Marketing Association quote: "there is no such thing as junk mail, only junk people"), so there hardly seems any need for movers to get in on it. --Sean 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Women in American Politics

American women got the vote in 1920 but made almost no progress in breaking into political life in the period before World War 2. What were the reasons for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Watt (talk • contribs) 07:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And they still haven't made much progress. Would be interested in the answers. WikiJedits (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer is really to be found, Linda, in the structures that support access to political life. Women may have got the vote in 1920 but there was still considerable residual prejudice and discrimination towards them in those very areas and professions, particularly the legal profession, which generally act as the ante-chamber to a political career. Although many women did in fact run for office in the United States in the inter-war period they most often lacked the backing of the major parties. If they did achieve such backing they often had oppose incumbents. Failing in such contests, as they most often did, made their re-endorsement all but impossible. The best most women could hope for from the major parties was to be adopted as auxiliaries, a kind of reserve army of political labour!

Times have changed a little, I think it only fair to add. In this regard I have to say that I am impressed always by the way history works, by her delightful and delicious sense of irony. It had to come that one day a woman would be a candidate for the most senior office in the land. It had to come one day that a black man would also become a candidate for the most senior office in the land. But for the Democrats to put forward a woman and a black man at the same time, now that really is something! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that very interesting answer. Do you mind if I ask which of the two you support? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Watt (talk • contribs) 05:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm English, Linda, and thus not allowed to make a choice over such matters! I can tell you who I support for Mayor of London, though. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mugabe and Zimbabwe

I'm trying to make sense of what's happening at present in Zimbabwe. It would he helpful if one of you could recommend same background reading. I also have a number of general question that someone could perhaps help me with. What is it Mugabe wants? Why have elections at all if he simply refuses to give up power? Is there no possibility that he could be removed, either by an internal coup, or by external pressure? By what process has he brought Zimbabwe to its knees? I'm sorry, I know this is a lot to ask for. It's probably all a reflection on my mental confusion. Light on the darkness would be welcome! ZZT9 (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately our ZANU article shows clear signs of tendentious editing, so I cannot recommend it. When the first elections were held after the end of Rhodesia, Mugabe, who had emerged from the Rhodesian Bush War a hero to most Africans and many across the third world, became Prime Minister, and took a series of steps to placate the white minority, and protect their economic interests. Over time, however, a combination of emigration, absentee landlordism, declines in agricultural productivity, and bad economic policy caused the fact that a vast part of the wealth and land of the country remained in white hands to become a political problem that could not be avoided. Mugabe himself may have always intended a one-party state, though this is disputed by scholars; it seems certain that by the mid-1990s he did. The most relevant fact: he's had a hard life, and is 84 or something. He's almost certainly senile. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here's an effort from Britannica that is several times better than anything we have at the moment. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The two most recent publications that may be of use to you, ZZT9, are Mugabe: Power, Plunder and the Struggle for Zimbabwe by Martin Meredith and The Day After Mugabe: Prospects for Change in Zimbabwe, a collection of papers edited by Guguletho Moyo and Mark Ashurst.

There is surely no fable more appropriate to the fate of Zimbabwe under the moronic Mugabe than that of The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs. In April 1980, as the country celebrated its independence, Mugabe was told by Julius Nyerere, President of nearby Tanzania, that he had inherited a jewel and that he should keep it that way. Well, he has cut the throat of the goose and thrown away the jewel; for what he wanted above all was power and then more power. It did not really matter how this was attained, even if it meant the wholesale destruction of a prosperous farming sector by 'war veterans'; even if it means forever dwelling on the supposed crimes of the colonial past, as the rest of Africa moves on and forward.

He will not be removed internally because the forces behind him, particularly those responsible for the Matabeleland Massacre, fear the future too much. He will not be removed by external pressure because Thabo Mbeki and the like have not sufficient determination to stand up to him, pandering to his old myths and illusions. In the end Mugabe seems to have proved one point and one point only-Ian Smith may have been right after all. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Smith right? About what?

You're quite wrong about the prosperity of the farming sector, actually. It had already begun to collapse in the mid 1990s. Few postcolonial nations can preserve agricultural productivity without extensive land reform, anyway. India, Bangladesh, Kenya, Ghana: all have had to go through it. The only difference in Zimbabwe is that land ownership is divided along racial lines - the crimes of the colonial past are still very much in their present. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

ZZT9, I've adapted an answer I gave to a question on Western Imperialism, which appeared here last March. I think this might put things in a more general perspective for you. Regards. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa is a huge place, and there are indeed tragic examples where colonial history has had the direst of consequences, economically and politically: Mozambique and Angola spring to mind, countries all but destroyed by war and civil war. However, Africa is also a great continent, with a great and energetic people, badly served by its politicians. How long are we to forward the excuse of colonialism as a justification-and it has become a justification-for backwardness and the sheer failure of potential?

Take the example, if you will, of the Republic of Ireland, which had an experience of colonialism far older and of land expropriation far more severe than the least fortunate of the African colonies. Although free for almost a hundred years now it was dominated for decades after independence by a reactionary Church hierarchy. Despite this, its transformation over the past twenty years or so into one of the most dynamic of European economies and societies is especially worthy of note, particularly when the country possesses little in the way of natural resources. I wish I could see similar signs of renaissance and resurgence in Africa; but I can not.

There is a word in Swahili which explains the plight of Africa far better than outdated notions of imperialism: it is WaBenzi, meaning boss or, better still, big shot. The WaBenzi, the undeclared tribe which crosses all borders, is, in my estimation, by far the greatest of Africa's misfortunes. Take the example of Malawi. In 2000, following the death of Hastings Banda, the former dictatorial president, the British government increased aid to the country by some £20 million. The WaBenzi promptly celebrated by spending almost £2 million, yes, £2 million, on a fleet of 39 S-class Mercedes, in a country where the roads are hardly fit for carts. Take one more example. In 2002 Mwai Kibaki came to power in Kenya on an anti-corruption platform, announcing that Corruption will now cease as a way of life in Kenya. The very fist law passed by the new Parliament was to increase politicians' salaries by over 170%, to about £65,000pa ($125,000). Beyond this, each MP was awarded a package of allowances, including a grant of £23,600 to buy a duty free car, all in a country where the average per capita income is £210 ($406) per annum.

I could go on like this, but it's really too depressing. You will find all of the details of these examples and more in How African leaders spend our money, an article by Aidan Hartley, published in the London edition of The Spectator in June 2005. I have visited several African countries, and I love the people and the place. But we have to stop making excuses for failure, to stop draping history around the necks of Africans as a catch-all explanation for their perceived shortcomings. If Africa is to move forward we need to understand the real causes of failure; and these are far closer to home.

Much too much is made of the deleterious effects of imperialism in explaining the failure of many modern African states. India, Malaysia, and Singapore were all under British control, but this has not hampered the development of modern economies and mature political structures. In Africa imperialism has become a crutch, intended to explain and excuse failure. In many countries corruption has become the dominant mode of political exchange. Imperialism did not destroy Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe did. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio's analysis is indeed similar to several that have appeared in various sources over the past few years. While there is much truth in the stories of great corruption and even more in the tragic effects of AIDS, there are essential errors in most such comparisons, however; in the specific case of Zimbabwe, the problem is, as I said, one of the structure of land ownership. The relevant comparison should be not Ireland - in which vast tracts of the best land were no longer in the hands of frequently absentee Anglo-Irish landowners but Pakistan, where feudal overlords supported by the Raj were left control of their land in 1947, and as a consequence Pakistan has not been able to democratize and is, indeed, more corrupt than Zimbabwe. (A pattern replicated in miniature across the states of India, and indeed Malaysia and Indonesia.) And Clio's point about the Irish miracle is also true in this respect: if Europe were to admit Zimbabwe into the EU, what a miracle of growth would result! A fair price for their agricultural exports, and a destination for their unemployed and European capital... much as happened in Ireland throughout the 1980s.

More generally, it has been understood since Robert Bates' landmark study of African trading boards in the 1980s that the structures of imperialism persist and continue to stifle growth in sub-Saharan countries. In Zimbabwe it is land tenure and in West Africa the monopolistic cronyism of the great oil and coffee companies. This argument has been effectively expanded by the Turkish economist Daron Acemoglu in work that won him the John Bates Clark Medal: as well as such things can ever be demonstrated, he has shown that in places where the occupiers set up "extractive" economic and political institutions, growth has been disappointing; in places where they set up "supportive" institutions, growth has been good. This conclusion is broadly true, regardless of the location of the colony or the identity of the occupier. So it is, indeed, the case that the numbers indicate that the cold undead hand of imperialism stifles the best hopes of these people.

That does not mean that the arguments such as those in the Spectator will go away any time soon. It has always been a source of amusement to me that those who most subscribe to the persistence of institutions at home, and indeed sometimes revere them, are quickest to deny that institutions abroad have any real effect. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A good war?

I need some help preparing for a school debate. The motion is Was the Second World War A Good War? I will be arguing against. If you can please help me with some details, arguments against the justice and effectivness of the British war effort. Was Churchill really all that he is made out to be? Please be as precise as possible. I love this page, I love how much some people seem to know. Yours sincerely, John Fitzgerald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.161.146 (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Very difficult to argue that a war fought to defend your homeland from the Nazis wasn't a pretty decent war. Best to try something they aren't expecting. Reframe it in terms of the "world" part. Did, when Britain went to war, it have the right to declare war on behalf of the entire Empire and expose Australia to danger and India to revolt? --Relata refero (disp.) 13:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Britain didn't declare war in 1939 on behalf of the whole Empire, as it was able to do in 1914. Canada, South Africa and New Zealand all made their own declarations of war, while in Australia Menzies somehow persuaded the Australians to go to war as a matter of imperial duty without actually declaring war. The lawyers had to cover up for this, later on. Xn4 13:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Tut, really? I knew there was some disputation in Australia, but I assumed it was because the G-G had happily informed everyone that they were off to defend Singapore tomorrow, pack a toothbrush. Turns out it was Menzies. The Menzies Virtual Museum says "Prime Minister Menzies declares that Australia is at war with Germany. This reflects the attitude of the majority of Australians who considered that Britain's declaration of war on Germany automatically committed Australia to the conflict in their desire to provide traditional support for Britain", which sounds to me like protesting too much. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The exact text of Menzies' speech is "Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war." Schmindependent. Anyway, still holds for India. Focus on that, and Roosevelt's commonly expressed view that Churchill's rabid imperialism was eating into the justice of the war effort. Your best shot. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

On the main issue, we've debated it before on this reference desk, and I remember putting the case that the Second World War certainly didn't achieve any of the war aims the British set out with, such as the defence of brave little Poland. By the end of the War, the Allies were able to persuade themselves that the Germans and the Japanese had been so wicked that it had been necessary to crush them, whatever the initial aims... the trouble with this is (1) that the worst wickednesses of the Axis powers were made possible by the War: hard to believe, for instance, that what we call the Holocaust could have happened under peace-time conditions; and (2) that Stalin and his thugs were no better than Hitler and his thugs, and leaving much of central and Eastern Europe under the domination of one or the other came to much the same thing. Churchill certainly took that view. you can also make the case that the British defeats in the Far East (in particular, the Battle of Singapore) led to an earlier end for the Empire than would otherwise have been the case, and that with more time the independence of India and Pakistan could have been more peaceful (there, you get into deep waters). Appeasement was an essential policy for buying time. With the benefit of hindsight, it's at least arguable that averting the War entirely, with such concessions as could have been bought, would have turned out better in the end. Xn4 13:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I second the "Oh, dear." You want specifics, but that is too much like doing your homework for you for me. I can suggest a tack: Great Britain capitulates under the Blitz. GB gets good terms, even better than the French got, because Hitler is scared to death of crossing the Channel, and Britain knows it. Germany gets to concentrate on the Bolsheviks and takes them out of the picture but gets seriously mauled doing it. Britain rises up against a weakened Germany (who still have no navy to speak of aside from the U-boats and who have lost their Fuhrer to assassination) when the US comes in, as they would have had to eventually, especially with Winston in Washington playing the gadfly the whole time. The Nazis capitulate because their now-sane leadership, perhaps headed by Doenitz, see that the light at the end of the tunnel is a train. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The barest assessment of World War II I've heard goes something like this: "If we didn't win, we'd all be speaking German now." My response is, what's wrong with speaking German? It seems to suit the Germans perfectly well. People cannot readily conceive of a radical change in their lives so they presume the status quo must be preferable. This is folly. "Man will even get used to the gallows." Vranak (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The way to win this argument either way is to be the one to define what "good" means. You could argue that it was avoidable. You could argue that bad things happened to the world because of it (Cold War, Berlin Wall). "Good" is such a vague word. Make it mean what you need it to mean. "If 'good' means "brought peace to the world", then WWII was not a good war because..." "If 'good' means "it was a war which we had no choice but to fight", then WWII was not good because we should have seen what was coming and stopped it before it got out of hand, etc. etc. Wrad (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You could also argue point of view. WWII was a great war for Communism. China, Russia, Eastern Europe...to them it was a good war. To the Jews was it a good war? If you asked anyone from that time period, I doubt they'd say "Oh, that was such a wonderful time to live! It was such a good war. Everyone loved it! We all cried when it was over because we just couldn't bear to see it go." Yeah right. Wrad (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt that the Allies fought (on the whole) a decent war, if war can be decent. The question John Fitzgerald has to debate is whether it was a Good War, and that's rather different. Xn4 15:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. They won and they were defending themselves. That makes it as good as it can be. Still, though, if you want to argue the "good" point, get control of the word's meaning within the debate, and you've won. Wrad (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden in World War II What is a good war? -- Ironmandius (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. That's what Wrad said. I was wondering that myself: what is a good war? I answered myself, "A good war is one that is in the best interests of the country in question." Was WWII worth the expenditure of life and treasure it cost the UK in terms of the outcome? Was there another way to achieve an equivalent result, or was there a different conceivable outcome undesirable on the face of it that would have yet been preferable to the slaughter and destruction the war wrought in Britain and its empire? I want in on this debate, dammit. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that human deaths in the millions are not regarded as acceptable, even tolerable to today's PC society. One is usually too many -- the international response to the execution of Saddam Hussein was widely condemnatory. Laymen who take a non-historical look back at the past judge things by today's standards of right and wrong, good and bad. In the 40s, knowledge of the concentration camps was limited. If it wasn't, can we presume the average citizen of an Allied nation would have cared? We would like to think so, but who knows... Vranak (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nien, ist war nicht ein gutten strum. -Arch dude (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The concept the OP is debating seems more closely allied to the ancient concept of the Just War -- our article on this is useful. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument "WWII was NOT a Good War" does not necessarily imply that the expansion of the Third Reich and its barbarity - after they had occurred - should not have been countered by military measures. As such, it qualifies as a Just war (see Brainy Babe above).

It may be argued in this context that Hitler´s´rise to power was far from irresistible, it may be argued that a great many diplomatic / economic measures were missed or severely fumbled by other European powers in deescalating the emerging problem.

I am not a historian (and rather naive, to boot), but I fail to comprehend (inter many alia) why Germany was allowed to embark on a massive program of rearmament. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the Stresa Front, the annexation of Austria or the Munich Agreement seem to be pitiful examples of chances which were poorly handled .

It may be argued that WWII could have been avoided (or could have been a pre-emptive strike against the nascent German Reich), had the actors on the political stage shown more determination. To call an avoidable war which cost the lives of 60 million people a "Bad War" must remain a reasonable argument.

On the other hand, without WWII many on this desk - including me - would not have been conceived and would not have been born. Whether tis alone makes it a Good War, however, is questionable.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that it was better to defeat Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo than to let them divide the post-war world into spheres of occupation pending a nuclear WW3 between East and West. But it was a war that began very badly, with appeasement by Chamberlain when Hitler's despotism could have been nipped in the bud by encouraging the anti Hitler plotters in Germany, and that ended badly with the holocaust, terror bombing by firebombs and nukes by the allies and Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, and the failure (like after WW1) to implement the grand pledges of freedom in the postwar world, with the denial of self-determination in the colonies resulting in more decades of conflict. Edison (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if I were John Fitzgerald (the OP), I shouldn't introduce the Just War arguments into the debate myself, but hold them in reserve and hope they wouldn't become too central, because it seems to me more arguable that WWII was a just war than that it was a good war. If JF agrees to argue 'good war' by reference to 'just war', then that seems to set hares running. Surely better (as Wrad says) to define 'good' in terms which help the case, which will I think be different from just. Xn4 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, John, how wonderful; you have fallen on the right side of the debate; I envy you so much. You can safely ignore the discouraging 'oh dears', the suggestion that your argument will have to be based on dubious grounds. You will understand why by the time I have finished. I assume you know your opponents? Well, if so, you might just drop a hint that you’re having trouble working up an effective rebuttal to notions of a 'just' war, because the chances are that they will fall back on this sophistry as the main prop of their argument! Your strength is to dismiss abstractions, with all of the force you can muster; to focus always on specifics. Demolish them with cases, John, demolish them with examples!

Anyway, put out of your mind the suggestion that we were fighting to defend our homeland from the Nazis; we were not, not by any measure. We declared war on Germany; Germany did not declare on war on us! We declared war for what? For Poland, for the freedom of Poland? I'm now finding it difficult to stop myself from laughing! Xn4 has given you some useful hints. Appeasement was not just a good policy: it was an essential policy. More than that, it would have been far better, in every respect, not to have gone to war in the first place. In July 1940, in what he called his ‘final appeal to reason’, Hitler called for an end to the conflict;

The continuation of this war will only end with the complete destruction of one of the two warring parties...I see no reason that should compel us to continue this war.

He was wrong about one thing: the continuation of the war brought the complete destruction of one of the parties, yes, but it also brought the near destruction of the other. The roller-coaster ride I am about to take you on is based, for the most part, on my reading of Homan Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization by Nicholson Barker, which I have not long finished. If you have the time dip into it. Be ruthless: use the index!

So, was the Second World War a 'good' war, understanding good to mean that it brought some benefit to those who needed help? The answer is not at all obvious, is it? Think of our leadership, think of the adventurism of Churchill, the tyrant of the glittering phrase. Soon after hearing of Hitler's 1940 peace offer Frances Partridge wrote in her diary "It's too tantalising since there's no shadow of a doubt we will reject any such suggestion. Now I suppose Churchill will again tell the world that we are going to die on the hills and the seas, and then we shall proceed to do so." A pretty accurate prediction, don't you think?

The problem with Churchill was that he was the eternal schoolboy caught up in the excitement of the battle, a man with little or no long-term vision; no understanding of the political consequences of fighting on the beaches and the landing grounds, in this place and in that; no understanding of the consequences for his country or its Empire of unrestrained and prolonged conflict. In 1945 he had heaps of moral authority. The trouble is he had almost nothing else; an Adam without the fig-leaf. Oh, sorry, he did have something else: he was also the chief architect of imperial deconstruction, rather ironic when one considers his past history! Break through the circles of his rhetoric and the picture that emerges is not particularly uplifting.

What Churchill was really interested in was not an 'anti-Fascist' crusade; for it is doubtful that he ever really understood the nature of Fascism, a concept altogether too modern; he certainly never saw any fault in Mussolini, or danger in Japan. He wanted a scrap with Germany; that's it. His scrap, moreover, was not, by and large, with German soldiers but with German civilians, waged with the ruthless weapons of blockade and bombardment, bombardment increasingly delivered without any degree of moral restraint. After all, if the Nazis were bad, why should we not be worse? As the civilian populations, swollen by refugees, of Poland, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands faced starvation, Churchill refused to let food aid through the Navy's blockade of Europe. In justification he told Parliament in 1941 that the enemy would use fats to make bombs, potatoes to make fuel and that 'the plastic materials now so largely used in the construction of aircraft are made of milk.' Yes, he did! In October of that year Herbert Hoover asked;

Is the Allied cause any further advanced today because of the starvation of children? Are Hitler’s armies any less victorious than if those children had been saved? Are Britain's children better fed today because these millions of former allied children have been hungry or died? Can you point to one benefit that has been gained from this holocaust?

There is, of course, no answer. Nor is there any answer, when one thinks about it, to the effectiveness, or the desirability, of the bombardment. In 1941 it was estimated that only one in five British bombers was dropping their payload within seventy-five miles of their designated targets. Because of this targets were deliberately selected so that, even if the aircraft missed, there would be a 'bonus' in civilian deaths, and thus the weapons would not be wasted. But even this brought no discernable benefits, either in the dislocation of production or the collapse of morale. So what was needed? Why, more and bigger bombs; more and more dead civilians. Neither Churchill, nor Bomber Harris nor anyone else in the British command seems to have considered just exactly what impact the German Blitz on Britain had.

Be ready for the argument, John, that the war was fought to prevent the persecution of the Jews. It was not. Churchill showed almost no interest in the German persecution. More seriously, the twin weapons of blockade and bombardment impacted most severely on Jewish people; for as rations reduced everywhere they reduced even more severely in the ghettos; as the bombing took hold it was Jewish families who were among the first to be evicted to make way for those whose home had been destroyed. Indeed, the Final Solution itself was in every respect one of the direct consequences of the Second World War. It is inconceivable, in other words, it its absence.

So, we fought to destroy Hitler and lost all perspective in the process. Yes, he was a tyrant. Yes, he was a butcher. But we fought alongside a man who was no less tyrannical, no less of a butcher and, in the end, no less of an anti-Semite. At huge cost, both human and material, we fought to free Poland from Hitler...only to give it to Stalin.

Watch you pacing; breath carefully; take note of your timing, aim slowly, aim carefully. You'll demolish them! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

CLIO I LOVE YOU, I LOVE YOU!!!! J Fitzgerald 12:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Fitzgerald II (talk • contribs)

Aww, shucks! Use 'we' if you like, John; it will serve to give your argument greater power and immediacy! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But please don't say "we" unless you are actually old enough to have been alive at the time! (unless you feel that you contributed by having been present as a twinkle in a forefather's eye) SaundersW (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How about deaths that occurred because information from the Enigma project could not be released?hotclaws 12:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Economy and voting in Canada

In Canada and its provinces, does the economic cycle affect the outcome of elections? Are particular parties, or the incumbent, more or less likely to be elected during or immediately after a recession? NeonMerlin 11:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You could start with Canadian federal election results since 1867 and then compare Economic history of Canada. WikiJedits (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Postage stamp value

I have a few stamps, and I can’t seem to figure out how much they’re worth. They don’t seem to say on it, but don’t look like the first class forever stamps described in Non-denominated postage. I found a picture of one, http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/US/01/08/postagerate.hike.ap/storyvert.stamp.ap.jpg. Can anybody tell me what it’s value is? Thanks! 130.127.186.122 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an American, but from what I can find, the value of this stamp in 2005 was $0.39.[4]. The value of the stamp was raised by $0.02 between then, but that shouldn't matter. Since 1861, the law has been that, if a stamp has no postage price indicated, it is postally worth the purchase price, so that would be $0.39. PeterSymonds | talk 12:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? In the UK, if a stamp says "1st" or "2nd" on its face, its value always matches the current price of first class or second class postage, as the case may be: so its value can change. Xn4 13:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture you link seems to be from this CNN article, the caption to the picture being "New first-class and U.S. non-denominated 39-cent stamp." From the US Postal service site (usps.gov), we can indeed confirm that the stamp is valued at 39 cents (Quick Service Guide 604a, Basic Standards for All Mailing Services, Nondenominated Postage) -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. postal system has had numerous rate increases over the years. Sometimes they expect the rates to go up but do not have final authorization for and determination of the higher rate, so the have left it off the new stamps, creating years of confucion when someone finds some of the non-denominated stamps. They latest move was to makr them "USA First Class Forever"" meaning that even if they cost 41 cents they will carry your 99 cent first class letter a few years later. It also provides a bit of pat-on-the-back affirmation to a country badly needing it. Edison (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

superstition

What does Islam say about superstition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you accept a priori that there is some difference between religion and superstition then, well, Islam's stand on superstition is strongly disapproving. (If you don't, read that sentence as saying "Islam's stand on other supersitions...".) The great Alberuni, for example, was the first to clearly delineate what was the province of astronomy and what was that of astrology, and explicitly based his refutation of astrology on its lack of rationality, which he believed conflicted with Islamic precepts. The more restrictive schools of Islam view syncretic traditions within Islam, such as the veneration of saints called pirs and the celebration of Milad-un-Nabi, Mohammed's birthday, as "superstition". The word is loaded with negative baggage as Islam itself is portrayed as being born in reaction to the superstition in which the Arabs were sunk during Mohammed's lifetime. Of course, there's also this, which tends to undercut that slightly. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical Revolutionary-War question

I've been deliberating as to whether or not this belongs here or at the Language reference desk, but I figured that this has to do with connotation, not definition.

Q: Why is it that the battles won by the minutemen in the Revolutionary War use the preposition "of," and the battles lost by the minutemen use the preposition "at"? (e.g., Battle at Guilford Court House [lost], Battle of Yorktown [won], Battle at Charleston [lost], Battle of Cowpens [won], Battle of King's Mountain [won], Battle at Savannah [lost], Battle of Vincennes [won], etc.) Does it have to do with some obscure, undefined implication I'm unaware of? Also, now that I've linked them, I could further ask why the battles in which the minutemen were defeated lack articles of their own. --^LaPianísta! 14:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The redlinks in your question seems to indicate that Wikipedia uses the "of" construction either way. See Battle of Guilford Court House, Battle of Charleston and Battle of Savannah. APL (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. So then, a better question would be why my stupid history textbook insists on the opposite. --^LaPianísta! 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely because it is a stupid textbook? Clio the Muse (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, agreed; thanks for your help. ;-) --^LaPianísta! 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Violence against women

What does Islam say about violence against women and girls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd best read Women and Islam for that question. --^LaPianísta! 15:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Islam" doesn't have one opinion regarding women (or violence against them in particular). There are a large number of muslims in the world and their values/beliefs vary quite vastly. On the one extreme you have fairly progresive types of belief (see this [5]) and on the other extreme, you have some fundamentalists who practise such things as honour killings (which in some cases are the result of a sexual assault upon the victim).Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We have more specific articles. Check out Islam and domestic violence, which is not especially great but has useful references for further reading, and Islamic feminism, which includes many names. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Assisted reproductive technology

What does Islam say about A.R.T.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam is not a monolithic entity. For these and other questions, it may be best to refer to a few Imams and ask them in person their interpretation. (Is that the correct plural?) Ironmandius (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like [6].

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically it's "a'immat". Adam Bishop (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

One position is given in this fatwa. Algebraist 17:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You might try Bioethics#Muslim_bioethics for a list of readings to start with. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

friend or enemy

Is there a compiled list of things which typically or actually made a ruler of a conquered land a friend or enemy of Rome? 71.100.11.39 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Foreign rulers were perceived as friendly or hostile to Rome for a number of reasons, which included actual or perceived acts -- or the usual rationalizations that allowed that city to either declare war -- or evade the issue. I mention the later because John Rich makes the interesting observation in his "Fear, greed and glory: the causes of Roman war-making in the middle Republic" (in War and society in the Roman World, ed. John Rich and Graham Shipley [Routledge, 1993]) that despite the Roman's well-deserved reputation for being eager to wage war, that there were occasions when various elites within Rome found good reason not to go to war. One reason being that, the glory for defeating an enemy of Rome might give a political opponent an undesired advantage. So the answer is no. -- llywrch (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I find it odd that no scholar has ever compiled a list of conditions be they common or atypical under which a decision was made by Rome to execute a conquered ruler or to let a conquered ruler live if for no other reason that as a guide for its governors. For instance, refusing to renounce all but the Sun God as Divine seems to be one of the first conditions that might be put on such a list. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Such matters are determined by political considerations, and by political considerations only. These will always vary according to circumstances, and cannot be subject to any form of calculus. The Roman Empire expanded by a mixture of pragmatism and opportunism. If it had proceeded in the fashion you suggest I doubt it would have got much beyond the banks of the Tiber. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Even political considerations have a tendency to consist of more then one independent variable. I can list a ton of things I need to do and avoid doing to keep my boss happy, all with several variables that must be weighed. Certainly a Roman governor would have a list of things to do and not to do to keep Caesar happy, including who to execute and who not to execute following a military campaign. Even political considerations have rules. For instance, I might want to offer a new client a piece of the bosses' candy but then I might also need to taste test it first to be sure I can recommend it to the client. A political consideration rule might be to forget the candy unless the client is wealthy or forget the candy if the client is overweight. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right, 71.100, but in saying this you are perhaps beginning to understand the impossibility, or impracticality, of producing the kind of historical calculus that you originally set out in search of. Just think: how many governors, how many emperors, how many provinces, over how many hundreds of years? The number of variables one would have to take into consideration would be simply enormous. Yes, I suppose you could set out to accumulate such evidence, as if you were piecing together an explanatory mosaic. I suspect this might very well be a task that would fascinate Jorge Luis Borges, providing a possible theme for one of his inspired 'fictions'; because, at the end of your labours, you may very well discover that you have written a complete history of the Roman Empire! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't see this earlier. 11.139, what you ask is why the tools of analytical political science have not yet been applied to the history of the Roman Empire. Give historians time! They are slow to incorporate tools that have become common in other related fields. Some small, limited efforts have been made to systematize the Roman approach. This might be difficult to do in the long run, partly because our information on the period has crucial gaps - who was a a client of whom? Analysis of the kind you wish to see, and as carried out in a similar context here may never be possible. That does not mean that in the next decade or so, someone will not attempt it. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Logical Atomism

Clio the Muse, please do you know the key to the method of logical atomism in Russell's philosophy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet Eldridge (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference desk is for public queries. If you wish to address one editor, please write on her talkpage. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yes it just makes us mediocre contributers to the reference desk feel bad. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See logical atomism. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The key, J E, lies in his assertion that logic is the essence of philosophy, where logic is taken to mean mathematical logic. Its importance is that it provides the means of effecting powerful and philosophically revealing analyses of structures, most particularly, the related structures of propositions and facts. Have a look at Logic as the Essence of Philosophy. Happy reading! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Proportion of the world with a high school diploma

 Done

Can Anyone give me an estimate of what percentage of the world has completed secondary education? With a good source of course. --Ybbor^Talk 21:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted my earlier answers, as they were only for current enrollment. This site, from the World Bank, looks like it has the answer. From what I understood from Table Three, it would be 27.8% of adults aged 25 and over. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you very much :) --Ybbor^Talk 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)