Humanities desk
< March 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 31 >

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.

March 30

Holocaust denial

Hello. What's the deal with holocaust deniers? Is it normally assumed that they privately believe in the holocaust or that they are genuinely deluded? 90.203.189.60 (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a Wikipedia article on it which is illuminating somewhat: Holocaust denial. The most common story I hear is that it is a hoax inspired by a Jewish conspiracy. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In political terms it is most often the defining characteristic of Neo-Nazism. Take away the Holocaust-a uniquely awful event in world history-then it almost possible to 'normalise' the Nazi state. There is a perverse logic at work, though; the Jews, for these people, still remain the chief enemy, which leaves open the question what is to be done with such monsters. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that is perverse logic at work consider the belief of the Aryan Brotherhood that because Adolph Hitler was descended from a Jew that the Nazi party was from its very inception part of an International Jewish conspiracy or Jewish agenda which was in this case to "...reign over..." the earth as prescribed by God in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1, Verse 26, of the Old Testament on the basis of being the "chosen people" where any non-chosen people such as the gentiles or their organizations, governments etc. are considered to be no different than the "...fish in the sea...," "...birds in the sky...," "...all the wild [and domestic] animals on the Earth..." Thus, the Aryan Brotherhood located within the CA State Prison of LA County (and documented by the Bible Baptist Prison Miniseries in nearby Tehachapi, CA) believes that the whole Nazi episode was merely a means for the Jews to wrestle control away from the Prussian (German) State so that the Jews might one day reign over it (Germany). In 1947 the Allied Occupation Forces declared the Prussian State abolished . 71.100.0.187 (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I see someone attempted to advance that view here while I was away! Clio the Muse (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gets better, it's also suppose to be the true agenda of, you guessed it, Christianity. 71.100.0.187 (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a neo-nazi. However, he is one of the most popular Holocaust deniers. He denies it because of hatred towards Israel. If he really hates Israel or denies the Holocaust on a personal level is unknown. He is a politician and says anything required to be elected. -- kainaw ™ 01:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Arthur Butz and The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Edison (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about making the world fit their worldview. 9/11 conspiracy people can't accept that George Bush's America was a victim and non-Europeans perpetrators, so they try to twist facts to eliminate the cognitive dissonance. "Scientific creationists" won't accept natural history that doesn't follow their narrow interpretation of the Bible. Holocaust deniers are almost without exception antisemites who refuse to believe that Jews could be innocent victims of "Aryan" Europeans, so they invent an alternate history in which that isn't the case. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comic somewhat sums it up. As for whether they are genuine or not, I don't generally doubt that most Holocaust deniers genuinely believe it is a big conspiracy by the Jews. It's not like it is totally outside the realm of possibility to imagine that the scale of atrocities has been exaggerated, even though I think the evidence against such a view is conclusive. That is, I have a very hard time believing that anyone can truly believe that the earth is truly flat and that there are massive, worldwide conspiracies to make people think that it is a globe; but Holocaust denial seems like just the sort of pernicious lie that people could sign on to whole-hog. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judaica

It makes sense that ancient Africans would use, drawings, carvings or other objects to represent, for instance, a deadly snake to warn children against danger. It is also reasonable to assume that the objects of such symbols or the symbols themselves would over time become what we call idols or gods. The role of these objects and symbols is what has me perplexed. Today we still see symbolic objects that are given respect as we can imagine a carving of a snake as a symbol to warn of death might be given respect for their ability to teach children about danger. What about Judaica? Does Judaica fall into this category or can it be described as something else? 71.100.0.187 (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure that I understand the nature of your question, 71.100. Symbolism exists in all cultures and in all religions. Why should Judaism be an exception? Clio the Muse (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making it an exception, necessarily. I am not as familar with Judaism as I would like. When I stumble across such information (Judaica) it presents an opportunity to understand Judaism better from my own perspective, to think outside the box and hence to gain insight into my own beliefs and those of others which might be different. 71.100.0.187 (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, 71.100. I'm still puzzled, though. I freely confess that I have no intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Judaism, but I do know that symbols and symbolism of the kind you have identified are universal to all human cultures: they cross history; they cross religion; they cross time; and they cross space. Let me put it this way: your inquiry would be no more meaningful to me if you substituted Shintoism or Tibetan Buddhism for Judaism. Is there something I am missing? Clio the Muse (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I am not aware of any restriction such as "...having no other gods before Me..." and the general condemnation of idolatry within both Judaism and Christianity in other religions, although it is logical to assume that Buddha would likewise be a jealous god and place restrictions on idolatry unless that idolatry uniquely represented Buddha and his teachings and could not symbolize anything else. What I am trying to learn is what rule separates acceptable material objects as symbols from unacceptable ones. For instance, I know the Golden Calf was an unacceptable object. Is it just a difference between worship and reverance or is there more to it than that? In other words by definition what is an idol and what is not? (...and no fair including my automobile for I love that thing dearly and we shall absolutely never part. ;D) 71.100.0.187 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as symbols stand in to represent abstract thoughts, when it comes to religion I find it most helpful to go for the abstract rather than the concrete. An idol, in this sense, would stand for anything that becomes a focus of the attention in place of God. So a car could actually be an apt example, if the time a person might spend obsessing about it takes up time they might spend on their spiritual life. I do not belong to the Jewish religion, but I would guess the problem with the calf was not the object itself, but the distraction of focus from the Infinite God onto a limited object. However, that's a personal interpretation - as you say, different religions have different dogmas and definitions. BTW, Islam does not permit images of Muhammad. 64.231.10.94 (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is the problem. Your attention must be directed somewhere. Objects which enhance your attention to God are a good thing but objects which distract focus are bad. Objects which enhance focus on doing God's work (Judaica) are good. Objects which distract focus on doing God's work (Golden calf as object and symbol of money) are bad. These examples of course being subject to exception for instance if one were working hard to earn money that would fulfill a purpose of God versus one's own purposes with the compound exception that money might be necessary for sustenance in order to allow God's work to be done. Anyway the basic idea for a rule then is whether the object enhances or distracts focus on God and hence the restriction on presenting images of Muhammad.

I'm glad I asked this question I have a somewhat better understanding now. 71.100.0.187 (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Gayelle

Removed duplicate post, also on Language Desk. Malcolm XIV (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holocost

How many people were murdered by the Nazi's in greece? was it either 663,000 or 66,300? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.150.102 (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're just counting Jews killed in the Holocaust, our article says about sixty thousand (there weren't half a million Jews in Greece to begin with). According to World War II casualties, the total Greek war dead was still less than half a million. Algebraist 12:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title and Artist?

Hi there. Does anyone know the name of this painting, and the artist? Thanks. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/bartleby232323/portrait.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldon Bartleby (talk • contribs) 11:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help you, but it's brilliant! Good luck in your search.--Artjo (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Portrait of the Philosopher and Poet Vladimir Solovyov by Ivan Kramskoi (1885). See the article on Vladimir Solovyov for more information on the model and another portrait. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*retrieving lower jaw from floor* The Ivan Kramskoi article hasn't made it all the way to English from Russian. I hope a bilingual type can attend to it. (I love this painting.) --Milkbreath (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramids, Ice Ages and The End of the World.

These are some things I was wondering about a little while ago, and I thought maybe you could help me. Firstly I've heard it mentionned that noone actually knows how old the Great Pyramid is, since there's nothing there that can be accurately dated, and that the official 4500 years is just a guess. Is it true, or is it just that we can't be 100% certain about it? And then how old is it? I've also heard that we wouldn't be able to make one now, even with all our technology, and that it would have taken far too many people far too long to make it the way history claims. So is it posible that it is left over from a lost civilization long before the Egyptian Old Kingdom? What will the Great Pyramid look like in thousands of years time? Would it have eroded down to a slight mound of rock, or will it be almost as it is now?

If there was an ice age, right now, and in a few years/decades time most of the world was covered in ice and snow, and then after thousands of years it all melted and probably flooded all the areas that hadn't been under ice, and everything we've made has been abandonned for all these millennia, what would be left? Would there be huge ruined cities all over the world, or would everything have been totally wiped out with only the tiniest scraps left. And how would the survivors be living? And as a link to the previous questions, what would have happened to the pyramids? They're far enough south that they wouldn't have been covered by the ice, but would the changes in climate and the thousands of years have affected them?

And I'm sure you can see where I'm going now. Is it at all possible thet the pyramids were build thousands of years before people believe they were, by a civilization that was wiped out during the last ice age? Are there any other traces of civilization that might be from that time? And I've also read in a few places that there were supposedly natural disasters all over the world around 5000 years ago. How likely is that to have happened? I'm sure I remember also reading about how technology at the time supposedly dropped backwards, and then it seems like everything started around the same time, the first countries all appeareing all over the world and developing governments and cities and writng all around the same time. Is any of this anything other than an odd coinidence?

One very last question, when did that happen. the only date I've ever read was 5121 years ago, based on some archaeological work, I think it was in South America. Is this an official, trusted date, or just the random guess of someone that wanted to become famous and sell lots of copies of his book?

Any references to sources where I can read more about these subjects would also be very much appreciated. Sorry for the insane length of my question. HS7 (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Pyramid of Giza article talks about dating, and various "alternative theories". There are tons of "practise" pyramids that didn't quite work, then got progressively bigger and bigger until they figured out how to do it right (and we even know the name of one of the architects); there are ruins of little towns where the workers were housed and fed (and buried); there is nothing un-Egyptian about the Pyramids, everything inside and out shows that they were designed and used by them; for these and many more reasons the Great Pyramid and the others are obviously Egyptian. I'll leave the rest of your questions to others, but the truth about the Great Pyramid is so much more interesting than the speculation. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that part of Geology and studying of rocks would be able to tell you when there was an ice age, what came after, what came before -- all based on the layers of rock and sediment and compression etc. In other words, I'm sure that whatever ice ages have come and gone, certain theories have been disputed or never even put forth by scientists based on a lack of certain evidence. Rfwoolf (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I remember that there were very few pyramids before the great pyramd, and then the more recent one's were tiny copies of it, and I would have thought that if an ice age could do so much damage to mountains anything as insubstantial as the stuff people have made would leave almost no trace. but if you say there's no chance, I'll believe you.HS7 (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was one of the later pyramids, I believe. · AndonicO ^Hail! 16:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last bunch of ice ages did not come close to covering most of the Earth, nor flooding it. See Ice age -- specially the map under Ice age#Recent glacial and interglacial phases. Pfly (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an imaginative exploration of the theme of lost civilisations swallowed by an ice age, you might like the novel La nuit du temps by Rene Barjavel, translated as The Ice People. On a more factual note, marine archeology is widening our knowledge about sites on the coastal shelf, i.e. places now under water, that bear signs of human inhabitation and civilisation. These settlements were flooded when the seas last rose a few thousand years ago. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War liability

After doing some research and looking over some of the opinions from the traditionalists, revisionists, and post-revisionists I still need some help on finding major events in which the United States either a) could share responsibility for "starting" the "war", b) acting as an aggressor in the "war" or c) both. I would greatly appreciate the feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.64.133 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an easy one in the "starting" aspect could be the Baruch Plan, whereby the US set up a pretty much impossible proposal for postwar atomic cooperation that made it clear that the US intended to maintain a nuclear monopoly if possible and participate in an arms race if not. At least, that is how many have interpreted it, though viewed with a more favorable eye you can easily see that the US was prepared to go into quite problematic areas (handing over its nuclear weapons to an international body) and that the Soviet Union was either 1. lying when it pledged to not pursue weapons on its own or 2. was counting on its conventional advantages when doing so. But anyway, it's out there. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite, quite wrong, I believe, to see the Cold War as a process entirely initiated by the Soviets. One might conceivably argue that it begins with debates over the future of Germany after 1945, when the United States and the other western powers refused to consider Soviet proposals for reunification based on neutrality, the Austrian solution of 1955. The formation of NATO in 1949 may have been a purely defensive measure, but it greatly increased Soviet fears for their own security. Looking at the war in the widest possible sense, including covert operations, then surely it would be meaningful to describe US actions in Guatemala in 1954, in Cuba in 1961 and in Chile in 1973 as calculated forms of aggression. Furthermore, Washington’s attempts to keep a hold of the Latin America ‘backyard’-perhaps in a perverse interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine-, by supporting a variety of right-wing dictators, is surely capable of being measured alongside Soviet attempts to retain their hold on Eastern Europe. Consider, also, Richard Nixon's decision to launch a major bombing offensive against Cambodia and all of the horror that action subsequently induced. I could go on like this, but I hope this has given you sufficient leads. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how times change. As an American child growing up during the Reagan years, I find the first part of question surprising. For us, the War was about "the bomb" and, of course, we had invented the bomb. Why would we think the Soviets started the Cold War? (Well, it was about "godless Communists" too, I guess!) Rmhermen (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neonazi ideology

What do neonazi adherents around the globe have in common? It there something more than Nazi symbols, recreational violence and a believe on a Jewish conspiracy (including Holocaust denial)? What is the difference between neonazi ideology and the historical nazis? Do these rowdies would have survived in Nazi Germany? Mr.K. (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White supremacy, almost always in the socio-economic competition with "inferior races" is a universal characteristic. White in this context may refer to their own ethnic group within the wider fabric of society.
To support the injustice (typically it is an economic one) perceived by these groups, various simplifications of history and theories of conspiracies are popular.

(For a recent example see: Holocaust denial above.) 71.100.0.140 (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Some follow a pagan / occultist crypto-religion and display an almost Chaplinesque cult with obscure symbolism.
There is a widespread macho "blood and honour" chivalry of doubtful Arthurian / Norse / Viking origin manifest.

Our article on Neo-Nazism has useful details and many links to organisations in Europe, the Americas and Oceania. All groups that I am aware of are of Caucasian (lacking a better term) genealogy. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fringe Neonazi movement active in Japan. Ninebucks (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What they share in common is a general adherence to the most irrational forms of thought. Contemporary Neo-Nazi ideology, unlike the classic variety, is rarely, if ever, anchored in any meaningful way to a normal political process, which tends to exacerbate still further its extremes and its eccentricities. Is it possible to believe that there are Neo-Nazis in Israel and Neo-Nazis in Russia, existing among people who suffered most from Hitlerism? Well, there are. By 'rowdies' I assume you mean Skinheads, Mr K. Well, the Nazis had their very own thuggish rowdies. Of course, thuggishness was acceptable when it was directed towards the right targets. When it was not, then there were ways of curtailing the threat. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization and barbarism

Taking as my point of departure texts like Conrad's Heart of Darkness I was wondering if the thinking expressed here was something of a late imperial phenomenon? Are there no earlier examples of European awareness of what might be said to be the fragilty of civilization, an awareness that that even the most cultivated minds are able to entertain the most bartbarous notions; that the supposed savagery of the native 'outsiders' simply serves to mask an even deeper savagery in those who define what is savage? I hope this all makes sense. Topseyturvey (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were certainly aware of the savagery of their own lower classes!!!! AllenHansen (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't address your exact question, but expressions of admiration by Europeans for non-European civilizations certainly predate Conrad. Two examples off top of my head: Sir William Jones on Sanskrit and Marco Polo, I think, though the wikipedia article doesn't give the quote I think I remember. WikiJedits (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of the 'savage in all of us' is an ancient one, Topseyturvey, finding a place in European thought all the way from Plato to Conrad and beyond. You might consider Montaigne's essay on cannibals, in which he says that the civilized Frenchmen of his generation during the Wars of Religion are more savage and more cannibal than all the warrior tribes of Brazil:

I think there is more barbarity in eating a man alive than in eating him dead; and in tearing by tortures and the rack a body still full of feeling, in roasting a man bit by bit, in having him bitten and mangled by dogs and swine...than in roasting and eating him after he is dead.

As for the dangers and paradoxes in the mission of imperial civilization you really could do no better than heed the words of the eponymous hero of Gulliver's Travels;

A crew of pirates are driven by a storm they know not wither; at length a boy discovers land from the top-mast; they go on shore to rob and plunder; they see a harmless people, they are entertained with kindness, they give the country a new name, they take formal possession of it for the king, they set up a rotten plank or a stone for a memorial, they murder two or three dozen of the natives, bring away a couple more by force for a sample, return home, and get their pardon. Here commences a new Dominion acquired with a title of Divine Right. Ships are sent out at the first opportunity; the natives driven out and destroyed, their princes tortured to discover their gold; a free licence given to all acts of inhumanity and lust; the Earth reeking with the blood of its inhabitants: And this execrable crew of butchers employed in so pious an expedition, is a modern colony sent to convert and civilize an idolatrous and barbarous people.

Who exactly, one has, are the Yahoos and who are the Houyhnhnms? And is the savage no more than a response to savagery? Yes, the Yahoos are Swift's satire on a depraved humanity. But what of the Houyhnhmns who, in the midst of their wisdom and cultivation, discuss the possibility that the Yahoos should 'be exterminated from the face of the Earth?

Lots of questions and no easy answers. I would suggest if you wish to pursue these difficult issues further then you should glance over Claude Rawson's excellent study, God, Gulliver and Genocide: Barbarism and the European Imagination, 1492-1945. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at Bartolomé de las Casas and Valladolid debate for an earlier empire. E. D. Morel was the Las Casas of Conrad's epoch. Don't know who would be the Conrad of Las Casas' (Montaigne, as above?, but am trying to think of a Spaniard). Tacitus in the famous speech of Calgacus springs to mind for an even earlier time. It is nearly a logical truth that such awareness is a late (or middle) imperial phenomenon. If people were so self aware to begin with, their lust for dominion would be muted before it was exercised. The Owl of Minerva (the musing of Clio? :-) ) flies at dusk.John Z (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, John; always at dusk! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Largest light festival of Europe

Can somebody look at the talk page of West Country Carnival? The writer of this article claims that this festival is the largest light festival of Europe (the article comes up with 160,000 visitors), where Fête des lumières received 4 million visitors in 2006 and not even taken into consideration the yearly events with fireworks at sylvester. I'm not native English, so I'd hoped one of you could verify the facts. Other typical thing is the revert of two incorrect interwiki's to Bridgwater. Thank you for your help! Davin7 (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody? Davin7 (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the spurious claim. I'm not sure what you mean about the revert of two incorrect interwiki's to Bridgwater, but I'll go and have a look. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I see you have found the two misplaced interwiki's too. I hope you'll keep the article on your watchlist for a couple of weeks or so, because s/he has reverted all corrections so far. Davin7 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturist children

How do children become naturists? I thought it was something people find out during their adult life and decide to give it a go. Is it because of naturist parents, or do children discover this by themselves? JIP | Talk 18:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How young are you thinking when you use the term "children"? Any child on the net could potentially find out about it through Wikipedia or many other sources. Dismas|^(talk) 23:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was meaning mainly kindergarten-age children. JIP | Talk 04:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that clothed is the "normal" state for toddlers. Preschool children run around naked not because they've made a deliberate decision to be a "naturist", but because they aren't aware that running around naked isn't socially acceptable. FiggyBee (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've heard a number of stories from parents about their children shedding their clothing as soon as the parents back is turned. The children aren't old enough to have had modesty, or a sense that the human body is dirty (whichever way you want to look at it), instilled in them yet. Dismas|^(talk) 10:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that small enough children will, in sufficient privacy, go around naked as if it was no big deal. But I was asking about children consciously being naturists, for example by attending naturist events. How does this happen? Do the parents announce "today we're going to a naturist event, do you want to come with us?" JIP | Talk 14:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the parents are naturists and the children are of an age where they are being cared for by the parents, then the parents will just bring their kids to the event and they will all go around naked. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Below a certain age, I suspect it's pretty meaningless to try to claim that the child is consciously a naturist.. That's like claiming the toddler is a Republican. Such abstractions are not meaningful to small children. Friday (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein, I always laugh when I read that so-and-so was "born a Catholic/Methodist/whatever". It's not a genetic trait. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know kindergarten-age children who consciously attend naturist events, and naturist parents who check if their toddler wants to attend such an event? I think their parents just take them along, as any parents would take their children along for a picnic or a day on the beach without checking whether the kids are conscious picnickists or beachists. --Lambiam 08:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Korea's (South Korea) Stance on Disarmament Topics

I have searched all over, and have not been able to find a definitive stance regarding South Korea's positions on the following topics:

-Private Military Corporations
-Afghanistan
-Border Control

Would anyone happen to know the country's policy on these aforementioned topics? If not, is there common stance South Korea promotes regarding security issues? Besides the North Korea conflict, the Republic of Korea does not seem to be a huge player/influence in this field. Any help is greatly appreciated! Yellowhighlight (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1937 Soviet Census

I've decided to repost this question, which has not been answered and is going to be archived soon.

What literacy rate did the 1937 Soviet census determine for the USSR? The education in the Soviet Union article gives the literacy rate in 1939, but the 1939 census was doctored by the government and is not reliable.

Happy Earth Week to all! --Bowlhover (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The adult literacy of the rural population also increased in the 1930s, although by no means as spectacularly as Soviet propagandists claimed. According to the census figures, the literacy of the rural population in the 9-49 age group increased from 51 percent in 1926 to 84 percent in 1939. For rural men in the age group, that meant a rise from 67 percent literacy in 1926 to 92 percent in 1939; for rural women, a rise from 35 percent to 77 percent. Now that the suppressed 1937 figures have emerged, the 1939 figures look a little high and should probably be adjusted downwards by 7-8 percent. Even so, the overall increase was impressive—or would have been, had the regime not been claiming 90 percent adult literacy for the Soviet population since 1932.⁷⁸

78. 1926 and 1939 figures Itogi Vsesoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1959 goda. SSSR (Svodnyi tom) (Moscow, 1962), 88; 1937 data from Poliakov (1990), 65-66; 1932 claim in Itogi vypoleniia piatiletnego plana razvitiia narodnogo khoziaistva SSSR (Moscow, 1933), 222. Unfortunately, the 1937 census literacy figures do not include urban-rural breakdown. For the total urban and rural population aged nine to forty-nine, the 1937 census found 75 percent literacy (86 percent of men, 65 percent of women).

Fitzpatrick, S. (1994). Stalin's peasants: resistance and survival in the Russian village after collectivization. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 225-6 & fn. 78 p. 363. OCLC 28293091. If you'd like the Russian language sources, Poliakov (1990) is: A. Poliakov, V. B. Zhiromskaia, 1. N. Kiselev, "Polveka molchaniia (Vsesoiuznaia perepis' naseleniia 1937 g.)," Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 1990 nos. 6 and 7. The 1937 census data are available in Vsesoiuznaia perepis' naseleniia 1937g. Kratkie itogi (Moscow, 1991).—eric 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, has stolen my thunder, Bowlhover! Anyway, in addition to the sources he has mentioned I would also suggest that you might care to have a look at Shiela Fitzpatrick's Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times, published by Oxford University Press in 1999, which gives some figures for the 1926 census. According to this only 57% of the total Soviet population aged 9 to 49 was literate, although the pattern was uneven, with illiteracy most concentrated in the rural regions of Russia itself and in the Central Asian republics. The urban literacy rate at this time was calculated at 81% According to the 1939 census 81% of the whole Soviet population was literate, which seems to be the statistical equivalent of the rates of production given under the Five Year Plans! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added the 1937 literacy rate to the article. --Bowlhover (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cottage names in 19C England

I have seen evidence that the practice of giving cottages names did not become usual in England until the late nineteenth century. Is this true, and were they named by the occupants or the owner/landlord? --Milkbreath (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milkbreath, might I ask what the evidence is that this practice was uncommon before the end of the nineteenth century? Clio the Muse (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm suggesting that the practice was uncommon, just that the tiny bit of evidence I have suggests at least an upsurge in the practice in rural Devonshire. The censuses from the middle of the century list people by hamlet or village and no more, but later they are shown living in named cottages. My theory is that the cottages had no names and then they did, but I don't know; I don't even know that the cottages were there before. I am thinking that manors often had names, as some estates do today, such as "The Coffee Grounds", and that folks started naming their cottages in emulation of that practice, but, again, I don't know, so I'm asking. A better question might be how did the practice arise and who did the naming. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This book might help?: Owl's Hoot: How People Name Their Houses. WikiJedits (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Milkbreath. There were certainly named cottages at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and even earlier; Wordsworth's Dove Cottage in the Lake District comes to mind here. I am reluctant to go any further with this, for the simple reason that I can offer only speculation, rather than illumination. However, if you forgive the indulgence, I will suggest a possible explanation for the upsurge.

Your evidence might indicate a combination of two things: a growth in population and the need to differentiate dwellings for postal purposes. The Penny Black, the world's first adhesive stamp, was introduced in 1840, making possible a universal postal service, available at a flat rate. Prior to this people were charged in accordance with the distance mail was carried, making the cost prohibitive for most. More post as the century progressed would obvious require a more precise addressing system; more precise than, say, Jane Hardy who lives in Abbotsham, Devonshire.

But, alas, this is pure speculation on my part. However, on the question of precise addressing, it might interest you to know that a read not so long ago a manuscript account of a journey made by a man from Haddington in Scotland to Munich in Bavaria, in the period just after the abdication of Napoleon in 1814. At one point in his trip through the Rhineland he starts to describe the numbered 'markings' on houses and cottages used for purposes of military call up, seeing this practice as evidence of Continental absolutism, entirely alien to a British tradition. At first I failed to understand his exact meaning, when it occurred to me that he was simply talking about numbering dwellings as a way of identifying and locating their inhabitants, for postal purposes, amongst other things! This was clearly not the practice in Britain at the time. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The postal angle is worth looking into. No numbers, so maybe names? I like it. By the way, how does it feel to have a mind as orderly as a card catalogue? Mine's like a lumberyard. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also. I suppose mine must be ordered,then, in the same precise fashion as the Little Corporal's! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources which help to answer this question are pre-twentieth century conveyances, wills, manorial records, etc. Big and important houses are named. Middling houses are called 'the Parsonage', 'the Mill', 'the Ironmaster's house', etc. For a cottage, where it needs to be identified, you will usually find a description of the land it stands on, then "and dwellinghouse". If a lesser house is named, it is usually done with the family name of the owner and/or previous owner: 'Parrott's, late Wickman's', etc. Xn4 07:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian selling to Muslims

Would it be considered a sin if a Christian sells things to Muslims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly by some of the more insane Christian denomiations, but I very much doubt any mainstream branch of Christianity would think any such thing. Algebraist 22:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were some occasions in the Middle Ages when it was, you could be excommunicated for selling things to them (or, specific things like wood or weapons). But that was only because the Pope didn't want, say, the Egyptians to have an advantage during a crusade against them. Otherwise selling and trading with the Muslims carried on as usual, and even excommunication couldn't always get in the way of a good profit! Adam Bishop (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't mind, and I don't know of anyone who would; and more directly, no it isn't a sin. · AndonicO ^Hail! 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Nazi, Aryan Brotherhood and Islam

What gangs or organizations include these and other anti-semitic groups in their ranks and/or otherwise bring them together? 71.100.15.211 (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Maybe the first two get together sometimes, but not with the Muslims! In fact, Muslims are often their targets. AllenHansen (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say anything about those specific groups, but in fact Tom Metzger and Louis Farrakhan met with each other amicably in 1985 to explore areas of common ground, and part of the allegation of New anti-semitism is that at times Islamists and far-rightists find a certain pragrmatic common interest in a shared hatred Jews and opposition to the existence of Israel (the most notorious representative of this trend being Ahmed Huber whose Wikipedia article apparently just got deleted, but who was prominently mentioned in the Washington Post on April 28th, 2002). AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you'd find it a lot less common nowadays since many of these groups like to use terrorism to prove their claim of the evils of all non-white people so Arabs and Muslims are a convinient target. Not saying it doesn't happen of course (after all we have Jewish anti-semites) but it's probably relatively rare despite their shared interest in some areas Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about neo-Nazis, but the paleo kind and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem famously worked together. --D. Monack | talk 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]