Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 14

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 14

G20 members

Why do the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy get their own seats on the G20, even though they are also members of the European Union? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think it's because, while they are part of the EU and thus sub-portions of a greater economic power, the countries themselves still operate as individual economies and are, in themselves, major economic powers even without taking into consideration their membership in the union. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think our article on the topic puts it clearly enough in its first paragraph: "The G-20 (more formally, the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors) is a group of finance ministers and central bank governors from 20 economies: 19 of the world's largest national economies, plus the European Union (EU)." The United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy are among the 19 world's largest national economies. The European Union's seat is separate from them. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

steve jobs' Apple salary

a question about Steve Jobs' leave from Apple starting in December (he is to return in June). What happens to his $1 salary? Does he keep it at a prorated rate, so for example if he doesn't work from January to June (6 months) he only gets paid 50 cents for that year, or what? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.159.188 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would expect that he is still paid one dollar. The one dollar payment is a kind of legal fiction in various transactions like a quit claim deed to transfer property. (If no money changes hands, has the tranaction/employment really happened?) Rmhermen (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It will depend on exactly what is written in his contract. I doubt anybody really cares - it's just a nominal amount for legal reasons, as you say. --Tango (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

St Zossima/ Sossimo?

Called patron saint of Ukrainian beekeepers. Went to Egypt to bring back wax for the church. What is known of his biography and/or details of his legends? When did he live? Is he the same as monk Zossimo, of a monastery in the far north of Russia? How did he become involved with the penitent saint Margaret in the Middle East?Salkeld (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there were a whole bunch of Zosimos. I'm not sure which is the one you're asking about, but that's at least a good place to start. --Fullobeans (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The patrons of Russian bees and bee-keepers are Zosimus (April 17) and Sabbatius of Solovki. Your "penitent saint Margaret" is i think Mary of Egypt—that would be Zosimas of Palestine.—eric 05:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

German/Jew

Why did Germans kill Jews? Mac Davis (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You can start by reading History of the Jews in Germany and then following links from that page to other articles. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

is international law about "morality"?

is international law about "morality" or is it just procedural? Specifically I'm interested in the International Court of Justice...but that article doesn't even include the word moral/morals or ethic/ethics/ethical except that judges should be of high moral character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.159.188 (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Is any law about morality? "Murder is wrong" is a moral statement. "Murder is against the law" is a legal statement. You could argue that murder is against the law because it's immoral, or you could argue that murder is against the law because it's impossible for society to function if people are running around killing each other with no repercussions. In secular nations, most laws exist for practical reasons, to keep society functioning smoothly. That's why we have the term "morality laws:" most laws are not based in morality alone, though morality may give support to the law. For those of us who aren't legal scholars, though, the line is often blurry, and we imbue laws with a moral authority as well as a legal authority. Additionally, when someone is suspected of a crime, his sense of morality may be called into question during his trial, or by a judge during his sentencing. A person with no apparent concept of morality is easily painted as a threat to society, whereas a person with a strong moral compass might be seen as a good person who made a mistake and will be easy to rehabilitate. Technically, a person should not be convicted on the basis of immorality alone, but juries can be influenced by a skillful character assassination.

So, to answer your question: international law is just that. Law. Not morality. It exists to discourage nations from aggravating one another constantly, from invading one another indiscriminately, from wiping one another out completely, from massacring civilians, from killing prisoners, and other fun stuff. There are good, practical reasons for all of these laws, but what brought most of them into being was the moral outrage people felt during certain events of the 20th century. That outrage is expressed again every time a similar act or event pops up in the news, and international governing bodies rarely do anything to discourage it. Belief in the morality of law, theoretically, encourages people to obey the law; similarly, belief in the immorality of genocide (theoretically) discourages people from supporting figures who advocate genocide. Presumably that's why we so often hear heavy, philosophical terms like "crimes against humanity" being bandied about. When it comes down to it, though, the International Court of Justice conducts its trials on the basis of laws and legal precedents, not the moral sentiments of its members or of the public. Those sentiments may motivate them or influence their decisions, though; again, it's a blurry line. And there is, of course, the issue of who goes to trial and who gets a free pass. But the laws themselves, even the ones for contentious issues such as war crimes, are fairly dispassionate and unambiguous and capable of being implemented in a purely procedural manner. You might be able to learn more at the ICC website. --Fullobeans (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If the OP is interested in discussions of the moral "basis" for international law, and interaction between law and morality, there are numerous works on the topic stretching back quite some time. A search on Google Books (or a legal/academic library's catalogue) for "international law international morality" could be a useful starting point. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What happened to insurance for falls in real-estate prices?

"On July 30, 2002, Deborah Woods, a dental hygienist in Syracuse, New York, became the first person to buy protection against a market decline in the value of her home." says http://www.fastcompany.com/bookclub/excerpts/1591391539.html Another article here: http://www.forbes.com/2002/08/28/0829whynot.html The company concerned no longer seems to have a functioning website: www.realliquidity.com so it has probably gone out of business. What are the details about this please? Just how soon did the insurer go bust (I assume) and did people lose their insurance premiums? Thanks. 89.242.127.126 (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the specific details here, but such an insurance scheme would seem likely to fail whenever there is a significant general real estate market decline. Another insurance branch with a similar issue is disaster insurance. The problem is that when a major disaster hits, the companies which offer such policies go bankrupt. There the solution has been for the government to re-insure the insurance companies. Of course, this could only work if the disaster or market decline is of a small enough magnitude that the government can handle it. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe most (all?) insurance policies are reinsured elsewhere as a matter of course. While the insurance company may go bust, the policy holders should be protected. It's only when one of the major reinsurers goes bust that there is a problem (which is why the US government are working so hard to avoid AIG going bust). --Tango (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

StuRat, your suggestion flies in the face of things such as earthquake insurance. Consider that the premiums might be invested in ways that return more than the eventual cost of paying off the policies; that there might be a cap on payments for each policy; and that the number of people actually taking up the policy might not be very large. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For relatively small disasters (those that affect less than 1% of the insured population, perhaps), the insurance company and reinsurance companies can survive. However, for larger disaster, the insurance company (and reinsurance companies) can go under. National governments can potentially cover these cases, but you eventually get to a disaster so large that nobody can cover the losses (large meteors, massive earthquakes in populated areas, nuclear war, tsunamis or hurricanes that wipe out major cities, etc.). StuRat (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust implementation

My question really concerns identifying Jewish people. How did the nazi's know which people at which addresses were Jewish. I know in some cases local peasants "ratted" the jews out. However, what I don't understand is how did the nazi's, if their concepts were based on race, identify secular jews or converted jews? Did they check the synagogue archives or something. So ye, my question is how did the nazi's know who to kill. --Thanks, Hadseys 23:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

they didn't differentiate between secular and converted jews or even quarter jewish people etc. in fact a lot of hitler's closest advisers failed the strict requirements (were too jewish by ancestry) and had to have papers forged that their grandmother cheated on their grandfather (the jewish person in their family) with a non-jew, and that they are the result of this coupling. lots and lots of officers in the third reich got papers of this kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.159.188 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The only synagogue in Vienna to survive Kristallnacht was the Stadttempel. One reason cited is that its situation made torching it too much of a fire risk to surrounding (i.e. Christian-owned) buildings. Another reason is that it served as the community offices, and so all the birth, marriage, and death certificates were there, with names and addresses. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, what peasants ratted any Jews out? All the Jews lived in the cities. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Heck no! I mostly know about Poland, which may or may not be representative, but, to quote our History of the Jews in Poland article, "there were probably 3,474,000 Jews in Poland as of September 1, 1939 (approximately 10% of the total population) primarily centered in large and smaller cities: 77% lived in cities and 23% in the villages. They made up about 50%, and in some cases even 70% of the population of smaller towns, especially in Eastern Poland." Sure, 77% is the majority, but it's by no means "all." --Fullobeans (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking of Germany. Nevermind. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder, the OP's question is still unanswered. Dismas|^(talk) 02:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Found something! This link has some good, though unsourced, answers to this question. Some of the points made are: tracking down every Jewish person in Germany was a long, gradual process, and the burden of proof lay with the person under suspicion of being Jewish (or part Jewish). Modern living tends to produce a lot of paperwork: marriage certificates, birth certificates, baptism certificates, death certificates, military records, charitable donation records, court papers, etc., all of which may either imply your religion or state it directly. Generally, you are given a copy of these documents, and another is kept on file by the office that issued it. So even if you were a completely assimilated, secular Jew who never told anyone about your ancestry and had never been circumsised or sent to Hebrew school, could the same be said for your parents? For their parents? And could you prove this if asked? No? Highly suspicious; you must be hiding something. Even if the government couldn't track down documents condemning you, I'd imagine you'd also be in a pickle if they failed to track down documents exonerating you. And, from Googling around, it looks like everyone had to produce proof of ancestry ("ariernachweis") in order to do stuff like own a shop or attend university. --Fullobeans (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the German police had the resources to look at any of that. For a country that carried out such a large-scale genocide, the Gestapo was extremely limited in its power to infiltrate society. Take a look at Gestapo#Daily_operations. I quote: "Contrary to the popular belief, the Gestapo was not an omnipotent agency that had agents in every nook and cranny of German society. [...] The District Office in Nuremberg, which had the responsibility for all of northern Bavaria employed a total of 80-100 informers in the years 1943-1945.[2] The Gestapo office in Saarbrücken had at its service 50 informers in 1939."

The article goes on to say--and this answers the OP's question--"Thus, it was ordinary Germans by their willingness to denounce one another who supplied the Gestapo with the information that determined who the Gestapo arrested." Hardly surprising, considering that it was the German public who put Hitler in power. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting statistic! That being said, it wouldn't be too much work to phone or write the church where a person claimed to have been baptized, the city hall where they claimed their mother was born, etc. Clerks, officials, clergy, and hospital employees were also part of the collaborating public. If the individual under investigation was, in fact, solely responsible for their own exoneration, though, perhaps the investigators didn't even bother making phone calls, or only did so in high-profile cases. --Fullobeans (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum to Fullobeans post: There was a document, called the "Ariernachweis" (the de WP has an article on it). This was a collection of the birth and marriage documents of the relevant person, their parents and grandparents, proof that the holder was a member of the "Aryan race". This documentation HAD to be supplied by ALL German citizen in employment. Absence of the Ariernachweis led to dismissal and, after 1941, was the basis of deportation, ghettoisation and murder in the Holocaust. PS: I will have a look at translating the article, as it only exists in German and Russian. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ariernachweis, established in April 1933, was not per-se instrumental to identifying Jews. For one, no one but the owner held it. Secondly, it wasn't required everywhere. Third, it was positive identification of "Arier"-ship, and not evidence of the contrary.

An Ariernachweis -- actually an Ahnentafel -- was by law only required of "persons who worked in the public interest" (government employees [includes teachers/other teaching staff], medical professionals and farmers ... and their spouses), and persons who wished to join the NSDAP or the SS. All other demands for an Ahnentafel were private or church initiatives (though companies that supplied the government were sometimes pressurized to only hire "Arier").

Universal identification of Jews ("non-citizens") first became mandatory with the Reichsbürgergesetz of September 1935, which distinguished between "citizen" and "resident". Thereafter Jews were required to adopt a middle name that identified them as Jews (IIRC, "Israel" for men, and "Sarah" for women), and since everyone was registered anyway (think: "social security card"), it was not very difficult (thanks IBM) to eventually compile the deportation lists from those records. For information on how that worked, see Nuremberg Laws. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In Rebecca Rischin’s book “For the End of Time”[1] One of the POW camp survivors she interviews mentions that the SS would check to see if men were circumcised, obviously not the most reliable method, and it would only work for men. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading a fictional account, where men and boys were checked for Jewishness by whether they were circumcised or not. Was that ever common? I would have thought that some non-Jews would have been circumcised as well, but I might be wrong about that. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I read Un Sac De Billes for my French A level which tells the (i think autobiographical) story of a jewish boy on the run in France. There's a moment where he basically has to avoid showing the doctor his penis for that very reason. Given that the Nazis where not known for their sense of fair play, it may have been that should you be circumcised, you better also have a hell of a lot of documentation to prove that you weren't jewish. 212.183.134.209 (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)