Humanities desk
< August 30	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

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.

August 31

Democracy in the USA.

What are some reasons people might think that the USA is not a true democracy? --Spondingar (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All systems of democratic government are something of a compromise, some more than others. Have a look at our Democracy article. You might also look at Lobbying and Lobbying in the United States which is perhaps the main issue highlighted by critics of the US system. Alansplodge (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common misconception that democracy means "people vote" and nothing else. As is noted in the Democracy article, a democracy is one where people, regardless of their status, have access to the structures of power in their society. By that measure, the U.S. (as do all societies, to varying degrees, so don't mistake my meaning here) has many shortcomings when considering it's status versus the democratic ideal. As noted by the reference in the lobbying articles, it is often noted that in America, there is a "pay to play" access to political power, and that political policy is shaped not by the will of the people, but by the large corporations and very wealthy (see Political activities of the Koch brothers) who fund the election campaigns of the politicians. Also, the U.S. doesn't do very well with regards to social mobility (see Gini coefficient, for one example) or other measures that indicate one's ability to move oneself from one social strata to another. --Jayron 32 10:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Money and power differences is one thing everyone here seems to have mentioned, but another issue for any country with some largely FPTP system with two dominant parties is that in a fair part of the country, your vote means basically nothing for a number of positions. Even without gerrymandering, natural geographical differences in the popularity of certain candidates and issues can mean even say, a 20% swing won't affect the outcome. While there may be reasons for the electoral college, it combined with the tendency of states to use the winner-takes-all distribution means even the vote for president among the two candidates can often be irrelevant. I believe these factors combined with others are one reason why some of the lower positions in US elections (and Americans seem to vote for a lot of things) are basically uncontested. Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention the US has also have major issues with voter disfranchisement and suppression, up until fairly recently. While the grandfather clauses which made the Poll tax (United States) and Literacy tests so clearly biased against certain racial groups were partially eliminated with the Guinn v. United States decision in 1915 and I think completely eliminated with Lane v. Wilson, in effect because of social economic differences the laws still predominantly affected certain racial groups, particularly when combined with intimidation and discriminatory enforcement. It was only the various laws brought on by the American Civil Rights Movement culminating in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which seemed to finally really start to eliminate this.

Yet even now, there's concern voter ID laws and intentional disenfranchment of sometimes all felony convicts (including in some cases after the sentence has been served) are having a similar effects. (While other countries have national ID cards, the US seems to be one of the few without such a card, but where some places require some card for voting.) Not helped again by possibly biased or just plain weird implementation of such laws, as the Florida election recount showed for felon disenfranchment. (I think the Florida case also made people wonder about the fairness of the election commission or bodies in charge of elections in parts of the US.) The extremely high conviction and incarceration rate in the US probably doesn't help perceptions either. Stuff like voter caging surely doesn't help either.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere along this line of reasoning Arrow's impossibility theorem and ranked voting should be mentioned. Even Condorcet et al. during the French revolution knew that first past the post voting systems had serious problems. Aside from very small pockets, to my knowledge most places in the USA do not allow ranked voting, and that feeds in to the two-party duopoly that you hint at. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons for that notion that I recall hearing in Sweden are: 1. Low vote participation in the US presidential election. See Voter_turnout 2. Money seems to matter a lot more in the US in who gets elected to office. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens United v. FEC gets a lot of attention from the pundits, press, and some politicians. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens United gets a lot of press because it is a recent court decision, but it is a symptom rather than a cause of the influence of money in politics. The U.S. has a lot of prior traditions (i.e. corporate personhood for just one example) which have been part of the political history of the U.S. It's not like the U.S. had been an egalitarian, democratic utopia and then Citizens United ruined it all... --Jayron 32 14:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt that citizen down, tar-and-feather him, then subject him to the ultimate ignominy - de-unite him! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Sure, that's all fair. According to our article CU explicitly enshrined in the law of the land that corporation=legal person and money=speech, and there's a reason it's a divisive case. And there's a reason why Super PAC spending has skyrocketed since that ruling. Saying much more could veer into WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP, so I'll stop there. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a usage somewhat unrelated to the above, popular among the American right wing, where it is asserted that the U.S. is "a republic, not a democracy". This is pretty much the etymological fallacy, defining "democracy" to only mean direct democracy, ignoring how the word is actually used in political science. This appears to go back to The Federalist Papers, where the authors portrayed "democracy" as mob rule, and contrasted it with the new republican government that the Constitution would create. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why some right-wingers try to call the other party the "Democrat" party, on the grounds that they are not really "democratic". (As if the right wing IS.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison with other countries, the Democracy Index is an indication of how democratic a country is. When I looked a few years ago, I was able to find explanations for why each country got its rating (e.g. reasons for the U.S. being 8.11 instead of a perfect 10), probably somewhere on the Economist Intelligence Unit's website.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How was the white French battle flag differentiated from the white surrender flag?

The French battle flag was white ~~when no royalties was present during the Ancien Régime~~ for a period of time. ByDuring that time, using a white flag to signal temporary truce or surrender was already in common usage. How did the commanders in that era differentiate between these two cases?

Addendum: I'm more curious about the land battle case, since the naval case is trivial. My other car is a cadr (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial?!? How very dare you! :-) Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been mainly used at sea, where you surrender by taking down your ensign, see striking the colours, rather than by raising a white flag. Alansplodge (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section I linked to has two pictures of it being used on land:

The surrender of Lord Cornwallis to French (left) and American (right) colonial forces after the battle of Yorktown (1781).
Royalist army used the white Bourbon ensign, during the French Revolutionary Wars (here, the battle of Quiberon, 1795).
Drapeau Colonel de 1er compagnie d' un régiment française d'infanterie royale.

My other car is a cadr (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge is correct about the white flag only used at sea as a battle flag during Ancien Régime. On land it was different. French infantry regiments were using many different battle flags of various colours, with a white scarf on top of the flag pole. A white flag has been used as a French flag too, but this was a commercial flag at harbours and at overseas commercial places. Your pictures are more recent, they don't belong to the Ancien Régime era. Akseli9 (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. I've updated my OP. 1781 does belong in the Ancien Régime era though, I'm afraid. My other car is a cadr (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After some research it seems that I was not entirely correct. "French infantry regiments at the time [the American War of Independence] carried one colonel's flag - all white, and 14 "drapeaux d'ordonnance". I think all 14 were identical within the regiment, and most regiments featured the white cross." French Flags of the U.S. Revolutionary War and " In the French infantry regiments a single colour, that of the colonel, was entirely white." Uniforms of the American Revolution in Color. However, it seems that this was not plain white: "Each regiment had a single drapeau blanc, that was 'the colonel's flag'. It was usually all white, with a large white cross stitched in outline upon it. There were usually three large, gold fleur-de-lis in the upper left canton, and in some cases there may have been added small heraldic devices. Specially raised, or foreign units, tended to have more elaborate 'colonel's colors' with the arms of their commander. The white 'drapeau blanc' represented the king's royal authority vested in the commander of the regiment." Les Régiments Français: Regiments of l'Armée de Terre Royale in the American War for Independence. So the answer seems to be that a) the French white flag when used as a regimental colour in battle was used in conjunction with other colours generally bearing a white cross and b) the drapeau blanc was all white but with embellishments. Alansplodge (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found an image of a French infantry regiment's colonel's flag which I have added to your gallery above. There are many more elaborate examples at Category:Colors of the Royal French Infantry (Colonels). I think you're right that it would be difficult to distinguish them from a plain white flag, so I had a quick Google search for any examples where a white regimental colour might have been mistaken for a flag of surrender or truce, but without success. Perhaps the answer lies in the formality of the 18th century battlefield, which tended to be conducted in rigid formations. If you saw a white flag being carried in the centre of an advancing French line, then it would be rather obvious, I suspect, that the battle was still very much in progress. But I'm guessing now; perhaps somebody will correct me if they know better. Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civil disobedience

Someone told me "civil disobedience" was protected by the German constitution. I found some small support for the idea in the German article on on the subject (where it says that civil disobedience is not an offense or crime in itself), but not as much as I would like. Does anyone know of any support for such a notion? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question: Is there a helpdesk on the German wikipedia side? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Civil disobedience or de:Ziviler Ungehorsam treat the concept in much detail and the German article refers to article #20, section 4, of the German constitution "All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available" granting the Widerstandsrecht (right to resist), which is not the same as civil disobedience and also not the same as the right of revolution. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Pp.paul. !

Resolved

Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for your follow-up question, the reference desk in the German Wikipedia can be found here. --Viennese Waltz 07:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese production in Togo

Can you tell me about cheese production in Togo? --Stafallordeireshire (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese production is limited in Togo because the entire country lies within the range of the tsetse fly, which transmits disease to all milk-producing livestock, making it difficult to raise such livestock. The cheese that is produced there is mainly wagasi. Marco polo (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. --Stafallordeireshire (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This site contains information on cheese production in Africa, and this is an article (from 1996, unfortunately) about cheese production in Benin. Tevildo (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Dr. Blofeld nicely and I'm sure he'll start an article about it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Stafall is pulling our legs in picking an obscure topic, I'm not sure they even produce cheese in Togo, though it shares many traits with Benin so it's possible that wagasi (which I started) is also produced there. I'm sure we could manage an article on Cheese production in Africa.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The UN FAO statistics [1] show that Togo had a milk production of 12756 tonnes in 2011 and a cheese production of 262 tonnes (which would use about 1/5 of all milk produced). They had production of 0.04 kg/capita/year, compared to, for example, the U.S. which produced 15.4 kg/capita or France which produced 24.13 kg/capita. Rmhermen (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

does zhong kui carry a book? maybe the book of life and death?

any pictures of him holding the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.60.126.54 (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about Zhong Kui. You can also use "Google Images" to search for images of him. --Jayron 32 16:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handing someone an item in Japan

According to Etiquette in Japan, it's considered bad manners to hand someone his business card using just one hand. Equally, it is consider offensive to give a cashier the cash for an item, when there is a tray to put the money.

Is this all that there is about handing an item with one hand? Can't this rule be generalized to handing all objects? So, if at the airport, someone has to produce his ID, would he use one or two hands? And what if someone asks for a pen?--Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Japanese or particularly polite, so can't be too sure, but I see differences. The first two things have to do with building and maintaining a business relationship, the latter two don't. More important to consider the feelings of people who can decide whether to buy your stuff or a competitor's. Customer satisfaction plays no part in whether an authority figure cards you, unless you get into bribery levels of satisfaction, which are frowned upon by polite society. Likewise, a person without a pen is going to need to borrow a pen, regardless. The customer is always right but beggars can't be choosers. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Committing a crime on an international border..?

What if I was to commit a crime on an international border, such as public indecency? Let's say I committed public indecency on a tripoint border, with one leg in Afghanistan, one leg in Pakistan and my arms in China,. Which country would arrest me? --Spoœekspaar (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your bottom would be pointed towards Pakistan and Afghanistan, while you are bended towards China. I am pretty sure the Chinese would recognize your bow as a sign of appreciation and let you go with it.

The question is still who would get you, Pakistan or Afghanistan? If the Afghans take you, they could use you as Bacha bazi, if you are of proper age.

I suppose the two countries would have to debate who is to get you, but as things are in international politics, you'll probably would end up in Pakistan, which is the strongest country.

Do not take this as legal advice. Consult with a lawyer before exposing yourself in public. --YX-1000A (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on where you went afterward. Nobody would try to extradite you for such a minor crime. That'll be $1000, plus $25 for disbursements.Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't border guards typically armed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the tripoint amongst those countries is in the middle of, and high up in, the mountains, I doubt that there are very many border guards anywhere near there. Dismas|^(talk) 01:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then the OP is unlikely to be arrested - unless he foolishly posts a picture of it, as with a recent case in one of the middle east countries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That case was in Malaysia, not in the Middle East. [2] --Xuxl (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the border is a line with no width. So it is impossible for a human being to be precisely on the border. The exhibitionist is therefore committing his crime in both (or all three) countries simultaneously and subject to prosecution in all of them, if it is their wish to proceed with meting out punishment. --Xuxl (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no guards, who would arrest him? And if there are guards, and they're armed, they might just decide to use that poor sap for target practice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The unfortunate lady was on a mountain but in the middle of the country. Here, if a border guard approached the thing to do would be to retreat into one of the two countries he was not a border guard of. This is a well - known ploy. The City of London has its own police force (their officers have a ridge on their helmets so they're easily distinguishable). If you descend into Liverpool Street Station you're confronted with a different police force but that's a different story. I read that the working girls in Middlesex Street (which is where the Petticoat Lane market is held, across from the station), when approached by City of London police officers would retreat to the far pavement (the city boundary runs down the middle of the road) where they were safe, as this was "the Essex side of the road". Now Essex is a big county, but it doesn't extend further than the River Lee, which is some miles away. Middlesex Street would have been the boundary of the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney, situated in - you guessed it - Middlesex, appropriately enough. 89.240.30.153 (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a border guard for each of the three countries, each of the armed, either they hit the target from three directions, or they decide amongst themselves which country to turn him over to. In the case described immediately above, in the US (at least) when someone is observed committing a crime, the police might alert the police of the neighboring jurisdiction. In both hypotheses, the criminal is basically screwed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the crime. The jurisdiction of the English courts does not extend into Scotland, and vice versa. So if someone gets a parking ticket just south of the border but they live in, say, Gretna Green, which is in Scotland, the English council is pretty much screwed as far as getting its money is concerned. 89.240.30.153 (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as simple as that; apparently, parking fines for private property in England are enforceable because of the Freedom of Protections Act 2012 which is specific to England and Wales; it is unenforceable in Scotland as there is no equivalent legislation there. [3] According to our Law enforcement in the United Kingdom article, "Territorial police constables have certain powers of arrest in countries other than the one they were attested in." BTW, whatever the situation was a century ago, the City of London Police now regularly attend calls in the neighbouring Metropolitan Police divisions and vice versa, so I wouldn't bet on using Middlesex Street as an escape route. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might have guessed from my use of the word "council" that I had in mind something like a motorist stopping on the main A whatever that runs north from Carlisle through Gretna Green to (presumably) Dumfries and beyond (although no doubt the name of the road changes at the border). 89.240.30.153 (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no A-road crossing the border at that point. Historically, it was the A74, but that road was converted to a motorway during the late 20th century, with the motorway being designated the M6 on the England side and the A74(M) on the Scotland side. The original A74 roadway now crosses the border as the B7076. Marco polo (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, police and local authority parking tickets are issued under the Road Traffic Act 1991 which applies to the whole Kingdom. [4] Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does England have a process for impounding vehicles of scofflaws? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the police can do it. The courts can also confiscate property from people who have been convicted of a crime, if the property is a "benefit ... obtained from crime" - e.g. a fancy car bought from the proceeds of drug-dealing. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And returning to statutory parking tickets (technically "Penalty Charge Notices"), failure to pay is eventually referred to a Certificated Enforcement Agent or "bailiff", who can seize property (which could be a car) equal in value to the amount owed, plus the bailiff's own fee. [5] Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new law which is going to be brought in saying that if people have unexplained wealth the onus is on them to prove they acquired it legitimately. This is copied from legislation in Ireland and some other countries. Does this mean that if enquiries go unanswered the "proceeds of crime" procedure can be set in motion? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would have thought that there is no mechanism for distraining on property in Scotland on foot of a PCN issued by an English council. Some people go on holiday to places like Italy and months later get a bill in the post for a traffic violation. Am I right that they don't have to pay unless they return to the country? As for bailiffs, I think it hilarious that County Court litigants who want redress against somebody have to apply for a "Warrant of Execution". I know they used to hang people for stealing a sheep but this seems to be over the top. 89.240.30.153 (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See: Judgment of Solomon as a precedent. If the various nations can't agree on who has jurisdiction... cut the offender up and send each nation a piece so they all can have jurisdiction. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or just use them for target practice. Each side can say he was trying to exit or enter the country illegally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a bit tricky. Due to the pervert effects of ballistics and other effects of simple geometry the several parties of guards would be putting the lifes of their other colleagues at risk. --Askedonty (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They would certainly have to take the topography into account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Judges XIX v. 29. Concubines have a rough time of it. A video posted on the website of China's State Archives Administration details how during the Japanese invasion of the Shandong peninsula in the Sino - Japanese war an enemy sergeant killed and cut up his sex slave when food was scarce then used her flesh as a meal for his squadron, telling them it was regular meat from their battalion headquarters. 92.25.66.96 (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no lawyer, but I believe that, at least when countries are on speaking terms, the treaties and agreements governing border control generally allow each country's law enforcement to operate on both sides of the border within a reasonable distance. I'm pretty sure you aren't the first person to come up with the idea of trying to get away with something just over the border, but in view of the bordering country's law enforcement. Partly of course this is just practical necessity; border guards can't feasibly do their jobs if they constantly have to be sure that they don't step foot over the official border line. And it's obviously silly to have a situation where you're being pursued, cross a border, and then law enforcement can only stop and stare dumbfounded. Now, if you're in Country A, break a law, and you're detained by an officer of Country B, I think they just hand you over to Country A's law enforcement and they decide what to do with you. Similarly, if you break a law in Country A in view of an officer of Country B, and then try to cross the border, they'll probably detain you and hand you back over to Country A. The general principle is that a country can deport you or refuse entry at its discretion. Of course, it's up to the country in which the law was broken to prosecute you, but the other country's border guard can certainly act as a witness. For some examples of this in practice, you might look at enclaves and exclaves. For example, I believe Italian law enforcement are allowed by treaty to operate inside both San Marino and Vatican City. Although not involving international borders, the situation in the U.S. with local and state law enforcement is also illustrative. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well you don't necessarily need agreements, if you're a powerful country and the country you're enterring in to isn't powerful (or doesn't care enough) to make a real fuss. Hence why several countries including the US may kill people in some other country without the agreement/permission of that countries government, as mentioned in Hot pursuit. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Children dancing around a crocodile

In David Reynolds' 1945 & the Wheelchair President there is a film clip of a city burning, with a statue of children dancing around a crocodile in the foreground. Where is/was this? DuncanHill (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the picture you saw then it is a scene from Stalingrad (Volgograd) taken during WWII. I found a batch of pics on the web but left this link as it has some explanation about the statue as well. MarnetteD|Talk 23:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thank you - and the article you linked helped me find Barmaley Fountain and Emmanuil Evzerikhin. DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome DuncanHill. The first time I can remember seeing the film clip of this scene was in an episode of The World at War. That was many moons ago now :-) I am glad that you found the other articles as well. It is nice when the interwebs can be used for learning. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]