Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 October 17

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.

October 17

Matthew 27:11-26

"All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" Matthew 27:11-26

Is this the reason of Jews sufferings all these centuries? Another question,if there were no Jews,would there be a World War 2? And,if there were no Jews,would there be a war in the middle east?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:212.200.202.238 (talk • contribs)

There would, of course, be paradise on earth. Why don't you just trot along and read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Suited to people of your intellectual level, and guaranteed to confirm all of your fantasies and nightmares. White Guard

I am not an authority on the bible or the Jewish faith so I will skip the first part. As for WW2, the Jews were most certainly not the main reason the war started. Germany's pride had been badly mangled during and after WW1 and they were seeking a way to restore it. Along come Hitler and his Nazis friends promising a new golden age for Germany. Germany becomes more aggressive (annexing the German speaking parts of Czechoslovakia and anschluss with Austria) and ends up launching a blitzkrieg on Poland. The rest is history. As for the Middle East, I would say there would not be peace because the different denominations of Islam (Sunni & Shi'ite) would be killing each other (as in modern day Iraq). --The Dark Side 00:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We can also ask ourselves: "If there weren't any humans at all would there be any wars or suffering?" or "If the entire Humanity had only one faith, and belonged to the same race, spoke the same language, etc would they live in peace? Everything has been used to justify war and massacres. Religion race, political inclinations, nationalities. So to make it perfectly clear: Even if there weren't any Jews at all in this entire planet we would still have fought each other for diffrent reasons, pretexts, and excuses. Flamarande 00:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And you want proof of a whitewash? This is the very proof of a whitewash! How very convenient that the JEWS instead of the Romans are responsible for the death of "A man of peace". Too convenient! 202.168.50.40 00:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you will never convince a Christian that Jesus was a terrorist anymore than you will convince a Muslim that the Prophet Muhammad was a terrorist. In their hearts (by this I meant the heart of the followers), he shall always be "A man of peace". 202.168.50.40 01:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a whitewash, it is simple politics. After a few decades the Christians aren't really interrested in converting Jews anymore for the real power is in the hand of the Romans. How do you convince a Roman to listen to your Christian message and to convert to your Christian faith? Do you tell him a story of a criminal who was convicted to die by Roman justice? No, you proclaim that the Poncio Pilate was decived and pressured by the Jews. But none of this whitewashes Jesus in anyway. This does not prove that he was a violent rebel, or that he preached violence. This isn't any proof of what you seek. Flamarande 01:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand where the last points are coming from, or what they are meant to achieve. However, I would ask all editors not to be drawn too far into this debate-the original question gives all the appearance of having been placed by an anti-Semite. It's best treated with condescension and contempt. White Guard 01:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignore all trolls. pschemp | talk 02:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

QUOTE How do you convince a Roman to listen to your Christian message and to convert to your Christian faith? Do you tell him a story of a criminal who was convicted to die by Roman justice? No, you proclaim that the Poncio Pilate was decived and pressured by the Jews. UNQUOTE. Dude, that's the very definition of a whitewash! 202.168.50.40 02:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Whitewash is the covering up of an unpleasant TRUTH with a nice sweet noble LIE. 202.168.50.40 02:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are simplyfying the whole issue. If you believe in the New Testament Jesus was innocent and the reasons for his trial are purely political and nothing else. If you don't accept the New Testament you can't charge him with anything at all, because you don't have any other sources who accuse him of anything at all (you can't even prove that he existed or not unless you accept that the New Testament is based upon some Historical person). Therefore you can't simply accuse him of being a violent person.

And before you repeat that this is somehow proves a Christian whitewash: You have to provide proof of a whitewash and not simply proclaim there was one. That is the diffrence between the truth (truth which is always as far as we know) and slander (wanton accusation whithout any shred of evidence) and you are defending the second one (at least in my opinion). Flamarande 02:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Extra ordinary claims requires extra ordinary proof. Christians make the claim that "Jews are responsible for the death of Christ." so the burden of proof lies on the Christians. We cannot accept that as true merely because Christians proclaimed it so.

This is what the Christians claimed to be the TRUTH

"All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" Matthew 27:11-26

So show us the proof. Merely saying it over and over again and again DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!

You see how clever the Christians are! They twist the burden of proof unto the skeptics! Where as they go around making extra ordinary claims as if it is GOD'S OWN TRUTH. Then they demand that the skeptics proof that there is a whitewash. Duh! Hell, if that's the way they want to play the game, I want to be a christian too! 202.168.50.40 03:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User blocked for trolling and wasting other editor's time. We've got better things to do. pschemp | talk 04:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• The Reference desk is not a soapbox. If further debate regarding a particular answer is needed, please move the discussion to the appropriate talk page. Thanks!Edison 04:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, that is what it has become, and it has played right into the hands of the individual who placed this question in the first place. I tried to draw attention to the obvious malevolence here, but this has been effectively ignored by the 'Jewish' wind-bag, on the one hand, and the 'Christian' wind-bag on the other, fighting some pointless and perverse war. I thought there were limits to stupidity-clearly not. White Guard 05:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that (the subject of) religion is highly subjective. People who post questions here wants to know the answer to their question. BUT on such a subjective subject, different religious beliefs have different "truths". Furthermore as there is no objective way of determining the truth, it will quickly degenerate into an ugly soap-box arguement. This is why religion is different from science. Ohanian 07:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Only The Dark Side answered my questions.Others simply accused me of being anti/semite in a real american way of simplefying things.My questions> if there were no Jews,would have there been a WW2 and if there were no Jews,would there been a war in the Middle East...

I did not said that its one way or the other,I just asked the question! If you ask me,I am a Serb,and if there were no Serbs,then Gavrilo Princip wouldnt had killed Franz Ferdinand and WW1 wouldnt even take place.My question was simply,if Jews werent existing,would there be another reason for the wars I mentioned or not... That was all I ment to ask,Im not a antisemite or something,read the question again,just because your an american,that doesnt mean you shouldnt think.And my question was simply @what if@ kind of question,it wasnt an accusation or anything.If thats too delicate to your american midns,then delete the question,I wont mind,it will answer mz question for itself.

Never mind anything else, study your own history. Gavrilo Princip's actions were a pretext, or a last straw, not the cause of WWI. If the Serbs had never existed, WWI would have been caused by something else. --Dweller 12:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This kind of discussion is exactly why Wikipedia needs better control over who gets to edit articles here. The vast majority of open source projects do not allow any random nutcase to screw up the project. They have designated trusted committers and then people can make suggestions/improvements to the code which can then be committed to the source base. The obvious mistake here is to allow any person to edit the "source" without being sure of what that persons motives for editing in the first place are. The idea that anyone can contribute directly to the article and "be bold" seems very attractive but it is a trap. Just a matter of time before Wikipedia realizes what open source programmers have known for years. Cynical? yes, but true... MartinDK 14:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an overreaction. Yes, anons constitute the majority of vandals and unhelpful users/trolls, but generally the damage they do is very minor and easily dealt with (as it was here). Would ridding ourselves of what is really just a minor inconvenience be worth denying the project of all the helpful anon contributions, as well as making Wikipedia seem much less accessible? I think not. -Elmer Clark 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a good look at the WW2 articles and tell me if you truly feel that anon users contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive way and tell me if you think that requirering people sign up really keeps the white supremacists, neo-nazis and trolls in general from screwing up the project. MartinDK 07:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The only real definition of truth is something which is unchanging so if you can think of anything that this applies to then you have God and whatever comes after that is only subjective discussion. All is illusion and mind games from one philosophical point of view.....

UNO

Q:how many countries are the member of UNO and which country recently expelled from the UNO????

See United Nations and its related articles. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 06:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

politics in Niger

my name is morten marthinsen and i am a student at California state University, Los Angeles. I am a student in TVF and are doing a documentary on a person from Niger (Isofou Idrissa). One of the angles i am doing in this documentary is a political one, and i was wondering if it is possible to get some video clips or photos of some of the main individuals in Niger politics today?is there any possible way you can help me with this?Sincerely Morten Marthinsen

See Politics of Niger and the associated links off of it. Dismas|^(talk) 06:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

WP has a picture of Tandja Mamadou on his page, and a different portrait in the Niger article. Prime Minister Hama Amadou's article links to a BBC page showing his image. I suggest looking at the other links from the Niger article, or trying news-sites, such as BBC or allafrica.com. ---Sluzzelin 06:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Making a lasagne

Hi RD, would feta cheese or some feta-esque sauce make as a decent cheese in a beef lasagne. Anyone tried feta lasagne? Thanks. --Sophiebristow 08:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the best answer lies in your kitchen. Just try it. Of course the feta won't melt and it will taste different, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I put feta in my spinach curry and it's delicious. Somehting I came up with. Experiment and you may come up with loads of other tasty combinations (and even more horrible ones, but, hey, that's life). DirkvdM 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Feta's really salty in comparison to most cheeses, particularly the mozzarella and ricotta commonly associated with lasagna, so you may want to use less feta than other cheeses, and not add any salt to the beef. I think a little bit of feta would be a nice addition to a lasagna (particularly a spinach-heavy vegetarian one), but I'd worry that an all-feta lasagna could be a little much. --ByeByeBaby 15:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lamp Post Planet

Many years ago i read a book in which the main character somehow ends up on a very small planet, inhabited by one man, and a lamp post, who's lamp the man lit every day. I think the main character commented that this was better than some other planets he had visited, as it at least had some kind of purpose. Does anyone have any idea what ths=is book could be? Thanks in advance --Fountainmon 10:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry... AnonMoos 10:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The root cause of Anti-semitism

Hey, I was just wondering if there was any catalyst for anti-semitism. Is it because the jews are 'successful', because they [allegedly] killed Jesus. Or is it because they're an easy target who are always forced to take the blame because they are so small a minority they can't defend themselves? Help, I really don't understand it. Ahadland 10:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check out the articles anti-semitism and History of anti-Semitism; there is a lengthly discussion of the causes there. Batmanand | Talk 11:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that it really warms my heart, Ahadland, when you tell us that you "really don't understand it". If only more people were like you... I tip my hat to you. Loomis 15:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Loomis, much as I'm flattered by your statements, I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that because I don't understand anti-semitism there is no reason for it to exist? Or is there something I'm missing? Ahadland 16:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. I wouldn't say there's no pathological reason for it to exist, just no reason for good, decent, healthy people to exhibit it. Loomis 03:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that you're the same questioner who mentioned above that s/he was Jewish. Given the perspective I just realized you were asking from, I'm now feeling that my comments were rather silly. :-) Loomis 03:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would call anti-Semitism a special case of xenophobia. Since Jews were frequently found in small numbers, and dressed differently (orthodox Jews, anyway), this made them an obvious target for scapegoating. A large minority that blends in with the population is harder target. StuRat 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely agree, Stu. There's an aspect to anti-semitism that seems to rely on rather the opposite. With the obvious exception of Hassidic Jews, as you seem to be referring to, Jews are a rather invisible minority. To most people who aren't rather attentive to the mild Jewish "lilt" in my speach, with my pale white skin and green eyes, I usually pass for a Gentile. I believe that the fact that we come in almost all colours, shapes and sizes leads to that other type of racism, that being the fear of some sort of "hidden" society with sinister motives. After all, no one ever speaks of a global "Black" conspiracy or a global "Asian" consipracy. But your explanation has its merit too. Loomis 03:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I read a persuasive book (irritatingly, I've forgotten its name) some years back that systematically demolished all of the standard answers to this question, by showing societies where the Jews have exhibited the opposite of the stereotypical circumstances/traits, yet still been persecuted, i.e. Jews have been persecuted in societies where they were poor, powerless, the majority, integrated/assimilated, thorougly irreligious and, finally, surrounded by people who would be quite unbothered if Jesus had actually been stoned by the Sanhedrin. The author's conclusion was that misunderstanding of the concept of the "Chosen people" was the root problem, which then attracts false justification, xenophobia and racism as its bedfellows. --Dweller 15:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Two other examples of such diaspora are Gypsies and Chinese. Gypsies occupy the other end financially, but despite the fact that they try to entertain people and in the process adopt some of the local culture (especially the music), they possibly get harrassed even more (which is often ignored, which makes it even worse). The Chinese diaspora is a bit like the Jews in that they are also often very succesfull and stick to their own culture. Actually, they adapt even less. Yet, people don't seem to mind them quite as much as Jews and Gypsies. They've seen some xenophobia, but not quite to the same extent, I believe. So being successfull and not adapting are not the decisive factors it seems. i must admit that this haas puzzled me for some time and I don't see an answer to this. DirkvdM 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's because you are unaware that in some Asian countries Chinese are targeted for their wealth by the crazy mob, as the Jakarta Riots of May 1998 showed. Flamarande 00:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the book Dweller mentions is Why the Jews? by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin. There have actually been several different types of anti-Semitism, all with a different motive. Ancient Greek anti-Semitism was about power struggles in the Roman Empire; traditional European anti-Semitism was about religion; Nazi anti-Semitism was a twisted offshoot of 19th-century nationalism and pseudoscientific racism; contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism stems from irridentism. But each has built on what's come before. Both the Nazis and today's Jew-haters in the Muslim world use The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was originally a work of czarist Russian Orthodox anti-Semitism. It's a lot easier to be a racist when someone's already written the literature for you. -- Mwalcoff 02:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There's also the Dönme or Sabbateans in Turkey, a historic Jewish/Islamic sect. They seem to have increasingly been turned into a brand new kind of anti-semitic conpsiracy theory - not only are Jews running secretly running things, but Jews posing as Muslims. Which is convenient if you can't find any real Jews (or even real Dönmne) to blame things on. And Stalin managed to reinvent Russian anti-semitism in a new form where Jews were to be persecuted as "Cosmopolitans" of questionably loyalty to Russia. (Particularily ironic given that Marx was jewish and for all intents and purposes a "cosmopolitan" as well). --BluePlatypus 03:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Famarande, I am totally aware of that. I'm Dutch, so Indonesia is part of my national history and I visited (and therefore studied) the country. It happened before, during the independence struggle, because the Chinese were seen as collaborators. But in Europe, afaik, no serious prosecution of Chinese has ever taken place. What's more, people don't see them in a particularly bad light. So what's the difference between Jews and Chinese, given the fact that the reasons often given for prosecuting the Jews also apply to the Chinese? DirkvdM 08:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There weren't any Chinese in Europe during the Middle Ages, they came quite recently (it sounds obvious but remember that most of the Anti-Jewish bullshit comes from that age). They didn't lend money, therefore avoiding a reputation of "miserly bankers" like the Jews (and bankers are always despised), something which made the Jews an easy target. Radical mediaveal preachers didn't use Chinese as scape-goats as there weren't any around. They were lucky to appear in Europe in a relativly civilized age in which there was allready a established scape-goat, namely the Jews. And by the way the Chinese were severly harrased and prosecuted, just not in Europe (there were certainly some ocasions) but in the West Coast of the USA. You have to read Chinese Exclusion Act (United States), Chinese Massacre of 1871 and Yellow Peril and search for other similar articles. And don't forget European colonialism in China (with all the resulting massacres). Flamarande 12:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of women

I'm going to be writing something and one of the characters will be a woman ~22 y.o. She won't be the stereotypical beauty queen, still beautiful, but not stereotypical skinny to "average" weight chick. I'm thinking of someone who may be described as "Rubenesque". Big breasts, big hips, but not really "fat". Though because of pop culture's pervasiveness, I'm having a hard time thinking of any famous examples that I can use as examples both to help me write about the person (I think having a few pictures in my head would help) as well as describing the character to my audience. So, can anyone provide me with some examples? Links to pictures would be great if they may be hard to find by my own with Google's help. And if their physical measurements are known, that would be a plus as well. Thanks!! Dismas|^(talk) 12:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What a pleasant task! Have a look at plus-size model and Category:Plus-size models. The first name that came to my mind when I read your question was Sophie Dahl. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also Mae West. Marco polo 12:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Click on the external link here, it might help. | AndonicO 13:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Mata Hari? --Dweller 13:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For comics, you could check out Jaime Hernandez' comics about Maggie Chascarillo (Had a hard time finding good images, and also Robert Crumb's stuff, (although some people are put off by certain sexual sadistic tendencies of his). 惑乱 分からん 13:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Crumb was more of a misogynist than a sadist, myself. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethel Merman, Sophie Tucker and Hattie McDaniel come to mind. JackofOz 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Theda Bara comes to mind.Edison 15:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of contemporary pop stars - Kelly Osbourne and Charlotte Church - a former child star who put on some weight recently and took a lot of crap from the media about it. Maybe also Kate Winslet circa Titanic? --Grace 01:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Back to the classics: Lillian Russell, Calamity Jane, Marjorie Main see [www.geocities.com/ellen_poulsen/Marjorie],Margaret Dumont at [1], and Shirley Booth at [2].Edison 04:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all!! I really appreciate it! If anyone happens to think of any more, I'd like to read more names but this should give me a good starting place. Dismas|^(talk) 07:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You may help answer this

I want to know if my perception of a change in advertising over the last 40 years is correct. In 1966, a magazine or TV ad for an anti-itch medicine would probably say, in big bold letters: "Stops the itch!" Today the ad would say something like: "Some studies tend to suggest that this product may, in some people, temporarily help to reduce minor and transitory itching." Is this change the result of excessive litigation? What especially bugs me is that no product today is advertised as actually doing or curing anything. Every product only "helps" toward a goal. For example, a cough medicine "helps to reduce coughs." So what is the afflicted person to do? Take the medicine, but also drink hot tea and consult a specialist? Is the "helps" qualifier used to fend off the lawyers? 66.213.33.2 18:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I havent got an answer to your question but i agree that adverts now are Sh*t

I agree that there's been such a change, but I think it's good. It was really false advertising before, when they kept claiming they could do things they couldn't really do. For example, wrinkle creams use to claim they "eliminated wrinkles", when they don't, they just fill the wrinkles in with grease. They now tell the truth and say "may help to temporarily reduce the appearance of wrinkles". StuRat 19:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The article on tobacco packaging warning signs shows a more absolute language, depending on which country you live in.---Sluzzelin 21:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Now they sell a homeopathic remedy consisting of, basically, water, and make no claims of medical effectiveness at all, just by saying "HEAD ON!APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD! HEAD ON!APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD! HEAD ON!APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD! HEAD ON!APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD!" And apparently they sell lots of it.Edison 04:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And we, sadly, can't stop writing about it. --Aaron 04:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Europe

How come on this map: ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/WTOmap_currentstatus.png ) of WTO members does it appear to say that French Guiana, which is in South America, is a European community? --84.64.46.61 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Err, because it's owned by France (hence "Frence" in the name). Therefore it is, along with its "mother" nation, part of the European Communities. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yer but just because its owned by France doesnt meen its a European nation....does it? Was Hong Kong a European nation before 1997?

Well, Hong Kong was a member of the British Commonwealth, but that, or French Guiana being a member of the EU, doesn't make them European either, no. StuRat 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong was expected to returned to China, therefore there was no interrest by anyone in making that territory a "part" of the EU. Flamarande 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The European Community is a treaty organisation, not a geographical label. So French Guiana can be a member, as a dependency of France, without being in Europe the place. Cheers, Sam Clark 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Our article makes clear that French Guiana is not merely 'owned' by France, it is part of France, an overseas Département in the same way as Réunion. Hong Kong was not European, but it wasn't part of the United Kingdom. French Guiana is just another part of France, in exactly the same way as Manche, or Loire. If the French capital were located there, you could raise the very interesting question over whether or not France should be considered European, but as the overwhelming majority of the French state, as well as its entire polity, is within Europe, France is considered European. Therefore, even the non-european tentacles are a part of all European things of which France is also a part. --Mnemeson 21:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• All French overseas départements are indeed part of the EU (albeit not part of Europe). If you look at the back of a Euro banknote (with the map on it), you'll see French Guiana to the right of the 'O' in 'EURO'. The status varies though: The Dutch "ABC islands" are not part of the EU at all, while the Falkland Islands have a special status, where some EU legislation applies and some does not. --BluePlatypus 23:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• • France has always had a policy of making certain of its overseas possessions part of France, a policy not generally followed by other European countries that had imperial ambitions. Spain's territories on the North African coast are part of Spain, but in Northern Europe it is much less common: Denmark formerly had Greenland as part of its territory, but gave it independence some years ago. The Faroe Islands are formally part of Denmark but in practice self-governing. The United Kingdom has the loosest association with its overseas territories - the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are not considered part of the UK, but instead as 'Crown Dependencies' which are not represented in the UK Parliament. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear War

What would happen if there was a war on the scale of world war 2, for example, but everyone used nucleur weapons. Wouldnt everything just get destroyed, i meen if a nucleur bom was dropped on say london or paris or berlin thats like 8, 9, 10 million people just dead and a city abolished.--84.64.46.61 19:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Mutual assured destruction, etc. The links in the See also section in that article might also be of interest to you. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the different modern nuclear weapons, but greater London is huge conglomerate. I don't think there is a single bomb that would kill everyone. Actually, I wonder if there would be any place on earth where a single bomb could kill a million people. DirkvdM 20:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The Trident missile has a yield of up to 3.8 Megatons. The Nuclear weapon effects calculator gives an inner air-blast radius for that yield of 4.3 kilometres. Nearly 100% of people less than that distance from ground zero will be killed in the first few seconds after the blast. 4.3km radius gives an area of approximately 60km². The population density of Paris, for instance, is around 25,000/km². That gives likely number of immediate deaths = 1,500,000, i.e. one-and-a-half million people. And that’s before we even start counting people killed by building-collapse in the 11.2km radius zone of widespread destruction, or the people who will later die of burns and radiation poisoning. So, I’d say that there are many, many places in the world in which a single bomb would kill (many more than) a million people. Sam Clark 21:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And just for interest's sake (and no so much because it's a practical threat), Tsar Bomba was at least 50 megatons. Drive one of those up on a truck and, err, yeah. 24.76.102.248 22:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Widespread nuclear war would also pose the danger of a nuclear winter. Marco polo 00:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Per TV docudramas, the atomic scientists who developed the WW2 atomic bomb really wanted to drop it on the Germans, who had harmed their relatives, and had severe misgivings about dropping it on the Japanese. The question is, does anyone know if they had developed the atom bomb before Germany surrendered, would the atomic bomb have been dropped it Berlin to basically decapitate the Reich, or would it have been dropped on other cities like the firebombing of Dresden, or on army groups, or what? The U.S. did not wish to decapitate the Japanese Empire, because we needed the Emperor to tell them to lay down their arms. In the Iraq War, repeated attempts were made to bomb Saddam and company, without success, and the army was basically ignored rather than trying to get a formal surrender. Edison 04:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Our article on the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki talks a little about the targetting decisions there. It seems to indicate that choosing specific targets was done fairly late in the game.

As for what the Allies would have done if they had had the bomb in time to use against Germany, who knows. --Robert Merkel 05:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I heard that the allies used the bomb against Japan because they were weak, had no allies, and wanted to make their powerful weapon known to the Russians. It would have been too risky to attempt a bombing in Europe, even against the Germans. 惑乱 分からん 13:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Germans were already defeated when the bomb was ready - the Germans having allies (who were also already defeated) had nothing to do with the bombing decision. Impressing the Russians probably did have something to do with it though. Rmhermen 17:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You heard wrong. The casualty estimates for Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan, were mind-boggling - hundreds of thousands, if not millions for the Americans alone. That's the main reason they were dropped. Clarityfiend 02:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

how do people survive on $1 per day?

Many of the world's people live on $1/day or less. $1 is defined as the value of the goods and services consumed if they were purchased in the US. How do people live on this? What would a typical "basket" of goods consist of that would cost $1, and just barely sustain a human life? The Mad Echidna 20:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

See, for example, the Consumer price index. Costs of living differ markedly around the world. Yes, $1 a day is bad. But it is livable on, at least in some parts of the world (for the simple reason that there are more people living on it than there are starving). Batmanand | Talk 21:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Batmanand, you've misunderstood. The World Bank's one-dollar-a-day poverty measure isn't a literal dollar, it's the amount that a dollar would have bought in the US in 1993. So, the questioner's implication is right: living at this level is appalling, barely sustainable poverty. See further Poverty and Global justice. Cheers, Sam Clark 21:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah OK fair enough. Didn't realise that... So I suppose my question still stands: how come there are so many more people living on <$1 a day than there are starving? Batmanand | Talk 21:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Because rice and corn mush are cheap. The problem the poorest peole have is paying for some kind of fuel to cook it. -THB 22:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some reasons:

• Food and other basic items are much cheaper when purchased in those countries, directly from the producer, than they are in the US after going through a chain of distributors, wholesalers and retailers.

• Much of the economy of many of those countries is based on barter, so nobody needs any cash.

• People in those countries largely produce their own food and other basic equipment. This used to be the case in the US, as well. For example, reading the Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder, you will note that they made most of their own clothes, grew their own food, and built their own house. Anything "store bought" was a real luxury. So, if you rarely buy things from stores, you don't need much money.

StuRat 22:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this should answer all your questions: What it's like to live on $1 a day -THB 23:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I ate for $1 per day in 1972. Buy basic groceries, cook them. Very little meat. Add the cost of living adjustment and that would be about $4.56 in 2005 per http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi and did not include shelter, clothes, transportation, medical, entertainment, etc. Edison 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To put what StuRat said differently, one way to appear rich is to put a price tag on everything, which is done in the West. If the land the Dayak in Borneo live on would be regarded as theirs and priced, they would be rich. Same for the houses they build and basically anything they do. Humans got by quite well on absolutely no money at all for most their existence and many people have only barely started making the transition to a money economy (in stead of just remembering what you owe people and what they owe you). DirkvdM 08:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The poverty of people under the $1/day limit does not have anything to do with how much cash they have available. It consists in the fact that many of their most basic needs - for nutritious food, safe drinking water, shelter, medical help - are not being met. They therefore have an average life-expectancy around half that in the 'developed west': see for instance Malawi, here. A measure of this fact about resources is useful for comparative purposes, even though price is obviously not a measure of all value. Nostalgia about pre-money economies and Little House on the Prarie is not really to the point. The global poor are not, for the most part, living a happy existence as noble savages. They are dying in their millions of starvation and easily preventable disease. Yours, Sam Clark 13:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Life expectancy was also much lower 100-200 years ago in the now developed world, for many of the same reasons. It's comparing the developed world to the undeveloped world that's not helpful, as it's a case of apples and oranges. The only way to have a world where everyone lives in a 2000 square foot house, and has two cars, is to kill off most of the world's population, as there simply aren't the natural resources on the planet to support the entire population in such a manner. Birth control and sterilization for the developing world may help to control the population in some areas, and allow for the meager resources in such places to be distributed among fewer people (so that each gets more). StuRat 19:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, Sam. The way people live on $1 per day is:

1. Do almost nothing except work and eat.
2. Eat a minimal amount of food - an amount that would be considered unacceptably low in the West.

And not all those people are farmers. DJ Clayworth 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, people in poor countries are poor by western standards, and more often underfed, but it's not like it's all misery. They actually tend to appear happier than mot westerners. Of course that is more to do with social contact, but to get to the point I wnated to make, one doesn't have to have the material wealth westerners are used to to be happy. As long as the basics are covered (water, food, shelter from the elements and social contact), there's nothing but your own mind to stop you from being happy. Of course that doesn't mean they don't deserve a larger slice of the pie. Oh, and apropos 'shelter form the elements', a large part of a western wage is spent on housing and heating. Most poor countries are in the tropics, where there is less or no need for that. Actually, I once wondered if the cold in Europe (last ice age) forced us to work so hard to survive we didn't know when to stop and overshot the target. Just a consideration, fwiw. DirkvdM 19:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Happiness is how well you do in relation to your expectations. In poor countries, the expectations are low, so getting a pair of shoes is a source of pride and celebration far beyond what it is in the West. The same was true in the West a few centuries ago. StuRat 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons between wealth and poverty are not 'a case of apples and oranges'; they are comparisons between human beings, some of whom are very poor, and others of whom could help them. StuRat's background assumption seems to be that the rich have nothing to do with those poor people or their situation (I'm guessing that on the basis of his/her remark about 'meagre resources in such places', as though that were the cause of poverty). But this assumption is false: rich and poor are part of a global system which distributes resources and opportunities unequally, and in my view unjustly. And the claim that poor people 'actually tend to appear happier than most westerners' is sheer romantic nonsense. Yours, Sam Clark 07:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's based on personal experience. I have travelled through third world countries for a total of about two years. DirkvdM 09:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The remark at the end of my last post was unnecessary, and I apologise. I restate my position more calmly below. Sam Clark 09:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is how populations are controlled. There are really only two ways to limit population growth, reduced birth rate, due to birth control, or increased death rates, due to starvation, disease, war, etc. If a population fails to control population the first way, it is doomed to suffer from the second method. No country can support an infinite population, so it WILL be limited in some way. The populations of developing nations simply increase uncontrolled until they hit the limit that country can support. Note that those limits fluctuate quite a bit, due to drought, etc., so you may see a large death toll in certain years and very little in other years. If, however, those countries would limit their population (via birth control) to the lower level, which can be supported even during drought, then they wouldn't have this regular problem every time the rains don't come. StuRat 15:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have another go at this. 1,200 million people live on less per day than what $1 would have bought in the US in 1993. Largely as a result of that extreme poverty, 18 million of them die prematurely every year: that's one-third of all human deaths, 50,000 every day, of whom 34,000 are children under the age of five. (Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights (Polity, 2002), p. 2.) DirkvdM and StuRat appear to be claiming that life for these people is not so bad. Worse, StuRat is claiming that we - the wealthy - have no responsibilities to the poor. What would we think of the person who noticed a child drowning in a shallow pond, but walked on past instead of helping? What, therefore, should we think of the person who knows the facts I've just described, but doesn't do anything about them? Yours, Sam Clark 09:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to help the world's poor. Unfortunately, if you just do things to increase the food supply to feed the current population, we will soon have 10X the population, and thus 10X the problem, we have now. Unfortunately, the two things that are really needed to help the poor are considered thoroughly unacceptable:

• Overthrow dictators who steal/destroy their wealth, like Robert Mugabe, and install a government that looks after their interests.

• Reduce populations to a stable level that can be supported, using methods similar to those used during China's One child policy. Notice that some of those methods are quite onerous. StuRat 12:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, population growth is a problem, but who is suggesting just increasing the food supply? I would argue for using our vast resources to provide for the basic needs of the poor, which include but are certainly not limited to food: importantly, they also include education, especially for women, which is one major way of decreasing the birth rate.[3] But this isn't what we were discussing. I've argued: 1. that the state of the global poor is disastrous, and a result of a global system which we help to sustain; and 2. that there is a moral requirement on the rich to do something about this disaster, because we can and because we are implicated in it. You've disagreed with 1 and implied that you disagree with 2. Are you now withdrawing these claims, or have I misunderstood you? Sam Clark 13:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your first assertion, because pretty much every nation which is poor now has always been poor (by Western standards), as they were before globalization and even before colonization. So, obviously, globalization didn't make them poor. And again, they are only poor by current Western standards. By their own standards, or Western standards of a few generations back, they are doing just fine.

On the second point, I view it as a good thing if we help them, but that's not the same as saying it's our responsibility. I strongly reject any sense of entitlement...a "you owe it to us to take care of us" attitude. Ultimately, such dependency leads to even worse problems than their current simple, but self-sufficent, lifestyle. StuRat 02:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You're changing the subject again: I haven't said anything about poor nations, and nor have I claimed that over time, globalisation has made some nations poorer than they already were. I've said that we are, right now, complicit in a world-system which makes some individual humans disastrously poor, and others rich. This system is not a fact of nature, it's a human creation, and could be different. We therefore need to ask, should it be different? My view is that it should, on the grounds: 1. that we are violating the negative rights of the poor not to be subject to a global system which massively disadvantages them; and 2. that in any case, given that we can afford to help, we are morally required to help (this is the point of the drowning child analogy I made above). Your case for rejecting these requirements - that 'such dependency leads to even worse problems than their current simple, but self-sufficent, lifestyle' seems to me both factually and morally inadequate: the poor aren't self-sufficient, but deeply involved in the global system; nobody is arguing for 'dependency'; and 'it's not my fault you're drowning, and anyway I'm doing you a favour by encouraging you to learn to swim on your own' is not an impressive ethic. Sam Clark 09:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

By saying that globalization makes them poor, versus keeps them poor, or allows them to remain poor, you are indeed saying that it is taking money away, that they formerly had. To use your drowning child analogy, what we need to avoid is telling children it's OK for them to go swim in areas with dangerous rip tides, because "we will save you if you get into trouble". What we need to do is keep kids who can't swim out of the water. Even though this may seem harsh, it's for their own good. To return to reality, if we tell poor countries they can borrow as much money as they want, and we will forgive their debt as many times as they need, you will end up with them spending money on useless crap, like palaces for the dictator's mistresses, or, famously, an execution stadium in Afghanistan (intended by the international donors to be a sports stadium). StuRat 13:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, you're right that the poverty of poor countries is largely only in comparison with the very recent wealth of a few rich countries. Like I said, most people in poor countries are quite happy. It's just that a fair amount aren't. Like I said once before, the best solution is probably along the lines of what the EU does - apromise to get a decent share of that wealth (through trade relations - so not the breadcrumbs that we call aid), in exchange for a change in the political system that ensures everyone gets a sufficient share of that wealth to allow them to also be happy. Ie, have a home, decent food and water and plumbing and health care. (Btw, by these standards the EU should boycot the US, but that's not what I meant to say. :) ) DirkvdM 07:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• StuRat: both wiktionary and my copy of Collins agree that one sense of 'make' is 'cause', so no, I'm not saying (even accidentally) that globalisation makes people poor by taking away money from people who formerly had it. But if you want to reserve the word 'make' for that claim, I'm happy to play along, because the change makes no difference at all to my argument. In your terminology: we are, right now, complicit in a world-system which keeps some individual humans disastrously poor, and others rich. This system is not a fact of nature, it's a human creation, and could be different. We therefore need to ask, should it be different?
• I think it should be different, but not because I think we owe restitution for past crimes (there certainly have been such crimes - slavery, for a start - but my argument doesn't depend on them). I've given two reasons for that moral claim:

1. The argument from oppression: people have a right not to be subject to a system which they did not choose, which could be different, and which enormously disadvantages them. By maintaining the system which keeps the global poor in their current disastrous circumstances, we violate that right.
2. The argument from consequences: If you can bring about some large good (e.g. saving a child from starving to death) at no comparable cost to yourself, you ought to do so. We can afford to save many children (perhaps even most of the 34,000 who die every day). So, we ought to do so.

• The rest of your post is arguing with a strawman: you describe an obviously foolish policy, triumphantly point out that it is foolish, and then act like you've scored a point off me. But I haven't suggested that 'we tell poor countries they can borrow as much money as they want, and we will forgive their debt as many times as they need.' Who in their right mind thinks that? In fact, I've made no policy proposals at all (although I have some sympathy with DirkvdM's 'aid in return for social change' suggestion above): I've argued that the state of the poor is disastrous, and that we have a moral obligation to do something about it. Yours, Sam Clark 16:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Reiher pass

Hi, I was reading of the Mili Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Nice article, I was there as a teen. Before Japan occupied the Marshalls the Germans did. At Mili Atoll is a pass called "Reihers Pass". I am doing reserch on the origin of that name "Reihers Pass". If you have any info. or leads would be greatly appreciated.

Yours truely

Henry Reiher

As you might well be aware of, "Reiher" is German for heron. A number of herons (including egrets) live on reefs and atolls, there's also Heron Island in the Southwest Pacific. It could conceivably be named after a person named Reiher too, but I found no evidence for this. ---Sluzzelin 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, these islands and most of that area of the Pacific, were formerly a German colony, forming part of German New Guinea. So there's no big surprize that there are German names around there. Some still have German names (E.g. the Bismarck Archipelago). Sluzzelin's explanation seems reasonable. Unless there was some reason to believe otherwise, I'd first assume it was named after the bird. --BluePlatypus 23:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

William Henry Harrison's Political Ideas...

Does anyone know what he was going to do in office if he didn't die so early? Or did he already do something? -MF14

This is from the article about him:

The untimely death of Harrison was a disappointment to Whigs, who hoped to pass a revenue tariff and enact measures to support Henry Clay's American System. John Tyler, Harrison's successor, crushed the Whig agenda, leaving himself without a party.

-THB 22:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

John Stewart on The Daily Show this evening told his first William Henry Harrison joke in the 10 years of the show (the only President not mentioned): "Why did William Henry Harrison wear a Marie Antoinette headpiece to the political convention that nominated him? Because he thought it was the WIG party nominating him.Edison 05:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was Zachary Taylor who hadn't been mentioned. But the WIG joke works equally well. --ByeByeBaby 14:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright thanks for the info. It was helpful. -MF14

Seungman Rhee

Seek info about Sigmund Rhee before President of Korea. Believe he was sponsored and supported by an American family living in Hawaii.

 # =  – — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → & warren avenson:24.18.55.149 23:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Try the spelling in the title and here. -THB 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The president of South Korea was Jewish? Oy veh! Clarityfiend 04:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)