Humanities desk
< August 11	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 13 >

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 12

japan's stand on unconditional aid.

The history of japan provididng unconditional aid to developing nations. in addition, the conditions which determine how this aid is provided, the quality of emergency and non emergency aid. japan's say on the phenomena of "aid maintaining poverty". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.233.209 (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is it you need help with? You've mentioned Japan and aid to foreign countries: history, conditions on which it is provided, and its quality. Are you asking what is their stance on aid. I'm sorry, but I have to ask you to be more specific in what we can do for you.84.13.79.246 (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably some kind of reference to Tied aid was intended... AnonMoos (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would appear to be a homework assignment. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Crown

When did the monarch and the crown become separate? If Britain became republican, who would get the Crown property (Buckingham Palace etc...)? The head of the Winsor family? The government?--217.227.68.196 (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Crown may be of help. I suspect that Crown Property would pass to the state (as the Crown could be said to be an embodiment of the State), and the personal property of the monarch (e.g. Balmoral Castle) would be retained by the current head of the House of Windsor. The Crown Estates would be another problem - the revenues from them were granted to the government in exchange for the Civil List allowances for the Royal Family. The estates of the Duchy of Cornwall are the inalienable property of the Duke of Cornwall. Of course, all this is speculation, and it would ultimately depend on the constitutional settlement adopted to effect such a change. DuncanHill (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But then the abolition of the monarchy does not always mean the abolition of the nobility. The crown estate scenario is certainly interesting. --Cameron * 18:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was very little differentiation between the government's assets and income vs. the monarch's individual personal property and income until about 1760 (the date alluded to, but not specifically mentioned, in the Crown Estates article...). AnonMoos (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to do anything more than guess. The law doesn't say what to do in the case of abolishing the monarchy, for obvious reasons, so it would all have to be worked out at the time. My guess would be pretty much what DuncanHill said: The Crown Estates, etc, go to the state, the monarch's personal property stays with the ex-monarch. I expect the Duchy of Cornwall would go to the state as well, and the Prince of Wales would keep his private properties. I expect the civil list would continue for a time, perhaps until the death of the current Monarch, possible with some small portion continuing to other current members of the Royal Family until their deaths. --Tango (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I put in a bid for Australia, or maybe Canada? DOR (HK) (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. The Queen of Canada could carry on irrespective of the republican actions of that small island off the coast of Europe. (Mind you, we might have to find a place for her to live.) - Eron^Talk 04:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practically speaking, the Parliament can give (or not give) the person-who-was-Monarch as much or as little as Parliament wants. I'm not a UK constitutional scholar, but as I understand the current legal fiction under which the UK operates, the Monarch rules via the divine right of kings, and being the generous, benevolent monarch that s/he is, grants his/her subjects the (permanent, irrevocable) right to rule themselves. Eliminating the monarchy would thus be equivalent to a (peaceful) revolution, whether or not it would count as one in the history books. My guess is it would likely run along the lines of what was suggested: property belonging to Monarch-as-position goes to the state, property of the person-who-happens-to-be-monarch remains with the person. However, besides public outcry, they're really nothing stopping Parliament from claiming everything and leaving the Royal Family with nothing but the clothes on their back and a nice pension. Really, as long as they got support from the populous (and the police/military), they could even seize everything, abrogate the nobility, decapitate the Windsors, and install Gordon Brown as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. What they actually will do is whatever the electorate will stomach best (which may be leaving the Monarchy in place). -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The divine right of kings is history now, 128.104. The queen does not rule, but reign. She is strictly controlled by the Parliament and the government, with little personal discretion. She has the right to be consulted and to warn, but ultimately the Prime Minister tells her what the government is doing and planning, and if she doesn't like it and her warnings fall on deaf ears there's nothing she can do about it. The speech she reads at the opening of parliament about what her government will be doing in the coming term is written by the government, and it's crucial that she not only read it (rather than memorising it), but be seen to be reading words that are not of her own personal authorship. Although other members of the royal family cannot marry without her consent, she herself cannot marry (or divorce) without the parliament's consent. She cannot even abdicate without the parliament's consent. But she does have the right to make babies, including the next monarch, without anyone's else's involvement, apart from her husband. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm no UK constitutional scholar. Reading up on it, it seems that the divine right of kings was dumped for Parliamentary sovereignty sometime between the 16th century and 18th century. (According to Monarchy of the United Kingdom, however, it seems that technically the Sovereign is part of Parliament.) I guess I was a little mislead by the term "Sovereign", which implies that they are the one from whom all law-making ability flows. (Reading up on it, it appears that at least some lip-service is given to this thought. - All UK laws (including, presumably the one which would effect the dissolution of the Monarchy) require Royal Assent. Although Royal Assent is, by constitutional convention, almost always granted, it is listed in our article as a reserve power "a power that may be exercised by the head of state without the approval of another branch of the government." While technically the Sovereign has final say in all things, actually acting on it likely, as mentioned in Royal Prerogative, "would precipitate a constitutional crisis".) At any rate, when there's a monarch to be ousting, pesky things like laws seldom get in the way (for more, see Abolished monarchy). -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. The Queen is part of the Parliament of every Commonwealth country, and no law can come into effect without Royal Assent (whether by the monarch personally or a Governor-General acting on her behalf). If she or a G-G said they were thinking of refusing assent to a bill, they would be instructed to sign it by the relevant PM; that's ordered, not just strongly recommended. This part of the system is convoluted and apparently pointless; bills require her assent, but essentially she has no power to refuse to give that assent. The only recent case I'm aware of in a constitutional monarchy was when Baudouin I of Belgium could not, due to his religious scruples, bring himself to sign a bill making abortion legal in Belgium; the solution was to pass a law deeming him incapable of reigning for a day, which he was more than happy to sign. The abortion bill was assented to by other hands, and the next day Baudouin resumed his reign. All nice and tidy. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like she just needs a cavalier crew of royalist fighters to restore royal power over the upstart parliament. Edison (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the royal family have large interest bearing investments and own many rent paying properties in London and elsewhere?
Sleigh (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source for quote

Found this on a piece of paper on the ground...when possiblilty becomes definitive (noticeable) it moves from firstness to secondness... any ideas on a source or meaning? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.78.155.86 (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the exact quote but it looks like something by Charles Peirce. See also: Categories (Peirce). Fribbler (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim pet owners

Does a Muslim who owns a pet, a cat for instance, have an obligation to ensure that the animal is only fed Halal food when under his or her care? --84.69.38.231 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting question. I did some looking around and discovered that halal pet food definitely exists (it's mentioned here as being on display at a trade fair) and Muslim contributors to some online forums argue that pet food must be halal, because otherwise it cannot be handled and brought into a Muslim home. This extract, however, seems to indicate that it's a matter of preference and that pets in a halal-observant home may be fed anything. The keeping of dogs as pets appears to be frowned on in Islam (the Prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying "Whoever keeps a dog save for hunting or for guarding crops or cattle will lose one large measure (qirat) of his reward each day") and there's an interesting report on official attitutes to cat and dog ownership in Saudi Arabia here [1]. Looks like the answer is "depends on your interpretation". Ka renjc 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi photo manipulation?

Seems like I often read about how the Nazis and Soviets edited historical photos to remove people who had fallen out of favor. Of course, it's common knowledge that this was regularly done in Stalinist Russia, but I haven't actually found any specific examples of it being done in Nazi Germany. Were photos actually manipulated to remove, say, Ernst Röhm or Rudolf Hess in later years, or do people just say this because it seems like the kind of thing Nazis would do?—Chowbok ☠ 23:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard this about the Nazis. Just the Soviets. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few examples here and there, the most famous of which is the airbrushing out of Joseph Goebbels in this image. Nanonic (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese did it too, for a time. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this page interesting. Ka renjc 08:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1865 US Civil War Generals photo, note that not only is a general added in one photo, but the 2 photos are different, being a stereo pair. This is apparent in the lateral displacement of the boot of the general seated in the center, and the post visible in one photo. I can combine them stereoscopically without gadgets, so it is quite apparent. The extra general was added to one of the stereo pair. They also tweaked the background when the man was added to the photo.Edison (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, OK. But it's still the Soviets who did it hand-over-fist. (In part, no doubt, because the state survived much longer and did helpful things like put out new histories of its own revolution again and again.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]