Humanities desk
< December 22	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 24 >

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.

December 23

Bangladeshi Pro- and Anti-Pakistani, -Indian, -Bangladeshi

Which political parties and its members are: a)Pro-Pakistani b)Anti-Pakistani c)Pro-Indian d)Anti-Indian e)Pro-Bangladeshi g)Pro-Pakistani Muslim h)Anti-Pakistani Muslim i)Pro-Indian Muslim j)Anti-Indian Muslim l)Pro-Indian Hindu m)Anti-Indian Hindu(who supports Bangladesh Nationalist Party) n)Anti-Pakistani Hindu o)Pro-Indian Buddhist p)Anti-Indian Buddhist q)Pro-Pakistani Buddhist r)Anti-Pakistani Buddhist s)Pro-Indian Christian t)Anti-Indian Christian u)Pro-Pakistani Christian v)Anti-Pakistani Christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.244 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our article Politics of Bangladesh. Then go to our List of political parties in Bangladesh. In this list, you will find links to our articles on the major political parties of Lebanon. Read through our article on each of these parties. You will find most of the information you want. If you need further help, please let us know. Marco polo (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very few in Bangladesh are "pro-Pakistani" except for the Biharis. For many Bangladeshis, to call them either "anti-Indian" or "pro-Indian" would probably be rather simplistic... AnonMoos (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi Indigenous people

Which Indigenous people of Bangladesh follow Hinduism, Christianity and Buddhism? a)Santali b)Garo c)Mundari d)Rajbanshi e)Kurukh(Kurux) f)Oraon Sadri g)Kok Borok h)Mru i)Mizo j)Meitei k)Bishnupriya l)Trippera or Tripuri m)Assamese n)Arakanese o)Khumi Chin p)Burmese q)Sylheti r)Chakma s)Bhaya t)Rajbongshi u)War Language v)Hakha-chin w)Hajong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.244 (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on many of these ethnic groups. Please look up our articles, most of which will discuss the religion of each ethnic group. For example, our article on the Kurukh or Oraon people has a discussion of their religion. If we do not have an article on one of these groups, or if the article fails to give information on the group's religion, let us know and we will do our best to help you find more information on that group. Marco polo (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Social Security not transferred to some countries?

The U.S. Social Security Administration won't pay retirees who live in Vietnam, Cambodia, or in some of the former Soviet states. What is the rationale behind that rule? AxelBoldt (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most countries have a general rule that social security will not be paid to people who reside permanantly overseas. However, many countried have reciprocal social security agreements where each country agrees to pay to recipients who have qualified in another country. Those countries probably don't have a reciprocal agreement with the US. I know this is the case with Australia (where I live) and it is likely similar in the US. --Jabberwalkee (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I believe the issue of reciprocal agreements cannot be the full answer though: the (rather small) list of countries with reciprocal agreements with the U.S. is given here, yet Social Security will also be paid to Americans retiring in almost all other countries. The publication states "Social Security restrictions prohibit sending payments to individuals in Cambodia, Vietnam or areas that were in the former Soviet Union" but doesn't give the rationale. AxelBoldt (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site states that Cambodia adopted its first social security law only in 2002; maybe that's a factor? The link you posted suggests that you can get exceptions in places like Cambodia (if you're willing to go to the embassy to get your check), but not in North Korea or Cuba (which don't have American embassies). --- OtherDave (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

If I were to make a bootsplash theme for Splashy based on Windows Vista images and make it publicly available under the GNU license (though explicitly stating the rights to the images are reserved to Microsoft and therefore not included under the GNU license) would this be a violation of any law? TIA, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 06:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't give legal advice and your question is likely impossible to answer without knowing where you live. However it's meaningless to claim something is under a GPL/GFDL license (what GNU license specifically are you talking about?) when it's clearly not. Neither license allows such exceptions. It is unlikely your theme would be accepted in any site which requires freely licensed content since your content is clearly not freely licensed. In general terms, using Microsoft's copyrighted content without their permission may fall foul of the law which some exceptions, e.g. those used in accordance to fair use in the US which is unlikely to be the case here. Even if it doesn't violate the law, Microsoft could probably still ask you to remove the content and/or sue you for copyright violation. Suffice to say it's unlikely to be a goold idea to do whatever you are trying to do. Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am in the U.S. The site to which I would be submitting this content does not require freely licensed material. I saw a theme there based on OS X. This made me assume that perhaps this was acceptable. However, would this be a violation of copyright? I would use their images, yes, but I would state in the documentation provided with the theme I create that these images are copyrighted by Microsoft and are not public domain. Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 06:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only talk in general terms but yes, generally speaking creating a theme using content from Microsoft and then distributing that theme would be violating Microsoft's copyright. If you create a theme similar to that used in Microsoft's products but without actually using any of their content it can get more tricky I believe. Note that saying you don't own the copyright, Microsoft does, doesn't actually change matters much since you need Microsoft's permission to re-distribute their copyrighted works which it is unlikely you have or can secure. You may be interested in an actual legal case Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporationas well as the general concept of Look and feel. Although in this case Microsoft won, bear in mind the key issues here were they had a license and they weren't simply copying Apple's content. See also Aqua (user interface) which has mention of various threats Apple has made and [1]. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the core of copyright in the U.S. is the right to control the display and duplication of the work in question, including so-called derivative works. Disney may not yet have created an image of Mickey Mouse as part of the Borg, but since they have the copyright on Mickey, Borg Mickey would likely be a derivative work. So too with Microsoft (in my non-lawyer, non-legal opinion) when it comes to images based on those in Windows Vista -- or, for that matter, Microsoft Bob. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using "human rights" to justify racism and religious discrimination

I know that Americans care a lot about free speech and human rights and I think that is good. But I find some Americans are racist (I am Asian) because of human rights. They think that because Asians are more conservative and care less about human rights, we are inferior to Americans. They only see the bad sides about Asian cultures (lack human rights) and do not see the good sides (look at all the ancient Chinese inventions). For example, look at Wikipedia's article on Asian values, saying that it is "to justify authoritarian regimes in Asia". In the same way, many Americans hate Muslims because they think about the lack of human rights in Muslim culture, but never think about the good sides. Is there a word or phrase for this kind of racism and religious discrimination? Any websites where I can do more research about it? --59.189.61.144 (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a website but if you read books by Geert Hofstede you will find an interesting discussion on the differences in attitudes between societies to human rights, and whether they are construed as individualistic or group-based. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably boil that all down to xenocentrism and xenophobia. If you had this conversation with The Average American, he would probably say, "Sure, you invented fireworks, but then you ran over that guy with a tank." If you pressed him on the issue, he would then admit that he knew nothing else about China, since he had recently discovered that crab rangoon is not an authentic Chinese dish. And the rest of Asia? There's Vietnam (that horrible war), South Korea (that other horrible war), North Korea (where bad people go when they die), Thailand (rampant prostitution), Cambodia (The Killing Fields), Japan (kamikaze and bukkake), and all those other countries that are either names on a map or too far west to be "really" Asian. Most Americans are simply not well-traveled internationally and do not have a nuanced knowledge of world cultures and history. Only major events and catastrophic social problems in other countries make it into the evening news, and only the most strikingly "foreign" actually stick in the minds of viewers. So to many Americans, much of the outside world can be classified as either dismal and impoverished or violent and threatening.

That being said, there are plenty of intelligent, educated Americans who are horrified by other countries' records on human rights. There are plenty of other countries who are horrified by America's record on human rights. The whole concept behind human rights is that they don't vary from country to country; the idea is that human beings have certain, inherent rights which must be respected, and it is the responsibility of individuals and governments to challenge other individuals and governments to uphold those rights. This is a popular idea worldwide, but it's absolutely crucial to American identity. If there's one sentence of the United States Constitution your average American schoolkid can quote, it's this line from the Bill of Rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." When you've had that concept drilled into your head from childhood, it is, yes, shocking to hear that some people simply don't much value the concept of human rights. Once you're past the initial shock, some would say that the correct course of action is to work at furthering the cause of human rights worldwide, since inventing paper does not, in fact, give China the right to oppress its own citizens. Others would argue that to do so is cultural colonialism. All would probably agree that declaring yourself superior to any given Asian due to your country's supposedly heightened respect for human rights is complete and utter idiocy. And yet people do tend to get pompous when discussing issues like this, and to descend into either unapologetic xenocentrism or exaggerated allophilia after the first few sentences. But suffice to say, if somebody seems like they're just looking for an excuse to be racist, then they're probably just looking for an excuse to be racist. --Fullobeans (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." comes from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution, as you probably knew but temporarily forgot. —Kevin Myers 14:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why one should not edit Wikipedia in the wee hours during extended bouts of insomnia. --Fullobeans (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that there is a difference between racism and culturalism. Racism = genetics. That is to say one race is genetically inferior to another. Culture = learned behavior. One can critisize another culture without being a racist. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an Ugly American (though a naturalized one), so perhaps I can explain our position. I just don't buy the Chinese government's assertions that Asians are somehow different to the rest of the world and don't want political freedom. I think the true racist position would be to give the backward and repressive Chinese government a pass on such self-serving nonsense on the grounds that its citizens just like a boot in their face. It's similar to how many non-Americans like Americans they've met personally, but loathe our government's policies (ahem). --Sean 17:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean, I'd classfy you as ignorant, rather than ugly. First, I have no idea what you look like. Second, "I just don't buy the Chinese government's assertions that Asians are somehow different to the rest of the world and don't want political freedom." is a statement that bears no relationship to Chinese government policy. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling that postmodernism doesn't get enough airing in the US school curriculum. Sentiments - labels - like "the backward and repressive Chinese government" is what generated the original poster's ire in the first place.

All governments have problems, no government is perfect. Yet each government will try its best to justify its actions and present itself as respecting human rights. Labels are dangerous because they de-humanise. The more reasonable attitude that a person who cares for human rights should adopt, is to avoid judgment of the government or people as a whole, but seek to identify problems and then campaign to have those problems resolved.

For example, the United States goes around the world violating other countries' sovereignty on made-up charges and causing death and destruction. Is that better or worse than gunning down your own citizens on public streets with tanks? To me at least, that's hard to say. What we can certainly say is that both are violations of human rights and should be condemned. Is one government more backward and repressive than the other one? Or is it better to repress foreign people than your own citizens? It all depends on your own value paradigm.

It's sometimes important to remember - and difficult to grasp - that most values are cultural and not universally shared, especially on a comparative basis. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm one of those who loath the US government's policies and hope they can get back on track about human rights once Bush is out. They always have been rather hypocritical in international affairs and I can live with that but the last few years have been just horrible as far as any pretense of being the leaders of a western civilization is concerned. Britain at the same time has been slipping into becoming a police state and the only current beacon of human rights is the other countries in the EU. As to China I don't see how inventing printing can in any way offset not having human rights or the plantation of Tibet, the original poster is free to quote any study they find showing why the two are linked and write it up and cite it in a relevant article. Dmcq (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Race of Santa Claus?

In countries where the population is predominantly non-white, is Santa Claus ever described as belonging to the same race as the majority race of that country? So, are there Black Santas, Arabic Santas, Hispanic Santas, Oriental Santas etc.? Or is he always a white man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.67.81 (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but in Holland St. Nicholas has a black assistant Zwarte Piet, which has given rise to controversy in recent times. Also, one of the Three Wise Men has been commonly traditionally protrayed as black... AnonMoos (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some Google image searching on your behalf, using the various names for Santa Claus listed at our Santa Claus article. The only thing I learned is that it's awfully hard to guess at somebody's ethnicity when they've got a giant white beard covering most of their face; Arabic and Hispanic Santas would be impossible to differentiate. The Arabic Wikipedia article about the (I think) Egyptian version, Baba Noel, has a picture of an icon of Saint Nicholas, rather than the stylized jolly ol' Santa we're used to. So that may or may not mean that Egyptian Christians stuck with a more literal version of St. Nick. And I've seen black Santas in the US, in the form of both decorations and actual people in Santa suits, but neither seems particularly common. --Fullobeans (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are black Santas inside the US. You may have to hunt for the or go to shops in predominately black areas, but they exist.--droptone (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Black Santa" was an Aboriginal man descended from the Yuen people of the NSW coast, Australia. He lived most of his life in Alexandria in Sydney and became famous for his visits to Indigenous children in the state's west at Christmas. Sydney 'Doc' Cunningham for more than 30 years, pursuaded Sydney residents to donate toys so Aboriginal children could experience Christmas. He was presented with an Order of Australian Merit in 1989. For more information see the following link http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2@paradigm4.com.au/msg00426.html

There's a santa who wears all-black in Belfast, Ireland[2] who stages sit-outs for charity. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney "Doc" Cunningham? (Australian aboriginal Santa) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus in East Asia is certainly a Caucasian man, because he has a curly beard that you are unlikely to find on an old man in those countries (people there would more usually have straight, flowing beards: cf File:Three star gods my ceramic.jpg. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A thin young Palestinian with curly black hair is Santa-in-suit at Bethlehem promoting town safety for tourist reasons as of last night's TV. Like the way some people aren't even trying to make the white wigness convincing. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the mythical Santa is said to be based on St. Nicholas = Nicholas of Myra (now Turkey), black might be just as far off as the pasty-white Nothpole dwelling story Santa Claus. However, I'd like to leave it to the story editors to explain how a black guy ended up that far north. I'm rather critical of the trend to adopt other culture's myths and stories. Would a Native American Hamlet still be Hamlet? Is forgetting e.g. a story describing Kuruk hunting a buffalo and supplanting it with "politically corrected" tales from other cultures really enriching us? Would a white "Porgy and Bess" make sense or be an entirely different story? One might argue that there has always been some adoption of other peoples stories going on throughout history, but whereas in those days the tellers could claim ignorance, these days with information readily available, what's the excuse? Isn't it a rather poor statement to twist the race of an existing icon rather than adding one just as strong from your own racial/cultural background? (Hint to marketing there's a huge gap between removing the easter bunny displays and putting halloween pumpkins up. Go fish there's got to be somewhere with some interesting myth/celebration/event to commercialize.)76.97.245.5 (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Binoculars on the Titanic

I happened to read a line in the Timeline of the sinking of the RMS Titanic that the lookouts in the Crow's nest of the Titanic did not have binoculars. Surprised that a luxury ship such as this did not provide binoculars to the crew, I investigated the source of this information. I got different versions on the pages of the lookouts Frederick Fleet and Reginald Lee - Frederick Fleet said that the binoculars were "misplaced", and Reginald Lee said the binoculars were not "on board". I modified Frederick Fleet to be consistent with the other lookout's article. Later, I found another version in David Blair (mariner) where it says he had "locked out" the binoculars. An external biography of Blair doesn't talk about the locking out theory, but says he had the binoculars "stowed away" in his cabin. Apparently his key has been auctioned as the key that could have prevented the sinking of the ship. Any idea what is the real story behind the binoculars? Jay (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading the White Line auction catalogue that had the key in it, and some of Blair's personal effects. If I remember correctly, he simply forgot he had the key with him when he left the Titanic, and he felt incredibly guilty about it until his death. Skinny87 (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong

It is a commonplace that people hallucinate based on their cultural experiences. So drugs or psychosis can lead someone raised in a Christian culture to believe they are Christ. There's a recognised phenomenon of pilgrims in the Holy Land, often with no history of mental illness, going doolally: Jerusalem syndrome. What about people from other cultures, when they hallucinate? Do Muslims think they are Mohammed, or is that too taboo for even the ill mind? Do Buddhists think they are Buddha? Who are the most popular world leaders in the asylums of 2008? I wonder if there are many Napoleons left. (The question title, by the way, is from the lyrics of "Industrial Disease" by Dire Straits.) BrainyBabe (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an answer to your question, but the equivalents you offer for Jesus in Islam and Buddhism are not exactly right; a Muslim who thinks himself the messias would have to believe he is the Mahdi, not Mohammed, and there have been many who claimed that they were. And two Buddhists who both think they are Buddha could actually be correct according to that religion - Buddhahood can be attained more than once. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the songwriters read Rokeach's The Three Christs of Ypsilanti? --- OtherDave (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, anyone who thinks they have have become Buddhahood have not, in consequence of thinking such a thing, and are merely deluded. Thus that saying about killing the Buddha. Pfly (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong" - Comment: At most one of them can be right, but most probably both are wrong. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Minority in Pakistan

When it comes to Shi'a Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism, which provinces has the most numbers of the minorities and which language do they speak, besides Urdu? a)Punjab b)Sindh c)Northwest Frontier Province d)Balochistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.52 (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow a multiple choice question on the refdesk! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in India

a)Besides Urdu, which other languages do they speak in India? b)Which ethnic groups have numbers of Shi'a Islam (Ithna Ash'ari, Ismaili) foolowers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.52 (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know b, but for a we have a very nice little article called Languages of India. Look under the section Official languages for a nice little list (we even have an article on this specific topic). The main languages are Hindi and English, with a few more trailing (like Bengali). Urdu is infact a few pegs down on the list. Belisarius (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Muslims generally speak Urdu rather than Hindi. Both are forms of Hindustani and are mutually intelligible at the level of everyday conversation (less so when it comes to learned discourse). While English is a "main language" of India, relatively few Indians—Hindu or Muslim—speak it at home or outside of certain professional contexts. Besides Urdu, which is spoken by Muslims mainly in northwestern and central India as far south as Mumbai and Hyderabad, Indian Muslims in other parts of India tend to speak the same language as their Hindu compatriots in the same region. For example, Muslims in Bihar tend to speak Magahi, Bhojpuri, or Maithili; Muslims in West Bengal tend to speak Bengali; Muslims in Tamil Nadu tend to speak Tamil, and so on. Marco polo (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we had this question before? We've had dozens of extremely similar ones, at least. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian languages

Which language groups do Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Cambodian, Filipino, Laotian, Malaysian, Indonesian, Burmese nd Vietnamese people and their mother language belong to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.12 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some helpful information at Chinese language, Japanese language, Korean language, Thai language, Cambodian language, Filipino language, Laotian language, Malaysian language, Indonesian language, Burmese language and Vietnamese language. The language family for each language is listed in the infobox at the right side of each page. --Lph (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Depression-era apple sellers get their apples?

There are photos from the Great Depression of men on U.S. city streets selling apples for 5 cents. Where did those men typically obtain the apples? --Lph (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but the question sent me looking for prices. On the second-last page of this report from the Census Bureau, I saw that the price for a dozen oranges, 1931-1940, varied between 22 and 39 cents a dozen. (I'm simplifying here, as the stats do.) That's 2 to 3 cents an orange. If you sell an orange for a nickel, you'd be doing well. Apples are grown over a much wider area, so may have been cheaper wholesale. If you sold an apple for a nickel (on the small-luxury principle), you'd be doing even better. You could probably get them from central markets, grocery wholesales, farmers, wholesalers, or a country-dwelling friend or relative. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The apples were provided by the International Apple Shippers' Association, which sold them on credit because of an apple surplus in the Pacific Northwest. John M Baker (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Internatinal Apple Shippers Association was getting 2.4 cents per apple selling in large quantities. I found at Newspaperarchive.com (subscription) a 1936 advertisement from the Albuquerque Journal, Oct 3, 1936, where apples (Delicious, Johnathan, or Rome) were 4 pounds /25 cents. Wikianswers [3] says the average weight of an apple is 5 ounces, implying a cost of about 2 cents per apple. Great markup to sell them for 5 cents each. It was something of an act of charity for the person with a nickel to spare to buy the apple from the guy, but also perhaps a convenience worth the markup. In an October 1930 ad I found "eating and cooking apples" in the Newark Advocate also just under 2 cents each, assuming 5 ounce apples. Some other ads from the late 1930's had them ads at about 1.5 cents each. Note that the rate for labor during the depression got down to 5 cents for an hour. Edison (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After some research, the sellers discovered that apples grow on trees. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]