Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 February 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.

February 13

Native American Names in English

Why do we translate these into English (eg "Sitting Bull" instead of some approximation of "Ta-Tanka I-Yotank")? The convention seems to be limited to Native American Indians- It isn't done with Africans present or historical, Pacific Islanders, Aboriginals or even natives of Latin America. Is this an Indian initiated thing or a European one? It's been bugging me for a while, so, if anyone knows, please comment. Furius (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's largely a European thing. Many Indian names were considered unpronounceable and the colonizers would use a of the name translation instead. The individuals thus entered the history books with translated names, which is why the names are still used today, even if the modern practice is to refer to them as much as possible by their name in their own language. It is not something that is done any more, except for a few exceptions where the translation has become someone's official family name (eg. Billy Two-Rivers, or Mary Two-Axe Early, both of whom would be notable enough to merit a wiki article). It should also be noted that the trend went both ways. Samuel de Champlain's successor as governor of New France was Charles de Montmagny; the Hurons called him "Onontio", a name that was equivalent to "large mountain" in their language (see here: [1]); yhis in turn became the generic name for his successors. --Xuxl (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't read French, we have Onontio. —Kevin Myers 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would venture to suggest that another reason (not denying the reason above) is because Native American names are supposed to actually mean something. When Sitting Bull was given that name it was intended to convey something; the English translation does that to an English speaker (to some extent) and the sounds of the native language name don't. We don't translate "Johannes Schmidt" as "John Smith" when talking English because the name is essentially a label - it doesn't mean anything, it just identifies the label. Native names are in theory different. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

But we do routinely translate the given names of monarchs, popes etc into their supposed English equivalents. Well, we used to; perhaps not so much these days. Beatrix of the Netherlands would in days gone by have been called Beatrice, and Margrete II of Denmark would have been called Margaret. (Although Pope John Paul II was never known in the anglosphere as Jan Paweł or Giovanni Paolo - but popes are a special case because they represent not just their country of origin or the Vatican, but Catholics everywhere.) And even some non-monarchs got it to a degree - Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky was often referred to as Peter Tchaikovsky. The French used to call Ludwig van Beethoven "Louis van Beethoven". I've even seen Johann Sebastian Bach referred to as "John Sebastian Bach" in olde-world texts. Etc. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A fairly large number of Native American names are not translated, or are merely "Anglicized". Relatively well-known examples that come to mind include: Geronimo, Massasoit, Pocahontas, Squanto, Osceola, Seattle, Leschi, Attakullakulla, Hiawatha, Tecumseh, Sequoyah, Oconostota, and Pontiac. It seems to me that the tradition of translated names into English words was most common for the Plains Indians, and especially the Lakota people (such as Sitting Bull). Perhaps this is because these Indians were among the last to be subjugated, I'm not sure.

I can't remember the author, but there is a series of books about a world where the Roman Empire never fell, and the Legions reach what we call North America, where they encounter Native Americans, among them "Equus Insanus". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Could it be the Aquiliad by Somtow Sucharitkul? I heard someone say that it has characters like "Cumulus Rubio", which ought to be Nimbus Ruber; such sloppiness turns me off even in humor. —Tamfang (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

John Kufour's wife

Since John Kufour is born on December 8, 1938, then how old would his wife be? The article I seen said John Kufour married Terri Mensah in 1962, so I thought John's wife would not be younger than 64 or born later than 1964? What year you think John Kufour's wife is born?--69.226.42.163 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean John Kufuor, who married Theresa Mensah in 1962. He met and married her while he was an undergraduate at Oxford in 1961-62. She was a fellow Ghanaian who had trained as a nurse in Britain, so it seems reasonable to suppose she is about the same age as Kufuor. Xn4 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Who told you She was a fellow Ghanaian who had trained as a nurse in Britain, so it seems reasonable to suppose she is about the same age as Kufuor. . John went to school in England, he himself graduated college in 1962-then he was 24 at that time His wife has her own life. What year was Kufour's wife a training nurse? Is this safe to say Mrs Kufour is one year younger than Mr. Kufour?--69.226.42.163 (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have some basis for guessing her age more accurately (a birth year, a report with her age, the year she got a PhD), it's risky to state that she's one year, five years, or fifteen years older--or younger. William O. Douglas was 67 when he married his fourth wife, who was 23. Strom Thurmond was 68 when he married Nancy Moore, who also was 23. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ivor Agyeman-Duah's Ghana: the real Kufuor; A new biography of President John Agyekum Kufuor - Between Faith and History: "Theresa Mensah, who had finished her nursing training and was about to begin a four-year mid-wifery course at the Oxford University Hospital..." Xn4 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• mr. Kufour only married one wife Terri, Mr. and Mrs. Kufour went to Tokyo, Japan in 2002, and made to Whitehouse in September 15, 2008. I just saw from one website, Mr. and Mrs. Kufour married in 1962, same time Mwai and Lucy Kibaki married. They are 77 (born November 15, 1931) and 68 (born 1940). What's amazing is when black people gets old, they seem to look like they are alot younger, they hardly get grey or white hair until they are in the late 60s or even 70s.[2]

a more direct link to that picture —Tamfang (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Daniel Arap Moi is born in September 2, 1924, 84 years old. If you are looking at his picture, you think he is like in his 60s, No, becasue he is much older. He didn't even get white hair until he was in his 70s. Lena Moi, is said to be born no later than 1929, she seperated from Daniel Arap Moi in 1974, and deceased in 2004 in the mid 70s. Sadly, I never seen pictures on Lena Moi, I guess she her skin is very black, but I don't know. We have no photos about Lena Moi, she just left 8 childs, and the youngest is Gideon Moi born in 1964. Zelma henderson the lady who worked at Brown Board vs. Kansas Education, born in February 29, 1920 and died in may 20, 2008 at age 88. When she left and died, you normally would think she is in the 60s by her beautiful brown skin, and brown-yellow hair, suprisingly, she is alot older. Robert Mugabe is born in February 21, 1924, turning 85 very soon. He married two wives. First wife is Sally Hayfron in 1961, when Robert was like 37 years old. Sally was born in June 1931, and died in janyary 27, 1992 sadly at age 60. In 1996, he married Grace Mugabe in 1996, Robert was 74, and Grace (born in 1965) was only 22.--69.226.42.163 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Are Myra Soble and Jack Soble still alive?

And if not, when did they die? The WP articles have no details, and I would like to complete the articles on them? I googled them, and still no luck. Can anyone help? Myles325a (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention it but whoever has contributed to the articles have written them as if the subjects are dead. They use 'was' in describing them (which suggests they are no more) - compare it to say an article about a famous actor - oh i don't know lets just say John Travolta...his article starts 'John Travolta is...' - again if you pick another at random, lets say Roger Moore...his article starts 'Roger Moore is...'. By no means definitive proof at all, but certainly based on the way the articles are written I would have assumed both were dead. Will try a bit of searching to see if can find out something more definitive though. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OP myles325a back. You will see your theory collapse when you consider the following quote from the beginning of this article: "He was the fifteenth Democrat elected to that office. He was the third-youngest president..." This refers to Bill Clinton. When the person is known for something they did in the past, it is normal to use the past tense. Thus the Roger Moore article could have begun: "Roger Moore was the third actor to play James Bond". Thanks for the offer to help on the Sobles project. Strange business that...not being able to find it on the net. I might have to take off this oxygen mask and walk to the Library...Myles325a (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I just now searched the New York Times for the Sobles, and they seem to have dropped off the planet in 1963. The search I used only goes to three years before today or 2005, whichever it does because it says both. So, if we can expect the Times to have reported their deaths, they were still alive in 2004. I'm starting to smell relocation—they disappeared from the news. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added them to Category:Possibly living people. Jay (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see John Z has added 1974 as the date of Jack Soble's death, but without a citation. If Myra were still alive, she would be very nearly 105, and Jack 111, which seems to me to give them both only the slimmest chance of being alive and keeping out of the news! In the US, there are about 200 centenarians per million of the population, and only about one in a thousand centenarians gets to the age of 110. Xn4 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just gave the citation [3], in Vietnamese, which has (1897-1974) for Jack and (1899-1971) for Myra. The birth for Jack agrees with other sources, but our article has Myra born in 1904, so didn't change that. Social Security death index comes up with nothing for either - closest is a Jack Sobel 1897-1988. (Probably that one was a screenwriter, from other sources, place of death) John Z (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Myra was pardoned in 1991; are posthumous pardons common practice? —Tamfang (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OP myles325 back. Thanks for all the good work, guys. This is what WP Help Desk is all about. Interesting idea about the relocation, too. Wondering about that Vietnamese ref. Vietnam was an firm champion of Stalin and the Sobles were died in the wool Stalinists, but even so, why would an obit appear there and no where else? It might not be entirely dependable, but it is worth reporting in the articles on the Sobles, with a disclaimer. It would mean that our Sobles articles were more up-to-date than any other source in the world on this matter. Myles325a (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't read Vietnamese but the article does not look like an obituary. —Tamfang (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

From google translation, it's an article about spy families. Now that I look again, most sources have Jack born in 1903, and I can't find the ones confirming 1897, lessening the credibility of the Vietnamese article. So I think the vietnamese ref belongs, but not as a clear fact. He used other names Abromas/Abraham Sobolevicius and Adolph/A Senin. John Z (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Facebook and intellectual property

From the terms and services page on Facebook[4]--does this mean what it looks like it means?

"You are solely responsible for the User Content that you Post on or through the Facebook Service. You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses."

I'm not looking for legal advice, since I have no plans on doing anything in particular--just a translation. Either this is saying that, if I post a great work of art to facebook, they own it--or it's only saying that I can't sue them just because when I post a photo from my computer it later shows up on my ex-boyfriend's computer (or whatever). It seems to pretty definitely saying that they can use my picture and even my full name in advertisements and there's nothing I can do about it--is that a fair reading? --Masamage ♫ 06:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The British singer Billy Bragg picked up this issue a couple of years ago in regards to posting his music on MySpace. As a result they were forced to change their terms and conditions. See Myspace#Musicians' rights and MySpace Terms of Use Agreement. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

They are basically saying that they can do basically anything with whatever you post on their website. It's a very, very, very broad license. They don't say they own it—you still own it, they can't do anything to stop your use of it—but they are saying that you are basically giving them permission to act as if you sold it to them (to the point that they can sell that permission to others as well!). It's a pretty nasty clause. I wouldn't post anything that you'd hate someone else to become a distributor of anytime soon on Facebook. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is causing considerable drama. I got asked about it at work during lunch, as if I were supposed to know something, and what's worse, I did, because of some blog rant I'd read earlier in the day. Now there's a slashdot thread about it: [5] 207.241.239.70 (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears FB have suspended this change, pending discussion(ie reversed for now). They know they upset a lot of people.

Terms of Use Update

Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog. If you want to share your thoughts on what should be in the new terms, check out our group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

BrainyBabe (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that! Awesome~ --Masamage ♫ 16:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

KALORIES

GREETING SIR I HAVE HURD THAT IN THE UNITED AMERICA THE POOR CONCUME MORE KALORIES THAT THE RICHE IS IT TRUE PLEASE THANK YOU IN THE WAIT OF YOUR RESPONSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes, that is true. The reason is that "diet foods", those which are healthy and filling with minimal calories, are more expensive than "junk food", containing many calories but few nutrients. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Food isn't expensive in a first world country like the US, pretty much everyone can afford to eat healthily. I expect the difference is more one of education, culture and attitudes. --Tango (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, gram for gram highly processed and preserved foods which a lower in nutritional value and higher in caloric content do tend to cost less than do whole foods which are better for you. See this article and this more general google search for a detailed discussion of the issue. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know that. Tango's claim is that even reasonably healthy food is cheap enough (in the US) that most people can afford it. Algebraist 18:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To properly answer this question, I think that the terms "POOR" and "RICHE"(sp) need to be defined. The facts are correct about processed and preserved foods, etc, but the question is about actual consumption if I am reading it correctly. In that sense, a very poor street dweller who wanders in search of the next meal is going to consume far less calories than a fine wine and lavish seafood, steak and desert devouring wealthy individual. (man, I'm getting hungry!) :-) cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that people who are actually homeless, and do find it difficult to find enough food to eat, are less likely to be obese. However, people who are poor, but not homeless, and can afford as much food as they want, are more likely to be obese. While these people could "afford" to buy healthier food, that would mean giving up something else important to them, while the rich can afford to eat healthy without giving up anything important (perhaps their saving rate is 1% less than it would be otherwise). StuRat (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. Here are some references:

(1) The World Health Organization reported in 2004 that the people who tend to be fat change as countries become richer. In poor countries, fat people tend to be rich. In rich countries, fat people tend to be poor. The United States is one of the rich countries.

(2) An academic article from last June says that in America, poor people are becoming fat more quickly than rich people are becoming fat. They also found that people who live in rich neighbourhoods in the United States are more likely to eat fresh fruit and vegetables (which relates to the healthy quality of food mentioned by the other responders).

(3) Another article done in 1996 looked at whether being rich or poor affects being fat or thin among 9-year-old girls in the United States. It found that white children were fatter in poor families. However, there wasn't any pattern for black children.

(10draftsdeep, I searched for "socioeconomic status" as a shorthand for rich and poor; my best guess.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sex Slaves, Juarez, Mexico or Laredo??

Often on the border between Mexico and the US there are tales of women being kidnapped and taken into Mexico by drug cartels and being sold into the sex slave industry. 1.) It is my understanding that Juarez, Mexico shares the border line to El Paso. 2.) I do not know the Mexican town that shares the border with Laredo. Which of these two areas experiences the aforementioned criminal activity more?? Thanks and I will SO give you a cookie if you can answer this'n!! Rivka (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Across the border from Laredo, Texas you will find Nuevo Laredo (New Laredo). StuRat (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the tale hard to believe, myself, as crossing the border with a kidnapped woman is fairly likely to result in capture, and the perps would get a very severe sentence for that. Why risk it when they could just grab any of the numerous American tourists who are in Mexico at any given time ? That way, there is no risky border crossing. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a case of "Beware of the Swarthy Ferners! The darkies are here to steal your precious white women and children and sell them into slavery! Send the ferners back to where they came from and secure our borders" Its a piece of racist bullshit, and has no basis in reality for exactly all the reasons you describe. No one is kidnapping rich blonde white girls and dragging them into Nuevo Laredo to set them up as sex slaves. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, everyone knows that it's the Albanians that are taking rich blonde white girls. Seems like a case of the wrong swarthy, foreigners being blamed. Tomdobb (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Um... okay... is anyone who has an actual answer going to answer my query? My question did not say what race of woman was being kidnapped. Why does it have to be white women? There are Mexicans in these cities. Perhaps that's why none of you have ever heard of them being kidnapped?? Hmm...maybe so... Anyway, question SO not answered...if it matters at all to any of you I am a triple minority so there's no reason to assume I was referencing white women in any fashion...Rivka (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I was only able to search English-language sources, not Spanish. Everything that turned up via Google was about the trafficking of women from Central America through Mexico or from Mexico directly to the US, not in the other direction. For example: this pdf, Houston Chronicle article, New York Times article, United Nations report. That doesn't mean, of course, that women are not trafficked both ways across the border. Best I can suggest is you directly contact an anti-trafficking group in the areas you are asking about: Coalition Against Human Trafficking in Houston, Texas, Libertad Latina, El Paso Police Department Human Trafficking Task Force. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also the female homicides in Ciudad Juárez. Not kidnapping or trafficking, but it illustrates a history of crime against women in the area. Tomdobb (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That does give me some assistance, Tomdobb. Thank you very much. WikiJedits, I may do that. Thank you both for your help! Really Appreciate that.Rivka (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reparations for Slavery in US

I know that there is a proposal in the works for the US African Americans for this. However, is or has there been anything similar for the Native Americans? In history, which was treated harsher by the Europeans: the Native Americans or the African Americans? I guess I am not looking for an opinion, just a historical comparison. --Emyn ned (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that Canada has made recuperation of land and money to the Inuits. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Recuperation ? Was the land and money sick ?  :-) Yes, I realize that that is a correct usage, but not a very common one, at least here in Detroit. Remuneration might be in order, instead, or perhaps reimbursement. Or how about simple compensation ? StuRat (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

it's why they can operate casinos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Canada's policy in dealing with claims by indigenous groups is two-fold; unfortunately the article Aboriginal land claim is a bare-bones stub. Canada accepts comprehensive claims for land that has historically been used and/or occupied by indigenous groups but which was never ceded to the British (or Canadian) crown by treaty. This is how the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that led to the creation of the Territory of Nunavut came into being. The other types of claims are "specific claims", which deal with things like improper expropriation of lands from indigenous groups when building railroads, establishing military bases, etc. Neither of these processes are akin to the claims of African-Americans whose ancestors were victims of slavery.

In Canada, there have been exceptional compensation paid to wronged groups for somewhat similar situations: the Inuit families that were moved to Grise Fjord in the 1950s, the survivors of Indian Residential Schools, or Japanese-Canadians interned during World War II. In all cases, only living survivors were compensated for wrongs done directly by the government. However, in the case of slavery, there are no survivors left, only descendants, and the government's role was allowing a system to exist, not directly enslaving persons. As a result, such precedents would be difficult to apply, although elements of these settlements that go beyond direct compensation to victims - such as creating government-funded foundations that teach about the shameful history and work to better relations between races - could be used as a model. --Xuxl (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any reparations "proposal in the works," although it is an idea that comes up fairly often. And to say reparations for American Indians is "why they can operate casinos" isn't really in the realm of accuracy. Some articles that may help answer your question are tribal sovereignty and Indian Reorganization Act. Tomdobb (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

how is it not "in the realm of accuracy" when it's the very reason for this existence? Everything you said about tribal sovereignty = reparations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The allowance to operate casinos is not a matter of reparations, it's a matter of jurisdiction. Essentially the native peoples are allowed to set their own rules about whether gambling is allowed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And why do you suppose they are allowed to set their own rules about anything? Could the fact that America is their land to begin with and Europeans stole it from them have something to do with it...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledging the sovereignty of American Indians doesn't really strike me as the same thing as reparations. At least not the common usage, which is monetary compensation. But either way. This is quickly devolving into a debate, which is not the point of reference desk. Tomdobb (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Giving them sovereignty over limited areas is not a matter of "repaying" them for past grievances. In fact, it's actually the results of said grievances—it's a legal system which evolved as a way of putting said natives onto smaller and smaller parcels and avoiding riots and war with them. That the natives have found ways to exploit the jurisdiction issues to their advantage speaks more for their own ingenuity than it does the will of those who set up those laws in the first place (which was done long before the issues of casinos came into the picture). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I would have said. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Who was treated harsher? Who could say? Is it worse to be invaded, lied to, mostly exterminated, and eventually given small plots of generally useless land to run as you please; or is it worse to be taken from your lands, forced into generations of harsh servitude, eventually released, and kept as second-class citizens for over a century afterwards? Neither are exactly plum experiences. Comparing which is "worse" seems like a pretty difficult exercise in my opinion—both options a fundamentally appalling to those who really believe that "all men are created equal" and should be treated with equal dignity no matter what color of their skin or who their parents happened to be. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to original comment about Reparations for Slavery in US, according to this Snopes article it was a scam or a misunderstanding. The article mentions emails from 2002, but I'm sure it's still circulating. So, if it doesn't exist for African-Americans, then it wouldn't for Native Americans.Tobyc75 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The US might start by keeping a couple of the existing contracts they closed with native nations. Instead the usual procedure seem to be that some court rules that since they haven't bothered to keep the contract up to now it's not valid. Honoring a couple of those contracts would at least be a step towards acknowledging that "we're right because we have the guns" may be effective, but is morally questionable. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I was present during a discussion of reparations at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA. Much work has been generated on this topic. The mainstream discussion of reparations tends not focus on monetary damages as in a lawsuit. Rather, the focus has shifted to atoning by committing funds to economic projects to benefit African-Americans and address social concerns that affect the black community in the United States. I believe the link between righting a declared wrong publicly through the use of very specific funding of special projects is under discussion. The participants agreed that pure monetary damages will never be accepted by white Americans.75Janice (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)75Janice

Samuel Beckett quote in Deleuze & Guatarri...

In A Thousand Plateaus by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, the section 1874: Three Novellas, or "What Happened?" contains a quote from Samuel Beckett;

Beckett's unforgettable line is an indictment of all voyages: "We don't travel for the fun of it, as far as I know; we're foolish, but not that foolish."

D&G don't provide a reference for this quote in the footnotes, and I've been unable to track it down through other means. Does anyone know where it comes from? Richard Hock (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In Lawrence Graver & Raymond Federman's Samuel Beckett at google books[6] there's some reference to travel tensions in a short work, "Mercier and Camier" but not that quote, just the spirit of it being not for fun. Maybe the quote is in that work. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC) PS the book article is crying out for content by the way, JR

The difficulty stems from the fact that Massumi translated the line (of Mercier et Camier, as the above submission suggests) from the French himself, rather than quoting from Beckett's English translation. In French the line reads "nous ne voyageons pas pour le plaisir de voyager, que je sache, dit Camier. Nous sommes cons, mais pas à ce point." Beckett's English version reads "We are not faring for the love of faring, that I know of, said Camier. Cunts we may be, but not to that extent." It comes from the end of Chapter IV in the English, or Chapter V in the French.

Native Americans/African Americans

In history, which was treated harsher by the Europeans: the Native Americans or the African Americans? I am not looking for an opinion, just a historical comparison.--Emyn ned (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think opinion is all you're going to be able to get..? They both got treated pretty darn horribly, what with torture and murder and enslavement and dislocation. Which atrocities are "worse" can only be subjective. --Masamage ♫ 19:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To be overly general, the Native Americans were pushed off their land through whatever means necessary. The Africans were employed (not meaning paid) to produce goods on their land (in Africa) and other lands. The end result is a sign of treatment. The Native American population is much smaller than it used to be and generally poor (with the exception of those lucky enough to own casinos). Africans populate more areas than they used to and are easily found in all levels of economic and social status. -- kainaw™ 19:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with comparisons like this is that it essentially requires a moral calculus - that is, a system of assigning a value to an event, and then comparing a number of such values to arrive at some outcome. People often ask this desk questions like "who was more evil - hitler or stalin?", but you really can't meaningfully say "Hitler had an evil coefficient of 79 and Stalin had an evil coefficient of 81, therefore Stalin was more evil". I think Masamage is dead on the money - it's irredeemably subjective. Of course a reasonable question to ask in that (as in all the other unanswerable moral calculus questions) is - does it matter? If someone tells you hitler was 4% more evil than stalin, you don't really know anything new. 87.112.81.29 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that it would mean anything, but my father is 100% Native American and my mother is African American by the way of North Carolina. It was joked that I probably inherited twice as much anger.... not true, though. I am a pacifist and carry no grudges, not that I should have any anyway.....--Emyn ned (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reststricting this to North America, the greatest damage to Native American by Europeans was unintentional: the introduction of old-world diseases to the new world by the explorers starting with the Vikings. The result was a devestating die-off from which the native culture could not recover. Estimates of the death toll go as high as 90%, which is as bad or worse than any large-scale intentional policy of genocide anywhere in the world. In terms of lives lost or destroyed, this probably outweighs all of the ugly intentional harm done to both African american and native ameican populations in North America andn in the passage from Africa to North america. In terms of total numbers, the effects were perhaps larger in central america, the carribean, and expecially south america: Less tha one in ten african slaves came to North america, with most of the rest going to Brazil. The Spaniards acted brutally toward the native populations there, but the populations started from a larger base and therefore the native population is a much larger fraction of the genetic and cultural heritage of South America than of North America. -Arch dude (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out Hernando de Soto. He's sometimes credited with introducing and spreading communicable diseases that wiped out a significant number of the local people and culture. The use of "biological weapons" may have been unintentional, but the motives for his expedition were anything but. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Can a motive ever be unintentional? —Tamfang (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Even better -- visit some of today's American Indian reservations and you will extraordinary poverty. In too many of the reservations in the southwest, you will find homes lacking electricity and running water. Forget history and be concerned about 2009. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well mostly the Europeans didn't treat Native Americans too badly, or at least didn't have long enough to treat them as badly as the Americans did. Most of the extermination of Native Americans (at least in North America) was done by citizens of the U.S.A. or its territories. I believe the French, British and Spanish did treat some native American tribes badly though this may be off-set by the fact that they used them as proxies to fight each other and basically played them off one against the other supporting some and opposing those allied with other European powers as convenient. The British were a lot more tolerant and friendly to the Native American nations though, I remember hearing this was part of the reason leading to the war of independence, that Britain didn't support such aggressive expansion westwards as the American colonists due to their relations with the Indian nations.

As to how harshly the African Americans were treated, they were mostly all slaves at the time, or do you mean just Africans in Africa? or blacks generally? AllanHainey (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Charles Bowen,Baron Bowen

As is shown on the Wikipedia site, Bowen is credited with the following adage;-

"The rain it raineth on the just, And also on the unjust fella: But chiefly on the just, because the unjust steals the just's umbrella".

Dickens wrote something similar in Little Dorritt - "He went,like the rain,among the just and the unjust,..."(page 702,Oxford Illustrated Dickens,(1953)1987 reprint). It would be interesting to know who used the adage first. Bowen would have been 22 when Dickens wrote LD, not too young for a pithy saying. Of course they could have used the adage independently, it could also predate both lawyer and novelist.

Does anybody know more than I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.125.110 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely both are allusions to Matthew 5:45: "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust". And surely Dickens was not too lazy to put spaces after his commas. - Nunh-huh 20:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless Dickens had access to a typewriter, who can tell? —Tamfang (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian anti-communists

Friends !!! I thought Bin laden was a communist but I read it on the article (Beliefs and ideology of Osama bin Laden) "bin Laden has opposed "pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy and other doctrines,"". Do you think he should be categorized as "Saudi Arabian anti-communists"? --201.254.68.111 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It would appear the category is actually Saudi anti-communists and if you were to categorize him as such, he'd be the only one. But as they say, be bold. Tomdobb (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be really interested to know why you thought Bin Laden was a communist? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought that because Bin laden is against the U.S.A and UK (capitalists countries) ... PS: I'm 15 understand me. --201.254.68.111 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I created my account to "be bold", but I can't because he's protected. :( --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected. Your account needs to be at least 4 days old and (/or?) you need to make at least 10 edits to become fully registered. Its the Brady Law of Wikipedia. Livewireo (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The world is more complex than to sum it up into 2 categories. Bin Laden actually fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. There is a tendency, especially for governments, to give everybody who they don't like into some category that is considered evil. For America after WWII 'communist' was that label, and resulted in all sorts of people being called communist who weren't. These days in the US 'socialist' is nearly as bad, which explains John McCain's desperate attempts to label Obama 'socialist'. The thinking was that if he could get Obama branded a 'socialist' people wouldn't vote for him, even if they agreed with the policy that got him the label. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are out of date here. In the us we used to label all of our enemies "Communist." When Communism effectively self-destructed in the 1980's, politicial parties that MUST have a simple label for the bads guys were is a terrible quandry: after all, most of the remaijning bad guys were staunchly anti-communist. Fortunately for them, Al-Qaeda follow their own extremist ideology, as we now have a differnt overly simplistic label for anybody who disagrees with us: the are all "Terrorists." So, my 15-year-old friend, remove the old worn-out word "Communist" from your vocabulary, and learn to use the word "Terrorist" instead. -Arch dude (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My bad, though I stand by my point about McCain and 'Socialist'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Jim Peron, former owner of a libertarian bookstore in San Francisco, told me of an incident when he was a guest on a radio show: a caller asked him to define libertarianism, and then said, "Yeah, I knew you were Communist." —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

---

By the way, for a number of decades many people in Saudi Arabia were convinced that modern Judaism and Communism were exactly the same thing, and that by opposing the existence of Israel, they were somehow fighting the good fight against the menace of world Communism. Not sure exactly how such people explained the fact that the Soviet Union was heavily backing Egypt and Syria... AnonMoos (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Forcing government to pay debt

I don't understand basic finance of government debt. If Country A owes Country B some money, how does Country B ensure that that debt will be paid on time? In an individual setting, if someone doesn't pay the debt, that person can be forced to pay or go to jail. But what about in an international setting? Thanks in advance128.163.224.240 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. If America wanted to destroy the lifestyle of future generations, it could decide to default on all its loans. In the future, no one would give it any, or on only very bad terms. The fact that since the founding of America it has been a constitutional (really! read it!) mandate that the government honor all its debts has done wonders for America over the past 200+ years. As for other countries, that have no such strong protections? They don't get much credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So what happens when a country has deficit spending for the year? How does the gov't spend money it doesn't have? Who's giving that money? I realize that the US has been in debt since practically the beginning of its founding. How can a country function when it is constantly in debt?199.76.164.202 (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, usually, the extra money has been borrowed from some other country. Part of their expenditure for the next few years will be paying back that loan, and if they still have deficit spending in the next year they'll take out a loan with someone else. In some cases countries end up taking out loans in part to pay back previous loans.

They can keep taking loans out as long as they keep paying the existing ones back- This is what America does. If a country actually can't pay the loans back anymore they default, and that's bad (See: Argentine_economic_crisis_(1999-2002)). Countries which do that often find it harder to get loans. At that point they have to restrict themselves to spending only what they have... (Or they can just print more money, but that's a very bad move) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furius (talk • contribs) 04:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

When a country issues debt (takes out a loan from somebody), it actually just issues a bunch of contracts that say "I will pay (anyone) you a certain amount sometime in the future including a bunch of payments at a certain interest rate." Each one of these contracts ("bonds") gets auctioned off individually, and can go to anybody: A foreign government or individual or even a person or company in the same country. Whoever buys the contract gets the rights to the eventual full repayment, and all the interest payments in the mean time. They have value because they are backed by the taxing power of the issuing government. The US federal government, for example, could just increase taxes to pay off some huge hypothetical (or 'slowly materializing...') debt it might have.

The only thing that forces a country to keep making interest payments on these "bonds" is that country's desire to get more credit in the future; if they don't keep making payments on their existing debt, they won't get any more.

Since most countries don't consume exactly what they produce every year, they need credit some years to make up the difference. The United States, for example, has been banking on this credit for some time...

So when an economist says that some country has a foreign debt with some other country, they just mean that people or companies within the lending country owns rights to a fixed income stream from the borrowing country's treasury or production. If the borrowing country's treasury or corporate issuers refuses to pay, there is no international body that will force them to. The borrowing country will just lose their standing, or "credit", in international markets. This usually means that the borrowing country's currency will become less valuable (because less "purchasing power" backs it). NByz (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

But the fact that (in the US) the debt is ever growing, doesn't that indicate that some amount of the debt are left unpaid?199.76.164.202 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that it's simply the fear of bad credit. Yet it's a significant concern. But if a country really starts to default on their debt, other countries have a variety of means to try and get their money back. For example, during the 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis the assets of Landsbanki were seized in the United Kingdom. While not government debt, it's clearly possible your countries assets in other countries will be seized if you don't pay up. Depending on the circumstances and country, this could even be private assets. Many countries will also take diplomatic action against the other country which doesn't pay up, e.g. ejecting diplomats, sanctions, convincing other countries to do likewise etc. There are also a variety of quasi legal means to try and convince another country to pay up including the threat of or actual war. It depends a lot on how powerful the debtor country and who their allies are and how powerful the debtee is and who their allies are and public perception. Note that getting another country to pay up doesn't have to mean cash. It could be a demand for access to their land and resources. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This is why it is sometimes in a country's interest to renege on locally issued debt before foreign issues. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OP, retaliation would usually take the form of confiscating property (land, planes, ships, etc) owned by Country A that are outside A’s jurisdiction. First choice would be property in Country B, but if B has good relations (treaties) with Country C, where such property is located, it might convince Country C to hand over Country’s A’s property. In addition, A’s reputation for defaulting on debt would strongly encourage other lenders to call in their debts and / or stop lending to A. Further, B might have sufficient influence to convince the IMF and other multilateral agencies to stop lending to A.

199.76.164.202, Scenario: the US borrows $10 on Monday; on Tuesday it borrows $20 and pays back $10 plus interest. Stretch that out, and continual borrowing without failing to pay back is quite possible. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How is it possible for your mind to learn something?

Think about it. A new concept enters your ears, ears, etc. then goes to the brain. Keep in mind that the brain didnt have a chemical, a cell, or anything before that to acknowledge said concept. Then, boom- now you know, Do you, in a sense, become it? Or does your mind already "know"? Because you can't "know" what's not already a part of you, correct?TinyTonyyy (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Plato had some thoughts along these lines: see Anamnesis. He was wrong. Algebraist 22:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean, I could be this generation's Plato?....(*snap*)- I'M A GENIUS! Hey, how do you nominate yourself for a Nobel Prize? There is one for philosophy, isn't there?TinyTonyyy (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a modern day Plato would have spent this much time drunkenly pandering to a bunch of nerds that are hanging out on a pretentious and self-titled "reference desk" on a Friday night. NByz (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

you'd better try for the Nobel Peace Prize -- the bar is very low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever "ideas" are in this sense it is almost surely some combination of networked neurons. The connections are the idea, not a chemical or a cell. This makes the mind very flexible: you don't have to add new "things" to it, you just have to wire it up in increasingly complicated combinations. One way to think about it might be that your mind is a big tangle of cords that can tangle themselves up even more on the fly, one constantly shifting and re-wiring system... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be self-referential to say that, while there's no Nobel Prize for philosophy, there ought to be? (Not that I'm saying so.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

See also Hume and Locke if you want philosophy... AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And see memory#physiology for some information towards answering your question (though I admit there's not very much there). --ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To a great extent, learning is the result of those electrochemical processes in your brain, triggered by outside stimuli. Not to overlook neuroplasticity, the process by which you continue to build neurons and connections between them. If you'd like an extended discussion, a highly readable one is Daniel Levitin's This is Your Brain on Music. A more detailed history of modern neurology, together with autobiography, is Eric Kandel's In Search of Memory. You'll be surprised how much what's known about the brain and learning is due to Aplysia californica. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Student association constitution: "not for profit"

I'm presiding of a new student association and to comply with the rules of the body which provides funding, our constitution has to declare that we do not intend to make a profit. I don't believe this constitutes as legal advice because the association is located in the Netherlands and the constitution is in English which renders it unacceptable to the Dutch Chamber of Commerce as a legal document. I am looking at the constitutions of other student associations and there is one which says:

"The Association shall not be operated for profit, and the foregoing objects, purposes are each and all subject to limitation that no part of the net earnings of the Association shall inure to the benefit of any association, corporation/media or individuals."

However, isn't this problematic because it says earnings cannot benefit individuals, but surely all event attendees are individuals and benefit from the money being spent on the event so it makes no sense? The only way to prevent anyone from benefiting, would be to destroy all money as soon as its received which is madness.

I would like help formulating a sensible article that declares that our association will not make profit (in so far as that makes sense for a student association which doesn't want to go bankrupt through an obsession with meeting all income with equal expenditure...). ----Seans Potato Business 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The following is not legal advice: "The Association shall not be operated for profit. In carrying out its objects and purposes, the Association shall apply any earnings for the benefit of the members of the Association, and not to the benefit of any other association or person."

Person covers both corporate and natural persons. Clause as drafted should be wide enough to cover using money for the membership as a whole, which should include keeping the money in the Association accounts, as well as for a subset of the membership (e.g. those who show up at a party). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the organization this would be somewhat problematic. It's not that not-for-profit groups have to spend all their money on themselves—they just have to use it in connection with official group activities and costs associated therewith. The distinction is that you don't pocket the surplus at the end of the day—it stays with the group and is used for group things. That doesn't mean it can't be spent on other associations or people—as long as the reason it is being spent is for official purposes (e.g. a scholarship or grant would be perfectly good use of the money as long as it was done in a way compatible with the way the group worked). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase net earnings is key. Whatever the group spends on its defined purposes is not part of its net. —Tamfang (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This may seem too easy. I found that faculty and administrators were quite willing to aid student organiations to form. Of course, in my time, SDS and other radical, far left groups were tolerated, not nourished. Once you understand the basics of the situation, it may help to ask them for their input. They may have experience with problems other student groups faced and solutions. As an added benefit, you will be networking with them and, hopefully, establishing good will for your group. Best of luck. 75Janice (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)75Janice

Well I've tweaked the first suggestion to my satisfaction now, so thanks everyone. ----Seans Potato Business 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You might like to look at Not for profit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)