Humanities desk
< September 2	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 4 >

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.

September 3

The Question Above...

There is a question above about "What would have Thomas Jefferson said about Somalia ?". If that's a legitimate question for RD, I would like to know what would have Mahatma Gandhi said about 9-11 ? Jon Ascton (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it's a legitimate question for the RD but nevertheless it seems obvious that ~~Ghandi~~Gandhi, as a pacifist, would abhor all terrorist violence including the 9/11 attacks. —D. Monack ^talk 02:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC) (Typo now fixed. Please relax. —D. Monack ^talk 22:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You are not aware of the fact that more that Pacifism, Gandhi was more concerned with his policy of never blaming Muslims for anything. One of his most famous quotes was :

it is wrong to say that Islam has employed force. No religion in this world has spread through the use of force. No Musalman, to my knowledge, has ever approved of compulsion.

This is what he said after some of the most atrocious anti-Hindu holocausts in India. There are numerous historical sources about Gandhi's strange attitude, you can start with this
No man, he would have blamed Wright Brothers for inventing the airplane instead ! Jon Ascton (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One could interpret that statement to mean that Ghandi carefully controlled what he said as to intentionally diffuse violence and avoid antagonizing or provoking people. He was well aware that mere speech could be an incitement to violence, so it does seem to fit within his philosophy to carefully choose one's statements so as to encourage nonviolence. --Jayron32 06:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the problem. This kind of attitude, you'd know if you read India's history, would anger muslims more ! They were working so hard to produce a gulf between Hindus and Muslims, so that they could have a Pakistan, and Gandhi was promoting Hindu-Muslim unity by "intentionally diffus(ing) violence and avoid antagonizing or provoking people" as you have pointed out. You are right, it should work in theory, but real life is a different deal Jon Ascton (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, kindly note it's Gandhi, not Ghandi. Secondly what question are you pointing at when you say "I doubt it's a legitimate question for the RD". The Thomas Jefferson-Somalia or Gandhi-9/11? Kindly make clear Jon Ascton (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both, obviously. And don't correct others' spelling mistakes. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 04:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that ? When you spell someone's proper name it is expected that spelling should be correct. Won't the reader feel irritated if I spell Washington as Bashington or Kennedy as Cannedy or something like that. Besides I am not touching the text D.Monack has entered, inspite of intense temptation to do so, though I implore him to reedit it. Thanks Jon Ascton (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is appropriate. If you want to know more about Gandhi's philosophy, see Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Gandhi.27s_principles or Gandhism. The reference desk is not the place to ask about what dead political figures would think about modern events. --Jayron32 04:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, how did we do that without having an edit conflict? --Viennese Waltz ^talk 04:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say how curious it was that Jon Ascton mentioned the Wright brothers in connection with Gandhi. Why? Because Orville Wright and Mahatma Gandhi both died on 30 January 1948. Smart cookie, Jon. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi was a bitter opponent of technology and saw it as root of all evil. He also didn't think much of skyscrapers ( preferred people to live in shabby huts like the poor do in India ). By Wright Brothers I mean all guys who were more or less responsible for building things like airplanes. I hope that helps Jon Ascton (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt smart, but he probably reads the current day's calendar page everyday....like I do. :) (edit) I guess it is not January 30th today. I've had a long week.10draftsdeep (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A story from Sunday school, when I was a Christian

One night, a wife goes to see her lover across the river. She discovered on her way home that she had forgotten her wallet. She begged the boatman to let her go home, but he refused. She had to take a more dangerous route home, across the bridge, on which she encountered a robber, who killed her. We were asked to rank the characters by guilt. (Everyone but me thought that the wife was the most guilty, and that was when I began to question my religion, but anyway...)

I heard the same story in another setting (with the same polling result, btw), so it seems to be a popular teaching device, but does anyone know where it comes from? Has anyone else heard the story? 67.243.7.245 (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard the exact story (but then I am not writing from US or Europe like you {I think} are), but I have heard several stories like this from religious mouths, sometimes even made to look like real-life incidents Jon Ascton (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious as to the reasoning behind the people choosing the wife, was it because she was having an affair? I understand that adultery is a sin but I am 100% certain murder is one too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bare bones of this story are not dissimilar to the bare bones of the movie Psycho: Woman having a nooner, then steals a client's wad of money, goes to a motel, gets murdered in the shower. That taught her a lesson for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the story comes from Bible, you are right it was a preacher's technique to start debate and filter out true believers so that he can make clear how to go about planning next lesson. I think religion and morality should be separated. If Christianity is on decline in West it is this reason - people can be no longer subjected to guilt by sexual repression. Jon Ascton (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't follow. What does this have to do with the question? Aaronite (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The story is made up to teach people a lesson - adultery is bad. I hope that helps Jon Ascton (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard nothing remotely like this in any sunday school. It does not sound like it came from any Christian source. What is your point? Edison (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I heard something fairly similar in a seminar I was made to attend when I was jobless. The premise was similar and the question was essentially the same (it was, IIRC rank the people by true friendship to protagonist). I refused to answer, because it felt dumb being probed by such obvious psychological devices... In any way, I don't think it's from the Bible. TomorrowTime (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not remotely biblical. It's been used as a discussion tool in a lot of places, not just Christian. From a Christian context we were always encouraged to go with the answer that none was worse than the other, for traditional Christian doctrine is supposed to suggest that all sin is equally bad. Steewi (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. I don't think that's in any "traditional Christian doctrine" at all. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like an approximation to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, in which all actions, even morally good actions, are wicked in God's sight unless done to the glory of God. I don't know whether you'd call Calvinism "traditional". Marnanel (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of puzzle is sometimes called exercise in pragmatic ethics, or thought experiment in ethics, or moral dilemma, or, on Wikipedia, ethical dilemma. We have a category thought experiments in ethics, but your example doesn't have its own article. Though I found several versions online, I found nothing on the origin of this particular exercise. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was also told a very similar story, though it involved more characters; again, ranking the characters from bad to good was to reveal the listerner's personal ethics. But it seemed more of a parlour game than a sermon; the friends who told it to me were Japanese and not Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all are right, the purpose of the story is not to push a particular ethic; it's to allow the class to discuss their own individual ethics. It's a good premise for that. It reminds me a little bit of this hypothesis: "Suppose you go back in time to 1938 and have a foolproof opportunity to kill Hitler. Do you do it?" One answer is, "No, because murder is a sin." Another answer is that, instead of worrying selfishly about your own personal "salvation", you assassinate Hitler and take your chances with God, on the grounds that you've prevented a "greater sin". The catch there is that you don't know what happens in the 1940s if you take Hitler out of the picture. It might even turn out worse than it did. But it's an interesting ethical question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't do it because you might create a grandfather paradox and destroy the entire space-time continuum! Googlemeister (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Point of order: this discussion belongs in the Europe: Twentieth Century forum. Paul (Stansifer) 16:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading that riddle in the novel The Pigman by Paul Zindel There is a river with a bridge over it, and a WIFE and her HUSBAND live in a house on one side. The WIFE has a LOVER who lives on the other side of the river, and the only way to get from one side of the river to the other is to walk across the bridge or to ask the BOATMAN to take you.

One day the HUSBAND tells his WIFE that he has to be gone all night to handle some business in a faraway town. The WIFE pleads with him to take her with him because she knows if she doesn't, she will be unfaithful to him. The HUSBAND absolutely refuses to take her because she will only be in the way of his important business.

So the HUSBAND goes alone. When he is gone, the WIFE goes over to the bridge and stays with her LOVER. The night passes, and dawn is almost up when the WIFE leaves because she must get back to her own home before her HUSBAND returns. She starts to cross the bridge but sees an ASSASSIN waiting for her on the other side, and she knows if she tries to cross, he will murder her. In terror, she runs up the side of the river and asks the BOATMAN to take her across the river, but he wants fifty cents. She has no money, so he refuses to take her.

The WIFE runs back to the LOVER's house and explains to him what the predicament is and asks him for fifty cents to pay the BOATMAN. The LOVER refuses, telling her it's her own fault for getting into the situation. As dawn comes up, the WIFE is nearly out of her mind and dashes across the bridge. When she comes face to face with the ASSASSIN, he takes a large knife and stabs her until she is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.68.135 (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absent from that story is who hired the assassin. The husband? In any case sounds like whoever it was should have hired a better one if said asssassin just waits on the other side of the bridge and the wife is able to recognise them as an assassin. And it's not like the wife even seems particularly smart if she still tried to cross the bridge (screw the husband, if an assassin is waiting on me on the other side of a bridge I ain't crossing and of course if it was the husband who hired the assassin, I wouldn't want to return to him). Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love the reaction of the lover: "Hrmph, what do I care, go get your stupid ass killed, I ain't giving you no 50 cents." I'm betting this story was written solely for the purpose of inciting clandestine feminists into a revealing rage. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assigning guilt. How Christian.--Wetman (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Paul Zindel a Christian? How do you know? Marnanel (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think that is the story I heard as well. And yes, most people blame the wife because they find adultery the most repugnant. A recent poll of Americans by Time or Newsweek found something similar, I think, when they asked people to rank bad deeds. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't blame you for questioning your association with people who in this story would find most guilt with the wife. It seems almost like her entire fault is refusing to be treated like chattel. Kinder, Küche, Kirche and all that. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capital punishment

What was the first modern country to abolish capital punishment? --75.33.216.97 (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick of "modern" from here. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "modern" means countries that are still around. ----J4\/4 <talk> 12:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't have time to read the linked article, it looks like Venezuela in 1863 and San Marino in 1865 although there hadn't been an execution there since 1468. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

distraction

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There's no obvious cutoff for "modern," but the article gives a lot of nice dates from the late 19th through the 20th century, so hopefully the original poster can find whatever he or she had in mind in that list. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far more interestingly . . . I wonder which will be the last. 194.223.35.225 (talk) (Gurumaister not logged in) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Depends on when people stop murdering each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it depends on when states decide to behave in a humanitarian fashion by not killing their own citizens. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citizens have the right to protect themselves permanently from murderers. Nonetheless, the death penalty is slowly disappearing in the U.S., which is the country that I assume the IP is hinting at. However, there are many other countries around the world where it will remain alive and well for the foreseeable future. Perhaps the IP also considers those countries to be inhumane. Or is he singling out the U.S. for some reason? P.S. With the death penalty non-existent in Europe, your humanitarianism has totally put an end to murder there, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, the OP didn't mention any country, you have imagined that he meant the USA. On your last "point" - abolition of the death penalty isn't about putting an end to murder, it's more about believing that it's wrong to kill, and the impossibility of compensating someone who was wrongfully executed. DuncanHill (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent against murder or not, that is not the point. The point is that it is a bloodthirsty violation of human rights for the state to take a human life. And by the way Bugs, your regulation tiresome sideswipe against IP editors was off beam in this case since the editor took the trouble to note that he has an account but was not logged in when he posted. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 08:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The society in which he lives has decided that the murderer forfeits his so-called "human rights" through having deprived another of their own "human rights". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

squabble

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Bugs, your soapbox-to-content ratio is kind of off the charts lately. Please see if you can do anything to improve it a bit. You've been responding with "party lines" to a good percentage of the questions on here. Don't confuse the Reference Desk for a debating society! Your nationalist paranoia is getting a little buggy (the OP names no country, so you then say you assume they are singling out the US, then you criticize them for singling out the US? Surely you can see how crazy this looks). --Mr.98 (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs has always been like that and, as you can see, no matter how much we complain, it looks like that we'll have to endure his nonsense here forever. --Belchman (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am citing the usual arguments that are made in favor of capital punishment, so any "nonsense" is theirs, not mine. I don't even necessarily agree with those arguments. As for your self-righteous personal attacks, well, I'm used to that nonsense by now. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, why did you ask "is he singling out the US for some reason?" when the OP made no reference to the USA at all? Were you deliberately trying to start an argument, or is it just your natural inability to read the question before attacking it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As compared to your natural inability to assume good faith by registered users? The USA frequently gets bashed here for retaining the death penalty while Europeans have abolished it since they apparently enjoy keeping murderers alive. And in re-reading the flow of that segment, it's obvious you didn't read it yourself. So keep your trap shut unless you have something actually useful to say to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, no-one can ever say anything useful to you because you never listen. When you stop lying and misrepresenting the posts of others, I'll stop commenting on your lies and misrepresentations. The OP never mentioned the USA, you did, so if anyone is bashing the USA and making it look bad it's you. Fortunately, most of us realise that most Americans are not the unthinking reactionary stereotypes that you present yourself to be. DuncanHill (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of various things against registered users, while kissing up to drive-by IP's, is just one of the many issues wikipedia editors face on a routine basis. I asked you to tell me something useful. I'm still waiting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the IP asks a reasonable, if ultimately unanswerable, question, and the registered user is mendaciously trolling, guess which one I'll prefer? You deliberately invented a slight to the USA when none had been made, and now object to people calling you out for it. This isn't the only thread you've done this in lately, and it's getting beyond the usual "it's only Bugs, he adds a bit of much-needed colour" stage, it just looks now like you are deliberately trolling. If you hate IP editors so much, just ignore them instead of making up things they haven't said as a reason to have a go at them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more lack of AGF on your part, yet here you are lecturing others about their behavior. I sometimes raise questions others may not want to hear, and I don't apologize for it (unless I'm wrong, which is seldom). And I take the side of IP editors against registered editors, when they're right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you accuse the OP of singling out the USA? Was that a "good faith" lie on your part? Or were you assuming an ulterior motive based n your own assumption of good faith? Why did you lyingly claim that another questioner had said that people voted Lenin in, was that another "good faith" lie? Why should I assume good faith when to do so would require a lobotomy? You've stopped being funny and become both a bore and a boor. DuncanHill (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any question that starts "What will be the last nation to..." depends more on when will human civilization end than on what any current nations are doing. It is either extreme pessimism or extreme arrogance to assume that any of our current nations will still be around when our species goes extinct. APL (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nations might still be around, but their buildings would be empty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think Baseball Bugs can be right as I strongly suspect that every country that has stopped using capital punishment still has murders. So it can't, logically be the absence of murder that drives the abolishion of capital punishment. He is also incorrect in thinking that I was hinting at the disappearance of the death penalty in the US either (or was that a reference to Viennese and I am mistaken?). I am British so the US doesn't hold any particular relevance for me. However, I like your logical and rational approach, Baseball Bugs. Viennese Waltz's response was spoiled for me by the inclusion of his/her own emotional opinion - tends to make you wonder about the validity of the rest of their argument. Gurumaister (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Gurumaister, my response was only to give my emotional opinion, I didn't make any attempt to answer the question. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 08:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viennese, I believe your sarcasm detector might be malfunctioning. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Voyager

In ST Voyager, what novel is the holosuite program that Captain Janeway partakes in based on please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's Jane Eyre. See "Persistence of Vision". ---Sluzzelin talk 15:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding article at MemoryAlpha doesn't say anything, though, so I suppose no official source ever confirmed this. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article does say "The holonovel seems based on elements from Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre, Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, and Henry James' The Turn of the Screw". ---Sluzzelin talk 16:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, I completely missed that. In an article that short. I have no idea how that happened. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP might be talking about the Fair Haven (Star Trek: Voyager) episode. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That episode was centred on the holodeck, but Captain Janeway's fantasy novel referred to by the OP spanned several episodes and was featured in the Persistence of Vision episode mentioned above. Dbfirs 23:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy of the UK using pwoers unilaterally

Has the monarch of the UK ever used his/her powers unilaterally since the act of union? The monarch can do stuff like appoint hte prime minister, disoolve parliament, call elections etc. Has this ever been done without the consent of parliament since 1707?--92.251.193.180 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all that much in overt formal terms since the Scottish Militia Bill 1708. However, monarchs had a certain degree of influence on which politicians would receive the support of Parliament and so become Prime Ministers well into the 19th century -- and even today, if there was a Commons election with no clear victorious party, the Queen might possibly have a certain discretion as to which party leader to give the first opportunity to try to find a parliamentary majority... AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom. This says: "The last time the monarch unilaterally dissolved Parliament was in 1835, when Earl Grey resigned as prime minister; although he had a fully functioning cabinet capable of carrying on without him, William IV chose to force it out of office." Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks a lot, OP--92.251.193.180 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of that amazing 'head dancing' seen in India

Does anyone know the term for it? Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Bharatanatyam it is called shiro bheda (head movements). I'm not that familiar with Indian dance. I do know that head gestures play an important part in other Indian classical dances as well, such as Odissi. Still, I think you're looking for something like this. (Gotta keep that atlas in motion) ---Sluzzelin talk 00:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out in that link, what makes the dance so effectful is the combination of head movements, neck movements (greeva bheda), and eye movements (drishti bheda). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...isn't the term you are using "Head Dancing" a bit scary ? Jon Ascton (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's hand dancing and belly dancing, why not head dancing? In all three cases other body parts are in motion too, the name merely emphasizes the most striking element. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. But it seems if someone's talking about a severed head dancing on its own somewhere...

Thanks, Sluzzelin - just what I was looking for - nice to see you again. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]