Humanities desk
< July 15	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 16

what's the best way to deal with a socipath

I am closing this discussion. The Reference Desk is not the place for personal advice. Please contact the appropriate authorities and/or professionals for information and guidance. Neutrality^talk 22:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

say a sociopath who had been a vague acquaintance - and not a good one - has just beaten you up severely. what's the best course of action for optimizing the rest of your life? (Not asking for legal advice: obviously you can have them thrown in jail and go through a legal process or whatever: how does that help you?) Is is just cutting off contact with them entirely, etc? Thanks. 188.222.102.201 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word sociopath is so widely misused that I am not willing to make a guess at what you mean by it. Looie496 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

take hannibal lector. 188.222.102.201 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting them to the police keeps them from doing it to others (or at least making it clear they have that record). If they did it to you, they'll likely do it to others. If someone had reported them before they beat you up, they might not have done it. And of course there's no reason they couldn't come back and haunt you in the future — unless they know that messing with you will call down the law on them. So those are a few good reasons to think that talking to the police would be a good idea, all other factors ignored. Of course, I know that in real life things can be complicated, but unless there's some really compelling reason not to report them, you probably ought to.

As for yourself — consider talking to a professional. Getting severely attacked by another human being is a traumatic experience. You shouldn't try to hash it out on your own. Obviously you're not trying to do that — you're at least asking on here, which shows you recognize that it's beyond your own ability to cope with. But anonymous people online are a poor proxy for trained psychological assistance. A counselor can help you figure out what you need to do to "optimizing the rest of your life," with full knowledge about yourself, the event in question, the attacker, and "your life," about which we know absolutely nothing. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mr. 98. You need to explain it to someone. Either someone you know well, or a professional. Just feel free to see your doctor and explain it, and ask to be referred to a specialist. Or tell a friend, you can keep the details anonymous. Telling us online is only the very first step. If you have no idea at all who to contact next, go to Samaritans who are always there. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

guys, take hannibal lector as your example. if you realize hannibal lector is nonfictional and in your circle, and has hurt you but only some modest extent (say punched you in the gut, whatever, nothing you can't shrug off), then what is the best next step? 188.222.102.201 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has just battered you, the criminal justice system needs to know about it so that it can be prevented from happening again. That helps you directly because if it does happen again you are more likely than most to also be a subsequent victim of an even worse beating. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am always dubious about stories where the facts are stated so ambiguously. We have now gone from "beaten you up severely" to "hurt you but only to some modest extent". What is it that actually happened? Did your little brother shove you? (Sorry for being so suspicious; maybe I've watched Judge Judy too much.) Looie496 (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know what will PREVENT things from happening. Obviously everything is a question of interpretation of intent, etc. If your INTERPRETATION is that the person who has just hurt you has the personality of Hannibal Lector, what's the best way to handle this interaction? (The first, "beaten up severely" is the actual example, with the second one -- hurt you but only to some modest extent" being a hypotehtical. BUt let's be clear: compared to getting butchered and eaten by Lector, "beaten up severely" is mild -- it goes away.). The question is, if it does go away, how do you best handle the interaction going forward? (If your judgment is it could happen again at any time.) 188.222.102.201 (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desks can't give you legal or medical advice. Similarly, you might find yourself unable to support a claim that someone has the personality of a fictional sociopathic serial killer without reliable independent sources agreeing with the diagnosis. Therefore, consult with a qualified medical or legal professional about the proper way to respond. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, the reference desk is not the correct place to ask for advice. Of any kind. At all. Even if it isn't medical or legal advice. If you read the header, it says "if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere" If you want advice, find someone you trust (a parent, teacher, counselor, etc.) Random strangers on the internet, like me, are unreliable and should not be trusted with matters as serious as this. --Jayron32 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to ask about what to call a color, or a plant or animal, and sometimes some kinds of rocks, but you may not ask whether you are allowed to paint or throw rocks at the person next to you. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really suspect he's a potential serial killer, then stay the heck away. If he shows up where you are, leave. If he stalks you, change your phone number, move, change your name, etc. I'm rather skeptical about police doing anything other than escalate the conflict, unless you have evidence of a serious crime. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember who we are: we are a bunch of men and women, and possibly a few kids, sitting around answering peoples' questions, and the questions we field tend to be information requests, along the lines of, for example "What is this saint in the pictured statue?" We do not typically handle this kind of request though I'm glad you came to someone), and are certainly not qualified to give advice on the matter. Even if we have legal advisors and councillors in our ranks (and I have no reason to suspect that any of us who have answered are), we couldn't ethically give you the advice you seek, as we don't know any of the details, and frankly couldn't get much of a better grasp on it even if you wrote pages on it (not to mention that giving that sort of advice is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy). Quite simply, the only thing we can really say is to go seek qualified help, such as a councillor, who would then be able to give you advice on how to proceed (my grandmother works with these kinds of situations). I wish you the best of luck, and I hope that your issues are resolved. The one thing that I will say, in all seriousness, is that if you happen to be a woman, and the attacker happens to be a man (or vice versa), do NOT hesitate to go to the councillor, as soon as practical (and I strongly think that it would be good to consider it anyways). In fact, if you couldn't get in with a councillor, then I would consider other options (staying with family not related to the situation, or going to other authorities), until you can get in with a councillor. I say that not because you have indicated in any manner that that's the case (and nor do I ask you to indicate whether that was the case), but just because I personally feel like it was important enough to say. Also, ask yourself, if you are worried about it happening at anytime, will it ever go away if you ignore it? That's it, I'm already getting way to close to what would be appropriate to say here. Falconus^{p t c} 02:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that this thread hasn't been deleted as legal advice and more. That being said, File a police report, acquire whatever weapons of self defense you can legally and responsibly use, and move away from the suspected psychopath as fact as you can! And stop wsting possibly life-saving time asking non-experts for non-help!μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC) I normalized the font size in your post and hope you don't mind. Good advice does not become better by shouting. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there ANY colleges in the world with bidet-seats in the restrooms?

A bidet-integrated toilet seat, also known as Washlets, bidet-seats, and Kohler Numis too, depending on branding, region, etc.

I haven't seen a college that has toilets with those futuristic amenities. Would anyone happen to know offhand? If so, would you please back it up with photo links? Thanks. --70.179.165.67 (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. We've been having a chat over at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk about questions that are probably US-centric (in this case in use of language), but we can't be sure. There's also another chat up above (under July 13) discussing what a college is. To constructively answer this question, we really need more information. For starters, what do you mean by college? HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would start with Japan and France.AerobicFox (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do we have pictures? --70.179.165.67 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a perusal of the OP's contribs shows a pattern that looks a lot like trolling. Looie496 (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree there. Uninformed possibly but I'm not convinced they aren't bona fide. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suspect naive, an insular background, but learning, not trolling. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the analysis, doc. Do me! 188.222.102.201 (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Washlets and comparable devices are expensive and would be vulnerable to misuse and vandalism that is common in public facilities. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rare or non-existent in French educational establishments. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the query is a bit ambigous. Does it refer to the school building themselves or to campus housing? Manual bidets are common places across Arab world, and housing of decent standard is likely to have one. Slightly less likely in public bathrooms. The integrated bidet I've only seen once though. It isn't very futuristic to be honest (in this case it was definately not new), rather impractical compared to manual bidets. --Soman (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

heraldry

I just came from the 'Left Handedness' page and jumped to the 'Heraldry' page, and noted that I can find no reference to the Left side of an Heraldic shield being called the 'Sinister' side, and the right side being the 'Dexter' side. is this out of use now? or just an omission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.208.215 (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an omission, since this is indeed still the standard heraldic terminology, although it might be translated to 'left' and 'right' for the benefit of those unversed in blazonry. Of course, it's important to remember (as the OP doubtless knows but others reading this RefDesk may not) that the left and right in question are those of the person notionally holding/wearing the shield/helm/whatever, who is normally facing the beholder, so for a depiction on the page (for example) the 'Sinister' side is on the right as the reader looks at it and the 'Dexter' is on the left. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.152 (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We even have an article: Dexter and sinister. When I get a chance, it shouldn't be to difficult to put a link from the Heraldry page to it - unless somebody beats me to it! Alansplodge (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now inserted in Heraldry#Marshalling. Alansplodge (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical technology and world regions

Many centuries ago the technology of the Chinese and the East was better than that of Europe. 1) When was the last date at which they were roughly equal? 2) Why did eastern technology stagnate while European technology went roaring ahead? 92.24.138.48 (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant article on this is Great Divergence. The general consensus is that Europe and China were roughly equal until the late 17th century (the decades running up to 1700 or so).

There are a lot of theories about why. IMO the most compelling one is that in China was in a high level equilibrium trap — it had things too good for too long. There was a relatively higher degree of political homogeneity in 16th and 17th China than in Europe — less war, less strife, fewer political entities competing for resources and power. Many of the technological, financial, and political revolutions in Europe in the 17th-18th centuries (all of which were very much connected to each other — you can't separate the technology out as an independent variable) happened because it was a period of great uncertainty, fear, and need for innovation. The financial revolution happened because England and the Netherlands couldn't compete against the raw resources of Louis XIV; the political revolutions came out of the endless wars over religion in Europe; the technological revolutions happened in part because of various schemes for financing such developments by the state, and the creation and fostering of institutions (e.g. the Royal Society, private enterprises) that could evaluate and disseminate such information. I'm not sure you have anything comparable in China at that period. This explanation simplifies things a bit, perhaps to a dangerous degree, but I do think it has an inkling of plausibility to it, with regards at least to why Europe ended up the way it did, if not completely explaining why China didn't go on a different path. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans developed draughting and the Chinese used either writing or two-dimensional drawing. When the Chinese saw projection drawing in European books or manuscripts they didn't see the benefit of draughting. The Chinese were slow to adopt new ideas from outside their culture.
Sleigh (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Median-average world standard of living

What is the current median-average standard of living for the world? As well as income, what material things does a world median standard of living give, such as having electricity, piped water, etc? Has the median standard of living changed much since the start of the 20th. century or more recently? 92.28.255.228 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard of living is not a number, so it does not have a median. If you focus on something that is a number, such as income, the finding will be that the median is very low, because of the huge numbers of very poor people in countries like India, Pakistan, China, and sub-Saharan Africa. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be a number to have a median, it just needs to be ordered. As long as you can come up with a definition that allows you to look at two people and say which of them has the higher standard of living, then there is a well-defined median. There is no single accepted way of saying who has a higher standard of living than who, but there are numerous attempts at doing so. Income, measured by purchasing power parity, is one simple way of doing it. According to our article, Poverty, the World Bank estimated that 2.7 billion people were living on less than $2 a day in 2001. The world population was just over 6 billion then, so that was almost half. That puts median income at just over $2/day. It's a little difficult to convert that to standard of living, since some people have very little money but still live fairly well because they grow their own food, but I think it's clear that the median standard of living is going to be pretty low. --Tango (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Development Index is a composite metric that measures human development, which is not necessarily the same as standard of living or quality of life, but may approximate it. It is on a scale from zero to one. Neutrality^talk 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to bits I've found around the web, a majority of the world's households have access to both electricity and running water (though large minorities lack either or both). Based purely on anecdotal experience traveling on different continents, I think the median standard of living involves manual labor, travel on bicycle, on foot, or by bus, starchy food and little meat to eat, and television in the evening. Marco polo (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What then would be the median average country in the world, in terms of standard of living? It would be nice to be able to get an idea of what conditions the median average human lives in in 2011 and before. 92.24.179.33 (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "median average country" means you calculate the average standard of living within a country, and take the median of all countries. There is no such thing as the median average person, although you could take the median of all people within the median average country, which would be the median-median-average person-country. I really think if you just want a feel for what a typical person is going through, Marco Polo's answer is the best, since he has experience in this field, and has been giving reliable answers for a long time on subjects like this. I'm curious about them having tv in the evening - do I suppose it's most probably a small box in the living room, frequently going on the blink, permanently tuned to soapies? It's been emotional (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should prefer a well referenced answer... My answer shows that the median person is probably on a little over $2/day, so let's see what that really means. A little googling finds this article which says that someone living on $2/day in rural India (which is probably reasonably representative) can easily feed and clothe themselves and their family, but struggles for clean water, good education and healthcare. It doesn't mention electricity. This site says 78.9% of the world has access to electricity. Since that is over 50%, we would expect the median person to have it (it seems likely that access to electricity is correlated fairly strongly with standard of living). If they have electricity, there's a reasonably chance they have television. --Tango (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to have linked all the sites that I looked at. According to this site, the global median income is $2.33 a day. Now, a caution about this figure is that it does not take into account the food that people grow for themselves or the services they exchange with others without exchanging money. Especially in poor countries and in poor households, a fair percentage of economic activity takes place outside of the cash economy. A second factor to consider is that a majority of the world's population now lives in urban areas. So the "median" person would live in a poor neighborhood, probably on the growing outskirts of one of the developing world's cities. In these places access to electricity and running water is less difficult than in poor rural areas (which is one reason why rural populations are migrating to cities). Marco polo (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it would be better or worse than living in one of the favelas in Rio, Brazil? They have been shown on tv, so I find them easier to picture. I imagine that other shanty towns around the world are similar, although on the other hand the Rio favelas look more substantially built than what I would expect other shanty towns to have, and may have sewers. 2.97.209.26 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10th anniversary of 9/11

What events are being planned, in New York City and elsewhere in the United States, to mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11? Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks only mentions the unveiling of a new memorial in New Jersey. I feel sure there must be more planned than this. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 21:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list can be found here. Perhaps someone could add them to the WP page? Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MILITARY

What country has the strongest militaryLadiloni (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The United States, by a huge margin. Looie496 (talk)

The US accounts for about 43% of total worldwide military expenditures: List of countries by military expenditures. (See also List of countries by level of military equipment). China, though, has the highest number of active duty troops: List of countries by number of troops. WikiDao ☯ 22:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the US spending 43% of the world's war budget related to the US being broke? Edison (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cause and effect? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah... while the US military budget is disproportionately large in comparison to the rest of the world, that has little to do with the debt. Even if the US completely shut down its military, it would still be going broke. To put some numbers on this... according to our article on the Military budget of the United States the US allocated $663.8 billion for the military. According to our article on the United States public debt is $14.46 trillion. To translate this into amounts we can all understand, let's knock off a few zeros.... say the US owes its credit card company $14.46 (fourteen dollars and forty six cents). Cutting the military will save $0.66 ... If the US applies this savings to the debt, the US would now owe $13.80. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little more complicated than that. First, we're talking about historical trends here, and indeed, military spending is a huge reason behind the current level of debt. That doesn't necessarily mean that getting rid of it tomorrow will end the debt tomorrow, any more than it means cutting up an existing credit card destroys the debt you've put on that card previously. Second, the defense budget does represent a significant percentage of the total budget. (A nice visualization here.) Again, it's not everything, but it's a pretty significant hunk — money that is not going to pay back past debts, money that is increasing rather than decreasing the deficit. So no, nobody is saying that if you got rid of defense tomorrow, you'd end the debt. But I think a lot of people are saying that US defense spending has made and continues to make a serious contribution to the level of debt the country is in. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... I was mostly responding to Andy's comment about "cause and effect". The wars the US has been fighting over the last 10 years have certainly contributed to the debt... but so has entitlement spending, the loss of revenue due to the recession, and a host of other (arguably more significant) factors. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing an annual figure to a cumulative figure, which makes no sense. You don't want to compare defence spending to the debt, you want to compare it to the deficit. The US deficit is currently about $1.5tn, so completely eliminating defence spending would cut the deficit by more than a third. There is no need for a country to pay off its debts, really. The figure economists usually look at is debt as a percentage of GDP, so if a country can grow its economy faster than its debt grows, then it is doing well. Halving the deficit would go a long way to allowing the US to reach that goal (although it wouldn't be enough - a deficit of $0.9tn or so would still grow the debt by about 6% a year, which would be a very optimistic economic growth forecast). --Tango (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note I put a question mark at the end of my earlier post - though it did seem to be an obvious response. Clearly, military expenditure isn't the only reason for the level of debt, but it is nevertheless a significant contributing factor - and one that has been a drain on the U.S. economy for some considerable time. It is a mistake to just look at it in terms of 'wars the U.S. has been fighting over the last 10 years' though, because much of it has been due to being spent preparing for wars that have never been fought - often indeed, in preparation for 'wars' with an enemy that doesn't exist. The 'Military-Industrial Complex' (lovely phrase) has a long history of inventing imaginary foes to 'justify' expenditue of huge sums of taxpayers money on technology that turns out to be utterly useless by the time it is developed. Still, the U.S. can take comfort in the fact that it isn't alone in this - the UK is currently building two new aircraft carriers, for which we won't have any aircraft! Somehow, this lunacy is described as 'defence' expenditure. I suspect one reason why goverments are so keen to spend money on such projects is the sense of importance it gives the politicians - rather than arguing with low-grade civil servants over the paper-clip budget, they get to be shown round shiny new hardware, and saluted by an Admiral. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there are enemies that really do exist (remember 9/11?)... so, realistically, the US is not about to get rid of all defense spending. That does not mean it can't (or shouldn't) spend its defense budget more wisely... but it is going to have to have a military budget. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if 10% of the defense budget is spend effectively at all, and likewise, be surprised if 10% of that 10% are applicable to 9/11 type threats (and that even ignoring the fact that non-military options probably are a lot more effective for terrorist-style threats than YANOFAs). (Yet Another New Overpriced Fighter Aircraft). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the original question, while the United States probably still has the world's strongest military, it's not clear that it is the strongest by "a huge margin". Certainly, its military spending is the highest by a huge margin, but adjusted for purchasing power parity the US military spending has less of a margin over Chinese military spending, which is rising rapidly. It is appropriate to use purchasing power parity for this comparison, because Chinese wages and wholesale prices for comparable manufactured goods are considerably lower than US wages and prices for goods manufactured in the United States (as US military materiel overwhelmingly is). Purchasing power parity, if anything, probably understates relative prices, since prices for materiel sourced from US defense contractors are skewed upward by a lack of competitive bidding, politically awarded padded contracts, and very high wages for engineers and executives in defense contracting firms. Finally, Chinese military spending has been growing more rapidly than that of the US, as has the technological sophistication of Chinese military hardware. Therefore, while the US almost certainly retains a lead over China militarily, that lead is frequently overstated and steadily shrinking. Marco polo (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Marco polo to some extent, but while the Chinese are rapidly expanding their armed forces they are still a great distance from the US in terms of power projection. Currently China possesses almost no ability to engage in warfare outside of its own borders. Its last military adventure (against Vietnam, a much smaller nation) being a pretty serious disaster. This list is very telling regarding power projection parity: List of aircraft carriers by country. Operating and defending an aircraft carrier in hostile waters is enormously expensive and complex, it is also a required if a nation is to use its armed forces outside of its immediate sphere. --Daniel 22:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that China does not have much capacity for power projection. At present, their military focus seems limited to defending their own borders and potentially intervening in their immediate neighborhood of East and Southeast Asia and perhaps the Himalayas. However, according to this article, China has developed the capacity to destroy any US aircraft carrier that comes within range of its missiles designed for that purpose, a range that extends beyond Taiwan and that would limit the ability of the US to intervene in any conflict close to Taiwan. If the United States cannot use aircraft carriers against its chief potential adversary, the usefulness of aircraft carriers for power projection is limited. No doubt, the US would have a similar capability against Chinese aircraft carriers, which might explain why the Chinese have not squandered money on them. Marco polo (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The European countries apparently are strained to the limit with a very limited effort against Qadaffi. Were they that much better armed when NATO was supposed to be able to halt or delay and conventional Soviet block attack on Europe? Now the UK is reducing their army to the smallest since the 19th century: [1]. Would that the US taxpayers only had to support an 1890's military establishment. Edison (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statistic for the US military budget is more than a little misleading - as the article says, it doesn't cover DOE budget for nuclear weapons research and maintenance, and more to the point, it doesn't cover the ongoing medical and pension costs of war. Wnt (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

was it an american war

who fought the spanish inquisition — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoamchtoothMMX (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish Inquisition was not a war. Looie496 (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor were any Americans involved in it. Except perhaps that the Spanish church's virulent attitude to all who fell short of its standards also applied to the native people of the New World, who were abominably treated. This could be thought of as an extension of the Inquisition. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can no longer see a question like this without thinking of the Monty Python version. Looie496 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are looking for the Spanish-American War? 80.187.151.104 (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question. Apparently there's a lot of stuff out there about the horrors of the Inquisition in the New World, e.g. [2]. Much is based on the writing of Bartolome de las Casas. I'm seeing little information about whether or how the Indians fought back, though. Wnt (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]