Humanities desk
< April 16	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 18 >

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.

April 17

ethnic minorities supporting right-wing parties

In Israel, Likud party gets its support from minority Jews, namely Sephardi and Mizrahi. Is Israel the only nation in the world that has right-wing parties that gets its support from minority communities?--Donmust90 (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

In the U.S., many Cuban-Americans support the righter of the two major American parties, the Republican Party, because the Republican party is seen as taking a harder stance against the Castro regime than the lefter of the two parties, the Democratic Party. Since most Cuban Americans are Cuban Americans because they don't like Castro (else, they'd be Cuban Cubans still), the fact that (Historically) the Republicans were seen as more anti-Castro has led to a long relationship between the Republican Party and Cuban Americans (Cuban American#Political_beliefs covers some of this) Other Hispanic-American groups tend to lean more towards the Democratic party because the Democratic Party has been historically more lenient on open immigration, and the largest groups of Hispanic Americans, by far, come from Mexico ancestrally. Hispanic and Latino Americans#Political trends is actually better referenced than the above Cuban article is with regard to the political leanings of various Hispanic and Latino groups. It should also be noted that these are trends and not monolithic facts: there are members of every ethnic group which support either American party, so while one can draw very broad generalizations, in the specific one finds people from every conceivable ethnic and racial background in every American political party. Of course, I'll leave it to others to comment on other countries, as I am not as familiar with politics outside of my home country. --Jayron32 04:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, recent immigrant minorities also tend to be more socially conservative, so opposed to abortion, divorce, free condoms, etc. However, in most cases, this is overwhelmed by the open hostility towards them emanating from the (conservative) Republican Party. StuRat (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you talking about, Stu? Please name one party plank or news item that supports such a silly claim. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a top Republican strategist saying as much: [1]. Here they are restoring anti-immigrant language to the platform (which Mitt Romney had removed in an attempt to gain Hispanic votes): [2]. And here's Herman Cain, a Republican primary candidate for President in 2012, advocate using lethal methods against illegal immigrants: [3]. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A strategist says "has sounded"? You declare open hostility as a categorical fact and the best you can come up with is a political strategist advocating outreach? μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that many Mexican-Americans and other Hispanics/Latinos are more liberal on economic policy and more likely to support a welfare state and a larger social safety net (the Democrats are the more economically liberal party in the U.S.).

I've lost track of who wrote this, but it may be worth pointing out that the Democrats are the "more economically liberal" party only in a sense of the word "liberal" that's peculiar to the States. In the more classical sense of the word, the Republicans tend to be more economically liberal (that is, in favor of the free market). I emphasize the word "tend" because this is certainly not uniformly true — there are plenty of economically interventionist Republicans and a fair number of reasonably market-friendly Democrats. --Trovatore (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I got Cuban-Americans supporting Republican Party but what other ethnic groups like Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, Iranians and Colombians? Do they support Republican Party and if they do, why?--Donmust90 (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

"Arab Americans gave George W. Bush a majority of their votes in 2000." Gzuckier (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In various ridings Jason Kenney successfully obtained support from ethnic minorities for the Conservative Party of Canada, which is the newest major right-wing party in Canada, and which currently forms the government. Much has been written on this topic. Kenney has even been invited for consultations by right-wingers in the UK and the USA on how to court ethnic minorities for their support. A lot of the success is commonly attributed to the following: telling members of ethnic minorities openly that they are being intentionally targeted for their support; not using "token" strategies like assigning members of the ethnic minority for a position just to gain that minority's support; and expressing respect for some traditional values of minority groups and saying how these align with social conservatism. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, though I was speaking with some fellow Canadians of South Asian origin the other day who had supported Kenney and they say if they ever see that man ever again... lets just say they hate him for the things he has done post election. Recent immigrants to Canada do seems to support the right-wing conservatives more than average as most come from nations much more socially conservative than Canada. Many immigrants are more religious than average, more likely to deny evolution and global warming, be against gay rights, and hold other conservative viewpoints. 70.48.213.165 (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I (as a Canadian) agree with your general point, and think it's disturbing that Canada is letting these people in, do you have evidence that recent immigrants are more likely to deny global warming? As far as I know, that's associated with the right wing only in the US; in most other countries, including Canada, it's associated with lunacy. The Conservative Party is also not planning to hamper gay or abortion rights--Harper has repeatedly said that he won't reopen the abortion debate, indicating acceptance of fully legal abortion. In general, the Conservative Party is not socially conservative by American standards, or most recent immigrants' standards. --140.180.254.78 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On global warming denial, my only evidence is from speaking with them, though one can look at the international stats on global warming awareness by nation to see that awareness is lower in most nations than Canada. While you are right that the cons may be more liberal than most nations where immigrants come from, they are still the least liberal party in Canada. 70.48.213.165 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some German Jews donated money to Hitler in 1932, and possibly supported (or at least didn't mind) him back then. George W. Bush won the Muslim vote in 2000, and Republican Presidential candidates won the Asian-American vote in 1992 and 1996. Futurist110 (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the data that led the OP to believe that the Likud "gets its support from minority Jews, namely Sephardi and Mizrahi". The most prominent Likud politicians, eg the three men who have become Prime Minister, were all either born in eastern Europe, or the son of someone who was born in eastern Europe, the hallmark of Ashkenazim. --Dweller (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller -- I don't know who supports the Likud nowadays, but it's often been said that support from immigrants from Arab countries made the difference in putting the Likud in power in the pivotal election of 1977... AnonMoos (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish People's Party of Finland is one of the most extreme cases in Europe, a mainstream right-wing/liberal party, that continously gathers almost all Swedish-minority votes. --Soman (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~OP Donmust90 posits in this query that Israelis of "Sephardi and Mizrachi" origin support the Likud party because they're a minority?~~It has been explained on this page repeatedly (including by me) that the basic issues in Israeli electoral politics are (first) security and (then) economics. The Mizrachi population tends to support the Likud party's hard-line ("hawkish") foreign and domestic security platform. This also explains why there's little Mizrachi support for a dovish party, e.g. Meretz. (It's also been explained here, repeatedly, that identification as "Sephardi" is largely archaic and cultural, and not a factor in present-day electoral politics.) The support of Mizrachis for the Likud on economic grounds is similar to working-class USAians regardless of ethnicity supporting the Republican Party whose platform favors the wealthy.~~In Israel, we call claims like Donmust90's the "ethnic spectre" and it is roundly condemned. How about giving it a rest here?~~ -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether there is any "majority Jews" in Israel or if the whole Jewish population is composed by minorities, some bigger than the others, but none reaching 50% +. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Basque people are a minority in Spain, and the Basque Nationalist Party gets a lot of their votes. Not sure if that's what you meant, though. Gabbe (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That party likes to glory in the Basque. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am mixing up two myths about Aphrodite: please help:?

Myth 1 The magical girdle of Aphrodite had the power to inspire the passion of desire. Hera, in her role as the goddess of marriage, occasionally borrowed it from Aphrodite to reunite quarreling spouses in love and to inspire the bridal contests of suitors. Myth 2 Hephaestus, suspecting his wife of cheating on him, made a chain-net trap, which he set up on the bed. When Aphrodite and Ares were in a compromising position on the bed, the trap was sprung, and they couldn't break out of it. He then went and showed them off in front of all the other gods, until he was persuaded to let them go in exchange for Ares paying a fine Are those to myths related to Hephaestus and do the chain-net made of Adamant or girdle have anything to do with each other? Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venustar84 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hephaestus, was supposed to have made all sorts of things including those, I can't see why the two should be especially connected otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just blogged this to me: the girdle might be a throwback to Aprodite as the Sumerian Inanna as a mother-goddess and the other is a cautionary tale on the evils of adultery: After the adulterous couple were discovered and the male gods summoned (the female gods found the whole thing indelicate and stayed away), Hephaestus at first demanded the return of his bride-price from Zeus, who disclaimed any responsibility. Finally, Poseidon intervened on behalf of Ares, guaranteeing that the latter would pay an equivalent fine - which, of course, he never did.

But I have a another question: Wasn't another use of the girdle was as a kind of celestial shield. When King Anchises unwisely boasted of having slept with the goddess, Zeus hurled a thunderbolt at him, but Aphrodite interposed her girdle and saved his life. When did this happen? And was the girdle or net were either of then made of bronze, gold, or Adamant? Venustar84 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, not sure how useful linking to the Wikipedia article "girdle" is, since before the 20th century, the word "girdle" was mainly just a fancy-sounding synonym for "belt"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those nutty ancient Greeks had a belt fetish? Go figure. I note in that article where someone missed a chance: The one picture could have been labeled "Wemale females". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about "belt fetish", since the belts worn by women were often just a tied strip of cloth. However, as a first step in undressing, removing it could acquire symbolic significance (λῦσε δὲ παρθενίην ζώνην in Homer's Odyssey, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how strong that "girdle" was. Like if she went from an hourglass shape to a beach ball shape. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the cloth belts could be tied a little tightly at times, but corsetry as such simply didn't exist in ancient Greece. When nineteenth-century authors used the word "girdle", they were trying to be lofty and quasi-poetic, but the intended effect can fall flat if it now calls to mind a 1950s elasticized concoction. By the way, according to Liddell and Scott, originally in ancient Greek a woman's belt was a ζωνη, while a man's belt was a ζωστηρ. AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Countries With Forced Organ Donation

Have there ever been any countries which forced, say, criminals to donate organs to their victims? I'm not talking about the eye for an eye principle, since that principles advocates hurting criminals without helping the victims, while I am talking about hurting criminals in order to help their victims. And Yes, this is a serious question. Futurist110 (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In China those convicted of the death penalty have had their organs harvested without their (or their relatives) permission, and there have been allegations that this happened on a large scale in Kosovo for "disappeared" people. See "Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China" and "Organ theft in Kosovo". But in neither of those cases were the organs harvested for the purpose of being given to the victims. Other than that, I doubt any country has ever had a policy of punishing perpetrators by making them forfeit body parts for the purpose of being implanted in their victims. Gabbe (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To further clarify why I think this is unlikely: Matching organs is actually quite tricky. Among other things, donors and recipients have to have similar blood types, the donors has to be relatively healthy in order to have viable organs, and so on. That's why I think situations were it would have been even feasible for the perpetrator to give organs to his or her victims are pretty rare. Gabbe (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, governments will make forced organ donation the penalty for everything from violent crime to traffic violations. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The matching problem isn't so bad if you use daisy chain transplants. In the future hopefully the problem will go away with replacement organs being made artificially from the patients own cells. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although that solution seems to be a long way from general availability; they're still at the rat stage.[4] Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean after the prisoners die, killing the prisoners to harvest their organs, or forcing criminals to donate "spare" organs while still alive? --140.180.254.78 (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any of that would work for this question. Also, by "victims," I generally mean a situation where a criminal stabs someone and this other individual needs a new kidney or something along those lines. Futurist110 (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think after they're executed but who knows? The article Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China discusses the practice. Dmcq (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parable vs. fable

The Wiki articles on parable and fable seem to have similar wording in the introduction. As a matter of fact, they note that the only difference between a parable and fable is that a parable deals with humans, while a fable deals with everything else. But in structure and purpose, they are the same. So, what happens in a story if a character transforms from an inanimate object into an animate object or if a character transforms from a human to an animal and vice versa, and the transformation is an integral part of the story and moral/lesson? Sneazy (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using the Reference desks for whimsical questions that you know perfectly well can't be answered. They may seem funny to you but to us they're just boring. Looie496 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. I can't answer them. Which is why I use the reference desks. I would have used the Know-It-Now service at my public library, but they mostly provide references to databases that I already have access to. Which is why I typically use databases to do my own research. If I make up a question with an easy answer that anybody can look up on the Internet or in a database, then I wouldn't have to ask them in the first place, would I? For example, there was one time when I asked a librarian on the Internet about "what is a tabernacle and what do you put in it?" because I thought the Wikipedia article was useless. I couldn't really figure out what the picture was pointing to. The librarian pointed to the Catholic encyclopedia and even then I completely missed the part about the Blessed Sacrament, because I didn't know that the term was a devotional term for the Eucharist until that time. Sometimes, it's little things like this that stumble me. Funny, but I swear I saw a young man put a piece of paper inside the tabernacle! It's not bread and wine either! A mystery!Sneazy (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Looie: you are wrong on this one, the question can be answered. That's a Cross-genre work. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tabernacles have also, historically, been used to store precious things that needed to be kept safe. Famously (or as famous as something can be that nearly nobody apparently knows) the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge was hidden in several tabernacles, in the run up to the Palm Sunday where it was read in churches across Germany, because the priests knew they had to keep it secret and safe until the day. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it a farable, but that's just me. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metamorphoses? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes sustainability

A little hypothetical that will help with my homework. Say a new independent country was formed of the Great Lakes Basin. If the country decided to be isolationist and stopped all trade with other countries, what raw materials, natural resources, food resources, and perhaps metals would the country be limited to? (If there's too many to list, a website containing them would be great). Could it sustain itself without exporting or importing? Thanks! 50.101.202.180 (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to ask could it sustain itself as an industrial nation without exporting or importing? Because I’m pretty sure the Alonquians made do pretty much just with what was there. They could as an industrial nation of course, too, but perhaps not particularly competitively. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excepting that the rust belt is concentrated on the Great Lakes, so there's at least hypothetically the infrastructure for manufacturing. There's also lots of coal, iron, copper, forests, etc. in the greater Great Lakes area, food resources as well. It would likely be fairly self-sustaining, assuming they could make the economics of firing up their industries again work (that is, the economic pressures that have caused all of the manufacturing jobs to leave may still be there even in a Great Lakes nation state). --Jayron32 00:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, there were extensive trade networks around the Great Lakes in pre-Columbian times. The Hopewell interaction sphere went from the Great Lakes far to the south and west, and Upper Peninsula copper has been found all over the place. Perhaps pre-Columbian peoples could have made do pretty much just with what was there, but they didn't. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much meaning mostly, and made do meaning sustaining life. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what? --Jayron32 03:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Reisio's portrayal of peoples of the Great Lakes basin existing without exporting or importing, when the region was a vibrant trade center long before Columbus. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Since you threaded it in response to me, it confused me. --Jayron32 05:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Way too many to list. Virtually the entirety of Michigan is in the Great Lakes Basin, and around 1/3 of each of Ontario (which forms the largest part of the basin), New York, Wisconsin and Ohio are in the basin. If you just go to Michigan's Department of Natural Resources and Department of Agriculture and Rural Development websites, and Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Food and Agriculture websites, you will be able to look up listings of natural resources. Sources of: natural gas, oil, forestry products, iron, copper, cobalt, chromium, molybdenum, nickel, coal, uranium, hydro-electric power ... the list is endless. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to look at it in reverse. That is, what would such a nation lack ? Certainly tropical foods would be lacking. I don't think many airplanes are made there now, although Willow Run made large quantities during WW2. Electronics might also be scarce, at least until sufficient factories could be set up to mass produce them. StuRat (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They would have the materials and facilities to produce lots and lots of cars, and would soon run out of people to sell them to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very few places produce large aircraft nowadays, but Ontario still has a number of small aircraft manufacturers, and the de Havilland Aircraft Company was based in Toronto until a couple of decades ago, so manufacturing mid-sized aircraft is not an impossibility (leaving the economics of such production aside). But most sophisticated manufacturing these days depends on a global supply chain, so if any country practices strict economic isolationism (Autarky), it is at a distinct disadvantage. --Xuxl (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The OP postulates isolationism, so there would be no reason to manufacture airplanes, except maybe small ones for local flights. The US used to be almost entirely self-sufficient, but that was then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would need more than small planes with numerous large cities in the new state and considering that western Minnesota is as far from eastern New York as London from Athens. Any rail transit would have to go around the lakes through Chicago to the south or along the Canadian shore which adds to the travel distance. There are rail crossings at the Detroit, St. Clair and St. Marys rivers but not at Straits of Mackinaw or across any of the lakes. Only one 1950s era ferry is still running which could handle train cars. Rmhermen (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another fruitful line of inquiry could be to google people attempting to follow The 100-Mile Diet in the region. I think I read about a couple in Ontario who were aghast to discover this meant they would have no salt. 67.22.236.216 (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large salt mine under Detroit and Windsor. You need to look at something more like a 500-mile diet. Rmhermen (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider only the drainage basin area and not all area of the states that border the lakes, you would have a shortage of oil and coal. You might be ok with natural gas but would have no fresh uranium supplies. There would be a huge excess of iron and nickel and possibly copper. There would probably be a shortage of wheat, no matter how agriculture was rearranged. No tropical fruit but no shortage of blueberries or cherries. Good supplies of apples and grapes. Rmhermen (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. I have thought about the problem of low oil deposits, though I watched a documentary a few months ago about synthetic oils made of algae (I think Wikipedia has a page on it.) Considering the new country would have five whole lakes, is it possible for them to use the algae to synthesize their own oil, or would they need another species of algae not native to the Lakes? 50.101.202.180 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Algae fuel is still in experimental development, not large scale production anywhere. It doesn't necessarily require lakes. Rmhermen (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]