Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 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.

January 13

God, the Devil, and Gender

God and the Devil are not equal and opposites just as the two genders, male and female, are equal and opposites, are they? Republicanism (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what? --Jayron32 00:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That would depend on your religion, now wouldn't it (both God/Devil equality and male/female equality)? StuRat (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Now, what was the question? HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't he ask the same question a week or two ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Gender is a (deeply rooted) social construct. Biological sex is extremely complicated. Neither is intrinsically polar, although we often view them that way for convenience. Neither has anything to do with metaphysics, and most Christians are not Manicheans. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Environmentalism and the Fall of Communism

What do environmentalists think about the fall of communism and the triumph of capitalism and America in the end of the Cold War? Republicanism (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that environmentalists were a monolithic group that thought with one mind, especially about politico-economic systems. I would imagine you could find at least one person who called themselves an environmentalist who thinks anything. SO the answer to your question is that environmentalists think everything about it. Whatever opinion it is technically possible to have, environmentalists have that one too. --Jayron32 02:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You might want to be a little more specific in your question. After all, "environmentalists" are not a homogeneous group with a defined and unchanging set of universal beliefs and opinions, so the answer you get is going to vary widely dependign on which environmentalist you ask, natch. It's a bit like asking "What do Americans think about Indian food?". To expect there to be a simple answer that applies across the board is absurd. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

He's implying you can't be a capitalist and also care about the environment. Very sad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The question is basically trolling, but others reading this, on the off-chance they will still learn something, might like to check out Liberals for Forests. In Australia, the Liberal Party is the conservative party, but the Libs for Forests are openly big on the environment. As people are saying, it depends on the person, and here is something that confirms it. IBE (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a mixed bag. In industrialized communist nations, like the Warsaw pact countries, a lack of any concern for the environment led to vast areas of severe pollution. A lack of safety standards also resulted in ecological disasters like Chernobyl (although evacuating all the people eventually allowed wildlife to flourish there). In more agrarian communist nations, like Cuba, the lack of development of resorts, golf courses, and such has preserved many areas that otherwise would have been destroyed. China is a unique case of an officially communist government with capitalism at it's core. Unfortunately, this combines the capitalist tendency to view the environment as just a resource to be exploited with a lack of control and oversight, which would otherwise occur in a democracy, where the people won't stand for extreme pollution. So, the environment in China could be a serious problem. StuRat (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If you by 'environmentalists' mean followers of Green Parties, then the answer is quite straightforward. They celebrated the implosion of the Socialist Bloc (notably the German Greens, then the only really prominent Green Party, had counterpart in East Germany during Der Wende), and they tend to refuse to see the Cold War as a zero-sum realpolitik game (thus, in spite that some Greens oppose US foreign policy, they do not 'blame' it on the fall of the Socialist Bloc). --Soman (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ironically enough, wise use of natural resources used to be called "conservation", whereas the typical "conservative" seems to take the attitude of exploitation rather than "wise use" of natural resources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has seen a number of (environmental) disasters due to a lack of equipment, safety checks and infrastructure." [1] Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Context, is why we usually don't like questions that are obviously going to become opinion forum fodder. Shadowjams (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jurisdiction of Hawaiian courts

Section #3 of Yamashita's gold (and the related Rogelio Roxas article) surprised me — how can Hawaiian courts have jurisdiction over a foreign head of state in a dispute arising from that head of state's country? Why wasn't the lawsuit thrown out of court as soon as the judge(s) realised that it didn't involve anything that happened in Hawaii? Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

In general, this is called universal jurisdiction. Many countries have it under some circumstances, but the laws and practices vary widely. Superm401 - Talk 04:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt this is a universal jurisdiction issue. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, since Japan surrendered to the Allies, any war loot (or court cases regarding said loot) would be handled by the Allies. The US, being the major power in the war against Japan, makes sense as the one to handle it, and Hawaii, being the closest state, makes sense as the place to try it. StuRat (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Leaving aside questions of universal jurisdiction, and I don't know enough after looking at that article to know if that's the case, courts (in the U.S., the states, and other countries too) may exercise jurisdiction over cases that don't have obvious links to the court if they meet personal jurisdiction requirements. There are a lot of other issues though in that instance, including Forum non conveniens and venue. Universal jurisdiction is a very specific kind of jurisdiction, one currently the subject of some debate. I doubt, but am by no means sure, that this case involves that. As Stu says, U.S. occupation of Japan (and their territories) after WW2 might have something to do with it, although I suspect (again, no means sure) that this isn't about that. You should read the personal jurisdiction article and see if that helps at all. Shadowjams (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

B?

see What the letter B after those numbers stands for (in the "begin views column"? I know M stands for a million and K stands for thousands.65.128.142.118 (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Billion.
Sleigh (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Trajan's column

Despite making the illustrations slightly larger at the top, I'd still expect it to be quite difficult to read the top from ground level. So, was there some type of superstructure, perhaps wooden, built around it in Roman times, to allow everyone to read the top ? StuRat (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No, but it's hollow and has a staircase inside, so you could climb to the top. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Although dangling yourself over the side to see the images would be quite an adventurous method of viewing. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Plus the images would be upside down, IBE (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Some archaeologists think the column was brightly painted, rendering it much easier to make out at a distance[2]. But others don't know if that's true, and doubt that if it were it would be sufficient to make it fully discernible from the ground.[3] (Those two sources differ as to whether there is vestigial evidence of paint). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"It has been proposed that the roofs of the two flanking libraries could have been used as viewing platforms (the height of these may have been about equivalent to the current street level from which visitors now peer at the column). Even if this was the case, however, it would have only allowed the spectator to view a few more spirals and it would have been impossible to follow the circular narrative of the relief." Experiencing Trajan's Column. Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the point was not to make the images visible, but to create a big-ass ornate column. It didn't matter if you could see everything, just that you knew Trajan was responsible for it, and that he could afford to make it look like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. A similar conundrum exists with the illustrations in the stained glass in medieval cathedrals, so high from the floor that it's impossible to see what is being represented.[4] Perhaps only God (or in Trajan's case, the gods) was supposed to see the whole work. Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all. StuRat (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Indian Judiciary

Here's an extract from my political science textbook-

"... The Judiciary of India is also one of the most powerful in the world. The Supreme Court and the High Court have the power to interpret the Constitution of the country. They can declare invalid any law of the legislature or the actions of the executive, whether at the union of the state level, if they find such a law or action against the Constitution. Thus they can determine the Constitutional validity of any legislation or action of the executive in the country, when it is challenged before them."

I didn't get the last sentence properly. Help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashowardhani (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It means that if a new law is brought before the higher courts, a judge can decide that the law is unconstitional and therefore not valid. Similarly, an action by the government can be given the same treatment. Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

(Note that it doesn't have to be a 'new' law; there are a lot of laws and regulations that sit on the books for a long time before being subject to a constitutional challenge. There are notable examples from various countries' histories where a supreme court's opinion on the constitionality of a particular law or legal principle changes over time, as well. The canonical example of this in U.S. jurisprudence is the court's change of heart over racial segregation: endorsed in 1896's Plessy v. Ferguson, and overturned in 1954's Brown v. Board of Education.)

As well, one should be cautious in how one reads the textbook author's chosen wording. Saying "one of the most powerful" might mistakenly lead the reader to infer that there is something particular or special about India's judiciary with regard to its authority to evaluate the constitutional validity of laws or executive actions. In fact a great many nations give either their supreme court(s) or a separate constitutional court explicit or implicit authority to repeal unconstitutional legislation and bar unconstitutional acts: the power of judicial review. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course nothing any of the previous commentators have said is about Indian law. Shadowjams (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The question was about the meaning of a sentence written in English, which required explanation of vocabulary and grammer but not law (Indian or otherwise) per se, as given in Alansplodge's answer. TOAT was giving some general context to the question, which seems to me unexceptionable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Steam clock

I remember hearing (from many), that the first clock in Gastown was financed by merchants that didn't like steam coming out of a grate in the sidewalk. 1977 was before the internet so it is hard to source, I am sure this is the main reason for funding the project by merchants. The other clocks around the world may have been built for similar reasons. Should this be added to the article after sourcing? I don't even know where to look. It seems other editors on the talk page had trouble sourcing info as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Found a source for the Vancouver clock buried in an external link.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Land of Punt

Hello,

the Land of Punt did have a script, how does it look like (is the script ostensibly influenced by Egyptian hieroglyphs as it could be deciphered or is it a script totally unrelated to the Egyptian)? If the Land of Punt had contact to Egypt, why aren't there any translations?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Since there isn't even agreement as to where the land of Punt was, we probably can't know if they had writing. If those scholars who locate it in Southern Arabia are right, then it may be that they used the old Arabian script. If, as is more commonly held, they were in Africa, we have not found any writing and so we do not know if they even had writing.

I'm afraid I don't understand your last question: translations of what into what? We know of Punt only from Egyptian records. --ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, but this History_of_Somalia#Ancient article refers to Punt as well, proposing them to have pyramids and a writing system? And I have another question, did Punt persist till 325 BC?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but it is hard to tell; if it had persisted as an organized state that long, it would have most certainly shown up in other writings. What makes Punt so ephermeral is that it is only attested in the writings of Egypt, and only as late as the Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt, which would be about 700 years earlier than your date. So, Punt would have had to existed with no one knowing it for 700 years. It's possible it existed in the Horn of Africa, but no one really knows if the civilization noted in the "History of Somalia" article was Punt or some other country. --Jayron32 06:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In the Land of Punt, it's always fourth down. --Trovatore (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Women's breasts

The nude photography workshop I recently attended got me thinking. There are some cultures in the world where women having their breasts bared is nothing special. These are mainly indigenous tribes in Africa and Oceania, not developed countries in Europe or North America. I haven't been to any of these places, but from what I've seen in pictures, the women seem to be rather small-breasted. Is this just a coincidence, or is there a correlation between breast size and cultural opinion about breasts? JIP | Talk 19:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The women may be undernourished, at any rate do not suffer from Western problems of obesity, have not had boob jobs and are not a specially selected sample of big-breasted women a la Health and Efficiency. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as the size, I don't know. But western cultures used to expose breasts sometimes too (well, more often than they do now). In fact, at certain times in history it was a sign of being royalty or an aristocrat. See this Slate summary. Superm401 - Talk 20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL. The picture in that Slate column rather neatly deflates the premise of the OP's question. Matt Deres (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Well-put. And it reminds me of something a black comic said many years ago: "National Geographic was our Playboy." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"National Geographic ? I hate those bastards. They used to come to my village and pay the women to take off their shirts and bras, then they would take pictures !" - Fez from That '70s Show. StuRat (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)