Humanities desk
< October 22	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 24 >

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.

October 23

West African burial practices

In what religion(s) do people practice the rituals of "washing, touching, and kissing" the corpses of their dead loved ones?

Kissing the Corpses in Ebola Country—The Daily Beast (August 13, 2014)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a cultural—rather than a specifically religious—practice that may have roots in traditional African religions but that is also practiced by Christians in parts of Africa. Funeral practices also vary among, for example, among European ethnic groups even though they all traditionally adhere to Christianity. Christianity does not dictate the details of practices such as wakes or burials. In fact, it dictates little more than the words spoken at the funeral service in some denominations. The rest is a matter of custom. Marco polo (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still common in the West for Christians (and others) to touch a corpse's hand or face in the casket, after they pay someone else to wash it. Kissing, not so much, but a little peck goodbye on the forehead isn't exactly rare. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kissing the face of the corpse is perfectly normal practice at Russian Orthodox funerals. A little confronting for those not brought up in that tradition, but they usually get over it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they catch a fatal disease, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the stuff the undertaker plasters on the face is contaminated, it shouldn't be a problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my original post, I linked to an article which begins with this statement.

Ebola victims are most infectious right after death—which means that West African burial practices, where families touch the bodies, are spreading the disease like wildfire.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if it catches on this side of the pond, only the doctors and undertakers (and associates) will die like wildfire. And then the rest of us will live happily ever after, left without the meddling to care for our own families again, like in the good old days. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

drunk Shakespeare scenes

What Shakespeare scenes have dialogue where the speaker is drunk?--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Act II Scene 3 of Macbeth (the porter is drunk). --Viennese Waltz 06:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cassio gets drunk in Othello and rambles on about salvation (Act II, scene iii). Doll Tearsheet in Henry IV, part 2 is first seen throwing up after having had too much "canaries" (sherry-like wine from the Canary islands). Of course Falstaff and his pals are semi-permanently drunk, though since drinking is inherent to his lifestyle, I suppose you could say he's never "drunk" as such. However, Master Silence, who's not used to drink, is clearly drunk during Falstaff's visit to Shallow. There are several references to drink in Hamlet, notably when Claudius gets drunk on his wedding night ("a custom more honoured in the breach"). Toby Belch is clearly supposed to be drunk at the beginning of Twelfth Night, and of course Lepidus gets absolutely plastered in Antony and Cleopatra, starts talking rambling nonsense about crocodiles, and has to be carried to bed. Paul B (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot Stephano and Trinculo in The Tempest. They are drunk pretty much throughout. Paul B (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any scenes in which Sir John Falstaff is sober? Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to say. There are some scenes in which it's not specified that he has a drink nearby, notably the battle scenes, but he's often depicted in productions with a flask by his side, from which he takes repeated swigs - especially when he's giving his speeches to glory of sack. He's clearly supposed to be sober at the end of H IV 2, having ridden all night to be in London, but that's emblematically linked to the "sobering" experience of being told by Hal to get out of his life. His drinking isn't so blatant in the Merry Wives. He only mentions sack once! Paul B (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! nice, very thorough.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish early childhood ritual

Hi everyone,

I would like to know,

Muslims perform ‘Akika’, Christians perform ‘baptizing/christening’, what do Jewish people do? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Brit milah: "covenant of circumcision" is a Jewish religious male circumcision ceremony performed by a mohel (ritual circumciser) on the eighth day of a male infant's life. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also pidyon ha-ben, also performed in infancy. The child is not much of an active participant there, though. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Resolved

Pluralism and Politics

Does Pluralism accurately describe the distribution of power in a complex society, or are there more appropriate, rivalling theories? --Alliengyeoeuen (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this question here before; i recommend reading over Pluralism (political philosophy) and Pluralism (political theory) ~Helicopter Llama~ 12:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the identical question was asked 8 days ago,[1] and I would be shocked if it weren't the same guy. And I think your response above was the response he got then too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic painting

Hi all,

When I viewed the wikipedia page for Celtic or Norse Mythology (can't remember which, it might be a page in the same subject as well), there used to be a Celtic painting about fairies or whatnot, I just remember that there was a lot of green in that painting but didn't copy the references. Does anyone know what it was ? The style of the painting is close to Edward Robert Hughes' Midsummer Eve.

Thank you all for your time and answer. 213.245.64.59 (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what a "Celtic painting" is (or why there would be one at "Norse mythology"), but you might mean this one, I guess. You could look through "Category:Celtic mythology" or "Category:Fairies" at Commons. Paul B (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help ! I found it by doing a Google Image search, 'famous fairy painting', and it's called Sadko in the Underwater Kingdom by Ilya Repin. It's the picture on the Slavic Mythology page. I knew it was a Proto-European mythology ! :) 213.245.64.59 (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the picture to the top of the thread, in case anyone was curious. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's long been one of my favorite paintings. See the article on Sadko. (If you like the general Romantic style, see Peredvizhniki.) I was rather alarmed to see a Russian folk hero at the bottom of the sea described as a Celt with faeries! μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems of literature

Can anyone recommend a book critical of the current literature in general? Like, pointing out its problems (aesthetic or otherwise) and shortcomings, etc. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without further clarification, "current literature" is a massively broad topic. Certainly, any extensive work of literary criticism might point out perceived problems with its subject matter, but I'm not aware of any book that purports to take on such an extensive subject as "current literature", however you define "current" and however you define "literature." You'll have much better luck looking for critical analysis of specific authors and works. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that. How about the 21st-century English-language novels -- is it specific enough? --BorgQueen (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. No-one has written, or is going to write, a book critical of the entire body of 21st century English novels. You might get criticism of certain trends, and (as noted above) of specific authors, but no more than that. --Viennese Waltz 19:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Dear goodness. There's roughly 292,000 books published every year in the U.S. Even supposing that something less than half of those are novels, that's over 100,000 novels for someone to keep up with every year. Who has time to read and review all those books, and develop a criticism of the general trends? And that's not even including books published in other English-speaking nations. And we're 14 years into the 21st century. You really want to find someone who read 1,000,000 books? --Jayron32 19:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And we arrive at one of the bases for postmodernism: examination is always of things as they were, not as they are; to be truly in the moment is to slightly ahead of the curve.

There's also the issue of which perspective the criticism takes, such as didactic, feminist, Marxist, Jungian, Afrocentric, deconstructionist... List goes on, those are just the highlights you might find in a general college course. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might try a Google search for critiques of the Iowa_Writers'_Workshop (and MFA programs in general). The influence of the Iowa model on contemporary fiction--in which student's receive peer feedback at every stage of the writing process (derogatively called "writing by committee")--has led to substantial criticism (itself of varying quality). For a different type of critique, you might search for books or articles on the consolidation of the mass media and concurrent decline of the traditional publishing model: unless you are an established author (e.g. J._K._Rowling) or a celebrity (e.g. Snooki), it is almost impossible to get something published. OldTimeNESter (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many people are secular and atheist in the Western sense of the term in East Asia?

How many people are or considered to be or identify as secular and atheist in the Western sense of the term in East Asia? 140.254.226.232 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Western sense of the term? Does it make sense to use it in the East? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may find Religion in China interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Secular and atheist aren't necessarily the same thing. Someone could be lead by religious beliefs to believe that church and state should remain wholly separate. Atheists who believe that the government should enforce their views regarding religion are not being especially secular.

Demographics of atheism covers some relevant information. Looking it over, it only has specific articles on Irreligion in China and Irreligion in South Korea, so looking at specific "Religion in (country)" articles might help. About half of China are atheists, as are about 15% of South Koreans. I'd make an off-hand guess that North Korea's figures are at least as much as China's (unless maybe one counts Kimilsungism as a form of emperor worship, though I'm sure that saying that wouldn't go over well in North Korea). Our article on the subject says North Korea is 64% irreligious, though not specifically atheist, but given the nature of the government, most of them probably would identify as atheist.

Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Burma are mostly Buddhist, but forms that are rather nontheistic. Possibly not atheist in most possible Western senses, though. Nepal is mostly Hindu. Mongolia is 38.6% irreligious, and Singapore 17% irreligious, though that includes deists, agnostic theists, and so on.

Some other countries are harder to measure. In Japan, for example, it's not uncommon for someone to engage in a mixture of Shinto, Buddhist, or even Christian practices while holding no particular belief in any of them. Religion_in_Japan#Irreligion includes the claim by one author that less than 15% of Japanese people believe in gods, which could be reversed to argue that they're 85% atheist, and yet other sources indicate that at least 80% of Japan practices some form of Shinto even if they do not identify with that religion. Vietnam is somewhere between 30% to 80% non-religious, possibly due to similar factors as Japan (people engaging in religions they do not identify with), or Mongolia (where irreligion includes non-atheists), which also makes it really hard to nail down if someone is specifically atheist. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point of the "Western sense of the term" bit is to exclude non-theistic Buddhists, since they're atheists, but still religious, unlike Western atheists. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of Western atheist Cultural Catholics, bless you. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I once read (sorry, I don't have the source), that 127% of Japanese are 'religious', which would imply that they 'adhere' to more than one religion. I lived there for ten years. My wedding was Shinto (although the wife wanted a Christian wedding), my house was blessed in a Shinto ceremony, and her grandmother's funeral was Buddhist. However, no-one in the family at any point during our three-year marriage visited a church, buddhist temple, or shinto shrine. For the Japanese, it appears that they are just doing these ceremonies as a routine, to fit in with everyone else, and not for any kind of belief system. However, there are many Japanese (usually middle-aged people) who visit Buddhist temples to pray, not understanding that Buddhism is not there for you to be 'saved' and go to a Pure Land (Buddhist version of Heaven), but to learn a philosophy that makes your life here a lot easier, being originally a philosophy, not a religion, and hijacked by people who couldn't find any other work so they used the usual format of religions by promising an after life, and by doing so, these people get free food and drink, and don't have to pay taxes (I was a Buddhist monk in Japan for three years). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think China has a similar attitude toward religion as Japan. In China, many Chinese people practice Taoism at a level that is indistinguishable from Chinese folk religion (aka traditional Chinese religion), so there is a lot of double-counting when it comes to figures that try to figure out exactly what percentage of the population practices "Taoism" exclusively or practices "traditional Chinese religion" exclusively. The answer is that not many people practice them exclusively, but they do practice them together. Also, religion is treated differently in China than in the United States. In the US, religion is about unchanging, dogmatic belief in the doctrine of the religious group and weekly presence at church or synagogue. In China, people may do a kowtow as a sign of reverence or respect not only for their elders, but also for their ancestors. Taoism can be seen as a religion and philosophy, and it is manifested in traditional Chinese thought in the form of Tai Chi. I can't say whether or not Tai Chi is a religious practice, because it may just be an expression of traditional Chinese thought, influenced by Taoism and Confucianism, both of which can be seen as "religion" and "philosophy". 71.79.234.132 (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intra-NATO war

The intro to Cyprus notes that Greece and Turkey nearly went to war in 1964. Imagine that full-fledged war had broken out between these countries, both members of NATO: what would the other members have done? The issue isn't addressed in the North Atlantic Treaty, so perhaps the answer is "whatever they thought best at the time", but I was wondering if the issue were formally addressed by some other document, or by some corollary to the treaty that's not included in the Wikisource page that I linked. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine a circle forming about the combatants. Anytime one tries to leave, it's pushed back into Central Europe by another which has invested a lot of money in either its prosperous future or its need for continual ammunition.

If the exact protocol for it is in written form, it's probably 45,000 feet underground in a shoebox. You don't want the other side to consider you even have a contingency plan for (basically) mutiny. Shows a lack of leadership. So yeah, that's just my imagination up there. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not a clause that says members are pledged to come to the defense of any member that is attacked? That's what justified NATO forces in Afghanistan. Presumably, if it were clear that A had attacked B first, then B would 'logiclly' be the one to be defended. I am not sure its helpful to ask ahead of time or depend on logic. There's certainly not been any consistency in US action. Look at how the toppling of Qaddafi was handled. I think we're looking at a murky crystal ball here. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pre-emptive strike is often considered an offensive defense, before an attack can happen. I'm sure there'd be a long legal battle just to figure out who the rest of the crew should actually battle. After the fact, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An old joke, possibly from Peanuts: "I thought he was going to hit me, so I hit him back first." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be from Andy Capp. Or just confused with this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! You're not confused. It's just deja vu:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If American policy during the last 13 years has been to try to destabilize the region, it's certainly working. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Cod Wars. Nobody intervened. Although this was not 'all-out war' (Iceland doesn't have an army anyway), it was still a series of semi-military conflicts between two NATO members, which did actually result in one casualty. Besides NATO, even the UN refused to intervene. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Various external discussions like [3] and [4] point to article 8 [5] which says

Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

Note that article 1 says

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Some suggest that any aggressor would automatically be in violation of article 8 (and I guess article 1) and so they would be expelled (or at least no longer eligible for protection) and then article 5 and 6 which provide for mutual self defence would come in to play for the party who is the target of the aggressor. Or as μηδείς suggested, article 5 and 6 would mean that the target of the aggressor would be protected, but not the aggressor. But this doesn't seem to be clearly stated.

Of course, determing who's an aggressor isn't easy and as we've seen with nearly any modern conflict (e.g. anything to do with India/Pakistan) each side will accuse the other of being the aggressor. Beyond that given in the articles I've mentioned (including 5 and 6 which I didn't quote), the NATO treat doesn't really seem to deal with how to decide who's the aggressor. There is the UN view [6]. Note that while NATO treaty itself refers to 'attacked' rather than an aggressor, I mentioned aggressor primarily because if both sides are at fighting than both sides must have attacked each other, so it ultimately comes down to who "attacked" "first" or who's the "aggressor".

I do agree with the those in the other discussions namely the US will likely have a big influence over determing who's the aggressor and what happens which of course means it will depend heavily on the geopolitical background stuff of the current government (and to some extent US citizen). However although I'm often critical of the US, it does seem likely in most cases they (and probably many others) would use their pressure to try and stop any such war, as they've done so before. Which would probably include making it clear to both sides they could easily be seen as the aggressor if they don't stop whatever it is the US doesn't like. (If the US really wanted such a war to proceed, they'd probably have found a way to get the unwanted party to leave NATO first.)

Note that per NATO, Greece did leave the military command structure a while later (but I'm pretty sure not NATO) from 1974 to 1980. BTW, the Cod Wars is an interesting example but whether you want to intepret anything that happened as a violation of Article 6 is another matter. It's another good example of the political element, you could perhaps say some of the stuff was a violation of article 6, you could say it wasn't.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Nil, hence my scare quotes around 'logically'. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought those were because you were spelling it like that for a damn good reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Taht just goes to prove my point, never expect what would make sense actually to happen. For which, see the new recriminatory thread I have created on the ref desk talk page. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I'll see nothing of the sort! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

To be clear, while I can see why article 5 & 6 together could be argued to mean the person who is doing the attacking isn't eligible for protection, as this wasn't clearly stated I think it's difficult to argue that's the only logical assumption. It could also been claimed both have been attacked (well unless one side really sat back and did nothing at all). Definitely if there is some minor skirmish between Estonia (or some other random smallish NATO member bordering) and Russia, and Russia decides to launch a allout invansion of Estonia, it's hard to imagine NATO is going to ignore it even if by all accounts Estonia could be said to be the one who attacked first. I have doubts even the drafters of the treaty would have suggested they should either (well obviously not Estonia then). Of course, it gets more complicated if we consider stuff besides article 5 and 6. It's largely a moot point anyway given the likely vaguaries of who was attacked first.