Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 January 19

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 19

"body of a bird surrounded by 72 virgins"

Just saw this in the New York Times: "Mr. Benyettou reassured them that the soul of their 19-year-old friend was now in the body of a bird in paradise surrounded by 72 virgins."^[1] Obviously this seems a bit odd because what the hell use are 72 virgins if you're in the body of a bird? Yeah, yeah, I know... you use your little pecker as best as you possibly can. :) We don't have the word "bird" in Houri, either. I'm vaguely reminded of the ancient Egyptian conception of the Akh. Is this an authentic belief or some kind of confusion on the New York Times' end, and if it is real, can someone explain it? Wnt (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Various sources like [2] [3] [4] [5] do mention souls inhabiting green birds in paradise, originating at least partially from Hadith Qudsi 27 [6] [7]. I'm not sure how widely this is intepreted literally and of course not everyone accepts the Hadith, even the Hadith Qudsi as our article says, but the first source does suggest the green bird thing is imagery used by some radicals. Nil Einne (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

To bring some of the answer here, this cites Hadith Qudsi 27:

We asked Abdullah (i.e. Ibn Masud) about this verse: And do not regard those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead, rather are they alive with their Lord, being provided for (Quran Chapter 3 Verse 169). He said: We asked about that and the Prophet (pbuh) said: Their souls are in the insides of green birds having lanterns suspended from the Throne, roaming freely in Paradise where they please, then taking shelter in those lanterns. So their Lord cast a glance at them (1) and said: Do you wish for anything? They said: What shall we wish for when we roam freely in Paradise where we please? And thus did He do to them three times. When they say that they would not be spared from being asked [again], they said: O Lord, we would like for You to put back our souls into our bodies so that we might fight for Your sake once again. And when He saw that they were not in need of anything they were let be.

(I don't know enough about Islam to know if this is a sort of temporary heaven preceding some other judgment, or if a believer can picture having his soul flying around happy in a green bird even while he continues to live in his body being entertained by houris, nor do I have any real understanding how wide the range of opinion is about the origin of the text. Kind of funny though that they say they want their bodies back but don't get them...) Wnt (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the virgins, the possibility exists that they aren't there as sex toys, but as servants, where being virginal is merely to assure their purity, much like the Vestal Virgins. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That is contradicted by the Quran, however: "... and We will marry them to fair women (Arabic: Houris) with large, [beautiful] eyes." (52:20, Sahih International). That these houris are indeed virgins can be seen from this "In them are good and beautiful women - So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny? - Fair ones (Arabic: Houris) reserved in pavilions - So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny? - Untouched before them by man or jinni - So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny? -" (55:70-75 Sahih International)

Now that is not to say that the virgins are 'sex toys' per se, but Muslims are going to marry them. - Lindert (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

From our article houri "Importantly, some scholars argue that the promise of 72 virgins is a mistranslation from "72 angels"[61] or 72 "white raisins" of "crystal clarity".[62][61] According to Ibn Warraq referring to The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran, "Luxenberg claims that the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offered, and not unsullied maidens or houris".[61][63]" This interpretation may be heretical in most current interpretations of Islam, but it is regarded as possible by Western scholars. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

At least this version would content Muslim women as well, not only men. Isn't the whole virgin thing yet another example that shows religions (and their interpretations and explanations) are always made by men for men, and seem to ignore women or to submit women to men's view? Akseli9 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Although the common traditional view of the Houri may seem more targetted at heterosexual men than women (although our article those suggest there may be feminine male houri or that women will otherwise be happy with their houri), even for men some of the ideas seem to be either poorly thought out or restricted to a subset of men (even if we ignore the bird bit). The houri are supposed to companions of ~equal age, since you're eternally young, I guess this doesn't mean you're going to end up with 60 year olds if you die at 60, which is useful I guess it's fairly common that men may prefer somewhat younger women. However this doesn't seem to work out so well if you prefer much older women which some men do. Also the houri are supposed to have large, round, firm. This may be something quite a number of men would like, however these breasts seem somewhat "wasted" since the houri also have skin transparent enough that you can see their bone marrow. I'm not sure if there's some translation problems and transparent more means translucent but it would seem these breasts might be a bit hard to see. Of course mean with a breast feeding or pregnancy fettish seem to be SOL. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, though houris (and boys!) occur in the Qur'an, the number "72" doesn't -- in this context, it's only found in hadith... AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

To get back on track... is there any indication why the birds are green? Is a particular species being referred to? Wnt (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Chinese immigrants in the mid-20th century and marriage

I am not sure if this website would be true during the mid-20th century as far as how legal marriage worked in the United States at that time. It seems to me that the process for legal marriage is that one person must be an ordained minister, must follow the marriage laws in the state, must include the Declaration of Intent, and must sign the marriage license papers. In that case, I am wondering how Chinese immigrants in the mid-20th century or later would have married. At that time, did it have to be an ordained minister? Could it be the Justice of the Peace at the courthouse? Or did Chinese immigrants attempt to obtain permission from a local church? How did the US government handle civil marriages? (According to this webpage, the traditional Chinese wedding does not even mention having a minister solemnizing the ceremony, let alone saying any Declaration of Intent, presumably because the wedding was arranged by the families, not by the individuals themselves. Today, that has changed substantially, and many couples are self-arranged, but parental guiding and opinion are still important and involved.) 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The Justice of the Peace goes back much further than that. Our article is weak on the history in the US, but does mention that the Texas Constitution defined the position, and the current Texas Constitution was written in 1876. StuRat (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This still does not answer the question of how Chinese immigrants might have gotten married or have their foreign marriages recognized. It is possible that the state may have recognized common-law marriages, and this might have made foreign-born Chinese-American couples to be legally married, even though they might have never set foot in a church and have the wedding solemnized by a Christian minister. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You have to get married by an officially recognized celebrant, who could be a minister, priest, rabbi, Justice of the Peace, mayor, county clerk, governor, magistrate or a judge. ([for Utah: [8]) Each of the fifty states have different laws with different histories. Rmhermen (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That just repeats what I said. It does not answer my question for government recognition of marriages of foreign-born Chinese immigrants who were married in China who came to the United States as married couples. Perhaps, a married status on the visa would be enough? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be hung up on the idea of a Christian minister but that was never a requirement. There have always been alternative officiants and in all states Common-law marriage in the United States was allowed until specifically prohibited which some states have still not done. Rmhermen (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for providing a direct answer. :) 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I got confused, when I found out about how legal marriage worked in England, and I thought the same thing occurred in America, because America started as British colonies. I confess that I thought quite erroneously that it was advantageous to be Christian in America, because one could easily get married by one's pastor or minister. Thanks for clearing that up. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Easily" would likely depend on the church. The Catholic church for example is known for their requirement for the Pre-Cana and some other requirements (like requiring any Catholic partner to promise to do their best to raise the children Catholic). Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Quantitative easing

Hello, everyone. Is there any particular reason why money created in quantitative easing programmes is simply pumped into banks, as opposed to being used for investment spending (e.g. building and upgrading infrastructure, funding R&D, education, energy efficiency programmes, etc.)? Intuitively at least, the latter approach would seem to have a faster and more direct impact on the real economy. Thanks for your answers. Leptictidium (mt) 17:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Or more to the point, why doesn't the government instead offer a substantial line of free credit to every citizen directly? (Is there even a name for that idea? And true, I think the cynical explanation is the obvious one) Wnt (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Because if they offered un-free credit, they'd be indistinguishable from a bank? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances the money supply is manipulated through Open market operations. As you will see from our article on the subject, Quantitative Easing is essentially an extension of the same process, in that in both cases money is injected into financial institutions in exchange for the purchase of assets. In normal open market operations the central bank or its designated agent buys government bills or government bonds for cash, thus giving the banks more cash to lend and fewer assets to set against their existing cash and depositary base (see, for example, how it works in the USA). Sometimes in normal open market operations these purchases are for a fixed period of time only (that is, the central bank buys the assets and immediately sells them back to the same institution on some designated future date); such transactions are called repurchase agreements, and these have the effect of providing a temporary boost to bank liquidity. On other occasions the assets are bought outright by the central bank; since the assets are then permanently removed from the bank this has the effect of adding liquidity (that is, money) directly to the financial system. In the most common form of quantitative easing the central bank extends the range of assets that it is prepared to buy from financial institutions beyond the usual government bills and bonds. For example, in the USA the Federal Reserve bought mortgage-backed securities from financial institutions; in the UK the Bank of England bought bonds issued not just by the government but also by a range of corporations; in the past the Bank of Japan has indicated that it is even prepared to buy equities under certain circumstances.

On the basis of this, I think the answer to your question is, at least in part, that quantitative easing runs through the existing financial system because much of the necessary infrastructure and administrative machinery is already in place, in that quantitative easing can be regarded as a temporary extension of existing processes.

You suggest that direct infrastructural and investment programmes might be faster and more direct. It's unlikely that this is the case: infrastructure projects big enough to absorb the many billions that are required in a successful quantitative easing programme are likely to take many years of planning and design, and this is likely to be slower than simply making the money available to banks to lend to customers who already have plans for things they particularly want to do. RomanSpa (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There were some attempts to boost the economy more directly, like the cash for clunkers program. But I agree with the sentiment, that far more could have been done like this. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Economic theory reasons that the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources is through markets, and central bank quantitative easing conforms to that principle. Direct investment by a central bank, probably decided at least partly on political grounds, might misallocate resources that would be better directed elsewhere. Still, it is possible to critique central banks' assumptions. For example, one could argue that the real problem with developed-world economies just now is excessive public and private debt. Quantitative easing seeks to encourage banks to issue more credit and create more debt, which would not only add to the debt overhang, but also confront a reluctance on the part of banks and borrowers to increase their stock of debt. Arguably, a more effective central bank action would be to create money to repay and erase outstanding debts, particularly debts held by consumers. Eliminating burdensome consumer debts would help stimulate demand. While this would raise an objection of moral hazard, moral hazard did not stop governments from bailing out big banks, even though the economic benefits of doing so are not clear. Another objection to debt forgiveness would be that it might cause inflation, though at the moment that might be an attractive antidote to the possibly greater risk of deflation. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

what would a chinese person explain if we could talk?

I'm curious about other cultures, but haven't been to the East, and even if I had I don't know how well I could communicate. If I talked with average people in China or elsewhere in Asia, what would they explain to me about their life that would totally surprise me? (totally different from anything in the west.) I'm particularly interested in life under 'communism' since I think it sucks. what is it like to live under state control like that? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Lots of things can surprise people. It's called culture shock, which can be as mild as being amused by a foreign accent to as severe as hatred and genocide. All governments and government forms in thought and in practice in the world are corruptible, and all governments have their national issues and problems to deal with. Expecting perfection out of a country does not exist in the real world as we know it. Some just have more problems than others. Understanding the history of a country's government is critical to understanding a country's culture. For basic information on culture, you may want to visit CultureGrams. Many libraries may have this resource called CultureGrams, where you learn about different cultures, lifestyles, and habits. Alternatively, you may privately purchase subscription. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You have to understand that China is now communist in name only. In reality, it's more like a right-wing dictatorship, where people with the right contacts in the leadership get rich, and the poor get nothing. You might want to read the book Animal Farm, as that shows how "communism" eventually gives up on helping the poor, and instead is used to enrich a small minority.StuRat (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Stu, but you're just completely wrong. Poverty in China and the rest of the developing world has been plummeting for decades; very quickly. You must be referring to the poor in the developed world, who have been getting nothing, and are on track to lose most of what they have if trends continue. EllenCT (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In China, yes, of course Stu is in error. The rest of the developing world, no, not so much. Poverty plummeting very quickly is hardly the right word for most of Africa, say. China is so big that most of the progress against poverty has been due to its success.John Z (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at our Poverty in China article, which states that over 900 million (more than 2/3) Chinese lived on under $5 a day in 2009. The poor in China just aren't very visible, since most are rural, where reporters rarely go. And Western reporters might not be allowed into those areas. Yes, the average income is rising rapidly, but at the same time inequality is increasing rapidly, leaving the poor in poverty, as a small minority gets rich. I do agree that this is also happening in parts of the developed world, particularly the US. StuRat (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, there is the middle class of skilled professionals, like medical doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, teachers, and lawyers. The standard of living has greatly improved since the late 20th century for many urban Chinese and some rural Chinese. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

EveryCulture.com has useful (if sometimes dated) preparatory reading for travelers. Of course, every rule has exceptions and nobody knows exactly what to expect anywhere. All part of the fun of going to see. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what 'living under state control' means, if it is supposed mean mean something different from what we all do even here in Western democracies. That is what government is for. Policies change, of course, but there is no freedom to act as if you were in an anarchic society. Anyway, what would a Chinese person surprise you about his daily life? It would depend on the person. China is a vast country, with 56 ethnic groups (and 54 languages - not including the Han Chinese dialects), and they all live in different - though similar - ways. You will be more surprised to see that China is very similar to the West. People all have mobile phones, Louis Vuitton bags, and cars. Life is not so different there on this 'alien world' you think of as China. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the average Chinese person has all those things, only the rich, with the possible exception of of cell phones. According to our article (List of countries by vehicles per capita), there are only 188 cars per 1000 people in China. StuRat (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but there are a billion people there. That's a helluva lot of cars. Believe me. I lived there. It's chaos on the roads. As for all the branded goods, of course, we all know many of them are counterfeit. Mobile phones - everyone has them. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct, the population means China can have massive traffic jams and air pollution problems, even though only a small percentage own cars. StuRat (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Stu, when I said chaos, I meant chaos. People don't even bother to check the traffic lights. It is incredibly difficult to cross the road safely as a pedestrian, and even if you do get knocked over, the car won't stop, and you'll just keep getting run over by other cars until you manage to drag yourself back to the pavement. Believe me. I've seen it. This might be because of the old way of pedestrians purposefully jumping in front of bicycles (specifically ones with foreigners riding them) in order to claim compensation. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you live in the UK? Then about life under "communism" and about this kind of "state control", you could talk with some Polish or Baltic people who live in the UK and who remember how life was there before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Akseli9 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, the OP geolocates to Hungary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's life under communism that interests you ask locals in Hungary (if your ip geolocation is correct.) They'd probably tell you similar to what people here in Latvia would tell you. On the whole things were worse, but a lot of things are considered better by people who can remember that time. Pluses: free education, guaranteed employment and free healthcare, though of questionable quality at times. Also the old were, they say, well looked after. Pensions were generous relative to prices and men could retire at 60 and women at 55. Negatives, lack of political freedom isn't the main complaint that comes up. It's usually about the lack of consumer goods, the poor quality of goods and services available and long waiting times for them. A second common gripe is about the lack of ability to travel to the west. A third would be that a lot of the work was mundane and there was little incentive to push ahead as people earned more or less the same, so no challenges in careers. Criticisms of communist party rule would probably be the closest article to what you're asking. Valenciano (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been to China and speak Mandarin Chinese. Most Chinese people are not very concerned about politics and don't much care that they live in an authoritarian society. Their unhappiness with the corruption of their leaders is similar to western dissatisfaction with western politicians. Their daily concerns are much the same as anyone else's, having to do with making a living, personal relationships, and health. The things that would strike you as a visitor, such as the crowding, are things that they take for granted, though even the Chinese are alarmed at the serious air pollution, which is also striking to a visitor. Marco polo (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:212.96.61.236, I live in China and this is the correct answer. There are differences based on the police state (what you say, what happens when people are angry enough to lie about what you say) but they're almost invisible next to the things the Chinese take for granted but would surprise the hell out of you. They wouldn't think about any of them or know to mention it but over the course of a week or a month things would begin to pile up. In the meantime, just treat them like Americans—working class: very friendly but iffy on physical contact, overworked and looking to try sth new, huge on fried food, progressively louder and less polite the more they like you; upper class: self-conscious and disparaging of all of that but essentially the same—and you're good to go. — LlywelynII 08:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

do we have an article comparing contemporary human cultures?

Hi,

I searched google for "comparison of contemporary human cultures", you know, for a general NPOV article that would compare the 18% here, 15% there, 20% there that make up various parts of contemporary human culture, for the largest differences, similarities, etc.

Do we not have one? There's a bunch of big cultures I know next to nothing about, and I would appreciate an overview of contemporary human society worldwide today. (similarities and differences). It seems the kind of thing we'd have an article on. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we do not have an article comparing contemporary human cultures. Such an article is most likely going to be too broad to cover and is prone to be POV biased. What you want here is to find a blog, editorial, or academic study that talks about a specific aspect of a specific culture. Then, in your mind, you should be able to integrate your knowledge about various cultures, which is the foundation for doing comparative studies. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Website The World Factbook.
Sleigh (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess EveryCulture.com is relevant here, too. Not all in one page (that would be huge), but each has similar specific sections, for quick comparison. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest you google "map of world cultures" which brings up images like this and read the articles on which they are based, like this from Hunter College. A minor quibble, the land to the south of the stars representing NYC and Philadelphia is distorted, and the largely Catholic (among Christians) New Jersey and the more Protestant (among Christians) Delmarva Peninsula are merged. In part this is due to scale limitations. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder why Kaliningrad Oblast is shown as Protestant on that map... AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Until 1945, the region was overwhelmingly Lutheran, with a small number of Catholics and Jews" from the article that you linked above; it used to be part of East Prussia. Alansplodge (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

However, the map does not appear to be about 70 years ago, and none of the other east-of-Oder-Neisse-line former Prussian territories are shown as Protestant... P.S. Belarus seems to be shown significantly smaller than its actual size (less than half the area of Poland, which is not the case in reality). AnonMoos (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It does seem odd. Perhaps they couldn't get any modern information on the enclave and reverted to some old data. The area now seems to be predominately atheist (perhaps they thought that Protestant was the closest fit). Alansplodge (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the map is based on older data (the colors) overlain with newer borders. The style of the map data resembles a 1946 Goode's School Atlas I have which made several such maps, including a rather good one fore the languages of Europe including minorities. In any case, this particular map was not given as "the map" but as the sort of thing which the OP might find if he makes a similar search. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Fun Fact? The Azores is the only Catholic place on Earth with Romeiros. They're pretty complicated, for simple folk. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You can search in Category:Comparisons.—Wavelength (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)