Humanities desk
< January 27	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 29 >

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 28

Does 'God' start wars? No opinions please

Is there any evidence to show that nations that believe 'God' is on their side are more likely to engage in warlike acts against other nations? No opinions please.--GreenSpigot (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It only covers a short period, but Lewis Fry Richardson's Statistics of Deadly Quarrels probably contains a discussion of this. I might have a look at it myself tomorrow. Algebraist 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I press send I just want to point out that I'm terribly ashamed of myself, because I'm speaking without sources, which is exactly what you asked us not to do (bad Belisarius! No treat for you!). But I want to caution against assuming causation from correlation here. I very much do imagine that countries that are heavily religious goes to war more often than countries that aren't (and would very much appreciate if someone could provide a source to relieve the shame I have brought upon myself and my family), but that doesn't necessarily mean that religion somehow "incites" war. Less religious countries tend to be more liberal and they tend to more often be democracies, and liberal countries and democracies generally tend to go to war less (wow, that's a lot of "tends"). As much is claimed by the democratic peace theory, anyhow. But that doesn't mean necessarily mean that it's the religion that gets people all frenzied and warlike. Greece is much more religious than the UK, but you don't see and Greeks as part of the Iraqi coalition forces. I'm just sayin'. Belisarius (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question was not about religiosity, but rather about believing God to be on one's side. The one does not necessarily imply the other. Algebraist 03:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at that, I totally misread the question! Even more shame on my family... I have to go sacrifice a steer or something. Still, I do believe that the concepts are related, and my caution against assuming causation from correlation still stands, I think. Belisarius (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does any religious person ever go to war not thinking god is on their side? --Tango (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. All the religious people who don't believe in an entity called 'god', for a start. Algebraist 18:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I make two replies, in one I remember to explicitly exclude that case and the other I don't, so you respond to the latter... typical! --Tango (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Your second reply had not yet been made when I began composing the above. Algebraist 21:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good excuse, I suppose! I could, of course, have claimed I was using one of the definitions of religion that requires deism, but that would have been untrue... --Tango (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I'm sure you've read it, but for the sake of those lurking, The True Believer by Eric Hoffer is worth a look. I don't remember how much actual evidence he cites, though. Also, there might be something you can use in the article "Angels of Mons". --Milkbreath (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until the last few decades, pretty much all countries were very religious, as far as I know (although you may wish to exclude Buddhist countries, since they have no god to be on their side), so finding non-religious countries in order to make a comparison may be tricky. If you restrict yourself to just recent history, then there are far too many other factors that will skew your data (not because modern history is particularly different to more distant history, but just because it's a shorter timescale so things can't all average out nicely). --Tango (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the flipside of this, I am unaware of any nation that actively believes God is not on its side. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those Westboro Baptist Church folks, while not an entire nation themselves, certainly do not think God is currently on America's side. (Any other sufficiently crazy American church will likely think the same.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but they still think their god is on their side. They aren't particularly likely to take part in any wars that the US is fighting, so that doesn't help answer the OP's question. --Tango (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the assumption that there IS a god?--Artjo (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, always in history, whenever a government decided to engage a war, it used religion to convince his people that it was right, saying that 'God' was on their side, while the enemy was atheist/heretic/unfaithful. So maybe I don't have enough evidence that believing to have God's support is, in itself, a cause of war, as you ask, but I see a lot of evidence that this idea has been used as a weapon in every war. I suspect that some religions were even expressly invented for this use. It is what Swift, Voltaire, Russell said, just to quote three great ones. Hints for evidences of this use of religion: Torah, especially the book of Kings; and of course a lot of Christian and Islamic religious writers. Clear in all Crusades. Before, Constantinus I device of the cross in year 312 ("in hoc signo vinces, a voice told him in dream). Benedictions of all cannons, like they were church bells, as soon as they were invented. Religious propaganda along all fronts of WWI. In the crucial moments of the Great Patriotic War, atheistic Stalin was very ready to replace the red star with a christian cross over all his tanks. On the other side, the atheistic nazi soldiers still had "Gott Mit Uns" written on their belt buckles. And what about the bunch of Talibans? They were indoctrinated and military formed by USA and Saudi Arabia to fight USSR in Afghanistan; as a small detail, it seems that even their holy book was directly made by the CIA --pma (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

name the novel (fantasy trilogy)

It's a fantasy trilogy novel series... I can't seem to remember its name though. I read it like 5 years ago... In the first book, there is a family (a mother, a father, twin son and daughter, and a baby) and the book starts off with the family moving within the city into a lower hierarchy region. (in the fictional universe of the novel, everyone is divided into different social caste status, with each caste represented by different colours) I don't remember much, but the father takes some kind of an exam to make a living or something, and at the end, the twins do something heroic to save the townspeople. in the second book, the twins are now teenagers, and an evil and sinister force lures in millions of innocent children and brainwashes them to form a mind controlled army. It's rather reminiscent of the chinese army in the korean war: in one incident, these children army literally fills a trench with their bodies to get across it. one of the twins' friends gets recruited into the army against his(/her ??) will and eventually the children manage to save them. (or was all of this in the first book?? i really don't know lol) the army keeps on chanting "Kill! Kill! Kill!" Also in the second book, the twins run away, and the girl twin disguises as a servant of a princess. the princess is rather lonely, so she really likes her servant and they become close friends. However, the princess needs to take dancing lessons so that she can dance with a prince in a ball, but she sucks at it. But the twin girl realizes she is quite good at it even though she has never had any dancing lessons before. So, the girl poses as the princess in the ball, and dances beautifully with the prince. Also, the princess falls in love with the twin brother (she hasn't even met him yet) , just from hearing stories that the twin sister told her. In the third book, the family and some of the townspeople migrate from their homeland to an unknown paradiseland. during their trip, they encounter an unusual creature or more of a mental parasite that latches onto a particular person and makes them act strange. for example, when the parasite was inside the father (the leader of the pack) it makes him snappy and aggressive, and when the parasite resides inside the princess (she actually left her kingdom to follow the twins' family) it makes her less shy and kisses the twin brother. the twin brother has some kind of a psychic ability, and is able to get rid of the parasite (in the princess's case, he kisses her to understand the parasite better, and to drag the parasite out of her) and in an alongside story arc, there is this round looking hermit that bounces, and it recruits the twin brother as his apprentice or something. the bouncy thing teaches the brother how to do supernatural stuff, including walking on air. the twin sister lives with her brother and this hermit on a boat. she learns to do stuff on her own just by watching the hermit give lessons to the brother. near the end of the book, the twin brother must sacrifice himself to save the world or something so he goes to this island where all kinds of strange mythical sorcerers and creatures meet (including the bouncy). but in the end, the bouncy tells him that it wasn't him that was meant to be sacrificed, it was his sister. He doesn't accept his sister's fate, so he fights with her sister (with mental telekinesis or something) but he realizes she is stronger than him, so the sister sacrifices herself in the end. In the epilogue, the family and the townspeople have found their paradiseland, the twin sister is dead, but her mind resides inside the brother's head (they had this special mental connection since they were children). the brother is now happily married with the princess from the second/third book and they have children.

I read this series while i was in adelaide, australia. I borrowed it from the children's books section in the marion library centre (park holme). I'm not sure if this is an australian novel or an american or british, or even if it went international. I know that my description of the series is quite poor, but any help with remembering the name of these novels would be appreciated. Thanks.Johnnyboi7 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wind on Fire trilogy. Chaosandwalls (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx a lotJohnnyboi7 (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese and Koreans in the Japanese Imperial Army

How many Taiwanese and Koreans were recruited/drafted into the Japanese Army in World War 2? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Korea, the first source i find claims 230,000 were drafted from 1938 on, about 150,000 of whom died. From 1939 on, 140,000 were conscripted as workers in the war zone, 60,000 dying during the war. Further, approximately 2 million were sent to Japan as labourers, 1.44 million of whom returned to Korea after the war, with 600,000 remaining. There were also as many as 100,000 (410,000 according to Wikipedia's article) "comfort women" forced to serve as prostitutes for the armed forces. Another source claims 2.5 million total were conscripted during the war.—eric 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "enslaved" would be a better word than "recruited/drafted" to describe the relationship, as I doubt if "no" was an answer they could give and survive. I would guess that any who were used by the Army were used as slave labor, not given weapons. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of those drafted into the military,the majority of the Formosans, and i think a significant proportion of the Koreans were employed as guards in POW camps.—eric 16:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no documents exist that detail the methods involved in the training and indoctrination of Formosan guards. However, Utsumi Aiko of Keisen University, Japan, conducted extensive research on Korean POW guards and found that more than 3,000 young Korean men were "recruited" (that is, press-ganged or otherwise forced to "volunteer") for the prison guard corps. Many of these men feared they would be shipped to Japan as indentured servants if they did not join the corps. Others were perhaps attracted by the high pay rates offered—50 yen per month, a large amount at the time. Those who served in the guard corps were classified as civilian employees rather than members of the military, and many hoped this status would prevent their transfer to the front line and would allow them to be demobilized when their two-year contract was concluded. However, on joining, the new recruits were issued with uniforms, and their basic training was very much military in character, including weapons training. Despite the difference between the promise and the reality of the guard corps, few deserted, possibly because potential deserters were threatened with court-martial.

from Hidden Horrors below.—eric 17:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conscription in Formosa began September 1942, more than 200,000 total and more than 30,000 were killed. Tanaka, T. (1996). Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II. p. 38. OCLC 34651501.—eric 16:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Taiwanese, see our article. And this is the article at Japanese Wiki. En Wiki says 207,183 and ja Wiki says 207,083 which is cleary a typo. You can see if you add 126,750 and 80,433. According to the ja article, the number of the Korean serviceman is 242,341 and 22,182 were dead/mia. Japanese Imperial Army recruited volunteers from 1938 to 1943. 2496 Koreans/Taiwanese applied and 406 passed the test in 1938. See the chart #3. Oda Mari (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awaji-shima, Japan

What does the -shima mean when something like 'Yuji Horii was born in Awaji-shima, Japan' is said? The article on Awaji didn't say anything. Evaunit♥666♥ 04:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means island. Oda Mari (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On other words, it sometimes appears as -jima. The character is 島. Steewi (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic gibberish

I recall an english teacher in high school referring a couple of times to a strange form of poetry that consists entirely of gibberish, but flows so smoothly you can't tell unless you pay close attention. Anyone know what she was talking about? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literary nonsense and Nonsense verse (for example: Jabberwocky)? Astronaut (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the above isn't what was meant, but if not you could look at Sound poetry (often associated with Dada), which comprises entirely meaningless sounds. French Symbolist poetry, e.g. Stéphane Mallarmé, was among the more conventional poetic movements that privileged the sensuous quality of words above their meaning. --11:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltelauridsbrigge (talk • contribs)

You seem to be confusing poetry and verse (the second of those, unfortunately, is a poor stub). In my view, gibberish can't be poetry, although it can be verse. However, as you say "you can't tell unless you pay close attention" I don't think 'gibberish' can be quite the word you want. If by 'gibberish' you mean only something with nonsensical elements which are hard to spot, then that isn't gibberish, and poetry can be like that. Strawless ^(talk) 01:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Carroll would disagree with you on that point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of poems seem like gibberish to me. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Hemingway - suicide or murder?

I just recently saw a documentary film about Hemingway which states that he believed that the FBI is going to try to kill him and that few days before his "suicide" he claimed to be followed by the FBI. One of his friends(cant recollect the name) states that when he heard of Hemingways death he thought that "FBI finally got him".

Well,since Hemingway was indeed close to Fidel and its already known that the Kennedy government tryed to kill Fidel,where can I find out more information about Hemingways death and is there a site which reveals the truth about this?

Or is it possible that he just plainly killed himself?

87.116.154.181 (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hemingway tried to commit suicide several times; he had a family history of depression, and a personal history of depression for which he had received shock treatments; his father killed himself by gunshot; his sister Ursula, his brother Leicester, and his granddaughter Margaux all killed themselves. It strains credulity to blame his death on the FBI: he shot himself in the forehead with his own rifle. And the FBI didn't go around killing everyone who knew Fidel Castro: what would be the advantage to that? - Nunh-huh 09:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be the FBI anyway, it would be the CIA. They did have some plots to kill folks in Cuba (their success rate was dubious), but I agree that it was very much "in character" for Hemingway. SDY (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The CIA assassinated people to accomplish geopolitical goals, not because they didn't like them. How would assassinating Hemingway accomplish anything worthwhile, like bringing about the downfall of Castro ? StuRat (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it obvious? As we all know from the James Bond documentaries, secret plots for world conquest are a frequently occurring hazard in our times. Hemingway must have been the ringleader of one of these, but in this case, it was one the CIA were able to shut down (by killing the leader) before Bond had to come in and do it by blowing up a whole island or something. Hence they were able to maintain the secrecy, and as far as the public knows, it was just as if the whole thing never happened. There, will that do? --Anonymous source (in an undisclosed location), 22:56 UTC, January 28, 2009.

If you're curious, the FBI has posted its files on Hemingway online. They're pretty dull, like most FBI files.[1] --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There! You see!!! That proves there was a cover-up!!!!! --Anonymous source (at an undisclosed time and location).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. --Sean 00:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where to find ratios of skilled/unskilled workers in UK industry types?

I'm looking for the ratio of skilled to unskilled workers employed in UK industry sectors such as 'construction', 'IT', 'mining' etc., and also the same data for the population as a whole. Data for other countries would be welcome as well. Google searches have failed to find me anything, anyone got any ideas? Thanks for any help, LHMike (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of 'skilled' are we talking. In an less economically developed country, 'skilled' means literate, whereas in the UK, practically everyone meets these criteria. Number with a university degree or equivalent? The Office for National Statistics is probably the best place to start. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if it is a representative sample, but the ratio of skilled to unskilled workers, at the company I work for, is exactly 1 to 46. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewBristol1983 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty useless information if you don't say what that company does... --Tango (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's also quite clearly a joke. Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, I haven't found any specific details from The Office of National Statistics but it's useful nonetheless. BTW I meant 'skilled' workers in the sense described here. 77.99.21.181 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political Parties based on Arab and African nationalism

I notice that Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia and Comoros are both members of African Union and Arab League. Is there any political party in these nations they on which is based on Pan-Africanism and other based on Pan-Arabism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.118 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well first off, I'm not sure that abstract pan-Africanism has ever really amounted to much in terms of the practical internal domestic politics of African countries (as opposed to Arab states, where Nasserism and Pan-Arabist qawmiyya قومية ideology was a major factor in causing political turbulence during much of the 1950s to 1970s). Second, it's somewhat mysterious as to why Djibouti and Somalia are members of the Arab League at all, considering that there are few Arabs there.

However, friction between Arabs and black Africans has been rather prominent in the recent history of Sudan and Mauritania, and was a strong factor in the mid-20th century History of Zanzibar (until the Africans won there). AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Morocco is technically a member of the African Union, it has been boycotting the organization for decades, ever since it admitted the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic as a member. To getback to the actual question, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi has gone back and forth between calling himself a pan-Arabist and a pan-Africanist. In most other North African countries, the Arab identity is much stronger than the African identity, because of ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural factors. Pan-africanism has never really had much popular support in places like Egypt or Algeria, in spite of some official gestures in support of the notion. --Xuxl (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Mauritania there is the leftwing-Nasserist Progressive Popular Alliance. There are also Baathist groups. In Sudan there is a Sudanese Baath Party. In both Mauritania and Sudan there are movements with a more African national orientation (FLAM in Mauritania, SPLM in Sudan), but i'm not sure whether they would classify as 'pan-Africanists'. --Soman (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prison break

In a jurisdiction where escaping from jail is illegal, I would expect that you could still be imprisoned for the escape, even if you are cleared of the original offence - because, even if you weren't guilty of the original offence you were still lawfully imprisoned. So, for example, you were imprisoned for 1 year for shoplifting, but then immediately escaped from prison (and were sentenced to 5 years for escaping), you could still expect to serve those 5 years. Is that right? Are there any real cases were this has happened, and what was the outcome? Thanks LastBusHome (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is (at least in my USA knowledge) correct. An example of a recent case is described at 2008 prison break in Clovis, New Mexico. As stated under the "Criminal Charges" section, two of the inmates who were recaptured are facing more than four additional years in prison for the escape. Incidentally, inmates who helped the escapees, but did not themselves escape, also face a penalty. Many more prison escapes are listed at Prison break; many of these likely will describe the penalties for escapees who are subsequently caught. jeffjon (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there have been any cases where a person was convicted, went to prison, then escaped, and then were definitively cleared of the original crime, like the fictional case in The Fugitive. Being convicted and then found factually innocent is usually grounds for compensation, and I'd like to think that regarding the escape they would either be pardoned, or not prosecuted, or at worst sentenced to "time served" (meaning they still get to go free at once), at least if that the original charge was a serious one. But real life has a way of going differently than what one would like to think. Anyone have a real-life case to cite? --Anonymous, 23:08 UTC, January 28, 2009.

thanks for the spoiler... i'd been looking forward to watching that film, guess i have one less thing to do

You think a movie starring Harrison Ford could have an unhappy ending? Trust me, it's worth seeing anyway, if you like that sort of movie. --Anonymous, 06:34 UTC, January 31, 2009.

I can comment on "TIME SERVED" as being anything from 0 to six months actually serving time inside before being released on the points system in the U.S. for a first time offence with no prior criminal record.After a period of 3 months inside a federal Prison while being investigated,this person was then released.He also did not escape! Time served does not mean they go free at once! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 January 28

Contents