Humanities desk
< February 8	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 10 >

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.

February 9

United Nations Involvement in a War Between 2 Countries

If a war broke out between Bangladesh and Myanmar, would the United Nations send peace keepers to interfer the war? Would the western countries get involve in this international conflict? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UN doesn't send peacekeepers into wars. It sends them in when there's peace to keep (see United Nations#Peacekeeping and security). As for the western powers, it's all speculation, but there's little there of strategic interest to them. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, in the Korean War, the UN took sides in the conflict, and sent direct combat troops... AnonMoos (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it encouraged its member nations to send troops. The Korean War isn't listed in the UN's peacekeepers' timeline. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it didn't send peacekeepers -- it appointed a UN military command to lead combat troops to directly fight on the UN side against the North Korean / Chinese side. The UN and North Korean flags face each other at Panmunjom... AnonMoos (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, peacekeepers do not interfere in a war. Peacekeeping missions are mostly limited to observing. A mission of peace enforcement, like those under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, could involve actually using force to protect civilians and keep combatants apart. Interventions like that done by NATO during the Yugoslav wars were not UN operations. The United Nations Security Council resolutions that authorized war came at weird historical periods for the veto-holding members - the 1950 Korean War intervention passed only because "China" at that time meant "Taiwan" and the Soviet Union was boycotting the security council in protest, while the 1991 Iraq resolution came at the height of US post-Cold War supremacy. - Banyan Tree 22:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matylda of Brandenburg

Who is this Matylda of Brandenburg? She was supposed to be a Queen of Poland and that all I known. Who is she? Here are some pictures . --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was the second wife of Henry IV Probus. There's a small article on her at the Polish Wikipedia.[1] --JGGardiner (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a German Wikipedia article Mathilde von Brandenburg which is apparently about a different person. The one from PL was born ca. 1270 as a daughter of Margrave Otto V of Brandenburg. In 1278 she married Duke Henry IV Probus of Wrocław (hence she was a duchess, not a queen). She died sometime between 23 June 1290 and 1 April 1298, and was buried in a Cistersian monastery in Kloster Lehnin.

The one from DE was born ca. 1210 as a daughter of Margrave Albert II of Brandenburg and Mathilde of Lusatia. In 1228 she married a son of William of Winchester, who would later become Duke Otto I of Lüneburg. She died on 10 June 1261 in Lüneburg.

All this info is from the PL and DE Wikipedia articles, not double-checked with other sources. Curiously, both articles say that their subject was related to her husband and needed a papal dispensation to marry him. I wonder if it's a coincidence or if one Mathilde has been confused with another. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We now have Matylda of Brandenburg and Mathilde von Brandenburg (with a disambig at Matilda of Brandenburg) created from the above, for a start. Gwinva (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admitting to it

Do any religious or quasi-religious groups exist that build their community and life principles around a myth while openly acknowledging that it is a myth? Neon Merlin 08:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the articles on Reconstructionist Judaism and Humanistic Judaism. Of course some movements like Deism reject a lot of the supernatural components of their own religion. And a lot of mainstream religious groups quietly discard parts of their original mythology also. You won't hear a lot about the Firmament these days for example. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Jediism springs to mind. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalism may be a serious religion whose beliefs come closest to that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also like to see Don Cupitt. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you mean by myth, that's a word with many meanings and shades of meanings. I think most neopagans don't object to their meaningful religious stories being called myths. But it sounds like you're asking for something more specific and maybe you mean myth in the sense "false story" or "debunked theory". In that case I'd suggest the witch-cult hypothesis, a key element in the formation of the Wicca religion. Today there are serious and devout Wiccans who acknowledge that the witch-cult hypothesis is false. See e.g. this site: [2] Haukur (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the Catholic church say that the Bible isn't necessarily supposed to be taken literally and isn't necessarily incompatible with evolution? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History: Hilter/ Jews etc

Sorry about this. My (primary school age) kids saw The Sound of Music yesterday and I got caught on a whole line of questions starting with "was WW2 a just war" into the Holocaust. The one question which I said I would come back on was "why did Hitler want to kill the Jews". So what motivates geoncide? I can deal with the schismatic expediency of a common enemy, aspects of Jewishness etc but on Hitler's feelings I couldn't even get as far as whether he coldly denied Jewish humanity or hotly hated them. Unlike the Burma Railway this isn't a topic with a great deal of personal relevance to our family but I will have to give some sort of answer. --BozMo talk 10:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that nobody knows why did Hitler had such a pathological hate against Jews. There were surely some conspiration theories against Jews, but these are clearly not enough to provoke an obsession that would kill millions of people. I imagine that Hitler had some sort of mental illness, but of course, there is no proof for that. --Mr.K. (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion of the origins of Hitler's antisemitism in our Adolf Hitler article, especially in the section on Early adulthood in Vienna and Munich. Consensus seems to be that its origin goes back to somewhere in his teens or early adulthood. Of course, antisemitism was far more widespread and culturally acceptable then than it is now, so it would have been part of his formative environment. Later, Hitler, along with many other German nationalists of his generation, blamed German Jews for Germany's defeat in the First World War - see Judenzählung and "Stab-in-the-back legend". This, of course, leaves open the question of what factors transform casual prejudice and bigotry into pyschopathology and genocide. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the idea that Hitler's hatred of the Jews was not singularly his alone; the Nazi party had such as part of its platform from before even Hitler joined it. He certainly deserves the blame for the Holocaust, but there was a sort of systemic antisemitism that allowed it to happen. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a dialogue in the film Downfall where Hitler says something like "I don't believe in a concept of humanity". There is a quote in Genocide#Stages of genocide and efforts to prevent it by Hassan Kakar, where it says that a perception of sub-humanness is a pre-requisite for genocide to happen. The Nazi Party considered many sections of people as sub-human, not just the Jews. See Lebensunwertes Leben (Life unworthy of life) and Untermensch (sub human). Hitler or the party would not have been outright barbaric, the killings were gradual, starting with some sections like the handicapped, considered as "humane" operations, but later on the distinction of humanity was lost I guess (Lebensunwertes Leben#Development of the concept talks about this). Regarding Hitler, interestingly there was a post a week back, which asked how many people did Hitler actually kill (with his own hands), and the answer was there in fact is no single official witness to any direct killing by him. Jay (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really look at the Nazis' hatred of the jews in isolation, as if that was the only ethnic hatred at play in central & eastern europe at the time. For much of the preceeding century, or more, there was considerable intercommunal strife: between poles and russians and byelorussians and serbs and croats and germans and romanians and jews and moldovans and many more. The jews generally came off worst in these (and mostly not by the germans - germany before the nazis was one of the best places for jews to live). The nazis persecution then murder of the jews is the stand-out hatred of the time, but it's a special vileness born from a general sea of ethnic hatred. If I were explaining this to a child, I'd observe that a lot of Europe was gripped by the idea that people should live with "people like us", and not with "people who aren't like us"; then I'd tell the child which of their friends they wouldn't be allowed to be friends with any more (if this were europe of that time), whether by dint of religion or nationality or race or hair colour. Hopefully the child should be appalled at this horrid idea, and you can observe that a lot of europe was thoroughly infected with this race-nationalism, to which much of the horror of the 20th Century can be attributed. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its "us" and "them" - you give "us" comparative prestige by creating an out-group "them" and humiliating or despising them. The person who does this is considered a hero by the "us" group. This principle seems to apply at all levels from schoolchild bullying to Nazi Germany. I also remember reading a book - probably Adam Tooze, The wages of destruction : the making and breaking of the Nazi economy - about the wartime Nazi economy which described how the possessions of the murdered Jewish people - houses, flats, clothes, household goods etc were systematically harvested and given or sold at bargain prices by the government to bombed-out and other Germans, so that even at the end of the war there were not the material shortages in Germany that there were in Britain. The standard of living of particularly the lower class Germans actually rose during the war, with for example lower-class German women wearing fur-coats. Thus the genocide was an essential part of the economy. The book also describes how the Nazis effectively looted occupied europe by paying the soldiers fabulous wages in occupation money which they used to buy things and send back home. There is another similar book about this subject which I have not read. 89.243.214.67 (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't give you any links as I am in a rush, but I've heard two psychoanalytic theories regarding this. One has it that Hitler's mother – terminally ill with cancer (I think) – was treated by Jewish doctors, and when she died Hitler blamed them for her death. A more convoluted theory asserts that he subconsciously wanted his mother to die and blamed the doctors for not preventing his "unacceptable" wish. 92.234.54.218 (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the person who rejected Hitler from art school was Jewish or not. Regarding Freudianism - since I understand that none his theories have stood up to empirical testing, then it is useless to use them to analyse anything. Doubtless Freudians believe otherwise. 78.146.105.198 (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that Hitler disliked the jews for reasons that are similar to many others who show a similar sentiment? Antisemitism is part of a good series of articles on the topic. Perhaps it is a good opportunity to talk about antisemitism more generally and the evils of racial generalisations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabberwalkee (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Jabberwalkee's Antisemitism link --Joe^Talk_Work 00:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus

If the Greeks forbade any mention of Herostratus and his infamous act of arson, how was Theopompus able to get away with recording it? 86.8.176.85 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The city of Ephesus forbade it, from what the article says. "The Greeks" as a whole were rarely united about anything... AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest ruling royal family

Hi,

I was wondering which royal family is the oldest ruling one?

12:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.11 (talk)

The Yamato Dynasty have been Emperors of Japan since 660 BC, at least according to "official" Japanese history. Even if it doesn't really go back that far, it still is, IIRC, the oldest documented continuous male-only-primogeniture ruling line in the world. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It rather depends on what you mean by "royal family" and "oldest"; and, indeed, by "ruling". If it's just a matter of descent in one line or another from other kings, then Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom can claim descent from Cerdic of Wessex, who in 495 was busy invading what was not yet England, so the British royal family can say it is older than England. You may have something more specific than that in mind, though, such as the continuous male-line descent of a kingdom. If so, perhaps you could identify what you are after? Xn4 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Bridge Railway Station

I’m not sure if you can help me but I have been desperately seeking information and/or photos of an old railway station that was located on the Station Road in Wallace Bridge, NS approximately 1 km to the right of the old Wallace River Swing Bridge. I have found very little information on this station. It is possible that this was a privately owned site which had a post office located within. It is believed that this location did not pick up passengers but only delivered parcels and such. I have received information that the train stopped twice daily in 1939 but other than that information seems to be scarce. Any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks,

Cheryl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.161.58 (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What railway line, for a start?--Wetman (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I poked around the net and Google Earth, and I came up with little. The station seems to have been on the Oxford & New Glasgow Railway. A zoom-in with Google Earth at 45°47′41.7″N 63°32′31.47″W / 45.794917°N 63.5420750°W shows what looks like the remains of the lot for what used to be the station and the platform on the south side of the track, but no structures. I found a picture of a legal document (under "Oxford and New Glasgow Railway") describing the land to be acquired from a certain J.D. Henderson, November 18, 1891, for the land where I think the station was, and for the western end of the bridge. I found many images of old Nova Scotia railway stations at Images Nova Scotia, but their search engine seems to be down right now. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The movie "Dita Saxova"

This is really a question for our Czech colleagues. In the movie "Dita Saxova" (which is quite well-known in the Czech Republic), there is a scene at the train station where one of the girls takes a chalk and writes "R.U." on the departing train. What is the meaning of these letters? I asked several of my Czech friends and they have no idea. There is no person with these initials in the movie and this scene is not present in the novel upon which the movie is based (which I read). The only suggestion I heard so far is that it stands for "Austro-Hungarian" in Czech - however this makes no sense in the context of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.172.119 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can check out at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Czech Republic. Jay (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an abbreviation commonly used by the Nazi regime - "Rückkehr unerwünscht", literally "return undesired". It was commonly used on the documents of people being moved to concentration camps. From what I know of the story, this would have been known to the character and would make sense in the context. If you understand Czech, it is used in context on this page, for example. Knepflerle (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19th Century Chinese Art

I am looking for some information on a painting that we have. The closest I have come so far was on Google, Chinese Art of the 19th century; File: Chinese painting, Ancestors gallery. This was under commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catagory: Art of the Ming Dynasty. The Chinese Empresses look very much like our painting. Who can I contact to find out about our painting24.247.25.157 (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you indicate in some way the specific file? AnonMoos (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ming dynasty ended about two centuries before the 19th century. If your painting is from the 19th century, it is unlikely to be from the Ming dynasty. An image or a fuller description of your artwork would be helpful, especially any text labels. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration to Europe from America

Which country in Europe would be the easiest for a middle-aged American with no money and unremarkable qualifications or skills to settle pernamently in? For example, immigration to the UK for people from outside the European Community is difficult: are there other european countries where they are not so fussy?

Or, to put it another way, which country in the European Union is the easiest for an American to legally settle in (ie live there for many years and have a legitimate job) please? 89.243.214.67 (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any languages other than English? That's a practical matter than can be very limiting. While many, if not most, Europeans speak at least some English, you would be unlikely to get a job of any note in a country where you couldn't get by in the local language. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any family connections with any European country (parent or grandparent born there)? If not, and you have no desireable skills, then I can only suggest marriage to a citizen. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, getting a standard work permit will likely be very difficult without any useful skills, regardless of what country you try for. You could try and get a job before you go there and have them sponsor the application, but that will probably be difficult as they would only hire you if no-one suitable applied from with the EU, which is unlikely. Claiming a connection by either blood or marriage would seem your only option. --Tango (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could try Ireland as English is still widely spoken there as a second language, with Gaelic as the first. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we never did manage to fully revive the Gaeilge. English is universal in Ireland. Fribbler (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised at TammyMoets belief: in reality I understand the English is the first language for most people. Same as Wales and Welsh. 78.146.185.139 (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish may not be the most popular language in Ireland, but is the official language. Welsh and English have equal status in Wales. Tomdobb (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Official' and 'widely-spoken' are not the same thing. Certainly in Ireland. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, "Irish may not be the most popular language in Ireland." If it wasn't clear already, I'm referring only to these languages' official status and not how common they are. Tomdobb (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replies. I was asking on behalf of someone else. Language does not seem to be a concern for her, although I am not sure if she is either happy to learn by total immersion or does not appreciate how difficult it might be. I was wondering if some of the new entrants to the EU might have more relaxed entry criteria that for example the UK. 78.146.185.139 (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the UK is still the country with the most immigrants in the EU. Other than that, she should probably try a region/country with low unemployment rates, like southern Germany or maybe Switzerland or Iceland (the latter two are not part of the EU, of course). Or she could try to become a (substitute) English teacher in a country with few English speakers (maybe Spain, or Eastern Europe?)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the unemployment rates for Iceland that you're looking for are out-of-date... And I think most (if not all) countries in the EU require teachers to be well qualified (in the UK, you need a degree and the 1 year teaching qualification [or equivalent]). You might be able to teach English privately as a tutor, or in some kind of adult education institution, but not in a school. --Tango (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can't recommend Germany unless you find a job before you go. They tend to be rather officious and sticklers for rules. Language teaching at a private school requires a bit more than "just" buying a nice flashy TEFL certificate. There are schools like e.g. Berlitz who prefer their own system but as s.o. put it recently you don't just wish to earn a bowl of rice, you'd also like s.th. on the rice. If your friend is thinking of teaching she might want to check out [3] and more specifically he questions asked at [4]. Once she feels confident she could answer such question in a hurry, she'd be much better prepared to make it as an EFL teacher. Since she is middle aged she should have some specific vocabulary up here sleeve that she could offer up. That's one advantage she'd have over the young "fresh out of college" crowd. Private schools often get business customers who need to prepare for interacting with their international colleagues and require teachers that can provide what they need. Resorts on the Spanish coast are often looking for teachers for and aren't too picky about qualifications. The problem is that they also don't pay anything much. Your friend should expect to have to live in a room at a shared apartment. I'd strongly advise against going for language teaching without at least a little bit of the local language. It would limit variety the lessons Consulting companies occasionally hire people for lessons on what to look out for when dealing with people from your culture. They appreciate a bit if life experience, but also need more than "unremarkable" qualifications. Your description of your friend might be an honest one. If she'd like to be hired for anything in Europe I'd say she should seriously sit herself down and re-assess her job skills. I've coached people who tried very hard to make themselves unemployable. I've also had those who just needed help to look at themselves through an employers' eyes. There are many odd niches out there that don't fit standard ideas. Look at what she can offer and who might need that. Polishing up one's skills before embarking on a job hunt in a foreign country is likely to help. Most countries in Europe have their immigration requirements available online. Happy googling. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know that a TEFL qualification of some kind (obtained in a few weeks, sometimes just a few days) can be enough for an English person to get a language teaching job somewhere in the rest of Europe, but would it be enough for an American to get a job inside Europe I wonder? 78.146.105.198 (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]