Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 12

= March 12 =

This IS a Homework Question!
Well not exactly, but it's the closest thing to a homework question I've ever asked here as it pertains to a real-life academic project.

Tuesday evening I'll be giving a talk to MBA students on the subject of the outsourcing of labour to underdeveloped countries.

We've all heard those (very exagerated) stories of poor Vienamese workers getting paid 25 cents an hour to manufacture shoes for Nike and the like.

Naturally, our initial reaction is that this type of business practice is exploitative and inhumane.

My argument is that this reaction is unwarranted for the following reasons:

First, we're not taking into account the cost of living in these countries. Yes, 25 cents an hour sounds pitiful, until one takes into account the fact that such basics as a loaf of bread, a quart of milk, or a month's rent are equally dirt cheap. In fact, the wages these people are paid are generally significantly higher than those paid by whatever alternative employment (if any) available in these countries offer, allowing them to lead a far more comfortable life than they would had they not been offered these jobs.

More importantly, companies like Nike aren't forcing these unfortunates to work for them, rather, without these jobs, many of these workers would die because without a job, they simply wouldn't be able to afford the basic necessities of life.

Finally, it's the most basic of simple macroeconomic theory that as demand increases, and supply decreases, price goes up. In terms of the market for labour in poor countries, offering additional jobs only increases the demand for labour, when these jobs are taken, the supply of labour thereby decreases, all naturally having the effect of increasing wages in the aggregate.

The gist of my point is that this practice is not only not exploitative or inhumane, but rather very beneficial and helpful for poor countries, with the ultimate possibility of actually helping these nations' economies rise out of poverty and into prosperity.

What I'm looking for is any critique or thoughts anyone might be able to provide concerning my argument and this controversial issue in general, if anything, so that I may be better prepared for the Q&A session that I'll be conducting immediately afterwards.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can provide any sort of feedback for me regarding this "homework" question! :) Loomis 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The salary is not the only concern. Assuming anyone gives you questions of merit, they will certainly ask about the working conditions.  A factory run in a develped country will most likely include things like a reasonable work day (8 hours), a reasonable break period, and some reasonable rules for employee treatment.  In an undeveloped country, warlords can easily take over.  They can create a factory and run it as a slave camp.  They can beat or even kill employees.  They can be forced to work 20-hour days with no breaks.  Basically, there are no rules for humane treatment in an undeveloped country.  Now, the counter-argument.  When those conditions exist and people discover it, companies like Nike tend to pull out of those areas completely.  Sometimes they will stay and send people in to improve the conditions.  We have a system where people demand products made in humane conditions, so the supply tends to come from factories with humane conditions.  That does not mean that all conditions are humane.  They are not all humane here in the United States - which is definitely not underdeveloped.  But, the end result is a good one for all involved except the warlords who lose their ability to rule by violence. --Kainaw (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Workers in such factories often suffer irreparable tissue damage from being exposed to carcinogens and toxins such as benzene that are used in production. With no affordable health care, and companies taking advantage of lax environmental laws, workers often die young and with shockingly high rates of liver damage, lung damage, cancer, and so forth. - Wo o  ty   Woot?   contribs  02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition to health concerns on the individual worker's level, there may also be environmental problems on a communal level (depending on the industry). Outsourcing from environmentally regulated countries to countries with no clean air and water acts and so forth, can be viewed as unfair because it externalizes the risks while keeping the profits close to home (of course in cases such as our climate, there will be a delayed global backlash, but the main environmental impact will still be felt by the ecosystems and communities in the target countries). On a national political level, there are also worries of increased dependency and loss of democratic sovereignity. I'm sure you're aware that there are plenty of people, publications, and NGO's discussing these issues in depth. So .... do your own homework! :-) ---Sluzzelin  talk  03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also on the health note: the ones working at the factories often don't have transportation available, so they must live close to the plants..and this obviously causes some problems. It's not like they can live in a clean area and commute every day. - Wo o  ty   Woot?   contribs  04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! All great critiques. Your feedback has inspired me to perhaps focus on Mexico. I've always been pro-NAFTA, though I feel it requires a "beefing-up" in the sense that it should require that Mexican factories live up to Canadian and US standards regarding health, working conditions, pollution etc., basically all the critiques you guys have offered, plus strong anti-corruption enforcement to make sure these standards aren't overlooked by bribed officials. To my knowledge, though terribly poor and corrupt by Canadian and US standards, I've never heard of any "warlords" being in control (except perhaps in that unruly Chiapas region in the south). My feeling is that if NAFTA could be improved to such an extent where the only alleged "exploitation" involved would be economic, in the form of dramatically lower wages paid to their workers vis-a-vis their northern neighbours, still, this arrangement, though appearing exploitive, could only have the effect of increasing the standard of living of the Mexican people quite dramatically, and once again, possibly pulling the Mexican economy up from its current impoverished state to who knows...possibly one day being on par with Canada and the US. Any thoughts? Loomis 09:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * At least one wikipedia article already covers this in some depth. Note you seem to be assuming that treating people extremely poorly because it's better then the alternative is okay. Many people wouldn't agree. For example, some people might argue that Africans who were enslaved in America were better offer then they would have been had they remained in Africa. Even if this is true, I don't think slavery is any less reprehensible. Slave owners definitely weren't doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and they were supposedly the more 'civilised' people. Point being, just because people working in sweatshops are better off then many of the people around them, doesn't mean they aren't necessarily reprehensible as a concept. I would argue it is possible to run a factory in the an undeveloped country with resonably humane conditions and pay (not talking about in any way comparable to first world here). It will be more expensive and the incentive to use such a factory will be less but it is IMHO possible. The problem is of course, when people say no sweatshops, they usually mean made locally (or perhaps in another developed country). Whether this is better then sweatshops is of course debatable but since many people are protectionist they often in fact prefer it that way. Also, note on your point about purchasing power. While it's true purchasing power need to be consider and the pay may be better then many other jobs in tha area, their wages even when purchasing power is of course still terrible by first world or even resonably developed third world standards. As for your comment about NAFTA, well I don't know that much about it. But you IMHO have a bit of a naive view of the way things may work. While it may help, the reality is if the US have their way there is no way in hell Mexico will come close to being on par with the US. This is undesirable for the US (any developed country has similar attitutes). One of the biggest problems in the Americas IMHO is that the US is so big compared to everyone else they can basically dominate everyone around them and especially since they are a superpower, their interests rarely coincide with the rest of the Americas (bar Canada perhaps). It is in the US's interest to make sure that the rest of the America's don't get too strong either economically or politically. However increasingly, Brazil especially is realising they have power and this is in tandem with the way the developing world is realising they need to cooperative since their interests are often vastly different from that of the developed world. They also realise that free trade can in fact benefit them, they just need to ensure they don't let the developing world force their vision of free trade on them. So in that sense free trade agreements may work, but only when developing countries don't allow themselves to be pushed around too much. Fortunately, various political and social changes also mean that in a lot of the developed world, there is now some real pressure for fairness and certain things have also forced the developed world to realise that the sorts of tricks and games used with the developing world often backfire. Even the US is starting to realise that while supporting dictators and warlords which like you may sound like a good idea in theory, in practice it usually ends up nasty. 203.109.240.93 11:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have an extremely cynical view of the United States and the American people which I don't share. Why do so many people seem to think that the US is hell-bent on keeping the rest of the world in poverty and misery for its own selfish ends? For example, the article on the humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake notes that the US government contributed just under a billion dollars, with the private sector throwing close to an additional 2 billion. All together the US contributed close to 30% of the total humanitarian aid provided for victims of this immense natural disaster. Of course the anti-American cynic will always complain that being the richest country in the world, they could have given more, and that any aid they did provide was nothing more than a purely selfish PR tactic to give the false image that the US actually cares about the rest of the world. I just don't buy that. Is it at all possible that this aid was at least in part based on genuine compassion?


 * But I didn't come here to get into a debate about anti-Americanism, but rather to get some extra insight into the socio-economic pros and cons of outsourcing jobs to poor countries. You say that I have "a bit of a naive view as to how things work", that "[i]t is in the US's interest to make sure that the rest of the America's don't get too strong either economically or politically" and that "the reality is if the US have their way there is no way in hell Mexico will come close to being on par with the US". With all due respect, IMHO it is your understanding of world economics that is quite naive. Take a look at the article on the economy of South Korea, for example. Fifty years ago it was a dirt-poor third world country. To quote from the article:


 * "Just after the Korean War, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world - yet, today's South Korea is in the league of the wealthiest nations: Per capita gross national product, only $100 in 1963, exceeded $20,000 USD in 2005."


 * And further on:


 * "Following the Japanese occupation and the Korean War, the Syngman Rhee administration of the newly formed South Korean state used foreign aid from the United States during the 1950s to build an infrastructure that included a nationwide network of primary and secondary schools, modern roads, and a modern communications network."


 * You see, the so widely held belief that US wealth and prosperity has been, and can only continue to be achieved through the exploitation of third-world countries, as sensible as it may seem, is absolutely, completely false, and based on a poor grasp of international economics. The US helped South Korea to transform itself from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the richest in less than half a century, because it was in the best interests of both countries for South Korea to thrive. You also seem to have casually dismissed the Canada/US economic relationship, yet offer no explanation. Why should Canada be an exception? The fact that Canada and the US carry on what is most likely the most mutually beneficial trading relationship between any two countries in the entire world can be attributed entirely to the fact that like the US, Canada is a wealthy country as well. The US would only benefit all the moreso if Mexico was as wealthy as Canada. And if South Korea can undergo such a radical transformation, why not Mexico? Loomis 13:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't get into the debate above, but you may be asked about child labour. One of the more difficult situations a manufacturer has to deal with is when local managers hire young children (under 12) to work in their factories. Many say that giving the children the chance to work means they won't go hungry; unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case in most practical examples. Children are more likely to die or be injured in childhood than kids who don't work, are more likely to not be in school (which of course means they won't be able to get a better job when they grow up), and are more likely to be exploited in other ways - sexually, economically (by taking back their entire wages for "boarding costs", or by giving them only enough food to keep them alive), and otherwise. Also remember that countries such as South Korea became wealthy en masse due to outsourcing, but that millions of individual Koreans paid the price. The ones living in comfort today are less likely to be the children of sweatshop workers than the children of managers and other white-collar workers who already benefitted from significant advantages before the Americans came.

There's also the related problem of providing education in communities businesses set up around their factories. I've heard time and time again local managers call development societies or co-operatives "suckers" (or something similar) for giving aid money to set up a school, since "I would have done it anyway". Then why didn't he at any time in the 25 years since he began managing the plant? -- Charlene 04:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Loomis actually have fairly good points. But Loomis, if you come here to the Philippines, you'll find that multinational companies and free-market economists here have always said the same arguments. These people still believe in the invisible hand that guides the economy - the global economy. But let me tell you about the other side of the debate. Business process outsourcing is only a small part of the overall hegemony that involves economies and cultures of different peoples. Here in our country, call centers are thriving. If an employee gets regularized, he can earn more than P20,000 a month. National activists here believe that amount is not enough to raise a family on. But that's not all. Time here is literally being bent to suit the needs of the United States. Call center agents, mostly young Filipinos, work at night and sleep at daytime. Even bars and other entertainment venues are changing their time to accomodate call center agents. And then there's the issue of health risk. They drink huge amounts of coffee, and smoke cigarettes to keep their body awake all night. And take note, I'm not talking about sweatshops here. These are call center companies that serve American clients, and their working conditions are good. But despite all that, there is still an incredible damage to the Filipino people. If you're a fresh graduate here now, it's almost as if you can only either be a call center agent or a nurse. Activists protest that we no longer produce a generation of bright minds with a heart for the nation and with a taste for history, for example, and literature, culture, etc. We only produce call center agents whose only expertise is how to speak the english language with an American accent. That's all that matters. And all the while, we are losing our identity, if we still have it at all, because people here seem to make Americans the standard and their heroes for everything. Everything is interconnected. And I guess what Adam Smith failed to observe is that the invisible hand also dominates and punishes invisibly and severely. I remember reading an article where a Filipino graduate of, if I remember correctly, agricultural engineering, in the University of the Philippines (a really prestigious university here) ended up as a nurse in the US. She can't help it, she says, it pays more to be a nurse. It's disappointing. And when I was in the university myself, I really used to hate America with all my guts, what with the spirit of scholarly rebellion all over the place. You see, it's not all about how much workers here or abroad get paid. It's also about what is sacrificed to be able to live. I understand that Americans consciously do not intend to harm others, but such is the state of things. One author once said that a touch of another culture is enough to kill another. Moonwalkerwiz 05:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a final thank you to all you guys. The lecture went EXTREMELY well, thanks in good part to your help. I'm truly grateful to all of you for your contributions. This, to me, is indeed the RefDesk at its best. Loomis 04:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

MY SMALL FAT GREEK QUESTION.
Are greeks really very cunning and crafty as they are portrayed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.215.141 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * May I ask when exactly they are portrayed like this? -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  08:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, you can't make such sweeping generalisations for a whole nation of people and their culture. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  08:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you read Boys' Weeklies, a brilliant dissertation by George Orwell which, amongst other things, focuses on the comic absurdity of thinking in terms of national stereotypes. You should find this in any decent collection of his essays: my own copy is that published in 2000 by Penguin Books in England. The essay itself was written almost seventy years ago, but it continues to have a universal relevance, with all due allowance being made for the passage of time and the changes in the forms of cultural presentation. Anyway, here is how the world, at least part of it, was presented to English schoolboys in illustrated papers just before the outbreak of the Second World War:

FRENCHMEN: Excitable. Wears beard, gesticulates wildly.

SPANIARDS AND MEXICANS: Sinister, treacherous.

ARABS AND AFGHANS: The same as the above.

ITALIAN: Excitable. Grinds barrel organ and carries stilleto.

SWEDE: Kind hearted and stupid.

NEGRO: Comic, very faithful.

The French are always described as 'Frogs' and the Italians as 'Dagos' The Americans, when portrayed, speak an old-fashioned, stage Yankee, along the lines of Waal, I guess..., and the Chinese speak an atrocious pidgin, using expressions like Me thinkee. It's all quite absurd, of course, showing a world filtered through late Imperial stereotypes. Obviously the way in which people are depicted has changed dramatically, but the fashion of reducing whole communities to a single characteristic, good or bad, remains. Please avoid the temptation. The Greeks are as diverse and varied as everyone else; as diverse and varied, I dare say, as your own people and nation. Clio the Muse 09:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * James A. Michener wrote in his usual style of fact and fiction about this phenomenon. I am fairly certain it was in his novel Chesapeake. He reproduces text from schoolbooks of the day and then puzzles his characters when they discover that the reality isn't as simple as they were taught. --Dweller 11:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me second that recommendation. It is a rather good novel. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  12:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Some more articles you might like to look at: outgroup homogeneity bias, trait ascription bias, and, on the other hand, stereotype inevitability, and intercultural competence. ---Sluzzelin talk  13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group members
Is there any Bilderberg Group member here? Just wondering who's going to be the next US prez and whether Gordon Brown is gonna take over from Blair or not. Also, is Howard going to make another miracolous comeback? N.B. E-mailing or normal mail is fine, obviously I don't need to tell you my address... Cheers 203.109.240.93 11:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt that Bilderberg members would bother with editing the Wikipedia Reference Desk, or doing any other productive work for that matter. That said, I don't think that their favorites necessarily assume power every time.  For example, I read reports suggesting that most Bilderbergers were unsatisfied with Bush and did not want to see him reelected in 2004.  He may not have been fairly reelected (see our articles on Walden O'Dell and 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities), but nonetheless he retained power.  (edited) Marco polo 15:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

British Spies
Who was the British spy I believe his name was Scotland who was born in Africa and joined the German army and then became a mole after World War I and rejoined the Germany army in 1939. He rose to the rank of Lt General in the German forces and kept passing information on to the brits and when the USSR caught him they couldnt believe such a high ranking officer was a spy? And alos who was the British spy for the Soviets who had been a commie in youth and joined the service witht he expressed intent of helping the Reds? --Stalin1942 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who 'General Scotland' was, or indeed if he ever existed; but on your second question you can take your pick from the Cambridge Four-Guy Burgess, Donald Duart Maclean, Anthony Blunt and Kim Philby. This circle of traitors is sometimes known as the Cambridge Five, although the additional member has not been identified with any certainty.  Clio the Muse 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict)I'm not familiar with any individuals who meet the criteria of your first question; it's possible you are referring to someone like Juan Pujol Garcia, Jona von Ustinov or Kazimierz Leski. The second part of your question can probably be referenced by the article on the Cambridge Five, although I don't know specifically which of the four proven spies (or several alleged "fifth men") you are referring to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carom (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC).


 * It's possible you are conflating two (or more) persons, here. Wilhelm Canaris, the head of the Abwehr was rumoured to be in contact with British intelligence during the war, although I'm not aware that any definitive evidence of this has emerged. You may be confusing him with another, actual British agent to produce the character "General Scotland." Can you provide any additional information? Carom 19:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember the details about "general Scotland", but from what I remember he lived in a German African colony and at the start of the war was interned because he was of Brit dissent. Eventualyl he was captured by the Brits and sent back to the Germans as a double agent. After WWI he went into deep cover living a normal life but returned to the service afetr the rise of hitler. He rose to lt General and was captured by the Soviets in 1945. He also testifed against his former colleagues at Nuremberg. --Stalin1942 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Could the OQ be thinking of Rudolf Hess, who flew to Scotland during the war? Corvus cornix 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's a superb conjecture, Corvus cornix! Hess was born in Alexandria, and was generally known in the inner circle of the NSDAP as the 'Egyptian', both because of the place of his birth and his sphinx-like appearance.  He did indeed fly to Scotland in May 1941, though he could hardly, by any measure, be described as a British spy, and few of the other details outlined at the outset in any way fit into his military and political career.  Clio the Muse 21:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be thinking of the 1958 movie "The Two Headed Spy", about the exploits of a German officer named Gen. Alex Schottland, who passed information to the Allies. Schottland was played by Jack Hawkins.  The movie is said to be based on a true story, but whom it's really about, I have no idea.  The IMDB summary of the plot includes this: "World War II spy thriller based on true story. British secret agent (Jack Hawkins) successfully infiltrates Nazi military, achieves rank of general during WWII. He gains full confidence of entire Nazi high command, including Fuhrer Adolf Hitler himself, save one suspecting German officer (played with evil panache by Erik Schumann). All the while Hawkins passes war-winning information to Allies assisted by two loyal Berlin contacts, first Felix Alymer [sic] and then nightclub singer Gia Scala. ... ".  The only reason I knew to search for this is that I saw this movie on TV when I was about 15, and I remember that at one point in the story General Schottland's surname, which is the German for Scotland, was a point of discussion amongst his fellow officers.  I remember absolutely nothing else about the movie.  Strange how little details stick in the mind. JackofOz 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice reply, Jack. Thanks for the information.  Corvus cornix 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, follow-up question: is that movie really based on a "true story", and if so, what or whose true story? Lupo 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Does atheism make people better-off?
Is there a study anywhere of the effect of nonbelief on, for instance, personal happiness? That is, there's an argument that goes, "whether or not religion is literally true, it's good for people"--is there any empirical backing to this claim? Some sort of sociological study of atheists comparing them to the general population? grendel|khan 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to prove that religious people are necessarily any happier than atheists. Chapter 10 of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins deals with this very issue. - Wo o  ty   Woot?   contribs  19:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What about fine-grained details? I.e. rather than "religious" to "atheist", perform a pair-wise comparison between every major belief system.  Also, while I'm wishing, I'd like to study more than "happiness"; are there any notable trends in wealth?  Education?  Etc?  With suitable care taken to avoid having the statistics lie - e.g. atheism may correlate with education, but that would be education -> atheism, not atheism -> education.  Also, I don't have a copy of Dawkins' book, so while I'm wishing I'd like this to be a published study in a publically accessable domain. 137.99.164.170 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A study was actually done on education vs. religious activity in the US. For most religion, activity in their religion and education had an inverse relationship.  For Judaism, it seemed to be unrelated.  For Mormonism, it was directly correlated (the more educated a Latter Day Saint is, the more likely they are to be active in their church).  This study is buried somewhere at www.adherents.com.  The Jade Knight 06:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know of any sociological studies on the relationship between belief or non-belief and personal happiness, but I am reminded here of Saint Manuel the Good, Martyr, a novella by the Spanish existentialist philosopher Miguel de Unamuno. It's about a priest who has lost his belief in God but says nothing to his parishioners because he recognises how central faith is to their lives and personal happiness. Clio the Muse 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, any such question also gets tangled in plenty of other issues, such as the whole "which comes first" bit, even if a study were to show a correlation between atheism and unhappiness. Do people choose atheism and become unhappy as a result, or do "originally" unhappy people tend to decide there is no God? Also, how much of a person's success is determined by the reputation of their group rather than its "inherent qualities" (most would say that the disproportional presence of African-Americans in U.S. prisons is a result of racism and negative self-image and nothing to do otherwise with "being black")? It may be that atheists are simply distrusted enough to become unhappy/unsuccessful. (In a recent poll in which Americans were asked who they'd be willing to vote for president and were given a list of generic "outsiders" and minorities — a woman, a black man, a Mormon, etc. — the atheist was the only one to earn under 50% of this vote, right after an open homosexual. So there's that to consider as wel.) — Lenoxus 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The poll, by Gallup, was misleadingly titled Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year-Old Presidential Candidates. Apparently they put "atheist" on the poll as a joke. grendel|khan 23:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the result of a Pew Research Center poll of 3,014 American adults:


 * Percentage saying they're "very happy" by frequency of worship attendance:
 * Weekly or more: 43%
 * Monthly or less: 31%
 * Seldom or never: 26% -- Mwalcoff 23:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm, exactly what does that mean? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to mean that people who attend church more frequently are more likely to consider themselves very happy. I'd like to see the actual survey. grendel|khan 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember seeing a study where Christians who go to church live on average about 2 years longer than ones who don't. However, it occurred to me that they spend about 2 years of their lives in church. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, here's the link: . -- Mwalcoff 23:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A related survey showed recently that conservatives were more charitable than liberals Blog issue. DDB 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A problem with this question is the assumption that atheism and religion are mutually exclusive opposites, which is not the case in common usage. For example, Buddhism is regarded as a religion, yet it is (typically) non-theistic. The strict meaning of atheism as a disbelief in a deity or deities may not hold for Buddhism, but the common looser meaning, nontheism does.  See God in Buddhism for more on the topic. Pfly 07:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Religion can make people unhappy. There's people who have a fear of god, people who are shamed and made to feel guilty by their church... etc...

Anyway, if religion if something that you enjoy and it makes you feel good, then I guess it can be said to be good for you, but then the same could be said for doing things like painting or playing an instrument... --Candy-Panda 12:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is He?
Who is Who

I am trying to get info about a Haitian person lived around 1845

Named: A. Garochel

Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Albander (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC).


 * This is awfully vague but I suppose you might take a choice of Charles Riviere-Hérard or the Emperor Faustin I or Jean-Baptiste Riché or Jean Pierre Boyer or Jean-Louis Pierrot or Lysius Salomon, all among the more prominent Haitians of the time. Clio the Muse 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the questioner may be seeking information about a person named A. Garochel. Given the lack of Google hits, he was apparently not famous. --Lambiam Talk  13:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My guess is either (1) the name is misspelled (2) he's a relatively minor historical figure or (3) this is a genealogical query. I'm sort of leaning toward (1), given that there doesn't seem to be anyone named "Garochel".--Pharos 12:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Return question to Albander: Where did you find the name mentioned? --Lambiam Talk  13:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Architecural style?
I've been wondering for ages whether there is a proper name for the architectural style used in a lot of UK buildings in the 1950s and early 60s, it's obviously a branch of Modernism but I'm not sure if there was a proper name for it. It's characterised by concrete frames around the windows, metal framed windows, usually brick facades but sometimes white stone and thin lines. Here are some photos of the kind of thing I mean:


 * http://www.garyreggae.co.uk/southampton/images/eee_debenhams001.JPG
 * http://www.garyreggae.co.uk/southampton/images/ccc_highstreet005.JPG (buildings on the left)
 * http://www.garyreggae.co.uk/southampton/images/ddd_abovebar009.JPG
 * http://www.garyreggae.co.uk/southampton/images/ddd_abovebar010.JPG

Some of these have Art-Deco/International Style influences but these buildings are later than that. The BBC Television Centre is another very good example of the style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GaryReggae (talk • contribs) 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC).


 * While the International style article claims that this style was finished at the end of World War II, the article Modern architecture states that the international style became the dominant postwar style. If these rather uninspired buildings can be said to embody any style at all, I would say that it is a late, utilitarian, and watered-down version of the international style.  In the case of the fourth building listed, as you say, there are some art-deco characteristics.  Marco polo 20:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've known it called "shopping precinct un-chic"hotclaws**== 09:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How about soft core brutalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalism 195.27.12.230 11:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dietary Laws
Kosher is the word used to describe food which Judaism allows for Jews, and Halal is the word to describe food which Islam allows for Muslims, i.e., Dhabiĥa Halal and Kashrut. Are there any dietary laws for Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. and for atheists such as those who ran the former Soviet State? Diligent 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Many Hindus are vegetarians (see Vegetarianism), and so are some Buddhists. However, there are no particular dietary laws for Christians, and there are definitely none for atheists (being that atheism is not a religion). -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  20:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But quite a lot of people have different taboo food and drink. Cat chop anyone?  meltBanana  21:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How about in the ancient Egyptian culture? Diligent 21:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lent has some material on Catholic dietary restrictions. --TotoBaggins 02:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most major religions are against cannibalism. Brownie points to whoever can cite scriptures to this point.--Pharos 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I could not find and specific Egyptian food taboos, here are some references. As for biblical cannibalism here is your handy recipe card.  meltBanana  14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I intended this as a joke, some people may find it offensive     Hmm most religions seem to have a prohibition on the consumption of semen too      Nil Einne 21:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually (in the Netherlands traditionalist) catholics follow strict dietary laws, which specify when to which food. No meat (therefore fish) on friday etc. C mon 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

About Christian dietary laws: I vaguely recall that there is a period where Christians are supossed not to eat meat and are meant to eat fish instead. In the middle ages there was the debate that otter was a fish. In some countries it was tradition not to eat meat on fridays (the day when Jesus died). On the whole, most christians today are quite happy to ignore these old rules. As someone (St. Paul?) said a long time ago: "It is not what enters through the mouth that is unclean, but what sometimes comes comes out" (something similar; I guess that he was refering to lies, insults, and falsehoods). Then there many cultural taboos (which largely depend upon the person in question): canibalism, not eating cat, dogs, horse etc. Hmm Horseflesh, makes a man strong. :) Flamarande 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're partly right. It comes under fasting. This website, although tailored to a specific understanding and denomination of Christianity, points out that fasting originally meant "going on a disciplined diet" and not "not eating at all", at least in Christianity. This page at catholicism.org mentions, though, that it wasn't that you were supposed to eat fish: it was that you were supposed to not eat meat. Many people ate dairy or vegetarian dishes on Friday. However, there were also political/economic reasons. After Elizabeth I succeeded to the English throne and the practice of the Anglican faith became codified, laws were enacted forbidding the eating of meat on Friday (and soon after that, Wednesday) in order to prop up the fishing industry. Most Englishmen at the time couldn't imagine going a whole day without some kind of animal flesh. -- Charlene  02:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Magna Carta and Myth-Busters
I don't understand why this section in the article on Magna Carta is titled "The Myth-Busters". Any ideas? --Spundun 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Magna Carta has a significance in English constitutional history far in excess of what the document actually achieved. It might, in a very real sense, be said to have transcended real history and achieved a mythical status.  By the late eighteenth century a number of people were beginning to question the assumptions about the document, particularly in relation to the development of Parliamentary sovereignty, hence the Myth-Busters heading, which I personally feel is out of place and far too glib.  It has, however, nothing whatsoever to do with the television show you have linked.  Clio the Muse 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) When that section was introduced the preceding text contained five mentions of a mythical aura the Magna Charta had allegedly acquired by the Stuart age, and it is this "myth" that is supposedly busted. The first of these, introducing the notion of "myth", was changed later from "mythical aura" to "almost mystical status", leaving the later mentions (in particular the next one) somewhat orphaned. I've reinstated the word "mythical" there, but I have to agree that even with this change the text remains a bit cryptical. --Lambiam Talk  21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the belief that Jews deserve eternal damnation considered antisemitism?
I've checked the antisemitism article, but not much is said about this. Any help? Thanks.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "deserve"? Any religion's opinions about another's aren't necessarily racist, but the way in which they are framed could be. A traditional form of Christianity might say that non Christians have no place in Heaven. But saying that a group "deserves" damnation begins to sound racist to these ears. --Dweller 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement does not sound like it is referring to the Jewish religion. It appears to claim that all Jews, even Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, or Hindu Jews deserve damnation.  So, yes, it is an antisemetic statement.  It could be less offensive as, "Those who deny Jesus due to adherence to the Jewish faith are destined for damnation."  Then, it is a religious, not a racist statement. --Kainaw (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Kainaw, what is a Hindu Jew?  A Christian Jew?   An Islamic Jew?   I'm not familiar with the way you're using the term Jew, and request clarification.  Jfarber 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it really that hard to understand that "Jew" has to completely different meanings? In one sense, it refers to people who are descendent from those who used to (and some have recently returned to) live in the region of Judea.  In another sense, it refers to those who practice the religion that came from those who used to live in the region of Judea.  If you are referring to the race, there is no limitation on the religion.  There are people who, if you ask them what race they are, will say "Jew".  Then, if you ask them what religion they are, they will not say "Jewish" because they practice another religion (or no religion at all).  I hope it isn't too much of a shock that not all Jewish people practice the Jewish religion.  You know, there are even people who are not Jewish that have converted to the Jewish religion. --Kainaw (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is a Hindu Jew the inverse of a Jewish Hindu: "Hindu Jew" = "Jewish Hindu" -1 ? Actually, I think Kainaw is referring to the ethnic group Jews. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I've never heard of any respectable Christian denomination singling out Jews as deserving eternal damnation. Rather, from my rudimentary understanding of Christianity, anyone who does not accept Jesus as his lord and saviour is doomed to eternal damnation. Jews aren't being singled out, rather, all non-Christians are viewed to be deserving of the same fate. That said, I don't see that belief as particularly anti-semitic at all. I really don't feel any harm being done to me when I hear a Christian tell me that after I die, I'm destined for hell. I really couldn't care less what others believe will happen to me after I die, so long as they respect me while I'm alive.


 * It's actually rather similar to that rather peculiar, yet still, very much appreciated staunch support evangelical Christians have for Israel. I'm not at all well versed in the New Testament, but from what I understand, these Christians are strong supporters of Israel based on their interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Apparently they believe that according to Christian prophesy, the Jews are meant to re-establish their presence in Israel, up until the time of Armageddon, at which time some two thirds of the Jews will die, Jesus will return, and the remaining third will accept Christ, and go to heaven. Or something like that. I'm really not entirely clear on the details, nor do I care to be. What's important though, is that in this "pre-Armegeddon" world we live in presently, many Christians are staunch supporters of Israel. The fact that I find their motives, from my perspective at least, to be rather odd, is to me rather irrelevant. For the time being they support Israel, and for me, that's all that really matters. Loomis 01:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Loomis, there may be some sects that do say that anyone who does not accept Jesus as his lord and saviour is doomed to eternal damnation. After all, Christianity is a very broad church with many conflicting dogmas.  But the mainstream Christian churches do not teach that.  There is no single human spokesperson for "Christianity", so you have to be careful about whom you choose to believe about this.  JackofOz 02:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

JackofOz, would the ones that DO believe that, be considered antisemites? For instance George Bush? Thanks. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily, imo. If anyone, anyone at all, who does not accept Jesus as his lord and saviour is said to doomed to eternal damnation, then that would apply equally to Jews and non-Jews.  I can't see that that position would be anti-semitic as such.  JackofOz 02:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That was my point. I don't see it as anti-semitic either. And thanks for the clarification, Jack, food for thought. I'm just curious, Kirby, why you seem to believe that George Bush, an Episcopalian (a very closely related denomination to Anglicism) would fall into the category of those Christians who do believe that all non-Christians are doomed to hell. Loomis 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming because of reports like this and this. ~ lav-chan @ 02:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This question came from reading Talk:Antisemitism. Some users were saying that even if the rules applied equally to Jews and non-Jews, it is still antisemitism. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  02:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a long thread and I don't have time to read it all. But I noticed one part that was talking about the Nazis' discrimination against Jews, gays and Roma people.   In that case, it was definitely anti-semitism because the Nazis selected certain particular groups of people, of whom the Jews were one, and did terrible things to them.  They were all identified with their groups, with a different coloured arm patch.  It wasn't a case of persecuting any people at all that they considered not to satisfy their twisted concept of what a German was.  But this becomes simplistic.   If their thesis was expressed as broadly as I just said, would it then have ceased to be anti-semitism per se?  No, because a German Jew is no less a German than a German gentile - also true for gays and Roma - so the whole basis of their notion of true Germanness was grotesquely flawed from the start.  JackofOz 03:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any (Christian) doctrine that Jews "deserve" eternal damnation, but there is a long-standing notion that the Jews are cursed because of their alleged guilt in the death of Christ. This goes back to what Paul wrote in 1 Thess. 2:14-16; in the Wycliffe version: "For, brethren, ye be made followers of the churches of God, that be in Judaea, in Christ Jesus, and ye have suffered the same things of your even-lineages, and they of the Jews. Which slew both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and pursued us, and they please not to God, and they be adversaries to all men; forbidding us to speak to heathen men, that they be made safe, that they fill their sins evermore; forsooth the wrath of God before came upon them till into the end." The last words, in the Vulgata usque in finem, in Koine εις τελος, have been interpreted as meaning "till the end times", although the more usual later interpretation (for example in the King James) is "to the utmost degree". However, this supposed curse (the wrath of God) then was seen as pertaining to the condition of the Jews in this world, such as the diaspora (cf. the image of the Wandering Jew), and not implying eternal damnation. After all, the same Paul wrote in Romans 11:25-26: "Forsooth, brethren, I will not that ye unknow this mystery, that ye be not wise to yourselves; for blindness hath felled of part in Israel, till the plenty of heathen men entered, and so all Israel should be made safe. As it is written, He shall come of Sion, that shall deliver, and turn away the unpiety of Jacob." So Israel (the Jews) will be saved in the end.  --Lambiam Talk  08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * However, the mechanism for salvation (saving of the soul) of all Jews is the same as it is for Peter, and Paul and Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Mary and you and I... That mechanism is admitting and accepting the Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is after all the only thing that distinguishes Christian from Jew and without it the Jews can not be saved or escape eternal damnation whetheer believed to be deserved or not. Diligent 08:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: I've always been curious about this. According to that line of Christian thinking, would a righteous Jewish person, who lived a good, noble life be treated after death any differently from an evil Jewish person who stole, murdered, raped, cursed God (jaywalked) and was generally not very nice? --Dweller 09:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me answer that by asking several questions: What happend to Adam and Eve when they chose to eat of the tree of good and evil? What happened to the Isrealites who upon the return of Moses decided they prefered idolitry to God? What is the consequence for anyone who lives a good or a bad life for themselves instead of for God? Diligent 11:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, I don't know. That's why I'm asking you. I'll restate the question, because I don't understand your reply. If all non Christians are "eternally damned" then after death is there a consequence for being an evil eternally damned person rather than a good eternally damned person? --Dweller 11:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Christians believe that works do not get you into Heaven; that you can not “earn” your way into Heaven. Diligent 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So a non Christian might as well worship Satan, decapitate small children and steal altar-pieces, as it makes no odds to their afterlife. OK. --Dweller 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact there are many death bed conversions especially in prisons where people have been incarcerated for the worst possible crimes. Diligent 12:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Diligent, it might help your understanding if you read a little more widely. Might I suggest that you have a look at Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner by James Hogg, a Scottish writer who challenged the whole ethical and doctrinal basis of Calvinist notions of predestination?  What you are advancing here comes close to the most perverse forms of heresy, including the Medieval notion of the Free Spirit.  Clio the Muse 13:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Clio, I am curious as to what sort of perverse heresy Diligent is guilty of. I don't see anything save a rather weak connection to predistination in his argument at all.  Care to clarify?  GreatManTheory 18:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He is actually quite confused, GreatManTheory, advancing notions of faith over works in a Calvinist fashion, though I do not think this concept, and its full implications, have been properly digested. I was reminded both by Dweller's remark and Diligent's response of the Heresy of the Free Spirit.  As I understand it, this Medieval doctrine was based on the contention that once any given indvidual achieved a state of grace she or he could not fall from this, regardless of their earthly actions. You will find more detailed information on this in Norman Cohn's Pursuit of the Millenium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists in the Middle Ages.  Clio the Muse 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Humm.. But isn't this the very basis of remaining a Jew instead of Christian conversion? Isn't the assumption the same that by just being a Jew you are saved? Faith without works is not suppose to get you anywhere but works alone can not get your there either is what I have alwasy been taught. Just becasue I referenced predestination does not mean I subscribe to it entirely as a belief but rather that my knowledge of it helps me to know where my beliefs are at. My personal guiding principle is constant communion with God, i.e. not praying five time a day as the Muslims do but simply not ending the first prayer that was begun. I ask God moment by moment what is the right thing to do, can he clarify His will by telling me what to do. sometimes His response is immediate and sometimes over time but the point is constant communication in order to keep myself from taking charge. Diligent 19:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A naked statement to the effect that Jews 'deserve' eternal damnation is anti-semitic; but it also happens, in a far deeper sense, to be anti-Christian. The whole concept of hell is so complex, subject to considerable variations in and between faiths, that it is difficult to give a precise and succinct answer to this; but since the debate has focused so far on forms of Christianity it is from there I take my point of departure, specifically from the position of the Catholic Church. In the traditional view the souls of unbaptised children, all unbaptised children, are neither in heaven nor hell but in limbus infantum. The second limbo, the limbus patrum-the limbo of the fathers-was where the souls of those who died before the advent of Christ were confined, but who were still considered to stand high among the just: this would include, of course, all of the great Jewish patriarchs. By the Middle Ages the established Catholic position was that all who did not accept Christ as their saviour and-just as crucially-the authority and teaching of the Church, were destined for Hell, understood in a very literal sense. This would embrace heretics as well as heathens, as Innocent III, the greatest of the Medieval popes, made plain when he said 'There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved', a dogma confirmed by Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctum, a bull of 1302. However, all this was changed by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which met in Rome from 1962 to 1965, and is generally known now as Vatican II. In The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, one of several documents to come out of this gathering, it is specifically written that The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible church. This was followed by Nostra Aetate, which says, amongst other things, that the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in non-Christian religions, and that God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers. The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church also says that the church has a special relationship to both Jews and Muslims because of the common reverence for the prophet, Abraham. In 1999 Pope John Paul II simply said that Hell was 'absence from God'. The 'presence of God' thus must be seen to embrace both Jew and Gentile.

I therefore repeat the observation that I made at the outset: an unqualified statement to the effect that Jews, because they are Jews, deserve Hell belongs to secular, racist and anti-semitic doctrines, in whatever guise they happen to come. Clio the Muse 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * However, if a Semite is a person who lives their life for themselves instead of for God then being anti-Semite might be a good thing instead of bad. Diligent 11:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is an induction from particular cases to general principles, which seems to me to be the very essence of prejudice and irrationality. It's the syllogism of the simple-minded.  Clio the Muse 11:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that's not what a semite is.  Your definition would describe almost everyone on planet Earth, with a few significant exceptions.  JackofOz 11:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Diligent, that sounds like an appalling misunderstanding of Judaism. It also sounds like racism. Perhaps you'd care to rephrase it, so that no-one will think that. --Dweller 11:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to revise or rephrase but first I need more detail as to why all of you object??? What is it you find so offensive about this comment??? Diligent 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Read again what you have written, Diligent, and what I said in reply. I will try to make my point a little simpler.  You may feel that any given individual deserves to be condemned for her or his actions, but you advance far beyond this in suggesting all similar people, all those whose actions have not been observed, should likewise be condemned by association: hence the syllogism of the simple minded.  It's profoundly unchristian, and simply makes you look as if you are developing an abstract anti-semitic platform, which I feel sure is not the case.  Please be careful in your choice of words.  Clio the Muse 12:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus was a Jew! --Candy-Panda 12:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-hating Jew. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  18:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, wrong. Indisputable according to the majority of modern historians, the historical Ribi Yehoshua was a Torah-teaching Pharisaic Ribi Jew and his 1st Century followers were neither the practitioners, nor the foundation of, any other religion. Take your unhistorical (for good research, see Geza Vernes, Hyam Maccoby, James Parkes, Harvey Falk, Jerusalem Synoptic School), misojudaic (antisemitic), Christian church originated beliefs out of this discussion. As a sidenote, "Jesus" is not the historically accurate name, since it is the Anglicized pronunciation of the Greek translation (Iesous) of the Aramaic version (Yeshua) of his actual Hebrew name (Yehoshua ben Yoseif). Noogster 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is what reliable sources say, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors. Jayjg (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My answer: Yes. It's definitely antisemitism. In fact, historically, it is the archetypal form of antisemitism that has caused the death and dispersion of millions of the Jewish people. Historically documented (i.e. citable/verifiable on Wikipedia) antisemitism usually consisted of either Christians or Muslims attempting to make Jews convert from Judaism with the belief/teaching that they are eternally damned otherwise. The most ignorant, antisemitic comment in the discussion so far: "However, if a Semite is a person who lives their life for themselves instead of for God then being anti-Semite might be a good thing instead of bad." A Semite is a person whose ancestry goes back to one of the ancient peoples of the Middle East. Jews are Semites, but so are other groups including Arabs and Persians. Therefore misojudaic (from Greek, hatred of Jewish things) is more accurate. Noogster 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)