Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 September 21

= September 21 =

Mestizos
Which Latin and Central American nations have the significant number of mestizos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.247 (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See Mestizo. D AVID Š ENEK 10:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Were Ancient Egyptians Black?
the rock paintings shows that north africa once was inhabited blacks, like algeria and libya had black people once living there. So does this prove that the ancient egyptian were black? i looked at the "race of ancient egypt" but there is so many opinions i need a answer.............So Were they black or not? --arab 05:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From the discussions I have heard the general consensus is they were not "black". Of course, that depends on your definition of "black", which is entirely subjective.  Short answer: no. --mboverload @  05:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Egyptians of Upper Egypt, mainly the Nubians, were considered by the ancient Egyptians to be much darker. I don't suppose the mix has changed all that much since then. Despite this though they seem more related to other Arabs than to sub-Saharan Africans. Nowadays there seems to be a fairly clear line through Sudan separating the people in the north from those in the south which has led to a long standing and very bloody civil war. What precisely about the rock paintings identifies the people as 'black'? Dmcq (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at ancient Egyptian sculpture you'll see quite a lot of variation in appearance - some have what look like African features, others have what look like caucasian features. The ancient Egyptian civilisation lasted three thousand years at the crossroads between Africa and the Middle East - I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect it to have a single, consistent racial profile. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a controversy over it, ergo the "many opinions" in the article (e.g. Ancient Egyptian race controversy). But let's put it this way. They were North Africans. What many Americans call "Black" are people from West, Central, and South Africa in particular. The Ancient Egyptians probably looked more like modern Egyptians (who look more "Middle Eastern" than "Black") than they did look like people from West, Central, and South Africa. That being said, lumping those particular very-different-looking populations (South Africans would not consider themselves as looking very similar to West Africans, except for the fact that they look more like each other than either look to Europeans, for example) into one category is already a decision that has not a whole lot to do with science. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, the truly ridiculous is when it's claimed that Cleopatra herself must have been black because she was "Egyptian" -- ignoring the fact that her ancestry was almost exclusively Macedonian/Greek... AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering the very long history of their civilisation, and the fact their land was the bridge between Africa and Asia, it is extremely likely that they would have had a very mixed culture, with people from all over the place. Their armies and their slaves incorporated people from all sorts of places. Plus, the Ancient Egyptian language had a highly simplified grammatical system compared to other Semitic languages of the time, and had many words which can be found in North African and East African languages. This linguistic phenomenon is what happens when cultures mix.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (otherwise known as the Mormons), Egyptians were to be considered "Black", and as such were included in the Mormon Church's restriction against being elibible to be given the priesthood. That is up until 1978, when the ban was lifted. However, Mormon doctrine still maintains that Egyptians are to be considered "Black". The specific doctrine states that the reason Black people have a dark skin is due to the "Curse of Cain". In other words, Mormons believe that Blacks are descended from Cain, who in Genesis kills his brother Abel, and is then cursed by God with a dark skin, and is doomed to wander the earth, shunned by all who meet him. Because of this curse, which Mormons believe was to be carried on to his descendants for all time (or, rather, until 1978), the Blacks were not allowed to be given the Mormon priesthood. The reason (Mormons believe) that Blacks survived Noah's Flood (which supposedly killed off everyone but Noah's immediate family) was that one of Noah's sons (Ham) was married to a woman who carried the Curse of Cain - in other words, she was Black. So Ham's descendants were therefore themselves Black (since all it takes in Mormonism is just one Black ancestor for 10 generations back to be considered to have the "Curse of Cain"), and therefore cursed by God. And of course Ham's descendants moved off to go inhabit Africa. In the Mormon scripture called the Pearl of Great Price it gives an account of how the Pharaoh of Egypt during the time that Abraham lived was a righteous and holy man, but was denied the priesthood of God on account of his Curse of Cain. In other words, he was Black. All of this is according to Mormon doctrinal beliefs, which even though the Mormon Church has allowed Blacks to be given the priesthood since 1978, still hold to these beliefs about Blacks - and of course, about Egyptians, who were also denied the Mormon priesthood until 1978. Not that there were hordes of Egyptians lining up to become Mormons before then... Saukkomies 02:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. This means that we now have a definition for "for all times" (=1978) much like the term "time immemorial" actually has a precise definition? Jørgen (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it's not a definition that the vast majority of people would adhere to. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, 1978 also coincided with the year when the Mormon Church was building a temple in Brazil, and that basically almost every Mormon in Brazil would have been denied access to it on account of being considered by Mormon doctrine to be "Black". Also, the BYU basketball team had been banned from playing at Stanford University, on account of this very issue of Blacks not being given the Priesthood.... Not saying that there's necessarily a conclusive relationship between these events, but.... Saukkomies 11:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ChokinBako, what is the basis of your claim that the (Afro-Asiatic, not Semitic) Ancient Egyptian language had a 'highly simplified' grammatical system? I've never heard this, and our article doesn't seem to back it up particularly. --ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If the JNA was Europe's third or fourth largest army, which armies larger?
Hello,

the article on the Yugoslav People's Army, claims that is was the fourth largest army in Europe, but it does not offer citations. I've also heard that it was the third largest, but it doesn't seem to be stated explicitly how and when this ranking was made. I'd also like to know which armies in Europe were ranked even higher (the Soviet army, the British army?) Many thanks, Evilbu (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's going to depend on your definitions. For example, the Swiss army can be considered either extremely small or extremely large, depending on whether or not you count reservists (which every able bodied man is). --Tango (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * List of countries by size of armed forces may help. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That article, while interesting, does not provide a number for 'Number Of Nuclear Weapons' for Japan, Nigeria, and Rwanda. Maybe figures were not available at time of writing, but in other places in the article (Israel, North Korea, and so) the figures are estimated. I think we can safely estimate '0' as the numbers for Japan and Rwanda, and probably also for Nigeria.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For a high-tech country like Japan, "number of nuclear weapons" is fairly meaningless: Japan has the technology base needed to deploy nuclear weapons within six months of deciding to do so. --Carnildo (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mount Olympus artwork?
Is there a painting, past or present, depicting Mount Olympus in Greece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukesnyder1027 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I dug around the Net a bit, and could only find either photographs of Mount Olympus or paintings that were very stylistic of the Mount Olympus from mythology - you know, the "home of the Gods" kind of thing. However, there is a fellow user of Wikipedia who, in his profile description, says that he has lived on the slopes of Mount Olympus for a long time. He includes painting as one of his interests. Perhaps if you contacted him, he would be able to provide you with some paintings of Mount Olympus... His name is John Foss, and I do not think I'm breaking any rules by putting that information here in the Ref Desk, since he has included it in his public Wiki profile... Saukkomies 21:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does the US want to build a missile shield in Poland?
What are the main reasons? 124.171.226.46 (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One possible quick-and-dirty answer would be that it is due to George W. Bush being in office. His foreign policy seems so to be based on over-responding to perceived or imagined threats in what has become known as the Bush Doctrine, which includes using preemptive strategies against what might possibly become potential enemy states - in this case against Russia. Saukkomies 16:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Building a missile shield is also a way to funnel a few hundred billion of tax-payer's money to corporations (in this case the defense industry), another Bush speciality as this week's 700 billion Wall Street bailout shows. D AVID Š ENEK 16:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hear! Hear! High fives Š ENEK Saukkomies 17:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The ref desk is not place for political rants, take it elsewhere. --Tango (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Š ENEK, we've done been keel-hauled! Strike the mizzen mast, and haul away! (Oops, sorry, I'm two days too late for International Talk Like a Pirate Day...) Saukkomies 18:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The stated goals are to protect the US (and to a lesser extent, its allies) from nuclear attack by "rogue states", most likely Iran and North Korea. Why Poland in particular? It's the most willing country that is in the right place for the interception missiles to reach the nukes before they get to the US having been launched from certain places that the US fears (I don't know which places are intended to be protected against from which missile sites - Poland might protect against Iran, judging by a quick glance at a map). --Tango (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be a very, very quick glance at a map. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really, the shortest route from Iran to the east coast of the US goes directly over Poland. - Dammit (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And what missile would the Iranians aim at the US east coast? The Shihab-3 has a range of 1300 km. Iran would have a national day of celebration if it even reached the missile defense system in Poland. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fortunate, because the defence shield isn't operational yet. It would be a little late to build your shield after the enemy develops the weapons that could wipe you out. --Tango (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No... that's just what they'll be expecting us to do!... Maybe if we really wanted to be crafty we could place the missile shield in Antarctica, where they'd least expect it to be! Oh sorry, I'm talking politics again... (spanks own hands) Saukkomies 18:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The reasons why it's Poland are as much political as technical. As Tango notes, the US's stated aim is protection of North America and Europe from small numbers of missiles launched from the Middle East.  Poland is one site proposed for this system, and the US is in discussions with Czechia and Ukraine.  All of this is making the Russians uncomfortable, partly because they consider these former sov-blok countries to be their backyard (much as the US considers the Caribbean and Central America its) and partially because they fears encirclement (the fear of Russian foreign relations for more than a century).  As the US says Iran is one of these countries about which it is concerned, the Russians offered to host elements of the system themselves (in the Ciscaucasus) and got Azerbaijan to do likewise.  As this Wired story notes these seem like better locations for a boost-phase defense defense against Iranian (and to a lesser extent Syrian) ICBM launches (that article also shows great-circle trajectories for a notional Iranian launch site). The US doesn't seem to like this idea - we can't discount this as pure politics, as we don't know the technical characteristics of the proposed systems (being too close to a launch site gives you insufficient warning to launch, although that's not a reason not to have a radar there). The Russians in turn suspect that the missiles aren't really for defense at all, but are infact first-strike nuclear weapons deployed only scant minutes from major Russian cities. The Russians see a pattern of western boldness in a ring around them (the orange revolution, Kosovo, former soviet countries joining or moving toward the EU and Nato) and the west sees a newly assertive and oil-cash-rich Russia as being increasingly assertive and bellicose. Everyone sees the others worst motives at work in Georgia.  All this amid a post-cold-war geopolitical environment that's increasingly resembling the Great Game; the great oil and gas reserves of the Caspian basin, Kazakhstan and southern Siberia are in play, as are the unstable countries that host or border the sea lanes and pipelines that ship their product to the world market.  So in short, for both the US and Russia, much of their actions are motivated by a mixture of paranoia and avarice - the US is afraid of rogue state nukes, the Russians afraid of encirclement, and everyone wants to control central europe and the caucasus. And all the while, when no-one is paying attention, China is buying Africa. Doesn't this all sound horribly like a game of Risk? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Its worth observing that in East Asia, where North Korea has a much more developed missile and nuke program that threatens US allies like Japan and South Korea now, and which the US believes will threaten California quite soon (yeah, it threatens Oregon too, but who'd waste a nuke on Oregon?), there's (as far as I'm aware) no talk of a similar missile defense system (for example in Japan). The US does have Sea-based X-band Radar and seems to be relying on the very limited protection afforded by its (and soon Japan's) Aegis systems. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We have seaborne interceptor and the installation in Alaska for the North Korea threat. See Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (lousy article) and National missile defense. Rmhermen (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Poland isn't really interested in the missile shield itself we are interested in the US Political and Military involvement in Poland that come with the missile shield. You may not be aware that the Russian Air force has probably more aircraft than Poland has long and medium range anti-aircraft missiles. Our post-soviet anti-aircraft systems are aging quickly and if we don't make new purchases or get US assistance we will have no operational long and medium range air-defence after around 2012. So the missile shield and the Patriot missiles that are to protect it are currently welcomed in Poland. Mieciu K (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What you're saying, Mieciu, makes a lot of sense. Basically, by the US spending billions of dollars developing a military presence in Poland, we're saying "Welcome to the club" (i.e., Poland's joining NATO), by giving Poland's economy a little boost, and its military strength a major upgrade... Am I getting that right? Saukkomies 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Military Aid Poland will get from the US is overestimated. With the "missile shield deal" we only negotiated the temporary presence of one US Patriot-3 missile battery with US crew and an unspecified "assistance in modernizing the Polish military" which in legal terms doesn't really mean anything. The only other US equipment we recieved for free/for a symbolic price were 217 HMMWV's and 5 old C-130K transport aircraft (not yet in Poland). Compared to what Poland has spent in Iraq and Afghanistan we made a poor deal with that "free US military equipment". The F-16's we bought recently were at full price and we won't probably buy any Patriot missiles, we will probably newer and cheaper European system based on the MBDA Aster missiles. Mieciu K (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So, trying to get this spelled out... Basically, Poland made a deal with the US that in return for getting to join NATO, Poland would have to do a bunch of less-than-desirable things such as: 1) send troops and military assistance to Iraq, 2) buy a bunch of military crap from the US, and 3) let the US build a bunch of missile bases on Polish soil. Is that your take on this? Saukkomies 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Joining NATO has nothing to do with the other issues (look at France). We went to Iraq and Afghanistan because we wanted too, we buy equipment from the US only if we want it. The missile shield is a result of a recent Polish-US agreement outside of NATO.

1) We took the missile shield deal because wee need a boost for our army especially the air-defence but we don't expect much, 2) We don't expect a boost for our economy investments in Poland are a matter of economy not politics, the missile base will have only a small crew so they won't buy much in Poland. 3) We see the shield as anti-Russian and we are afraid/dislike Russia especially after the recent conflict. 4) We want strong US-Polish military and political links as a guarantee of our safety besides the NATO treaty. Mieciu K (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to List of members of NATO, Poland joined 9 years ago. That can't have had anything to do with this recent deal. --Tango (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On a side note, 9 years might seem like a lot of time but most Polish Army equipment is still Warsaw Pact standard equipment and it's aging fast. That means that in the case of war we cannot expect to receive a steady supply of spare parts and ammunition from Nato like "old" Nato members. The same goes for many other post-1989 NATO members. Mieciu K (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Because Bush wants to make sure we don't forget Poland. --mboverload @ 20:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a Pole, over here the missile defence shield is foremost seen as a) a security measure for the United States utilising Poland's role as its ally, b) military help for Poland in case the Russians want to invade, c) an excellent way to disrupt the ties with Russia further. The shield isn't at all popular with the public, and there's a lot of politics involved (especially since our current president has an anti-Russian stance). This is an arms race sadly. My two bits. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing on the margin of the discussion: Finlay used the word "assertive" twice in one sentence referring to Russia. "Assertive Russia" is a cliché which is being used more and more in the media but it strikes me as confusion of assertiveness with aggression. I just had a look at the Wikipedia article about assertiveness; it talks about people, but here's my paraphrase of the article's lead that applies to countries:
 * Passive countries do not defend their own national interests and thus allow aggressive countries to harm or otherwise unduly influence them. They are also typically not likely to risk trying to influence anyone else. Aggressive countries do not respect the interests of others and thus are liable to harm others while trying to influence them. A country acts assertively by not being afraid to speak their mind or trying to influence others, but doing so in a way that respects the interests of others. They are also willing to defend themselves against aggressive incursions.

Obviously, what Russia is, is not assertive; it's aggressive, as the recent aggression on Georgia showed. Germany and France are perfect examples of passive countries, vis-à-vis Russia at least. As for Poland, I'd say it's trying to be assertive, although it may be difficult with a president who is aggressive by nature at the helm. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 19:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First advertisement on soccer teams shirt.
1.When and where was the first advertisement written on soccer teams shirt?(the date and location when the team(s) first time entered the field with this kind of shirt) 2.which team was it? 3.which company was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.210.207.41 (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this extremely interesting article, Hibernian was the first "top-level" UK club to wear sponsored shirts, in 1977 (the sponsor was the manufacturer, Bukta. Derby County was the first English club to get a shirt sponsorship deal (with Saab, in 1978)) but the shirts were only worn for a photoshoot, not in play.  Liverpool wore the first sponsored shirts in play in the English Football league, in 1979.  However, the TV companies refused to allow such shirts to be seen on TV until 1983.  Ka renjc 15:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I recall my brother having the West Ham United 1976 replica shirt shown here http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/West_Ham_United/West_Ham_United.htm. I think the sponsor was Admiral. Intersetingly, there also appeasr to eb akit sponsor for the season before 1975-76 which, like Hibs, appears to be Bukta.

What about that whole "no two democracies has ever gone to war" thing?
I read somewhere that the semi-ironic theory Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention (that is, no two countries with a McDonalds franchise would ever go to war with each other) had been shattered by the recent conflict in South Ossetia. That got me thinking: the McDonalds theory is obviously a spin-off from the "No two democracies will/have ever gone to war" thing. Doesn't the war in South Ossetia contradict that theory as well? Russia isn't the healthiest of democracies, but it is a democracy, right? And that got me thinking more: what about the American Revolution? The war of 1812? Or why not the American Civil War (granted, not two countries, but two democratic halfs of one country)? And there must have been some wars way back when, when democracy had just gotten its groove on, between some Greek City-states. Seriously, there seems to be a whole bunch of them! Doesn't that pretty much blow the whole damn theory out of the water? I suppose you could narrow the definition of democracy to an absurd degree (like requiring universal suffrage and a free, independent press), but that would be missing the point of both democracy and the theory itself, wouldn't it? I mean, the theory states that when the people are in charge, they will not go to war with each other. Isn't that whole theory pretty silly? 83.250.202.36 (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * World War II? Hitler was democratically elected (they may not have been free and fair elections, but they were definitely elections). --Tango (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But by the time there was a war—six years after Hitler took power—it was not a democracy in any sense of the word. Just because someone was elected once (in a way—his party was elected, he connived into getting political power himself, he granted himself emergency powers and dissolved the Reichstag) doesn't make their government a democracy. (And holding elections doesn't make a democracy either—Stalin and Saddam had those. But no one would argue that their governments were democracies.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, the UK suspended elections during the war, so you could claim neither side was democratic. It all comes down to your definitions of democracy. --Tango (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By-elections still happened to fill seats, and these could be, and sometimes were contested. DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's different to just suspend elections during war or to regard balance of powers differently, than to create a totalitarian state. Anyone who doesn't recognize the difference is being willfully ignorant. Whatever you think of war powers most are not Gleichschaltung. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, Wikipedia has an article called List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory!! In that article is a list of a number of wars in which two or more democracies fought against each other. Saukkomies 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous! We need to impose areas that Wikipedia will not have articles on, otherwise it's just not fair on Ref Deskers! --Tango (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Drat those nonunion WP-editors, coming over and stealing our jobs ... —Tamfang (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In light of that list, I officially and unanimously (in my role as Anonymous King of the Universe) declare the "Democratic peace theory" silly! Look at that list, there's like 20 wars there! There's quibbles about every entry, but as a coherent theory, it's patently absurd! 83.250.202.36 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, most of those are pretty ridiculous. WWII as a contest between democracies? Puhleeaze. I'm not saying I really buy that Democratic peace theory works out 100% or even should work out 100%, but the list of "exceptions" range from the patently silly (Nazi Germany as democracy) to the quibbling (UK is coerced by USSR to declare war on Finland, drops two bombs). If it fails it fails in the most quibbling ways—in each case there are states whose claim to being a "democracy" is extremely questionable. Democratic peace theory is about real democracies with forms of public feedback—just because something has "elections" does not make it a democracy in the terms set forth by the theory. Disproving it in such a way is a linguistic fluke—finding ways in which things that may under some very narrow definitions be considered "democracies" get counted, even if those great "democrats" in power win their elections because they killed all of their political opposition... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As a theory it is absurd, because there is no satisfactory definition of a "democracy" available. One can always argue one's way out of any apparent failure by pointing out some allegedly "non-democratic" feature of one or more of the belligerent powers. DuncanHill (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the reason there haven't been any wars between democracies is because there simply aren't many democracies by the definition used in that article. --Tango (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize it's in somewhat poor taste to post a quote this large on the RD, but I'm a huge fan of Fareed Zakaria and this was just too perfect. The following is an excerpt from one of his essays, titled The Rise of Illiberal Democracy; it expresses ideas Zakaria expands upon in his book The Future of Freedom (the short version is that the peace is not in fact between democracies per se, but between governments espousing constitutional liberalism):


 * Over the past decade, one of the most spirited debates among scholars of international relations concerns the "democratic peace" -- the assertion that no two modern democracies have gone to war with each other. The debate raises interesting substantive questions (does the American Civil War count? do nuclear weapons better explain the peace?) and even the statistical findings have raised interesting dissents. (As the scholar David Spiro points out, given the small number of both democracies and wars over the last two hundred years, sheer chance might explain the absence of war between democracies. No member of his family has ever won the lottery, yet few offer explanations for this impressive correlation.) But even if the statistics are correct, what explains them? Kant, the original proponent of the democratic peace, contended that in democracies, those who pay for wars -- that is, the public -- make the decisions, so they are understandably cautious. But that claim suggests that democracies are more pacific than other states. Actually they are more warlike, going to war more often and with greater intensity than most states. It is only with other democracies that the peace holds.

When divining the cause behind this correlation, one thing becomes clear: the democratic peace is actually the liberal peace. Writing in the eighteenth century, Kant believed that democracies were tyrannical, and he specifically excluded them from his conception of "republican" governments, which lived in a zone of peace. Republicanism, for Kant, meant a separation of powers, checks and balances, the rule of law, protection of individual rights, and some level of representation in government (though nothing close to universal suffrage). Kant's other explanations for the "perpetual peace" between republics are all closely linked to their constitutional and liberal character: a mutual respect for the rights of each other's citizens, a system of checks and balances assuring that no single leader can drag his country into war, and classical liberal economic policies -- most importantly, free trade -- which create an interdependence that makes war costly and cooperation useful. Michael Doyle, th leading scholar on the subject, confirms in his 1997 book Ways of War and Peace that without constitutional liberalism, democracy itself has no peace-inducing qualities:

Kant distrusted unfettered, democratic majoritarianism, and his argument offers no support for a claim that all participatory polities -- democracies -- should be peaceful, either in general or between fellow democracies. Many participatory polities have been non-liberal. For two thousand years before the modern age, popular rule was widely associated with aggressiveness (by Thucydides) or imperial success (by Machiavelli). . . The decisive preference of [the] median voter might well include "ethnic cleansing" against other democratic polities.

The distinction between liberal and illiberal democracies sheds light on another striking statistical correlation. Political scientists Jack Snyder and Edward Mansfield contend, using an impressive data set, that over the last 200 years democratizing states went to war significantly more often than either stable autocracies or liberal democracies. In countries not grounded in constitutional liberalism, the rise of democracy often brings with it hyper-nationalism and war-mongering. When the political system is opened up, diverse groups with incompatible interests gain access to power and press their demands. Political and military leaders, who are often embattled remnants of the old authoritarian order, realize that to succeed that they must rally the masses behind a national cause. The result is invariably aggressive rhetoric and policies, which often drag countries into confrontation and war. Noteworthy examples range from Napoleon III's France, Wilhelmine Germany, and Taisho Japan to those in today's newspapers, like Armenia and Azerbaijan and Milosevic's Serbia. The democratic peace, it turns out, has little to do with democracy.
 * --Shaggorama (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ned Myers
Looking for the date of death, location of death, and location of grave for MEYERS, EDWARD ROBERT. He called himself "New Myers. Born in Quebec about 1798-99, and was alive in New York in 1842-43. He was the subject of James Fenimore Cooper's "Ned Myers, or A Life Before the Mast."

Thank you. Onlylin (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Consequences of US government bailout of financial sector
Can anyone point me to sources that discuss the likely consequences of the US government bailout of its financial sector (and possibly foreign banks, according to some sources) for US taxpayers, for interest rates, and for the future economic potential of the United States? Thank you. Marco polo (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• White House Requests $700B In Bailout Plan, which aired earlier today. • In Congress, Concern Over Bailouts, which also aired earlier today. • Bailout Plan Thin On Details, again, which aired today. As I said, there are undoubtedly other, and perhaps better, sources for analysis of the bailout. Saukkomies 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you will get other sources, but I'll give you one where I get a lot of my news from: National Public Radio. I looked and found a few stories that have recently aired about this subject. Here are a few:


 * NPR recently started a fantastic new podcast and blog called "Planet Money" ( http://npr.org/money ). There's 7 episodes of the podcast so far, and they go into some depth about the crisis (the episodes aren't that long, so it's not gonna take you forever to catch up) 83.250.202.36 (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for these suggestions. However, these sources respond more to questions along the lines of "How did we get here?", "How will the government respond?", and "What are the politics surrounding the government's response?". I am hoping to find sources that answer a question more like "How will the government bailout affect the financial position of the US government and the economic position of the United States in the future?"  I have seen vague assurances in the press that somehow that future will be better than it would have been without the government intervention, but I am looking for more detailed forecasts.  Thanks in advance for any help.  Marco polo (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Consequences of the US Government’s bailout of the financial sector: By confirming that financial institutions can scare the government into swapping billions of dollars worth of (allegedly) good Treasury bills for stacks and stacks of unremarkable paper (formerly known as “financial instruments” of the most esoteric kind), the remaining players in the global game of financial chicken can now take even greater risks. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)