Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 February 23

= February 23 =

United States and the Impending Canary Island Disaster
Has any United States politician addressed the problem presented by the impending disaster of a Canary Island Tsunami? 66.229.148.27 (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have looked into this, and for several years there have been reports that the severity of the problem is overstated. See this BBC news article from 2004.  Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to seem rash or any of that. I thank you for the information, it was definitely a reliever. I just want to know if this has been addressed on a political forum. Such as the floor of congress, etc etc. 66.229.148.27 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. It has. (Google is your friend). --  k a i n a w &trade; 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Cross-state sexual issues
I have a question about cases of US law. Is it illegal to cross state lines to engage in sexual conduct with a minor? Such as, in my state, the age of consent is 16, but in the other state, it is 18. If I were to bring that person back to my state, where it is legal, would the act of transporting cross-state be a federal crime?

Also, what does the law say about transmission of sexually explicit content over the internet from a minor, if that said person is agreed to the transmission, and I am over age? RefDeskPrivateAcct (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Reference Desk does not give legal advice. Consult an attorney for the application of the Mann Act to your situation. B00P (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a Roger B. Taney issue to me! 68.231.164.27 (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What does that mean? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

18 U.S.C. 2423 (2006) says:
 * (a) Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity.— A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.
 * (b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct.— A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing Taneyish in sexual consent laws. Roger Taney was chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court during the Civil War years. Dred Scott, upholding slavery, was his opinion. He helped create the inevitably of the Civil War. If someone is not capable of giving consent, they cannot give meaningful consent. Children may be sexual but the law recognizes that they do not have an equal bargaining position with an adult. Statutory rape laws also exist. My personal story is that a child cannot stand up to an adult as an equal and is, therefore, easily exploited and abused.75Janice (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 75Janice

Doing what's best for the economy
Here in the States, people will soon start receiveing their income tax return checks and that has me wondering something. What would be best for the economy; A) people spending that money as soon as they can so that it can move throughout the financial system or B) putting it into the bank, by way of a savings account or certificate of deposit, so that the banks have more money to lend out? I'd like it if you could pick from those two options but I'm open to reading better things to do with the money. Apologies if I've simplified the whole banking system way too much for my little brain. Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you might find this post useful. Or perhaps not. Its not especially serious, but at least it's asking the question to economists. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 10:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Spending it. The reason they're doling it out in small amounts rather than making one lump sum payment is because they think people are more likely to spend a little cash, while they are likely to save a lump sum.  --Sean 12:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Spending it is best for the economy, now, because banks, once they get hold of money from any source, tend to want to "hold onto it until the economy improves". This hording of money, of course, is precisely what keeps the economy from improving.  However, once the economy does improve, both people and banks should increase their savings rates to prepare for the next economic downturn, as a lack of cash reserves was one cause of our current problems. StuRat (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Spending would be better for the economy (but is it better for you?). Banks have become quite risk averse and so extend credit cautiously. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Chances are, spending it is best, but if there is a chance you will soon be in financial difficulties it would be better save it. Going bankrupt is going to harm the economy more than deferring spending a little. --Tango (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Paradox of thrift may be of interest.


 * I have a hankering for the attitude of Enoch Powell, who used to say that it's generally a mistake for people to act in what they conceive, often wrongly, as the national interest. According to this old-fashioned view, people should act responsibly in their own interest, and if they do that then the nation acts collectively in its own interest. No doubt this has some flaws, but then all economic ideas have flaws. Xn4  ( talk ) 02:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Although increasing short-run Aggregate Demand (consumption) is the point of a fiscal stimulus, if it hadn't been for the low marginal propensity to save (amount of money that goes into savings for each dollar of additional income) in the United States, it may not have had so many problems. A low Savings rate leads to a trade deficit, increased private and public financial leverage and, often, less domestic ownership of assets (land and capital).  These things allow foreign countries to capture surpluses that otherwise would be going to the United States.  And they make financial panics more extreme.  Some economists believe that countries go through cycles during which they start off in the world as a "net borrower" with low income and slowly achieve a high savings rate, during which time they accumulate capital, which increases their per capita income, which combines with a high savings rate to make them become a "net lender" in the world.  The higher income slowly increases consumption (at the expense of savings), which eventually makes them a net borrower again.  During this time, they maintain a high propensity to consume and a low propensity to save which slowly the erodes rate of capital accumulation and income growth.  They "live beyond their means" for a while.  Examining the increasing and consistent trade deficits and stubborn addiction to leverage (credit) in the US suggests that this is the stage in which they currently find themselves.NByz (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Children and Women of India
I would like to research women and children surviving on garbage dumps in the country of India. Thanks, Pam Moes


 * You might start by googling (without the quotation marks) "garbage dump living India". It brings up a lot of results. If you want a background as to the causes, you could look at Poverty in India and its references. // BL \\ (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Other helpful searches could use the terms "rubbish dump", "rubbish tip", "dumping ground" and "rag pickers". For example. You might also look at this article in The Independent about a charity helping rag pickers in Delhi. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppression due to gender/skin colour
[to settle a discussion please] On the whole, who were more oppressed? - women under the Taliban in Afghanistan (1996-2001) or pre-Civil Rights blacks in the southern USA (1900-1950s)? Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At least African slaves could show their faces in public. Wrad (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the object of this discussion? Does someone win something? Because women under the Taliban and black Americans before the Civil Rights Movement didn't win anything. Getting acid thrown in your face or getting burned and lynched by the whole town: which would you choose? --Moni3 (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd go with being lynched. Recury (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What about stoning, still a punishment for adultery, and indirectly a punishment for being raped? --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  21:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppression is a subjective thing, a direct comparison like that is impossible. --Tango (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we be given some background on the question? Why would those two classes of people be compared? Is there a reason why those two categories of people need to be compared on the basis of "oppression?" I am just wondering about the origin from which springs such a question. The questioner indicates that it is to "settle a discussion." Can we be afforded a glimpse of the nature of that "discussion?" Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bus Stop. The discussion concerns denial of human rights in historically modern situations (20th Century+) to different groups + to try to understand how the oppression of these groups within the power structure could be maintained (eg: denial of education/career/freedom of movement etc.). The question would be which of the groups mentioned above was denied more basic legal and human rights. Hope that's clear, thank you for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you -- but why those two particular groups? That is what I am mainly wondering about. I'm sorry I didn't make my question more clear. Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If the question is badly phrased, then please remove it. I/we were informed that this is a good place on internet to receive information from people with good knowledge about historical contexts and the discussion, that we had, concerned denial of specific human and legal rights by one group over another (I thought this is called oppression politics, sorry if wrong). --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have trouble focussing on a question? Do you have difficulty conversing? You have been asked twice, by me, why these two particular groups are being compared on the basis of their relative "oppression." For the third time, I am asking you why those two particular groups are under comparison. Bus stop (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt if there are any objective sources that compare relative oppression of these two groups. But I could be wrong.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt it too. But it is possible. Anything is possible. Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Because they are, among other groups, being discussed here by us in a private conversation, as is our right of freedom of expression here in our country. I find you to be extremely rude ("Do you have trouble focussing on a question? Do you have difficulty conversing?") and would ask you to please desist from further communication here, thank you in advance.--AlexSuricata (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is fine. You are well within your "rights" in not conversing with me. Sometimes I pose "difficult" questions. Bus stop (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Although Bus Stop's demeanor was not as cordial as we like to see here on the reference desks, yours, AlexSuricata, was not without its problems. On the face of it, your question is the sort designed to incite rancorous debate, and debate, rancorous or not, is not what this desk is for. We volunteers are here to help you use the encyclopedia to find specific information; this is not a discussion forum. Your question presupposes an equivalence between the conduct of the United States and the conduct of the Taliban, making it quite a lot like the sort of non-question that trolls ask to make trouble, and it is unanswerable in any concrete way, as Tango pointed out, again troll-like. Of course, both oppressions happened, and therein lies a reason to assume good faith. We here at Wikipedia are supposed to assume good faith, and I think you'll admit that Bus Stop sort of did by asking you for clarification, which was not forthcoming from you. We still don't know why those two groups. What about the Russian serfs? What about Athenian non-citizens in the Golden Age? What about the Slavs, the Kurds, the Armenians, the Ainu, the Untouchables, the Irish? Why the two you name? I'm sure that many of the volunteers here saw the same problem with your "question", and either chose to ignore it, as is our "right", or answered levelly. So now it's me asking, why those two groups? --Milkbreath (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The question also presupposes an equivalence between men and women. One of the classes of people being discussed consists of women only. The other class of people comprises both sexes. I apologize for what may have been incivility on my part. I found it particularly curious that a group comprising one gender was being compared to a group comprised of both genders. I ask questions that I think will lead to fruitful discussions. I only grew frustrated, when my inquiries were thwarted. But I apologize to AlexSuricata. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A better comparison might be between women under the Taliban and women in Western European medieval culture (or even women in more progressive Islamic states such as Egypt, Lebanon, or Tunisia). Wrad (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are assuming you know why those two particular groups were chosen for this comparison. It appears that we will not be told what the interest in those two groups may be.  Without understanding why those groups were chosen, finding references that could possibly compare them is extremely difficult.  I am left thinking that it is an argument between a white woman and a black man about who's had it worse, even though neither one has ever been oppressed by a slave master or the Taliban. --  k a i n a w &trade; 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to quantify abstract qualities. There is no single "unit of oppression," and likewise, no direct way to compare them. How can one objectivly decide which acts of violence and oppression against either group are more severe? While the Reference Desk does very well with questions that have a definite answer ("Who is the current pope?" or "When was the War of 1812?"), we do not do so well with questions that have no definitive answer ("What is the meaning of life?") A discussion forum may be a better place to ask this question. Livewireo (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then, on a general level, what is the difference between the way modern, 20th century governments oppress and create a framework supporting oppression and the way governments of the past have done so? I don't personally think that much changed at all. Wrad (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree with and appreciate the comments above, here's a suggested approach to finding a common denominator for the comparison. If "oppression" is measured by the presence or absence of human rights (or civil rights), you would investigate the nature of those rights in each context: i.e. women vs. men in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, and blacks vs. whites in '30s–'50s Southern USA. A fair comparison will require digging under the surface: do the Taliban oppress their male political opponents in any way? what aspects characterized rural vs. urban Southern settings? And then (or first) examine your own definitions of context-dependent human/civil rights to ensure that other factors aren't involved: to take an example external to the chosen cases, is it oppression or liberation to deny a devout schoolgirl her choice to wear the headcovering required for modesty in the religion she professes? (Caveat: this may be mediated by a school acting in loco parentis for minors...but applying the values of the school board, not the girl's own parents!) A thoughful consideration and study of these issues, supported by what you can read online and in the broadcast and print media, should give you plenty of material and lead to some meaningful insights if not actual conclusions. Go for it! -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer from OP to user Milkbreath: Because they are two groups we saw about recently in some movies ("Mississippi Burning" and "Osama") and read in books ("The Color Purple" & "The Kite Runner") and read about on the internet and these 2 timeframes and the groups (and how the power structure could be maintained - eg: denial of access to education/career, 2nd class citizens in legal systems, own bank accounts and driving licences, citzenship. etcv.) interest us and we were talking and comparing. Is that so bad? We are in Europe and know little first-hand about these groups. If the question is offensive, please remove - We were curious as to information about, for exaample, specific legal discrimination and which group had it harder to achieve "pursuit of happiness" for different reasons, and hoped someone could here comparitively point out basic but specific legal/human rights areas. But, if you deem this "troll-like" or offensive, then of course please remove, thank you. --AlexSuricata (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Al (may I call you Al?). I didn't say it was bad, I said it looked bad. I didn't say you were trolling, I said that you should appreciate that a certain degree of suspicion on the part of a certain volunteer was understandable given the circumstances. We don't remove offensive questions unless their intent is solely to offend, and I am not offended by the question. Anyway, your question asks which was "more oppressed". Who can say? I guess we can measure oppression by numbers of victims killed per capita, but I doubt the Taliban recorded it every time a wife or daughter was beaten to death. I think we cannot know. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the question itself, I would say it was women under the Taliban. I see two key points. While it hardly matters to the victims who is killing them, for the society as a whole, it does matter if the offense is being perpetrated by some small, repulsive segment of the population or is the explicit policy of the nation. And it certainly matters whether one can escape a bad situation, or is, in effect, a prisoner. Lack of human rights is always a tragedy, but looking at the issue in the United States and Afghanistan discloses two very different trajectories. In the US the movement whas been from slavery, through oppression, towards equality. (It hasn't been fully achieved yet, but you might want to take a good look at the current President.) The Taliban removed whatever legal equality women had before they came to power. B00P (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Lynching was never official government policy in the United States; executions in Afghanistan were officially sanctioned. Throughout the period you are discussing, oppression of blacks in the South was widely publicized and condemned by other segments of the American population, and by many people in the South itself. When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he noted that his father had opposed the resurgent Klan in Texas right after World War I. In Afghanistan, where the government was the oppressor, protest against such oppression was itself a crime. When it comes to lesser forms of oppression than death, such as the inability to vote, this was, in the United States, a violation of the US Constitution obtained by dubious means, such as poll taxes, but in Taliban Afghanistan, as flowing directly from their law.
 * 2) The was very little preventing blacks from leaving the South. Hundreds of thousands migrated north, to places like Chicago and Detroit, or west. On the other hand, it was all but impossible for a woman to leave Afghanistan.
 * It is quite incorrect to claim that there were no barriers to blacks leaving the south. Freed slaves travelling north right after the civil war were sometimes murdered for their impudence in not becoming sharecroppers. There was a longstanding fear of the loss of cheap labor, and rail travel was difficult for many years after emancipation. In the 1927 Mississippi River flood, sharecroppers/laborers were prevented from leaving the flooded Mississippi delta in Tennessee, and were kept in abusive and inhumane conditions on the levees, while whites were transported to safety elsewhere. The NY Times said "“Blacks were rounded up into work camps and held by armed guards. They were prevented from leaving as the waters rose. A steamer, the Capitol, played "Bye Bye Blackbird” as it sailed away."Edison (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Edison attempts to counter a general condition that existed for a full century (1865-1964) over then entire South by pointing to a special case covering a few months along a stretch of the Mississippi. He also changes "very little" to " no barriers." Now, cleatly, I acknowledge that the transportation system in 1870 was hardly equivalent to that of 1920, but I reiterate that hundreds of thousands left for the north and west. There was no such mass female exodus from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. It might be remembered that the ne plus ultra court case allowing Jim Crow legislation, Plessy v. Ferguson, dealt with accommodations on railway cars. While it allowed discrimination, it also shows that blacks had no problem getting on trains. There were no border guards preventing them from leaving the state.


 * The question wasn't whether blacks were oppressed, but whether they had it worse than women under the Taliban. B00P (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly thousands of blacks left the South, but I have read of southern rail stations refusing them passage north in the late 19th and early 20th century. Some circumvented that by walking to other towns where the restrictions were not in place. There was also a class divide: poor whites were less sorry to see them leave than large landowners who needed cheap labor, and who wanted to have a cheap workforce to keep down the pay demanded by white workers. Plantation owners certainly were not eager to see freed slaves leave the land and migrate north in the decades after the civil war, and extending into the 20th century. Slaves became sharecroppers. "A Century of Negro Migration" (1918) By Carter Godwin Woodson says p122 that after emancipation, legislatures of the former slave states enacted vagrancy laws which allowed free Negroes to be arresated for "vagrancy" and forced to work with ball and chain. This and debt peonage were powerful barriers to migration north. Page 137 notes the inducing of steamship lines not to furnish transportation to Negros seeking to emigrate from the south. Circa 1910, peonage still was being used to keep some Negros on the land in the south until trumped up "debts" were payed off, which they system was set up to prevent ever happening. Those fleeing were likely to be killed if caught (page 154). But certainly there was large scale Negro migration to the north despite any barriers, especially by the more educated and urban population and skilled workers (pp 162-163). Woodson on p 175 notes the practice of arresting Negros who showed up at southern train stations to catch a train north, although it was obviously not universally done. An Atlanta University publication in 1917 discussed anti-Negro migration efforts, which included taxes on labor agents (who hired workers for jobs in the North or West). It noted that fair wages and good treatment were the only hopes for keeping them from leaving. Edison (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally I would point out our article on the Great migration (African American) but that article is in a confused state. Rmhermen (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)