Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 April 2

= April 2 =

Evil or uniformed?
First Im sorry for bad english, Im Serbian.

I have this question that I've been thinking lately, especially in the past few months. When I was a child and America bombed my country, everyone here used to say "Average Americans are not evil, they dont know about war crimes Clinton is commiting". Then when they invaded Afganistan and Iraq our politicians still said "Its Bush, average Americans dont know about real reasons and they are uninformed". Now that they attacked Libya, even respected American intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore condemned it,so obviusly an average American can know the truth if he wants to learn it, but still I dont see any massive American protests against the new war.

This got me reading about past American policy and I red a speech made by Che Guevarra made 50 years ago in which he explains basicly that just because Kennedy is invading Cuba it doesnt mean all Americans are evil, they are just not informed.

And these days every single political party in my county condemned bombings of civilians in Libya, but still no party condemned the whole American people.

So for years its always an excuse: "Its not all Americans(or British or French in the last few decades) that support war crimes, its their governments". But it is not logical that for that many years one nations governments commit these atrocities all the time, but that people dont know whats happening.

So my question is: is it possible that Americans are really that ill-informed ("stupid Americans", as Russians say), or is it simply that they are aware of everything that is happening, but they simplz dont care. I mean, every country had SOME bad governments, by country included, but if one nation keep electing one evil president after another, then there must be something wrong with that nation?

Is there a book or a web site that I can learn more about this, cause unlike most people Im not anti-American and there must surely be an explanation for this other then "they are an evil nation"?

Thanks and once again sorry for grammar mistakes --77.243.20.194 (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that there are too many answers to list. Just using my siblings as an example, the knowledge of the events in Libya would go from complete ignorance from my youngest sister (in her 40s) and a well read opinion from my brother (in his 50s).  Dismas |(talk) 02:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to question your own assumptions that all of those military actions are unjustified. Some are definitely justified by UN resolutions/international support as well as a causus belli:


 * 1) The war crimes (massacre of civilians) by Serbia justified the attacks on them.


 * 2) The 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center definitely justified an attack on Afghanistan to get at al-Queada and their Taliban supporters.


 * 3) The Arab League voted for air strikes against Libya after Gaddafi threatened to massacre civilians.


 * Now, the invasion of Iraq and the Bay of Pigs in Cuba were less justified, but your assumption that everything the US does is evil is just plain wrong. If it is, then all of the UN states that voted for those actions are also evil, which is most of the world. StuRat (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Stu Rat, Im not really interested in discussion on these subjects, but I presume that you are American and it fits well into thesis that Americans are not evil but just uninformed. There was no "massacre of civilians by Serbia" and Serbian civilian victims by NATO bombs (over 1000) and especially by Albanians during and after(to this day) the NATO intervention were much higher then all Albanian victims during the conflict altogether. Of course, bombing of Libya is very similar, I find it interesting that you dont know that leading peaceful nations of the world like Russia and China abstained from voting in UN Seczrity Council and later called for American bombings to stop, but your answer serves well to support the theory that Americans really do believe in what they are told, whatever its Cuba,Vietnam,Serbia,Iraq,Libya or any other country.

But like I said, Im not really interested in discussion since this is neither the right place not do I have the time needed to explain my question to those who dont understand it. I am marely interested to find out if theret is a book or a web site that explains this phenomenom of the most agressive country in the world and especially its ordinary citizens. I tried to compare it to Germans during Hitler rule, but its very different, since Germany had peaceful governemnts after that, like Willy Brant, unlike US.I highly doubt that any of us can answer that question here, its much deeper issue. I found a good article on this subject by American author Noam Chomsky and if anyone know where I can find out more, it would be much appriciated. --77.243.20.194 (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that China and Russia didn't vote against it. Why do you think that is ?  And apparently the actions taken by the US weren't enough, since Gaddafi is again on the attack.  The US has now passed control on to NATO, so you best blame all of them if you still have a problem. StuRat (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * By civilian massacres, I refer to the Srebrenica massacre, the Prijedor massacre, and Siege of Sarajevo. Now I must ask if you are evil or just ignorant. StuRat (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do a search for "Marxist history of America" and you will find the justification for your point of view that you seek. After that, you can explore the other "peaceful nations" such as Russia (see invasions of Afghanistan and Chechnya, or earlier, the Kulaks) and China (Tibet, earlier the Cultural Revolution). Sea photo Talk  02:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Seaphoto, but I highly doubt that an American can answer my question. StuRat tried by claiming that "most of the world" voted for Serbia and Libya bombings, while actually UN Security Council refused to allow military interventions in Serbia and Iraq and as for Libya, only 10 countries voted for it. I appreciate very much Americans trying to answer my question, but its really impossible, since if Americans could answer my question, they wouldnt be widely hated all over the world. And I dont "seek point of view", I was marely asking for further info on which point of view is correct: that they are evil or that they are ignorant.

I personally have no opinion on this issue yet, otherwise I wouldnt have asked this question. --77.243.20.194 (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want some insight into why America intervened in the Balkans, there is a bibliography attached to this article; you might find some answers there, if your mind is open. Sea photo Talk 03:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * '77.243.20.194', there is another possibility here: that it is you that is ignorant. Or come to that, maybe we all are. I think there are a lot on negative things that can be seen in US foreign policy, but simplistic 'good' vs 'evil' arguments and/or accusations of 'ignorance' are unlikely to throw much light on the issue. But then I strongly suspect that you weren't actually looking for answers, but instead looking for an opportunity to spout your own bias - in spite of your denials, you seem to have your mind made up. If you really want to learn about such issues, I'd suggest you start by ditching your own assumptions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in the Biblical answer to such mental predicaments. When Jesus preached about God's Kingdom he was referring to a sovereign government in Heaven. Daniel 2:44 seems to say that this Kingdom of God is an enemy of the kingdoms of Earth. Additionally, John 17:16 reifies this assertion that God's Kingdom is opposite of the kingdoms of the Earth. Schyler ( one language ) 03:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely no relevance to the OP's question in �what you've posted. If you are going to suggest the Bible is useful for something, please make it pretty clear why. Otherwise it looks like off-topic preaching, which is frankly not appropriate here, whatever the religion. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you should look at Srebrenica massacre, Siege of Sarajevo, List of massacres in the Kosovo War, and War rape to begin with. Ordinary Americans were presented with the impression that the Serbian government was working with its paramilitary allies in adjoining former Yugoslav republics to commit atrocities on a regular basis. Now, I understand that Serbia was not the only guilty party in the conflict, and that America's perspective was skewed by various factors. For example, bear in mind that by and large the reporters of America's "free press" used to report the news by booking a room in a hotel close to the U.S. embassy in the capital, spending the time getting drunk, talking to friends, and occasionally pointing a camera out the window if anything made noise. Unfortunately for the Serbians, they chose to besiege Sarajevo for four years - making a bad impression - and the fact that the U.S. had just been watching Olympics sporting events there didn't help either. Also consider that Serbia was considered a natural ally to Russia, which the U.S. at the time put a huge priority on trying to break apart and weaken. Now I suspect that despite all such biases, there really was something rotten in Serbia against which some sort of military action could be justified; but I could certainly believe that the U.S. response could have been excessive, poorly aimed and not well coordinated with potential allies. Wnt (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Harold Pinter's highly controversial Nobel Lecture, "Art, Truth and Politics", may be of interest to the questioner. It can be viewed here. At 10:40, Pinter changes the subject rather abruptly, from reflections on his own work, to his opinion on American foreign policy:
 * In the remaining 36 minutes, Pinter harshly criticises the United States for military aggression and their support of "every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War", and ironically praises US politicians for their use of political language to provide "the American people" with a "truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance."
 * Manipulation of public opinion to justify violence, or make people believe that it didn't happen, is of course an art that politicians of many nationalities (Serbian politicians included) excel in. --NorwegianBluetalk 11:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Manipulation of public opinion to justify violence, or make people believe that it didn't happen, is of course an art that politicians of many nationalities (Serbian politicians included) excel in. --NorwegianBluetalk 11:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Manipulation of public opinion to justify violence, or make people believe that it didn't happen, is of course an art that politicians of many nationalities (Serbian politicians included) excel in. --NorwegianBluetalk 11:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Intelligent people will sometimes disagree on whether things are justified. Entire nations will sometimes see things differently. The basic answer is that most (but not all) Americans see these things differently than you do. Now the question seems to be, do we see it wrongly and you see it correctly, or vice versa? Because that will explain who is ignorant and who is not.
 * "Evil" doesn't come into it in a way I can see. There are sometimes some conflicts in values, and perhaps you deem it correct to make moralistic judgments about them. But I think we'd find that most of us have essentially similar values when it comes to wars and killing — we think they are justified if done in the service of a higher cause we believe in, we think they are unjustified if done just for the sake of enriching people or asserting brute power. The question is whether we agree on the facts behind these wars. I think all sides in such a debate should acknowledge up front that unless they do seriously spend time investigating said facts (rather than just repeating whatever they've heard from friends or their local media), that they probably know less about it than they think they do. One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that, on the whole, for articles where serious editing has taken place, you get a broad description of numerous points of view, backed up and attributed quite specifically. That's gives some considerable advantage over relying on one set of viewpoints, in my opinion. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To the OP, for what it's worth, I'm an American who has created a few articles on Serbian royals. I did not support the US bombing against Serbia. However, I met a Kosovan man of Albanian origin who told me some horrific tales of Serbian atrocities committed against Albanians of all ages and both sexes. Do I believe all Serbs are evil? Of course not, just like I am not "evil" because my nation has attacked other nations. It is the archaic concept of War itself that is evil.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is possibly a troll thread (lines such as "respected American intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore" can be read as irony or naiveté). In case the question is genuine, check out the book War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning for one take on the topic. —Kevin Myers 13:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with the question is that the questioner has not considered the fact that other people may disagree with him as to whether the military actions in question were justifiable. People can legitimately disagree as to whether U.S. military action in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya was right or wrong. But it's not like Clinton, Bush and Obama were James Bond-movie villains cackling evilly while plotting to kill thousands for fun. The U.S. intervened in Kosovo because there had been a lot of criticism over the country's failure to intervene in Bosnia and the White House feared another Srebrenica massacre. The Libyan intervention, whether you agree with it or not, is clearly based either on Western leaders' humanitarian concerns or the fear of what would happen to themselves politically if Gadhafi were to massacre thousands of people while the Western leaders did nothing. Afghanistan was a response to 9/11, and there is clearly concern about what would happen to the people if we were to leave. I think instead of ruminating on whether Americans are evil, the questioner should read up on the political background of the decisions to intervene militarily in these situations. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Many western leaders have in mind Edmund Burke's axiom; "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". 1930s Germany is an example where refraining from action military by the western powers may have led to a worse evil. It is often postulated that a firm military response by Britain and France to the Remilitarization of the Rhineland would have limited Hitler's ambition. Maybe. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shirer discusses this at length. The French made no move to stop the German Army from entering the Rhineland with only two divisions.

The section title is in fact ironically correct - a great deal of evil is indeed undertaken by people who are uniformed (in uniform) at the time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We have to define what is a good person, what is an evil person/situation. Then, when is a situation so potentially dangerous to the vulnerable to merit intravention?  Assuming everyone here is good, and would want to do good.   MacOfJesus (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the "attacked party" may very well use subterfuge and deception in order to wrong-foot the opposition, suddenly taking the position of the injured party or offering "friendship and brotherhood" to the "attacker". The use of Wisdom is needed to decipher the correct path. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The West" was accused of not taking seriously the report that "Hitler" had concentration camps of extermination and were accused of not acting, even when it was aired in parliament! The League of Nations was formed, the fore-runner of the United Nations, meant to deal with this type of conflict.  (I have not mentioned NATO). MacOfJesus (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

memorials to quake victims
By any chance will there be memorials built for the victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the 2010 Chile earthquake, and the 2011 Sendai earthquake? The reason I'm asking is I'd be more than happy to donate some money to help build them. Please let me know where I can do so. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All I can say is, for the Great Hanshin Earthquake of 1995, there are two annual memorials, but nothing 'concrete' like a statue or anything. -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a (probably jewish) small town in volin (Ukraine)
The town`s name in yiddish is "וויזשווע", and its pronunciation is something close to "vaizshva". I need any kind of information you may have about the exact location, name or anything else about the town. Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.108.164 (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Most likely Vyshnivets, which is today part of Ternopil Oblast, but parts of Ternopil were once historically part of Volyn (known today as Volhynia). There's also a Vyshneve, but that is nearby to Kiev, which does not appear to be part of any current or historical definition of Volhynia.  The village you are looking for is most likely Vyshnivets, since that name also appears on a list of Jewish settlements in the Ukraine, seeList_of_shtetls. -- Jayron  32  20:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also found Vyshnivchyk in Ternopil and a "Stara Vyzhivka"(no article at en.wikipedia, but found it at List_of_urban-type_settlements_in_Ukraine_by_subdivision) in Volyn Oblast. Maybe one of those as well.  -- Jayron  32  20:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Shtetl Seeker is a good resource for this sort of thing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't even know if it exists anymore; my grand-grand-grandfather lived there. Vyshnivets does fit the description. thanks a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.123.99 (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What would be the correct name for the 1706 financier Thomas Allen of London?
Do we have an article on this Thomas Allen? Apparently he had an association with William Talbot, the Bishop of Oxford.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We have an article about his father; Sir Thomas Allen, 1st Baronet, who died in 1690. There is no article about Sir Thomas Allen, 2nd Baronet as yet. Was he notable for anything? Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He has a page on the Peerage.com but doesn't seem to have done anything of note except to extinguish his baronetcy by dying childless. Alansplodge (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the chap associated with the Bishop of Oxford was Thomas Allen (divine (1681-1755))?