Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 August 6

= August 6 =

Asking an African if they have internet: funny or not?
Is it too offensive asking an African if they have internet in their country of origin? Isn't this just playfully messing a little with someone? Could that be construed as racist? --Hofhof (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The article Internet in Africa gives information on individual countries in Africa where according to 2011 estimates, about 13.5% of the population has Internet access. The largest percentage of Internet subscribers are found in small economies such as Seychelles, where as much as 37% of the population has Internet access, while in South Africa this value is 11% and in Egypt it is 8%. AllBestFaith (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You are aware that the question is not about internet in Africa, right? --Hofhof (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Then what IS it about? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * IMO 1) It may or may not be, depending on context. 2) It might be or it might not be. 3) Yes, absolutely - it's an effective way of belittling someone. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Phrased in that specific way -- do they have internet in their country -- it would likely be perceived as either insulting or ignorant (in the non-pejorative sense) depending on the context. 2) Again it depends on the context. People who are on very familiar terms with one another often trade playful jibes, and there are certain social conventions where this also can be acceptable. 3) This also depends on context (hmm, there seems to be a pattern here). It would not be racist if it ware a black African asking another black African, though it could be insulting depending on context (that word again). In other circumstances it's probably not a great idea. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It could be a form of microagression, depending on people involved, relationships between them, previous interactions, and perceived intention. Llaanngg (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Definitely not ( a problem ). It would have the same effect than it does on the chick in there. And look at the windows there. --Askedonty (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Asking if they personally have internet access seems more reasonable, as there is probably somebody in each nation that does, if only one rich guy using a satellite dish to access the web. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in this article which says that ownership of cell phones in Sub-Saharan Africa has "allowed Africans to skip the landline stage of development and jump right to the digital age". Alansplodge (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * So if the questioner was trying to belittle the African, the African could one-up by asking, "Do you have cellphones in your country of origin yet?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In third world nations, there is often more difference between rich and poor and urban and rural areas. So, while a rich family in the big city may have all the modern (in)conveniences, poor people living in rural areas may not have even heard of such things, much less have them. StuRat (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

meaning of invitation times
in an Agatha Christie novel, the timing of an invitation was "eight-fifteen for eight-thirty". Why are there two times and how is the timing of the partyu to be understood? Thanks.184.147.126.239 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll assume that means from 8:15 to 8:30. Llaanngg (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would assume it means show up at 8:15 for a dinner that will start promptly at 8:30. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * A bigger chunk of the text: "We shall expect you, then, at eight-fifteen for eight-thirty. Be punctual, for the King is the soul of punctuality. It is his only strong point, between ourselves.


 * I will be there; but it seems almost too much to have dinner with the King and the Zagabog and the Snick and you," said Charles. Llaanngg (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempts, but I'm looking for the real answer please, not assumptions! The story I read doesn't have any characters called King or Zagabog or Snick. It is called the Spanish Chest. The timing is important to the plot because of when people would arrive at the house for the party. 184.147.126.239 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could quote the sentences surrounding the phrase in question? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Tell me now about the events of that evening. What time were you invited?' |P 'Eight-fifteen for half past.'184.147.126.239 (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no assumption. "[Time X] for [time Y]" is a very common expression in the English language, and it means exactly what Blueboar said above.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're asking people to arrive early so that the event can start on time. Something that I wish would have been done with business meetings when I had to go to them... --69.159.9.219 (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the case of a dinner invitation, one would not expect to arrive, have one's coats taken and then immediately enter the dining room (at 8:30) and sit down. The hosts need everyone to arrive in good time to "de-cloak", freshen up, mingle and probably have a pre-prandial drink.
 * In the era and social circumstances of the novel, each lady attending should have been accompanied by a gentlemen to escort them into the dining room, pull back their chair, sit next to them and offer conversation during the meal: the hosts would assign the pairings and seating arrangements – married couples would likely remain together, but unaccompanied ladies would have the host assign them an unaccompanied gentleman – with due regard for social precedences, especially if the King were one of the guests! For this to operate (and be re-jigged on the fly to allow for last-minute absences), the hosts needed all their attending guests to be present in good time, but not so early as to interrupt the household preparations.
 * To ensure that all the ladies who turned up had a dinner escort (despite unforseen circumstances), the hosts would often deliberately invite a slight excess of "spare" gentlemen (who were allowed by prevailing etiquette to dine unaccompanied): this enabled young batchelors of appropriate social standing (but possibly limited means) to get regular free meals despite not being able to issue return invitations themselves, as is sometimes portrayed in fiction set in this era, such as that of P.G. Wodehouse. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.26.60 (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree: this is still common in the UK. "Be there at 8:15 because we're starting at 8:30". Alansplodge (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is why they say "8.15 for 8.30". Arriving late for a function is still considered terribly rude in polite society. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure that rude is the right word. Formal dinners are often used as a power play. The guests can not eat until all are  assembled. Modern day celebrates (whom are only famous for being famous) are famously late for nearly every event.  US presidents do the same thing. So the punctuality being  the politeness of kings means that they  appear on time on a  rare  occasions only in order to  have every body kowtowing. US presidents and clebs  show up on time only when they want something from their guests. When their guests are wanting to bath in the lime-light of attending the Presidents formal dinner,  the presidents aids remind him that the the art of showmanship is to always keep one audiences waiting. Insuring that the guests have rumbling tummy’s by the time the first course is served up. Think about it. Isn't it odd, that if a course involves something like fish that can't be over cooked it never-the-less arrives perfectly cooked how ever long the delay. It turns up perfect and not over cooked because the late arrival  is all orchestrated in advance and every sucker  falls for it. So as to the phase “punctuality is the politeness of kings” it is all tosh, which is fritted out to the hoi polloi. Good manners has nothing what so ever to to do with it. Arriving late is not 'rude' but seen as an attempt to place oneself above one's lower station in life.--Aspro (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Aspro, with respect, I've never heard the like of that! It certainly doesn't inspire me to start turning up to business meetings or events late as I regard it personally as disrespectful to the meeting or event. I think you're overthinking. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That could lead to a headache, and then he might need to take his own medicine. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * L’exactitude est la politesse des rois (punctuality is the courtesy of kings). Alansplodge (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the answers!184.147.126.239 (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It is a bit like the turning up at an airport early (at the time the airline states) so that all the checks can be done and completed before scheduled time of departure (STD).--Aspro (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that 2.123.26.60 has the seating arrangements correctly. See Formal Seating Arrangement and Formal Dinners. The host would be at one end with the hostess at the other. George V would then sit on the right of the hostess and Mary of Teck would sit on the right of the host. As the first source says "Husband and wife should not sit next to each other". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There's also a cultural aspect to this.  In some countries, for example, the train timetables are a work of fiction. 86.149.13.241 (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not so far away, actually . 86.149.13.241 (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "I refer of course to the Greek ferry timetables. A work of the sublimest fiction. Anyone who has traveled in the Aegean will confirm this." from Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Adams. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

1945, after German capitulation
In 1945, after Germany's capitulation, hasn't anyone among the allies suggested to kill a part of the German population, or at least, to cause the death of some of them (through starvation or similar means)? Llaanngg (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There weren't that many left + that would be a war crime.--TMCk (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1 is wrong; 2 is true, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. --Llaanngg (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you seen anything that would suggest it did happen? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't exactly say that the Germans were building goodwill in the previous years. I am not asking if they went through with the plan, only if they considered the option. Llaanngg (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I rather wonder why a death sentence wasn't automatic for being a member of the branch of the SS that committed genocide. As I understand it, it was a voluntary service, so anyone who didn't want to commit mass murder could just transfer out.  That would seem to eliminate the defense that they had to commit murder or they would be killed. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * On the Eastern Front you could just tranfer out, ...?!. Muffled Pocketed  11:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure what you are asking. If you mean regular soldiers, then no, they weren't allowed to transfer out to avoid combat.  But I was discussing the SS-Totenkopfverbände, the division responsible for committing genocide.  This was considered an "elite" unit and I believe members were allowed to transfer out to other divisions.  Of course, if they happened to be trapped behind enemy lines, then they would remain trapped, just like everyone else, even after the transferred out.  StuRat (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably had something to do with the Allies not wanting to act like Nazis. Automatic death sentences without trials? Or am I misreading you? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 02:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There would still have been trials, to determine if the individual in custody was in fact a member of an organization whose purpose was to massacre civilians, with an exception for those who weren't in long enough to get transferred back out. But, just as being a member of ISIS is enough to be convicted presently, being a member of that branch of the SS would be enough for a conviction then. StuRat (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Under what civilized legal system is membership in an organization, independent of specific criminal actions, a capital crime? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to have set up a "no true Scotsman" fallacy where any case I cite you will just call "uncivilized". Remember, at the time the death penalty was quite common.  As for membership in a banned organization being considered a crime, I already provided an example, but this is quite common, when the purpose of that organization is mass murder, as in the case of ISIS. StuRat (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually you haven't provided any example. Let's ignore civilisied, being a member if ISIS isn't automatically a capital crime in virtually any country or the equivalent of a capital crime in countries without the death penalty. Your original claim was for automatic execution not that being a member of the SS should have been a crime. The harshest prison term in this case was 9 years  and that was for someone called a ring leader. And it's not even clear simply being a member of ISIS was enough but rather participating in military training and recruitment. (Of course it was probably difficult to be a member of SS without the first unlike with ISIS.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like being a member of the Arab Spring protesters gets you a death sentence in Saudi Arabia. See the cases of Dawoud al-Marhoon and Ali Mohammed Baqir al-Nimr.  (And I would agree that the government of SA is not "civilized".) StuRat (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Stalin suggested at the Tehran Conference in 1943 that 50,000 German officers, including the entire general staff, should be executed at the end of the war. Although Roosevelt suggested that as a compromise, only 49.000 should be shot (probably his idea of a joke), Churchill was outraged: "I would rather be taken out into the garden here and now and shoot myself than sully myself and my country's honour with such infamy".  Certainly amongst the Western Allies, there was an appreciation that attempts to punish the German people after the First World War had had unfortunate consequences and the need to create a viable and democratic German state in the postwar period was an imperative. See Denazification, and Reconstruction of Germany.  Alansplodge (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It is important both to punish those who were directly responsible for war crimes, and to not punish those who were not directly responsible. The first is important to prevent those people from regaining control and repeating their actions, as well as a warning to others who would do the same.  The latter is important to avoid the resentments that will lead to a recurrence of the war, as was the case following WW1. StuRat (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The Russians had already executed 22000 Polish officers, soldiers and civilian intelligentsia in 1940 at Katyn forest. Sleigh (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Morgenthau Plan and Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944-1950) may be of interest. A more direct answer to OP's question is that I recall reading that some leaders did suggest splitting Germany up into several smaller countries and reducing both it's population and industrial capacity to where no longer had the capability to wage war (at least against large and well armed countries).  I don't remember the source or the identities of the leaders, so take that for what it's worth.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Food has always been a weapon of war - and its aftermath. See Food in occupied Germany. This article and this one discredit the claims made against Eisenhower. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I would change "always" to "often", as clearly there were many wars where there was no attempt to starve anyone to death. StuRat (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)