Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 13

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 13

Love of the flag

An earlier question got me thinking. On trips to the USA I've noticed the Stars and stripes is very much in evidence, hanging from gigantic flagpoles, outside shopping malls, in school classrooms, and adorning peoples homes. Is there any other country where you see the national flag so much? Astronaut (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Texas :) Wrad (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if George W Bush flies the Lone Star flag or the Stars and Stripes outside his new place? Astronaut (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that in parts of Europe, for example Bavaria, regional flags are very much in evidence, often a lot more than national flags. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I never really though about it, but you are right. I lived in Neu-Ulm and I'm sure that the blue and white Bavarian flag was much more evident than the German tricolor. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Denmark in particular, and Scandinavia in general are famed for their flag flying --Saalstin (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Australia is a particular propagandist, flag-flying state and I've noticed they tend to use their flag a great deal. Dick Smith products used to (and possibly still do) use the Australian flag on all their products which got them into trouble. Many products advertised on TV seem to lead their reasons for buying the product as being "because it's Australian" (and I'm not just talking about the "Australian made and owned" campaign which decorates 99.999% of Australian supermarket products (in part because getting foreign products onto Australian shelves is nearly impossible as I've tried this myself)))). I saw adverts on TV campaigning Australians to get involved in eco-volunteerism invoke certain propagandist elements such as the Australian flag, close-ups of fists with soil (a propagandist element for "taking action") -- and these are just the ones I've seen. In fact it seems that if the Australian government wants the public to do anything, all they need to do is show the flag, and say that not doing what they want would be unAustralian. And lastly in case anyone disagrees with what I've said, I'm sure that nobody would argue with the fact that Australians are a particularly proud bunch. :) Rfwoolf (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, proud all right. But the flag's an interesting issue. There have always been flags on buildings etc, but flying them in one's front garden was rarely (virtually never) seen until the last 20 years or so. That seems to have coincided with a number of debates about its design (the inclusion of the Union Jack in the top left corner is the main sticking point*), and there have been various public competitions sponsored by major newspapers, seeking a design that all Australians (well, you'll never please everyone) can be happy with. These have also coincided with a lot of debate about republic vs. monarchy. But all they've succeeded in doing so far is entrenching the current design. The Flags Act 1953 was amended so that it now requires a referendum to change the design, not merely an act of parliament. But even for those who do not particularly like the current design (such as me), they're a lot happier about flying whatever the current flag is in their front yard (me again) than they would have been 20-25 years ago. That in itself is a positive development, imo. (*Another objection is that it closely resembles the NZ flag, and they're often confused. But we had ours first, so if any change to either of these flags is going to happen for that reason alone, the New Zealanders should be changing theirs.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's some interesting anectodal history about the flag, Jack. However, you disappoint: I had run for cover in anticipation of the Australian brigaide (sic), only to be fed a calm yet surprising explanation on pride and the Australian flag. Cheers. Rfwoolf (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In recent years, the Australian flag has been co-opted by xenophobic, almost racist groups, especially in areas of low socio-economic standing in the coastal cities (see, e.g. 2005 Cronulla riots). This has led to concerns about what it is doing to the image and meaning of the flag. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Most people realise that racist hoons can associate their flag with whatever racist atrocities they choose to commit, but all that succeeds in doing is even further lowering the reputation of the hoons in the eyes of the public, and doesn't have any implications for the place of honour a national flag has. I understand the concerns some people have, but I've seen no evidence that the flag is less respected now than it was before the riots. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I live in a country that is probably on the opposite end of the spectrum from the U.S. and Scandinavia. In Poland, the national flag is generally flown outside private buildings only on special occasions: national holidays, national mournings, big sporting events, etc. Until a few years ago it was actually illegal for the regular citizen to fly the flag except on a national holiday. It's legal now, but the attitude is changing slowly. Some people may be afraid that such overt display of patriotism would make them look too jingoistic. Some others think that if the flag is flown everyday, it will become mundane and will lose its special, festive meaning. So it may be that less flag-flying doesn't really mean less love of the flag and of the nation it represents. Its just the notion that special symbols are for special occasions. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a pretty high number of flags per square km in Oslo, on the 17th of May. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree with whats been said about the australian flag.I'm from the UK where the Union Jack is almost nowhere (expect on the odd public building and foreign-owned hotels...) so the difference was really apparant. Interestingly, in Scotland the official flag is significantly more more visible but in England, the flag of St George is synonymous with the extreme right, however much middle englanders try to reclaim it. Maybe theres some colonial guilt in there somewhere..212.183.134.209 (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite a number of Asian countries have what I would consider to be lots of flags flying, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Singapore. I once had a theory that the less secure a government is, the more likely it is that there will be lots of flags flying. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"My vote won't make a difference" mentality

Do we have an article that covers how, many voters feel that their single vote won't make a difference so they don't vote, but probably hundreds of thousands of other people feel the exact same way, and if each of those people did vote it would mean the difference of hundreds of thousands of votes?
I'm going be sending an email to many of our South African clients living abroad, trying to convince them to participate in the upcoming South African election, and a reference to this issue would be very helpful. (It has just become legal for South Africans living abroad to be able to vote) Rfwoolf (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Voter turnout and Paradox of voting might have some of what you're looking for. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Paradox of voting seems quite relevant, if not a bit complex. It also doesn't seem to cover the fact that in proportional electoral systems, such as South Africa's, it is not simply about which party wins, it is more about how many seats in parliament a particular party receives, in other words it's not just about "who wins" but is also about "by how much do they win". Again, if the current ruling part in South Africa (the African National Congress receives more than two-thirds of the votes, they will be able to unilaterally amend the constitution -- "it's not about who wins, but by how"! Rfwoolf (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Even then, it seems unlikely that a single vote would result in one more seat for a given party. You have to get down to elections with only a few dozen participants for it to be likely that a single vote will affect the outcome. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

rational ignorance may be relevant too. —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I particularly enjoyed reading rational ignorance, so thanks for the reference. Although it is relevant I don't find it quite as apt as Paradox of voting, but again, thanks for mentioning it. Rfwoolf (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Court Paintings

Why judicial court proceedings are painted and not photographed? Slmking (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC) slmking

They aren't always, but when cameras are banned from the courtroom -- as they often are -- the only other way to get images from the proceedings is to have someone draw or paint them. Here's an interesting article on three British courtroom artists. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, they're usually sketched with some kind of colored pencil or pastels, rather than painted. --Sean 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Courtroom sketch is only a stub. Not much info there. But there's potential for a great article. Kingturtle (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-discrimination laws in the US

If a company doesn't hire employees from, for example, Japan I suppose it is considered racism. However, what if the company doesn't buy cars from, for example, Japan. is it also a form of racism? What if the company doesn't buy services from a specific country or region? Does the company need to have a policy against buying services or product from a specific country to be considered racist?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not a laywer. Not even close. But I think you're confusing Racism with Nationalism. In any case, what would be the point of a law that protects foreign businesses? Equal opportunity laws and policies exist to protect citizens of your country from discrimination. APL (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not too long ago, not buying from a particular country was considered a shining example of anti-racism. Self-imposed South African embargoes were quite the rage before Mandela came to power. Rmhermen (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the justification that you give internally in the company you could be considered racist. If you don't buy products from South Africa because you don't agree with their government, it is a political opinion. If you don't buy African products because you think the quality is low, it is a commercial decision. It is clearly not enough to decide against products or services of some origin to be racist. You have also to infringe some right of someone - a right to be treated with respect, or be judged by the same standards. Anti-discriminatory laws are normally directed towards protecting members of the society (American citizens or holders of a Green Card) . There is a thorough official list of prohibited personnel practices in the US here--Mr.K. (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But what about the business owned by a war veteran, which won't buy products or services from the country where the owner lost his legs? (I know that is a ficticious generic example, but it is based on a late friend of my mother's who would not buy Japanese products because he was interned in a Japanese POW camp during WWII) I think you will have a hard time convincing such people to change their views. Astronaut (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pet peeve #231: interred=buried; interned=locked up, e.g. in a POW camp. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Typo corrected Astronaut (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the term you're looking for here boycotting? Rfwoolf (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Boycotting—a practice whose rationale is not purchasing products from a supplier whose policies are objectionable—is a matter of the consumer's choice (whether wholesale or retail) and not regulated by legislation. Compare that with the original case: denying employment to an (otherwise well-qualified) applicant based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. would be discrimination and a violation of laws that exist to protect against this. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all you're mistaken about the 'original case' if you re-read the OP's question (he specifically excludes not employing someone by race but goes on to supplies and suppliers). Second, I refer to boycotting in its English form and not the encyclopedia article, which says "A boycott, an organized ostracism as a means of protest" -- while generally that may refer to consumers, the English definition could still apply here generally. It's just that, to read all these posts describing something that sounds a lot like boycotting (such as 'embargoes') and yet never seeing the word 'boycott' seemed weird to me. Finally, I agree that not employing someone based on race would be prohibited by legislation, but in the case of overseas suppliers I think it's a bit more cloudy, I mean perhaps there are laws that might touch upon it such as fair trade laws. Moreover the OP asked whether it would be considered 'racist', not whether it would be considered illegal or unlawful. "Racism" is more of a philosophical term but in mainstream it refers to racial descrimation, which I guess would apply to a company that descriminates amongst its suppliers based solely upon race, but again, whether this is unlawful or not is another matter -- I do suppose the act of descrimination itself would not be unlawful, but going around to your employees with memos that state "only use suppliers in predominantly caucasian countries / non-asian countries / non-Chink countries / non-Nigger countries" could probably land them in some hot water Rfwoolf (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If done with some kind of support by the government, it could be considered a trade matter and discriminatory in the WTO sense, and have trade consequences for the nation. --00:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Making an area attractive to graduates/professionals increases its job creation - looking for research/articles

I remember reading some research somewhere that the way to increase employment in an area is to get professional people to want to live there, because they are the type of people who create jobs. Can anyone point out any articles or research papers about this, particularly any relating to the UK please? Thanks. 89.242.87.233 (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This American article may be of interest; there's no reason to suppose things should be terribly different anywhere in the developed world. The never-opinion-free Paul Graham opines about how to build a new Silicon Valley here (although I think he downplays the role of money and finance). 87.115.143.223 (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking some research that backs up the kinds of claims made in for example the latter half of this article, http://www.strom.clemson.edu/teams/ced/econ/2-2No5.pdf although I'm not very interested in education or airports. Thanks. 78.146.245.212 (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong will spend billions over the next decade to build an enormous cultural centre, partly to attract talent from abroad. Not much being done to clean up the air pollution, however. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Polish reporter case

I wonder if the polish government have done anything at all after a pole reporter was captured and taken hostage in Pakistan and was "probably" beheaded(sorry if i am wrong).like daniel pearl. is there somebody doing something to apprehend the people responsible?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be Piotr Stańczak, whose government's actions are discussed briefly in the Piotr Stańczak article. --Fullobeans (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan is engaged in what is virtually a civil war; it has a huge number of people that I'm sure it'd like to find and bring to justice, it clearly isn't succeeding. I'm not sure pressure from Poland, or anywhere else, could realistically persuade it to do anything it isn't already doing. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan needs to purge the ISI of it's Taliban supporters, but they may not be willing or able to do so. Thus, the nation may be doomed to collapse. StuRat (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So, first of all, not a reporter, but a geologist looking for oil. You may have confused Stańczak with Waldemar Milewicz, a Polish reporter killed in Iraq in 2004. The government has been accused of some inactivity to save Stańczak and then to capture his murderers – but then, the current government is being accused of inactivity in general (the latest story is of Prime Minister Donald Tusk and some of his ministers playing football instead of voting on pension reform bills in the parliament). But it could also be that the government is doing something, but governments usually don't like to talk much about the details of what their secret services do. Poland has also blamed the Pakistani government for not being coöperative enough. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is Descartes' daemon evil?

How did Descartes know that his evil daemon, if it existed, was evil? Is this judgement still universally accepted? NeonMerlin 21:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure Descartes was talking about a real "demon" with horns and a pitchfork who really existed, rather he was speaking in terms of a "philosophical construct" designed to help us understand something of the nature of humanity. I mean Plato didn't really believe that there was a cave somewhere with people tied up watching shadows on the wall, nor did Rousseau really think that everyone signed a document where we gave up our absolute freedom in exchange for security. Like those examples, Descartes' "Evil Demon" was meant to be demonstrative, not accepted as a literal fact... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Descartes was positing something that was causing himself to be entirely deceived, such that his senses did not correspond at all with reality. It's 'evilness' was not part of his argument; it was just a name he gave this idea (pretty reasonably if it's sole purposes was to deceive Descartes). DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what if the daemon was just mistaken, and was trying to correct for what he or she considered to be Descartes own misconceptions? Then it would just be an erroneous, but good-intentioned, daemon! ---98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument Descartes is advancing is nothing to do with the evilness or otherwise of the demon. It's irrelevant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Delving into matters dualistic is devilishly exasperating and the terra firma from where one posits oftentime takes on ridiculous content and form isolating oneself from reality. Yet what is reality? Descartes knew his Daemon. Whether he actually thought it was evil is a conjecture and as such it must remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.237.2 (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ass's paradox

What is the name of the philosophical dilemma which involves a rational ass having to choose between two identical bales of hay? I remember reading about it in a book by Peter Cave (the pop philosopher). Any help would be appreciated --67.43.158.218 (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

...that are equally far from the ass, which starves to death rather than make an "irrational" choice, yes?--Wetman (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Buridan's ass - Nunh-huh 23:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd that they ascribe such characteristics to an animal, which I would call anthropomorphization. Humans are the ones who are often paralyzed by indecision, say by forming endless committees to study problems until the problems become insurmountable. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. The idea is that the ass isn't smart enough to form the abstract idea that either choice will do, whereas the human observer is. (Not to say that asses are really that asinine or that humans are really that smart, but it's a story. And each species does have its moments.) --Anonymous, 07:03 UTC, March 14, 2009.

But it isn't a lack of intelligence which makes one indecisive, intelligence does that. A stupid animal can make a random choice (it might just go with whichever one it saw first), while a person would want to weigh the pros and cons of each choice first. StuRat (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoever "thought" it up has never observed a donkey closely, it would eat bothhotclaws 14:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised we don't have an article on the monkey trap, which works on a similar principle in that the monkey remains trapped rather than let go of the bait.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That is often used as an example of greed, but I do think it's really a lack of intelligence. That is, the monkey doesn't realize that letting go of the banana will allow his hand to slide back out of the jar. StuRat (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As for committees, they're comprised of people who individually can do nothing, but collectively decide that nothing can be done (not original). Anyone who wants to actually do something bypasses committees and just does whatever it takes. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Donkeys are not stupid. Robert Louis Stevenson went on a camping trip with Modestine, and wrote Travels with a Donkey. He summed up her character as "Her faults were those of her race and sex; her virtues were her own." BrainyBabe (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)