Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 April 28

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

April 28

Self Determination, United Nations, & International Laws

The layout and wording of official UN documents along with the details of its implications are a bit confusing at times and so, I need your help in confirming a bunch of stuffs for me. I apologize if you find the following format repetitive but I find this easier to understand than writing a paragraph:

1. Does the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 637 (VII) explicitly or implicitly limit the right to self-determination of people and nations to those of non-self-governing territories?
2. If the answer to (1) is yes, due to the fact that UN list of non-governing-territories has ever only contained European oversea territories (Western Sahara has been on the list since Spanish rule and is only still on it because Morocco's claim is not recognized), does this mean that the United Nations officially endorses the blue water thesis which asserts that colonialism only applies to ruling lands separated by oceans crossable only by large ships (hence not applicable to Indonesia and Japan)?
3. If the answers to (1) and (2) are yes, does this represent an official written UN endorsement of the Uti possidetis juris?
4. If all the above are yes, does this represent the official view of the entire United Nations and does it constitute a valid international law? I ask this because UN independent experts Alfred de Zayas and David Kaye do not seem to agree with it when they publicly commented on Catalonia.

I will be taking your input into consideration when I eventually rewrite the article Colonialism and edit others related to it since other people who find it problematic in the talk page can't be bothered to fix it themselves. StellarHalo (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Calm down a bit, will you? It is best not to be on a grand mission here. This resolution only contains recommendations and is non-binding on the member states. Part A.1 of the resolution clearly states: The States Members of the United Nations shall uphold the principle of self-determination of all peoples and nations. [emphasis by underlining added, --L.] So it does explicitly not limit the right to non-self-governing territories. Note that "peoples" in this text is the plural of the count noun "people". You wrote "people", which is synonymous with "persons" and alters the meaning. For some of the issues surrounding the resolution, see Blue water thesis.  --Lambiam 07:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry. This article is not on my priority list to fix. Studying political science and history means I have a lot of questions. I am just making sure my interpretation of Resolution 637 is correct so I can add it to my arsenal in the Catalonia debate against the likes of Alfred de Zayas but it is not really that important since actions speak louder than words. StellarHalo (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

StellarHalo -- I don't know anything about official United Nations definitions (and I'm not sure that I care too much), but it's been observed many, many times by historians and others that Russian expansion into Asia had many common characteristics with the colonial expansions of the northwestern European nations (except, of course, that no ocean was involved), and that the Soviet Union was often quite hypocritical when it proclaimed its "anti-colonialist principles" to undermine other powers, while managing to deflect attention away from its own internal colonialist legacy (most obvious in the case of Central Asia). AnonMoos (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you know of any reliable source that discusses Russian imperial expansion as colonialism? Because the articles Colonialism and Colony do not seem to treat it as such. In the former, vast majority of the contents especially the definition, history, impact, and academic viewpoints do not discuss Russia or other land empires. If you do, I will be sure to use it when I get around to clean up the article. StellarHalo (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Our Russian conquest of Central Asia article refers to a book titled "Russian Central Asia, 1867-1917: a study in colonial rule". During much of the 20th century the Soviets were somewhat successful in helping to define the word "colonialism" in a way that attracted attention to the possessions of other nations (while deflecting attention from their own possessions). The Basmachi rebellion was similar in many ways to revolts against capitalist powers which the Soviets cheered on, but since the Basmachis were fighting against the Soviets themselves, of course they were dirty rotten feudalists. There's some discussion of this issue here: [1]. -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, Karl Marx wrote some highly acerbic passages on Russian imperialism, which were forbidden from being printed in the Soviet Union during the Stalin period. I'm having difficulty finding the texts in English translation, but see here: [2] -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Bishop Rouchouze's fatal mission in 1843

Taking this from Étienne Jérôme Rouchouze: On 8 December 1842 the ship Marie-Joseph was blessed in Saint Malo in Brittany. Shortly thereafter, Msgr. Rouchouze, accompanied by thirteen brothers and ten sisters, left Saint Malo for Oceania on the Marie-Joseph. A nun died at sea. Unwilling to bury her at sea, they put into Island of Saint Catherine and buried her there. On 19 February 1843. Rouchouze and his twenty-two missionaries left the island on the Marie-Joseph. The party stopped off in Florianópolis in Brazil to bury the body of Sister Caliste Le Gris, who had died on board. Evaristo, a Mangarevan youth, fell ill and also died while they were in Brazil. The ship was last sited off the Falkland Islands on 13 March 1843. Rouchouze and his companions were never seen again and were presumed to have perished at sea....What were the names of the 23 passengers on board including those who died on the way? KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

According to ref 11, the last reference in the Rouchouze article, the list of names can be found in the four main sources mentioned there. One source gives no names, but slightly different numbers: Rouchouze + 7 priests + 7 catechists (i.e. lay brothers) + 9 religious (i.e. sisters).^[3] I assume these numbers include Le Gris and Evaristo. But, as ref 11 states, contradictions in the sources abound. As far as I can see, the Annals of the Propagation of the Faith for 1843 are not online.  --Lambiam 07:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Disparition du Marie-Joseph from the website of Notre Dame Cathedral, Papeete says: 6 prêtres, un sous-diacre, 7 Frères convers, 10 Sœurs pour composer le groupe ("The group comprised 6 priests, one sub-deacon, 7 lay brothers, 10 Sisters"). It adds that the group was very young, "all under the age of thirty". The article goes on to name the ship's captain as Captain O'Sullivan; the youth who died of tuberculosis, Evariste, probably a native of Mangareva in the Gambier Islands (but there are many contradictory theories) and the hospital register states that he was admitted on 16 February 1843 and died on 21 February 1843. There are conflicting sources about the unnamed sister, who may have died at sea or after the ship arrived off Brazil. At the bottom of the article, it lists the names of the priests and religious brothers and sisters under the heading Les disparus ("the disappeared"). Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it was 10 sisters total that went on the voyage and Caliste Le Gris was the one that died early and wasn't counted in the 9 lost at sea. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

An additional questions besides the religious people and Captain O'Sullivan, were there other sailors or crewmen on the ship of note? KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Why Biden only gets friendly interviews?

Debate-bait. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why does nobody ask him difficult questions or anything about his mental health? Does he control all the interviews? When will unfriendly networks be allowed to ask him questions? Ericdec85 (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC) The Biden campaign controls who gets to interview him. For understandable reasons, they do wise in avoiding any potentially less friendly interviewers. Even with friendly interviewers and easy questions there have been enough disasters already. See also Manufacturing Consent.  --Lambiam 07:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Trump has also been doing an amazing slow motion political suicide on TV every day, talking about injecting disinfectants and stuff like that. Biden has been laying low letting Trump's self-destruction continue. I have doubts about Biden being nominated in the end, whether for health reasons, the Tara Reade story, or whatever else. They have apparently just cancelled the New York Primary, where Sanders was ahead in the polls and which could have been conducted by mail, while they forced through in-person voting in Wisconsin (causing apparently dozens of known Covid-19 cases, though I don't know how severe) where Biden was ahead. The NY cancellation seems to be to make sure that the party bigwigs control as many convention delegates as possible, so they can nominate whoever they want. NY Governor Andrew Cuomo is a name I keep hearing as the hot spare. (Sanders can't win the nomination himself at this point, but by keeping him from getting any more delegates they decrease his influence on the convention). 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Why does nobody ask Trump difficult questions or anything about his mental health? Seems the more pertinent question. Fgf10 (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC) And for both the answer is that outside the radical fringes, there is a certain politeness in society - at least the pretence that one is interested in the dialogue and the answers, not just in attacking the interviewee. It's one of the sad testaments of Trump that he is so caught in his own universe that he takes questions about reality as personal attacks... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Trump has been asked about his mental health and responded that he is a very stable genius.[4] Who are we to question that /s? See also: Stable Genius Act. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Trump's mental health has been questioned, but I don't think that any reporter has asked Trump about his mental health in a face-to-face interview - or at least not before his tweets on the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Oh I know, my question was mostly rhetorical. I meant that if we're not asking the person who has obvious issues, why would we be asking a more sane person? Fgf10 (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC) From my careful reading of the daily media, no one outside of the Moscow / GOP camp seems to think there is a connection between a person's tendency to stutter and mental health.DOR (HK) (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Given Trump's frequent malapropisms, no one in that camp is in any position to question someone else's speech patterns. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC) STOP... the reference desk is not the place to share our personal opinions on current events. If you can not provide sources, please don’t reply. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Science and Religion

Is science, technically speaking, a religion? Ples refrain from debates and opinions and uses definitions please.68.129.97.180 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Next! --Golbez (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Working on the remote possibility that this question was asked in good faith, here is a reference: De Cruz, Helen (January 17, 2017). "Religion and Science". plato.stanford.edu. Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University. Retrieved April 28, 2020.. The author, Helen De Cruz, is "a Belgian philosopher and Danforth Chair of Philosophy at Saint Louis University who specialises in philosophy of religion, experimental philosophy, and philosophy of cognitive science". Alansplodge (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Our article on Religion says it "is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements."

Our article on Science says it "is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

These both might fit under the broader category "worldview systems," but in largely unrelated parts of that category. Science doesn't tell people how they should act, nor give life meaning, nor can it really get into the subjective parts of life (it can make objects from it but doing so renders it non-subjective). Religions can make scientifically testable claims but that usually proves to be crassly overstepping bounds. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You're a little late for April Fool's Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

When did Fascist and Imperial troops directly collaborate?

Here it says that `for the most part, Japan and Germany fought separate wars', but doesn't specify the exceptions. Was there a single battle that involved both Fascist and Imperial forces simultaneously? --(((Romanophile))) N (contributions) 16:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think high-level coordination or cooperation would count--there wouldn't have to be a battle with both forces. Also, Fascist forces would be Italian rather than German. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:A096:24F4:F986:C62A (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That's splitting hairs. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 16:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Details about Japanese / German strategic co-operation, or mostly the lack thereof, is in our article Kantokuen about a Japanese plan to invade the USSR which came to nothing, but could have materially assisted the German invasion, especially the Battle of Moscow, where a Soviet counter-offensive was made possible by the transfer by Stalin of "over 18 divisions, 1,700 tanks, and over 1,500 aircraft from Siberia and the Far East".

The Japanese success against French and Netherlands possessions in the Far East were dependant on those nations having been occupied by the Germans; also the British Empire's preoccupation with the war in Europe and the Middle East largely explains their poor performance in Malaya and Burma in 1941, so in that regard the two powers were working in concert, although maybe not intentionally. The Italian Navy and Japan: Strategy and Hopes, 1937-1942 details attempts by Germany and Italy to obtain Japanese support for submarine operations in the Indian Ocean, which the Japanese only consented to when it was too late.

In terms of technology, with the exception of aircraft carriers which the Germans were not really interested in, the Japanese were rather behind. Germany sold one Panther tank and one Tiger tank to Japan with the intention that they could be reproduced by the Japanese, but there was no way of getting them there.

Perhaps the most important connection was that the success of the Battle of Taranto (November 1940) in attacking the Italian fleet in port with carrier aircraft, was investigated by a Japanese commission who visited Italy in May 1941; see Battle of Taranto#Influence on Pearl Harbor

Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

From 1942-1945, the only semi-reliable way to travel between Nazi-ruled Europe and Japanese possessions was by a long slow submarine voyage; see Japanese submarine I-29, German submarine U-234, Japanese submarine I-8, Yanagi missions etc. AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Before that, you could catch a train on the Trans-Siberian Railway, but not after 22 June 1941 for obvious reasons. Our article on that railway says that thousands of tons of natural rubber were sent to Germany from Japan by this route. After that, blockade runner ships were used, but Operation Stonewall had put a stop to that by 1944. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Recently I happened to see the propaganda movie Beyond the Line of Duty (because it was on TCM at a time when the schedule I had listed something else) and was reminded of this thread when I heard the narrator say that Capt. Wheless's plane was tasked with attacking German transport ships near the Philippines, although they were defended by Japanese fighters. However, either I misheard or else the narration was wrong. In the real-life attack they were Japanese ships. So never mind. --76.71.6.31 (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Black immigrants in the US having a much lower crime rate than native-born US blacks at all education levels: Can anyone here find the relevant data for this?

Several years ago, I saw a chart somewhere--it might have been on the Center of Immigration Studies website, it might have been somewhere else--about how black immigrants in the US have a much lower crime rate than native-born US blacks have at all education levels. So, this chart shows that well-educated black immigrants in the US commit much less crime on average than well-educated native-born US blacks, that poorly educated black immigrants in the US commit much less crime on average than poorly educated native-born US blacks, et cetera. Anyway, can anyone here please find this chart? Because I've looked for it and tried to find it again in recent months and unfortunately couldn't find it. Futurist110 (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know specifically about black immigrants but here is a study showing that immigrants are over 3 times less likely to commit a crime than "native" Americans. Even illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than natives. 93.136.9.236 (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This from the Cato Institute has a table for Incarceration rates by race, ethnicity, and immigration status, ages 18–54. [5] Although for all "races" or ethnicity, legal immigrants is the lowest followed by "illegal" and then native, the difference between native and others was most stark for black, with a 4.5 lower rate for "illegal" and a over 6.8 lower rate for legal. In fact compared to native, the incarceration rate for "illegal" (and legal) black was only higher than Asian i.e. it was lower than even native white. The article describes how they defined legal and "illegal" and the problems therein. There is some education level analysis, but it does not look into that by race and even the analysis of incarceration rates based on education level seems limited. Note also that for the general population, a big reason why the "illegal" rate is higher than the legal rate appears to be due to incarceration arising from (I assume often alleged) immigration offences. Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this chart! It isn't the exact chart that I am looking for (that I'm pretty sure of) but it nevertheless contains highly valuable information. So, again, thanks for finding it and posting it here! Futurist110 (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)