Humanities desk
< September 8	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 10 >

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.

September 9[edit]

Travel to US on a one-way ticket[edit]

Is it okay to travel to US on a one-way ticket on an Indian passport, do they allow Indian passport holders to enter US on a one-way ticket? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.255.228 (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask us, ask the US embassy in New Delhi. --Viennese Waltz 13:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But bear in mind even if you convince the embassy what you're doing is okay, it doesn't mean you're going to be able to convince the check in agents for the airline. At the very least, you probably want to get the embassy's advice in writing. See also [1] [2] [3]. Note I'm only providing these links for the problems you may encounter. I'm not recommending the solutions they suggest. Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The core issue isn't your passport, but what type of visa you got. If you have a Green Card, it could work (I presume). Travelling to the US on a tourist visa + one-way ticket wouldn't work. --Soman (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "green card" means you have permission to reside permanently in the U.S., so yes, there should be no issue. A "green card" isn't, technically, a type of visa; a visa is a grant of permission to enter/leave a country, but if you're a U.S. permanent resident you already have that permission. Were you thinking of work visas, such as the H-1B? --47.138.161.183 (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that one of the earlier sources (or maybe it was one I didn't link) seems to imply that countries don't care if you're planning to leave your destination country even if it would be required, but I don't think this is always the case. See the guidance from NZ immigration [4] which specifically notes they may also want to see evidence for that. This isn't particularly surprising since if the country you're travelling to won't let you in, they may just send you back to where you came from even if that country isn't going to want you either.

While it's not the core issue, I wouldn't say your passport is irrelevant in the general case where your visa doesn't allow you to stay for long. For example, Australia does not require a return or outward ticket even for visitors [5]/[6] but their immigration officials do need to be convinced you're not going to overstay or otherwise violate the terms of your visa or entry, so you may need to show you have enough funds to buy a ticket to leave as well as support yourself in Australia. While it's unlikely your passport will ever be the only issue, I think it's obvious from watching shows like Border Security Australia that it will be considered. Someone with an Indian passport, is much more likely to be viewed with suspicion than someone with a US or UK one everything else being equal. And as much as I'd like to say typical racist Aussies, I don't think this is racism, since it's likely there is good evidence Indian passport holders are significantly more likely to overstay their visa and illegally work. And ultimately the immigration officials tend to have wide latitude in deciding whether they trust you to not violate the terms of your visa.

However as I said, since it's not apparently formally required, it's likely other factors will need to come into play, for example, if you don't seem to know anything about your holiday plans, you lack an establised well paying job, you only bought your ticket recently, you've brought your CV, they find discussion of work plans on your phone, tablet or laptop, your age, etc. Still it's also likely someone with an India passport is far more likely to come into this scrutiny. This also means that in such a case, the embassy can't really give you any definitive answer that you will be allowed, rather all they can really say is something similar to what the website says.

From what I read when first researching this, the US does generally require an onward ticket but even there I wouldn't say it's irrelevant. There's still a good chance you're much more likely to be scrutinised if you have an Indian passport than if you have a UK, Australiand or NZ one. (And actually, unless policy has changed in NZ, I think I've also seen people being asked for evidence they have enough funds to buy a ticket to leave on Border Patrol rather than simply turned away.)

Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting your long blocks of text into small type does not make them any less TL:DR. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

You mean airline ticket right? You can travel to US on a one way bus ticket from Canada. 110.22.20.252 (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And of course if you have another ticket to exit the USA you are fine, for example if you are booked to fly India to USA, then go on to Germany before returning to India. Actually you will probably find that a return is cheaper than a one-way ticket. I know that sounds mad but often its is cheaper to buy a return and use just one leg! -- Q Chris (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Greece stay Christian?[edit]

Why did Greece stay Christian after it was conquered by the Ottoman Empire? Uncle dan is home (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't it? Unlike Christian states in the Middle Ages, Muslim states did accept other religious practices (applicable to Christianity, Judaism, etc., under certain conditions, see People of the Book). Some Christians under Muslim rule became Muslims, but many didn't. As per the dynamics of Christian-Muslim relations in Greece under Ottoman rule, not sure. --Soman (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soman -- He's asking why Greece ended up different from non-coastal Anatolia and much of Albania and Bosnia.

Uncle_dan_is_home -- For what it's worth, William H. McNeill suggests in "The Rise of the West" that Sufism played an important role in Anatolian conversions, but as the Ottomans consolidated their regime, and placed great emphasis on written Islamic law as administered by a hierarchy of state-sponsored judges, the Sufi missionary impulse diminished. Also, the rise of the Hesychast movement (which Wikipedia seems to call Palamism) produced a form of Christianity with broad popular appeal (as opposed to the Byzantine official state-defined form of Christianity of former times). And heretical groups such as Bogomils (found in Bosnia) and Paulicians, who had been oppressed by the Byzantine government, were less attached to Christianity in the first place (but there were no such large heretical communities in Greece itself). AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Religious_pluralism#Islam. --Kharon (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no coercion. See Millet (Ottoman Empire). Also, Greek was the language of the Scriptures. 81.159.253.212 (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true; there was the Devshirme, an Ottoman tax on Christian families which involved having the eldest son dragged off into slavery at the age of 10, the lucky ones became Janissaries or administrators, but those without talent ended up as agricultural slaves.

We do have a long article, Greek Muslims. Alansplodge (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The farm slaves were luckier, in that they weren't ordered to kill, kidnap and convert Christians. Picking the fruit that keeps your enemies/frenemies alive is a bit sour a fate, but it's not a direct insult, and food (even spice) is far less likely to violently resist. Though yeah, the money's always better for the ruthless sort of traitor, no question. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The Janissary Corps were the elite shock troops of the Ottoman army, the rounding-up was done by lesser employees of the state known as surucu ("drivers"). [7] Alansplodge (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. But still, even elite holy war is hell. Farmwork is more like heck. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity is tenacious. Consider Egypt, Iraq and Syria. 81.139.183.197 (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why Did Spain Stay Christian?[edit]

A question that is similar to the above one. Why did Spain remain Christian after its conquest by the Moors (and it not only remained Christian but fought to re-establish Christian kingdoms, off-and-on, for 750 years), when North Africa, which had also been Christian, became Muslim (and is still Muslim).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)

Was the whole of Spain conquered by the Moors, or just the southern part? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of it was conquered except a narrow northern coastal strip containing the Kingdom of Asturias and independent Basques...

Robert_McClenon -- in Spain religion mainly followed military victories, in a more blatant and obvious way than was the case in the Ottoman-conquered parts of Europe... AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spain didn't stay Christian. See Spanish Inquisition -- it was only through a long, sustained effort lasting over a century that the Church re-converted the descendants of the Iberian peasants who converted to Islam. --M @r ē ino 02:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This doesn't answer my question, but only requires that I restate it. In Spain there was military resistance to the Moorish conquest, and conflict between Christians and Muslims, or between Christian and Muslim princes, for 750 years. The history of modern Tunisia is very different from the history of Spain. Roman Carthage was a major center of the Western Church. Augustine of Hippo, a Carthaginian, is considered one of the fathers of the Western Church. It was conquered by the Arabs, and there was very little resistance to the Arabs, in spite of it having been Christian. There weren't any Christian nobles in Carthage to lead a Reconquista. It doesn't answer my question, but only requires a reformulation. One can, to be sure, provide an answer that isn't an answer, to state that history doesn't always parallel itself, that the extent to which conquered territories adopt the religion of their conqueror is complex and has many factors. Maybe my question, and the original question, can be best answered with a formal academic handwave, but they haven't been answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of Berber resistance to the Arabs in North Africa in the early years, partly led by the infamous Dihya/Kahina, and on several occasions the Arabs were pushed back to ruling not much more than the city of Kairouan. But the urban Roman civilization of the province of "Africa" (today's northern Tunisia and northeastern Algeria) does not seem to have been in good shape after the Byzantine-Vandal wars and the Byzantine persecutions of the Donatists. I'm not sure how much of it survived in 700 A.D., or whether what was left would be natural allies to the Berbers, and of course there was no convenient border with Christian France (as was the case for the northern Spanish Christian kingdoms)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Introducing World Christianity (p. 11) edited by Charles E. Farhadian, in Carthage "some Christian presence persisted for nearly four centuries". So I think the answer must be that Christian rule in Spain was re-established before the faith was totally extinguished, whereas in Tunisia, it never was. Alansplodge (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One important consideration is that "Islam" is no more a single unified culture/religion/entity than Christianity is. Al-Andalus was originally conquered by the Umayyads, probably by a relatively small force, and also was a long way from Muslim centres of power. Moreover, in 750, the Umayyad Caliphate fell apart, with the Abbasids taking over the Muslim heartlands, and the Umayyad Emirate of Córdoba in Spain being relatively isolated. So they may have simply lacked the power to crush the remaining Christian kingdoms (which also had geographic advantages and at least potential support from Christian Europe), and developed a relatively tolerant and accommodating strain of Islam. North Africa was further from Christian Europe, closer to Muslim power centres, and less politically isolated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As in other religions, tolerance levels differ among different denominations at different times. The Wahabi (Sunni) kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not allow any churches anywhere. The Islamic Republic of Persia (Shia) does not interfere with the indigenous Christian minorities, whose liturgical language is unintelligible to the masses, but targets those churches who conduct their services in Farsi. 81.139.183.197 (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]