Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 November 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< November 11 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 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.

November 12[edit]

The Difference Between Sunni and Shia Islam[edit]

What are the fundamental differences between Sunni and Shia Islam? I worry that without understanding this, I wont be able to truly understand Mid-East issues.

Expect a reply soon! (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great if we had an article on this? Don't forget to search before asking your question - you're likely to get your information all the sooner that way. Warofdreams talk 00:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't expect a thank-you soon!--Wetman (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a great question, that have more than one answer of course. First, Shia muslims believe that Ali is the only successor of Muhammad and do not acknowledge the three khalifs. The founder of Shia, Husien, was killed by Sunni muslims in Karbala and they mark his day of death at the Day of Ashura. While Sunni Islam has 5 pillars of believe, the Shia muslims have sixth. Besides Mecca Shities have two other holly cities: Karbala and Najaf and Shiite ordinates are disputes about the sacredness of El Medina. They believe that out of 12 Shiite imams that lived at the 9CE, only one survived and the rest were killed by the Sunnites. Only one survived -the Mahdi, or as dubbed frequently by Shiites "The lord of the time" or the "disappearing imam". They belive that he is still alive, and that through the centuries have passed he remained undercover but will revel himself at the end of the days. The Iranian president Ahmadinejad oftenly refer to him during his public arrivals, and also claimed once that the 12 imam have shown himself to him. The history of Shia and Sunni muslims with each other is blooded (as in Iraq today). As Shiites Muslims mostly lived as a persecuted minority among Sunni muslims along the history, their Fiqh scholars designed 4 rules of thumb as main survival tactics, that according to many orientalists were used extensively by the Iranian regime (Iran is the biggest and most influential Shite, or even Muslim, country):

1. Choda: Make your enemy judge his situation unrealistically-claim he is losing while you are win even when reality is otherwise.

2. Tanaphia: Use the enemy's shortcomings to make benefits-for instance, when fighting democratic societies claim that the enemy slaughter childrens when you know such claim will shock its people and turn them against it.

3. Takiya: pretend that you agree with your enemy and wait for the opportune moment. For instance-when living among hostile Sunni majority.

4. Kataman: deny your actions, intents and even opinnions while you keep striving to achieve them. For instance-the Iranian nuclear project.--Gilisa (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend reading our articles Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. As Gilisa says, the key difference is the difference in belief about who was the rightful successor of Muhammad, his son-in-law Ali and his descendants (hereditary leadership), or the caliphs elected by community leaders (semi-elective leadership based on merit). The split between the two groups led to other differences over the interpretation of the Quran and Islamic law. Marco polo (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
To the OP, if you truely want to understand whats driving the Middle East, or to be more specific, what are the roots to the bloody conflicts between Sunnic and Shiiets Muslims in Iraq, then the questions you should ask are less concern with religious differences (even they do play part) and more to the different ambitions thet the different regional regims have, as well as to their stand in the region and internal political and economical status. There is much order and sense behind this chaos, even if insanity is certainly important factor as well.--Gilisa (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Gilisa is right. Though an understanding of the difference between the two is important in understanding the politics of the Middle East it is far from the whole story; it's equivalent to expecting that knowing the difference between catholic and protestant would enable you to understand the politics of Northern Ireland. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting difference between Christianity and Islam that most Christian schisms have been over relatively esoteric doctrinal-theological issues, while most Muslim schisms were originally about political-legal disputes (i.e. who had the right to lead the overall Muslim community and why). If you want a rough-and-ready guide to understanding the current importance of Shi`ism, then reading up on Ali ibn Talib probably won't help you as much as knowing the following: 1) During the early Arab caliphate period (7th century to 10th century), Shi`ism was a kind of dissident movement or focus of political opposition to the Caliphal Sunni government -- so while today Sunnis tend to look back on the Abbasid period as Islam's golden age, Shi`is consider the Abbasid dynasty to have been illegitimate usurpers. 2) Ever since the rise of the Safavid dynasty in the 16th century, the predominant form of Shi`ism has been the so-called "Twelver" version, and Twelver Shi`ism has become identified with Persian cultural influence and/or Iranian nationalism. 3) A basic building block of Wahhabism (the form of Islam oficially promulgated by the government of Saudi Arabia) is hatred and contempt of Shi`ism, and in the 19th-century, an essential part of the early Wahhabite program was the attempted destruction of all Shi`ite shrine cities or holy places in southern and central Iraq. AnonMoos (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Another challenging geography question[edit]

I am looking for

1. City on the western edge(border of a familiar country) 2. It is also close to the border of another country 3. The city was ruled by both the countries (back and forth) several times 4. Massive construction project completed in mid 19th century gave the local and regional economies a boost

Would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to say Strasbourg, which was ruled alternately by France and Germany over time as part of Alsace, but I'm not sure if that fits all of the conditions.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It was destroyed and rebuilt after the Franco-Prussian War, so maybe that counts. It's on the eastern edge of France though, not the west, unless that means the western edge of Germany. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
In Europe, I can think of three cities that might meet these criteria: Aachen, Gdańsk and Vyborg. Astronaut (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Two other possibilities are Szczecin and Rijeka. Marco polo (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Trieste is another. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Gdansk seems the most likely of the ones that have been suggested so far. Steewi (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I suspect that point 4 in the OP's comments was a clue. Some big construction project finished in the mid-19th century near this place. (A shame that Port Said isn't at the western edge of a country...). If we can work out what this massive construction project was, we'll know the city. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


I have seen a symbol on cars several times here in Central Orange County California and I have searched online and asked people and cannot find an answer to what it is. I have seen it on several occasions. It appears to me to be an "n", followed by a Christian cross, followed by a "w". I believe the "n" and cross may have a circle linking the two. I don't know if it's from an organization or group or what. Any answers would be appreciated.

Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Could there be a reference to North West? —— Shakescene (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Not Of This World clothing [1] Livewireo (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Show trials[edit]

How is it possible that all accused political prisoners in Soviet show trials admitted their "guilt"? I mean, Nazis also held similar trials, but not all of the victims admitted, also in recent times Saddam Hussein was tried but he never admitted and it could be argued that ICTY trials are, in most cases, little more then "show trials". I can understand why people would admit to save their lives, but in Soviet show trials they knew that the death penalty is the only possible outcome, so why would they admit? Surely people like Bukharin had a reputation to worry about (being famous worldwide) and they pretty much knew that they will die no matter what, so what made them admit? It couldnt be just the torture and pain, cause at least some of them would have resisted or admitted to the investigators, but told the truth in front of the media in court. Is there any explanation for this, I couldnt find it anywhere on the internet. I red a book on this issue recently, but its explanation that they felt "its one last sacrifice for their communist ideal" isnt valid in all cases, it does not explain why there were not exemptions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A threat against the family of the accused? Confess or we will torture them all? Maybe they were killed in prison and the "confession" is fake? Just speculation, I have no actual information. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely some were killed in prison, but those who confessed during the public "show trials" did so in the presence of often even western jurnalists. I cant understand why would they admit it all in public, saying things like "I am a fascist" or "I had raped my childrend and conspired to kill Stalin". After all they were all well-known former leaders of USSR. Thats why I cant understand why would they admit to all of those accusations when they had a chance to at least die with the clear name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bukharin, as I recall (though I wasn't born then), was a rare example of a defendant who positively contested his case at trial and didn't confess or give in. But the question of what can induce these confessions and apparent changes of heart goes all the way back to Tudor treason trials and right up to the current show trials in Tehran. Although I haven't read it, I understand that it's the main theme of Arthur Koestler's book and play, Darkness at Noon. The ex-Communist Koestler, as a fellow anti-Stalinist veteran of the Spanish Civil War, was a close friend of George Orwell, who drew upon the Stalinist and Nazi show trials to draw the fictional picture of Winston Smith's conversion in Nineteen Eighty-Four. See also the discussion of similar topics in Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago. A combination of physical torture, disorientation, terrorization, playing upon guilt and political brainwashing seems to produce these effects, but the results (as in Tehran today) while very useful for convincing the already-committed and some naïve outside sympathizers, is often quite counter-productive to sceptics. I've read that the main reaction to seeing the defendants on Iranian TV has been not to what they say but to their stark physical appearance and demeanour after confinement. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Also note that many of the things they are accused of are actually true, in a way. Say the interview goes like this:
"Did you carry out the massacre of the village in question ?"
"Yes, under the direct orders of ..."
Then, in the televised version of the confession, they cut the answer off after the "Yes". StuRat (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
You might be interested in reading the chapter on the Trial of the Twenty-One in Eastern Approaches by Fitzroy Maclean. He was then a junior diplomat, and sat in the courtroom day after day, discussing the trial each evening with other expats. I don't have the book with me, but in at least one case, the accused denied the charges and made a spirited defence for as long as the judge would allow, only to return the following morning a broken man, recanting the previous day's bravado in a robotic voice. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Bukharin admitted as well, according to Wikipedia article he finished his last plea with the words: "the monstrousness of my crime is immeasurable especially in the new stage of struggle of the U.S.S.R. May this trial be the last severe lesson, and may the great might of the U.S.S.R become clear to all".
I understand that physical torture, disorientation, terrorization combined with other methods would break most people, but Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, those were former top Soviet officials, why would they admit when they knew that they will die anyway?
For example, most Nazi at Nurnberg were guilty, but they still defended themselves. Most of the people accused by Stalin were innocent, but they accepted to accuse themselves in front of the whole world. Thanks for the books recommended, I will definitely read them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Read this section: "At first, Zinoviev and Kamenev refused to confess, but after harsh interrogations and threats against their families, they agreed to confess on condition of a direct guarantee from the Politburo that their lives and those of their families and followers would be spared." Stalin seems to have recanted this promise later. The Nazis in the Nuremberg trail were not subject to torture nor threats against their families. Flamarande (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that pretty much answers my question. I guess everyone would confess with his family on line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I would, wouldn't you? Notice that they (Zinoviev, Kamenev, etc) probably knew that they would be executed despite the confession-agreement but perhaps hoped that (most of) their families would be spared. Flamarande (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Robert Conquest's The Great Terror: A Reassessment discusses this topic as well: tortures were often employed until an individual agreed to confess. If you know that you're going to die soon, and it's a question of confessing what you didn't do and being shot quickly or not confessing and dying of torture, you're likely to confess. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sacha Distel[edit]

How many of his songs were featured in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? Ericoides (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Only one, "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head". However the version in the movie was recorded by B. J. Thomas. Sacha Distel covered it later, though his version became more popular in the UK. —Akrabbimtalk 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
In the future, you may want to post music/movie relate questions on the entertainment may get and even faster response. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting me to its existence (although this was plenty fast enough ...) Ericoides (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Burt Bacharach and Hal David would say that none of Sacha Distel's songs were sung in "Butch ... Kid". They wrote the song, and presumably they still own the rights to it. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Victor Hugo's religion[edit]

The article says (in section 1. Life) that he was an atheist, but in another (4. Religious views) that he was always religious but just anti-Catholic and followed rationalist deism - So was he really an atheist as such for a certain period or not, and when? Thanks for help, --AlexSuricata (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The line about being an atheist is a bit confusing in its use of pronouns, but it is referring to Hugo's father (a huge believer in Napoleon). ~ Amory (utc) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you call something that you assume to be true, but it is not a dogma for you?[edit]

Like, if you see a guy beating a woman, he is the criminal. In a car accident, the car which crashed behind the other is at fault. A working hypothesis? Standard assumption?--Mr.K. (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends on context. Definition. Assumption. Hypothesis. Or "probably", "likely". Or. in my case, "oversimplified and not generally true" (but I'm a professional nit-picker). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
"Alleged?" "Standard assumption" and "working hypothesis" are good too. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
circumstantial evidence? heuristic? statistically significant correlation? --Gilisa (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
How about supposition? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
"Presumption" is the usual word in UK law; "rebuttable presumption" if it's possible for evidence to show that the fact presumed is false, "irrebuttable presumption" if it isn't. Tevildo (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I use the word "apparently", meaning it appears to be that way: "The driver apparently at fault was...". StuRat (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are the Elfs of Tolkien[edit]

I have read all of Tolkien's writinigs along time ago and yet I can't drew the conclusion whether they are Scandinavians or from the Netherlands-does anyone have a lead? And seriously, Tolkein implied at least once in the past that there is some connection between the different races he described in his books and races/nations in the real world. --Gilisa (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some connections, for example the Rohan are based on the Celts, if memory serves. I don't think the elves are based on any real world culture, though. They are largely based on real world mythologies, including those from Scandinavia. Elf (Middle-earth) has information on this topic. --Tango (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The inhabitants of Rohan are actually based more on the ancient Anglo-Saxons -- their names and the words of their language as they appear in the Lord of the Rings (holbytlan etc.) are mostly pure Old English. See Section II ("on Translation") to Appendix F of The Return of the King etc... AnonMoos (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I know that kingdom of Rohan is a Celtic kingdom and that the Hobbits are somewhat English people (as Tolkien said himself). I know that Elfs were described already in ancient Scandinavian mythology -but I doubt that Tolkien didn't take the inspiration from real people when he gave the detailed description of their traits, look and etc. In one interview he had he pointed out a connection between few non human races in his book and real nations. So, just out of curiosity, who are the Elfs?--Gilisa (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
See Elf (Middle-earth), but Tolkien didn't literally write the elves as though they were some nation from historical Earth, and of course we know Tolkien cordially detested allegory in all its forms. He did love the Finnish language and the main Elvish language was strongly influenced by, or derived from, Finnish. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Comet Tuttle, In a letter he wrote in 1955 Tolkien spoke out on the dwarfs: " Like Jews they are at once native and aliens in their habitants...Speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue..They guard their language, Khuzdul, as a treasure of the past". He also made somewhat similar comparison between Hobbits and British people. So, I don't think he distest this kind of allgories-even if not explicitly admit them. So, you think that Elfs are of Uralic origin?--Gilisa (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The Elvish languages were inspired by Uralic languages, but I don't think the Elvish people were based on Uralic people. I've certainly seen no mention of that in any of Tolkien's writings (although I'm not as well read on the subject as I'd like to be). --Tango (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Only one Elvish language (Quenya) is based on a Uralic language (Finnish). Sindarin is based largely on Welsh. Algebraist 23:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Quenya is partially based on Finnish sound-structure (phonotactics) -- with the exclusion of umlaut (front rounded) vowels and the addition of certain influences from Latin as well -- but otherwise the resemblances in detail are apparently somewhat limited... AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Just because he didn't intend for any allegory doesn't mean he didn't incorporate real-world parallels into his characters. I think he once stated that the dwarves were based loosely on Jews, but I don't think elves fit into any parallel as strong as that. —Akrabbimtalk 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I am cringing as I read these claims. Tolkien was not writing the Dwarves to be the Jews of Middle-Earth just because he compared one aspect of dwarvish culture to one aspect of Jewish culture. Rohan was not a Middle-Earth version of the Celts. I remember the likening of the Shire to aspects of part of England ... but I'm really uncomfortable with these claims that ME's different races and nations have counterparts on Earth, and you're all going to have to cite better sources than that if you want to sustain your claims. Remember how he hated the claims about LOTR being an anti-Soviet-Union novel. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Tuttle, we are just saying that the Jews and Celts were just some inspirations for Tolkien's races/nations. He did not mean to represent the real-world entities in his stories. As for references, looks like this book is where the Dwarf-Jew claim is from. I don't know about the Rohan-Celt claim (the section at Rohan#Inspiration is mostly OR), but their language seems to be inspired by Old English languages (looks like that is learned from one of his appendices). —Akrabbimtalk 20:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Comet Tuttle, I'm not implying for a direct connection, and to be more specific, the associations Tolkien had are what I'm after. Also, somehow I can't see how he totaly isolated himself from external influence when he wrote a trilogy about an imaginry complete world, with its own languages and etc. As for the Dwarves-it's actually a funny comparison he made, as I can't see too much connection (but I can see a little when comparing between imaginery Khazad-dûm and Jerusalem). What about the people from the east that he described?--Gilisa (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Look, you said Rohan was a Celtic nation, and you asked whether the elves were Scandinavians or Dutch, and are asking "who are the Elfs (sic)". You're indeed asking for, and making assertions about, "direct connections". All I'm asserting is that Tolkien did not write the ME kingdoms and races to correspond to different Earth nations. I never made any assertions about his inspirations or any alleged isolation from historical influence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm pretty much accepting your opinion -I think that you misunderstood me or/and that I didn't explain myself correctly. Anyway, thanks!--Gilisa (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
For the record, Rohan is not a Celtic nation. At all. The Rohirrim are Anglo-Saxons on horses. Algebraist 23:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] The only obvious parallel between the Jews and the Dwarves is their language: Hebrew (along with the rest of the Semitic languages) forms most of its words on three-consonant word roots, and Khuzdul is clearly formed the same way. Since Tolkien was a philologist and familiar enough with Hebrew to be able to participate in translating some of the Old Testament for the Jerusalem Bible, he was clearly familiar with the way that Hebrew worked, so it's quite probable that Khuzdul is based on Hebrew. However, I've never seen anything else that suggests that the Dwarves were "based on" the Jews. Rohan, by the way, was not Anglo-Saxons on horses — I can't remember where (perhaps in the appendicies to The Lord of the Rings), but Tolkien says that they were not at all like the "ancient English". The only direct connection between any real humans and the peoples of Arda is linguistic, between the people of Bëor and the Indo-Europeans: in one of the volumes of The History of Middle-Earth, Christopher Tolkien observes that "Nom" (the name given by the Bëorings, said to be "Wisdom") is clearly an Indo-European word — it's cognate with some Indo-European words for wisdom or knowledge, such as the Greek root we see in "agnostic", one who says that it's impossible to know whether divinity exists. Other than that, there are no peoples in the book who are truly related to actual people. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, more than the language the name of their lost city "Moriah" making a kind of similarity between the Jews, who were living in exile but continue to pray to return to Jerusalem (in which mounth Moriah is) and for the establishment of the third Temple- instead of this was destroyed by the Romans, and the Dwarves. Tolkien was an expert for North European languages (but as he was devoted christian, very scholastic in nature and gifted enough to easily grasp new languages, maybe he also knew some Hebrew as you suggested) and I heard (or read?) once that the Elfish language is based on scandinavian languages.--Gilisa (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The city was named "Moria", not "Moriah", and this was a Sindarin name ("mor" ["black"] + "-ia" ["abyss"]); the Khuzdul name was "Khazad-dum" = "Dwarf-folk mansions". This name fits into the established etymologies — "mor" as a word that means "black" appears many years before the first versions of The Hobbit, in which Moria first appeared. Moreover, to say that the name "Moria" was based on the name of the Temple Mount is as much of a stretch as it would be to say that the name Gondor is based on the name of Gondar, a city in Ethiopia. Nyttend (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I was not refering to the meaning that Tolkien gave to Moria, but to the similarities between the names as they are. You have a point with Gondor.--Gilisa (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

food prices[edit]

Approx how much does a dozen chicken eggs cost in the capitol of Zambia? Googlemeister (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

About the same as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.--Gilisa (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was thniking that you just joked when you posted this question.--Gilisa (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I have a friend who will be going there later and wants to know some basic food prices. Googlemeister (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
This page says that, in 2004, one unit of eggs (I assume that means 1 egg, although it seems a little expensive) cost 3,200 ZMK, which are current rates is 0.69 USD. Our article on the subject says inflation is about 10%, so over the last 5 years I would expect the price to have increased to 5,150 ZMK or 1.11 USD. --Tango (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, while that page was written in 2004, it says the prices are from 2002, so those last numbers should be 6,200 ZMK or 1.35 USD. I am, of course, assuming inflation has been constant and that the price of eggs has followed general inflation figures. I don't have any evidence to confirm or contradict that. --Tango (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One way to find out might be to email one of Zambia's supermarket chains (the main ones seem to be Shoprite and SPAR) and ask directly. Failing that these people might be able to answer your question. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I add this question to the original question of Googlemeister?
Is there any place where one can buy any 5 of the following items for .10 USD each?
1 dozen chicken eggs
1 bread (about 1 lb)
1 lb rice
1 lb potatoes
1 lb fish (any kinds)
1 lb meat
1 lit milk
1 lb vegetable (any kinds)
In Canada, one can buy 5 of these items for a 1.00 USD each where the minimum wage is at least 8 USD. So if one can buy at least 5 items for .10 USD each where the minimum wags is .80 USD, then the living standard is much higher than in Canada; in overall analyses, even a wage of .30 USD. That is, three hours of labor for an average three persons households. I do not know, but it seems 5 of the above items for .10 USD each still possible somewhere. Couchworthy (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Please provide a grocery store advertisement from Canada offering 5 dozen eggs for the equivalent of $1 U.S. I sincerely doubt that is a common retail price, unless it be some giveaway gimmick to attract customers. Ditto for the rest of the items. Very doubtful. Edison (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood - it's $1 each, if you buy 5. It sounds like a special offer - you buy 5 things, you get them cheaper. --Tango (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
In New Zealand, when they're in season, pumpkins can be bought for very low prices. Pretty sure they'd work out at somewhere close to 10cUS per lb at some times of the year. Grutness...wha? 05:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Half kg of pumpkins for 10$ is cheap!? In Israel you can by it for less than 2.50.5$ all along the year.--Gilisa (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
He said 10c which is 0.1 USD. A similar thing happens to apples in parts of the UK, in season you can buy "windfalls" in bulk for less than 10p per kilo. They are not "class one" but are fine when you remove the bruised bits. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
10 penny?--Gilisa (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
10 pence. The plural of penny is pence (although "pennies" is used as the plural of penny when referring to a 1 pence coin). --Tango (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
One pattern seen in many developing countries is high prices at markets that cater to foreigners and much lower prices at markets which cater to locals. However, be aware that using local markets means they may need to be able to haggle in the local language. StuRat (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have traveled in many developing countries (it's the best, without doubt) and you can always pay the local price if you are a bit savvy. For instance -on my first day in Bolivia I paid about 15 Bolivians for a taxi drive that cost about 4-5 Bolivians for the locals. When I returned to the hostel I was accommodated in I asked the clerk what are the real prices of this kind of taxi service and he told me not to pay more than 4-5 Bolivians. In reality, I almost always more than the locals, but only a bit more and not several times the real price. Also, associating with experienced turists groups (e.g., backpackers) who are not after the luxuries in the middle of the jungel may give you a lot of information about best places to buy from, prices and etc. There are also local travel agencies in these countries who will charge you by your country of origin: They just know who is willing to pay what.--Gilisa (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have done some traveling in developing countries. By far the cheapest of these (in my experience) was India. Prices in India for food were lower than in Tanzania, even though Tanzania is a bit poorer on average. In India, 10 US cents works out to about 5 rupees. I think that you could get a pound of rice, potatoes, or local seasonal vegetables for 5 rupees, but all of the protein foods that you mention would cost more than this, generally quite a bit more. I think the only thing you might get in Tanzania for this price would be corn meal and maybe seasonal vegetables in a rural market. Prices in China and Latin America are generally higher than in India or the poorer African countries. Marco polo (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)