Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 January 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< January 17 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 19 >
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.

January 18[edit]

Indian religions swastika mistake for Nazi[edit]

The Indian religions, example Hinduism and Buddhism, use swastika for peace and good luck for many hundred years. But many Western people hate swastika cause Nazis steal it to use for hate. Wikipedia Swastika article has a bit about Western misinterpretation of Asian use but want to know more. Like how Jewish people feel about Indian religions swastika and they angry at Indians? In the Western countrys any attack on Hindu and Buddhist temples or discrimation to the Hindus and Buddhists cause of swastika? How try to help Western people learn about Indian religions swastika? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses mention the swastika at, paragraph 8.
Wavelength (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC) and 10:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's an interesting essay and comments on the subject.[1]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
For your last question, "How to try to help": some key words are interfaith and outreach. For example, I searched google for /hindu interfaith outreach/, and I found this organization in the USA [2], who try to help "non-Hindus to understand and appreciate the seemingly unfamiliar religions of the East." So, if you search for Hindu or Buddhist "outreach" in your country or other specific location, you will probably find organizations who want to help people of different faiths and traditions understand each other and get along in harmony. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Note that's it's not the only thing that we now see in a bad light, as a result of the Nazis. The toothbrush mustache, the name Adolph, and eugenics all got a really bad name. Probably time is needed for them to return to their formal status, although by then eugenics may be moot, having been replaced by genetic engineering. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Please tell me you're joking about eugenics here, Poe's law being what it is... --Jayron32 02:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I really hope Stu recognizes the difference between 1920s "Let's kill or sterilize everyone who doesn't look like us, because we are clearly the superior race", and the modern era's "Let's help parents decide if they'd like to have biological children by giving them the best possible information about their likely health." There's a reason people aren't keen to bring back the term. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the genocidal version of eugenics made the sensible parts, like offering free sterilization to people who are carriers of severe genetic diseases, seem like it was genocide, too. But since we will soon be able to remove those genetic diseases through gene therapy, there's no longer the need. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Bear in mind that Nazi-style "kill anyone not of our race or otherwise not like us" was merely the most extreme of a lot of very bad ideas that came out of the eugenics movement. Even supposedly liberal societies were forcibly or exploitatively sterilizing people for somehow not meeting the approval of the people in charge of the sterilization. Plus, much of it was based on really bad (pseudo)science as well. There may well be a valid role for some "eugenics-like" policies, but they would be so far removed from anything like the traditional practice that it probably would be inaccurate to actually call them eugenics. Iapetus (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, thanks for the essay and is the only good answer. SemanticMantis, very important for outreach to help people with all religions get along, but is like too big for my question about Indian swastika mistake for Nazi swastika. Wavelength and StuRat, what is the link to my question? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Curious Cat, I can't provide references, but as an elderly (UK) Westerner (with some Jewish connections and an interest in World religions) I do not recall ever seeing a news report in the UK about an eastern good luck swastika being mistaken for Nazi support, so it can't be very common (or my memory is worse that I thought). It does sometimes happen that swastikas are daubed on temples (as well as synagogues or other buildings) by racist neo-nazis or displayed by immature people wanting to shock and offend. Most Western people, in my experience, know about the swastika's more ancient meaning and of the Nazis' misappropriation of it, and Jews are especially well aware of this.
Incidentally, the very similar fylfot was historically used in the West long before the Nazis, and while it is now sometimes discreetly removed to avoid unpleasant associations (for example, from the sign on the pub near my house called The Chamberlayne Arms, whose heraldic coat of arms contained several), few if any would confuse its appearance with support for the Nazis. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The link is in the conclusion, that it just takes time. We will soon be at the point where nobody living will have memories of Nazis, and that will decrease the intensity of the collective memory, but we do still have many pictures and films to remind us. Eventually, as more recent events distract us from those "ancient" events, we will forget about them and all their associations. StuRat (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Eugenics was a prog thing before it was a Nazi thing. Asmrulz (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
It also had a stark class character. (New England SWPLs vs rural badwhites) Asmrulz (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The UK Scout Association's Thanks Badge (an award for non-Scouting adults who had helped the movement in some way) took the form of a Hindu style swastika or fylfot from 1908 until 1935 when the symbol's association with Nazism had overridden any previous meanings. It now looks like this. Alansplodge (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

So many answers are not about my question or link not clear. Thanks --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

quote is bugging me[edit]

Tried Googling it, this opening line is stuck in my head "The Duchess of Kent shot a lion across the river there, just this side of the kop." Anyone know the book?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If you google "The Duchess of Kent shot alionacrossthe riverthere" (with those four missing spaces) you'll find a link to Ten Minutes to Turn the Devil by Douglas Hurd, but I can't read the actual text. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Plank roads[edit]

In both the articles Plank Road and Plank Road Boom, this text appears "Three plank roads, the Hackensack, the Paterson, and the Newark, were major arteries in northern New Jersey. The roads travelled over the New Jersey Meadowlands, connecting the cities for which they were named to the Hudson River waterfront," yet in both, there is no citation that mentions that. Can anyone find a source for this? Eddie891 (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles titled Paterson Plank Road, Hackensack Plank Road, and Newark Plank Road that have probably enough sourcing to support such a statement. That is, the statement is likely reliable, though there is not a specific cite in those two articles. If you were looking to improve those two article, the best thing would be to review the source text from the road articles, and find sources to support the statement. --Jayron32 23:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)