Humanities desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

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.

May 28[edit]

League of Nations[edit]

The League was funded by its member states and I understand the motive for smaller states to pay for membership (the security advantages, financial assistance etc.), however, what was the motive for larger countries to pay for the membership (eg. France and Britain) as the majority of the budget goes to helping smaller countries and doesn’t return to them. It seemed as if it was a one way process and am I right in saying this could be seen in the United Nationa as well? Thanks Willbb234 (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peace? Collective security? Savings on armaments? Global influence? Prestige? Honouring treaty commitments? Take your pick. DuncanHill (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the League of Nations didn't achieve peace, the peace settlements of the early '30s were largely ignored. Secondly, the League of Nations didn't have a global presence, especially as the United States weren't even a member. Another global superpower, the USSR, only joined in 1934, 14 years after the creation. The League didn't have a military presence and it used member states militaries meaning there was a demand for MORE armaments. I expect you're referring to the United Nations in your answer, but that wasn't my main question. Regards Willbb234 (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the League. That is ultimately failed was not a reason not to join in the first place - unless you believe it is possible to make a decision in 1919 based on information only available ten or twenty years later! The USA failed to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, but both the UK and France did ratify, and the League was part of their obligations under the Treaty. The intentions of the League were peace, security, disarmament (another Treaty obligation). That is why France and Britain joined. DuncanHill (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the USSR wasn't a "global superpower" even in 1934. In 1919 Russia was in chaos, and would be for a few years after. DuncanHill (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was clear pretty soon after that the Treaty of Versailles was flawed and too harsh on the defeated nations of WW1. I wouldn’t expect the member nations would have wanted to honour the Treaty as it clearly was the wrong decision, reinforced by the Young Plan in 1929 Willbb234 (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So abandon the peace treaty and go back to war? Britain was being squeezed by the Americans over War Debts, the French had lost a generation, and Germany was a basket case. In diplomacy one works with what one's got. The horrors of the War were very present in the minds of politicians, and electorates, throughout the 20's and 30's. The League was an attempt to prevent a repetition. It wasn't perfect (but no human endeavour ever is), and ultimately it failed, but it was an attempt and it was seen at the time as worth it. The Treaty always envisaged the possibility of altering Reparations payments, indeed the Treaty did not set any figure for Reparations, leaving that to be worked out later. DuncanHill (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Willbb234 -- In the 1920s, France was very conscious of the fact that the war had been fought on its territory, and a very significant proportion of its young men had died, plus it owed war debts to the United States. The Treaty of Versailles could not have been repudiated without some kind of replacement for the war reparations that France expected from Germany, or France would have become a very discontented power... AnonMoos (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Willbb234 -- In the 1920s and 1930s, there were a lot fewer independent states than there are now (the "third world" in the 1920s was basically mainland Latin America, Liberia, Abyssinia, Persia, Siam, and China).

A lot of people in the United States have asked what the U.S. is getting from its proportionately large United Nations dues ever since the rise of "third-worldism" in the 1970s, signaled by the infamous United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, but the U.S. is unlikely to withdraw, since that would mean giving up its UN Security Council veto... AnonMoos (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine[edit]

In the article United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine there is a map of Israel. I have two questions in relation to this. Firstly, were the two parts of the Jewish State or the Arab State connected near Qaustina; Isbud and Faluja, just east of Jerusalem, and how was this zone planned to be governed, and controlled when viewed with the consideration of the already heightened tensions on the region at the time? Secondly, I seem able to find the aforementioned cities on any modern map (Google). Why is this? I would have thought that they would have been renamed but looking at a satellite view I can't see that there is anything but farm land in their vicinity. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qastina, Isdud and Faluja are west, not east, of Jerusalem. Isdud is Ashdod, Qastina was depopulated in the 1948 War, as was Al-Faluja. DuncanHill (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

81.131.40.58 -- the partition plan was for two states, each with less than full 100% sovereignty, and in "economic union" with each other. For that purpose, no attention was paid to military defensibility when drawing the partition boundaries, and the territories assigned to each of the two states were only quasi-contiguous, with two four-way cross-over points or "junctions" -- one west of Jerusalem, northeast of Gaza, and south of Tel Aviv, while the other was in the Galilee. The plan could only work -- and was only intended to work -- if there was no full-scale war. Starting a war meant flushing the 1947 plan straight down the toilet (something which didn't bother the Arabs at all in 1948-1949, but which a few of the more clear-sighted and honest ones have since regretted...). AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

amorites as semites rather than hamites/Canaanites[edit]

Dear Wikipedia: Let me first say thanks so very much as I have found your data indispensable.

However, you may be perpetuating a racial thesis used to justify slavery and also compromise historical accuracies. In searching Canaan, the page list the Amorites as descendants of his son Amor. When one clicks on Amor it immediately goes to Amorites as Semites. How can a son of Ham instantaneously become no longer a Hamite but a Semite. This is worse than the western world's refusal to call the Sumerians Hamites as it would put the lie to their justification of slavery. So instead they invent the term pre-Semitic. In this day and age, isn't it time to start undoing historical lies, inaccuracies and omissions? This is the only problem that I have ever had with Wikipedia. Cordially' dwight -- 28 May 2019 2600:1700:cc20:3d60:655a:7f4c:d7a6:80e0

Are you using the term "Semite" to refer to the biblical accounts of the decedents of Shem or are you using it in the sense of Semitic languages? Because those are two different usages. One refers to a story from the bible, and another refers to linguistic relationships between languages. Those are not the same usage. Linguists don't really use bible stories when characterizing languages. --Jayron 32 16:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1700:cc20:3d60:655a:7f4c:d7a6:80e0 aka "dwight" -- Canaan is described as a son of Ham in the Tabula Gentium in the Bible because the ancient Canaanites were enemies of the ancient Hebrews, so that authors of the Bible wanted to associate them with the curse of Noah against Ham. (There was nothing racial about this in the modern sense, however...) In linguistic usage, the Canaanite language group actually includes Hebrew! "Hamite" has never had any very definite or valid meaning as a modern term for classifying peoples and languages -- the so-called "Hamitic" languages were all the branches of the Afroasiatic languages other than Semitic (probably not a valid linguistic grouping). I don't know what calling Sumerians "Hamites" would even mean... AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have an article on the term Hamites, but also notes that linguists and anthropologists and people who study cultures don't actually use the term anymore, since the grouping has little use in describing relationships between languages and cultures. Regarding the Sumerian language, it is described as a language isolate, which means that linguists are unable to draw any meaningful close connections to any other languages. --Jayron 32 18:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]