Humanities desk
< December 22	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 24 >

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.

December 23

02 Governor's race in Wisconsin

Did Former Governor Thompson support McCallum or his brother? I am very interested in politics and government, so I asked this! Thank you, District Attorney 14:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a source, but I seem to recall that he supported McCallum. I'm not positive, though. --Maxamegalon2000 00:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sex education

Is sex education a human right? Where? Should it be? Rugbyball 16:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion, but many would say yes, in that it's part of education, which they also consider to be a human right, not merely a privilege. Others might not agree, although sex education is certainly critical to control disease, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and poverty, and only a few people are in favor of those things. StuRat 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking whether this is an inalienable right for children: I don't know whether a document such as the League of Nations' Declaration of the Rights of the Child provides more than guidelines (and we don't find sex education specified among them). It might be worth checking whether subsequent bodies dealing with health, education, and welfare have made any progress in this area, and with more authority for enforcement. As far as sex education being among the mandatory elements in a curriculum of studies for public schools – these are adopted by whatever governmental authority operates those schools. -- Deborahjay 05:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the Declaration of Independence and any number of papers issued by the UN, all "rights" are transient social compacts agreed upon by certain people at certain times and there are no universal human rights that transcend this definition. alteripse 16:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC) PS: A large proportion of the world thinks parents have the right to choose what information about sex to provide to their children.[reply]

I can think of several, related reasons for the latter. There are many individuals and entire communities whose belief systems maintain that sex is:

(a) a private matter and inappropriate for discussion in public settings, and
(b) to be practiced only by consenting adults, preferably or even exclusively restricted to a monogamous, heterosexual dyad sanctioned by local laws.

As a result, people holding such beliefs may support the control or outright prohibition of sex education in public schools. They may fear that such knowledge would promote premarital sexual activity rather than strict abstinence. This consideration is viewed with such great concern that it outweighs the possible, often grave risks such as those mentioned above by StuRat-- Deborahjay 19:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people believe that there are universal human rights, which is why various governments and organizations like the United Nations publish papers, make laws, and enumerate lists detailing them. As to parents having the right to choose what information to provide, what happens when this comes up against the child's right to have information? Some parents believe they have the right to physically harm their children; others believe that the child's right to safety and security overrides this. - Eron ^Talk 17:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how each individual reacts to the knowledge. The american system of democracy is not the solution or panacea for this. Excessive dependence on science only eradicates the spiritual side of a human being. 15:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)~

If you eliminate both democracy and science and rely instead on religious leaders to run your country, you end up with something like the Taliban. StuRat 14:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what is sex education? I have never had a blowjob despite being twice married; have never indulged in gay relationships; never engaged in giving or receiving anal sex; never had bestial sex; never indulged in sado-masochistic sex etc., etc., but I know what they involve, despite never having received "formal" sex education in these practices, and only the rudimentary basics of heterosexual human sex. Does my lack of education, experience or even curiousity leave me uneducated - or merely ignorant. And is my straight monogamous sex life to be condemned as a wasted one as a result?

Comparing Taliban to introducing sex education is ridiculous. Dont try to unnecessarily compare freedom to the taliban just because freedom is a gateway to short lived happiness. Iraq is in dire straits with the same stuff of freedom. And The US doesnt take the responsibility of rectifying the mess. Education is a must even for the west. 20:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)~

Asian or Aboriginal?

Are Micronesians considered Asian, Aboriginal or something else? This is a serious question and I am not trying to offend people of either background. I ask because I know a fellow from this area and he said he is not Asian. He said there is a word for his people but he couldn’t remember it at the time. I know Taiwan and Australia still houses a population of aboriginal people. (Ghostexorcist 21:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Austronesians? Skarioffszky 21:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian government departments that deal with indigenous affairs are always careful to make the distinction between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So Torres Strait Islanders, at least, are not considered Aboriginal. --24.175.191.151 17:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Aboriginal" doesn't refer to any specific ethnicity, rather it's used to describe an indigenous people who've been largely outpopulated by the conquest and/or settlement of others from a different place. For example, both the pre-European contact indigenous peoples of Australia as well as the Americas are equally considered "Aboriginal" peoples, yet ethnically, they're completely unrelated. In another completely unrelated part of the world, the Berbers, are, in a sense, the "Aboriginal" peoples of North Africa, before the Arab conquest. Even the British Isles can be said to have an "Aboriginal People", though the matter is quite more complex. For example, prior to the Roman conquest of (part of) Britain in the first century AD, the previous inhabitants can be described as "Aboriginal Britons". Or, if the Germanic invasions culminating in Anglo-Saxon domination in the 5th century is used as a reference point, those Britons who were conquered and overwhelmed by these Germanic peoples can be considered as the "Aboriginal" people of Britain.

Even the Aboriginal people of Australia aren't "ethnically" Aboriginal. Their true "ethnicity" can at best be determined by actually asking them, what ethnicity they consider themselves to be of. Australia being the enormous country it is, surely it's no different than Canada in that its aboriginal peoples are made up of a rather diverse variety of different "ethnicities".

Therefore, in response to the original question, the "ethnicity" of Micronesians cannot possibly be "Aboriginal", as the term "Aboriginal" doesnt refer to any specific ethnicity. What their "ethnicity" actually is, is unfortunately beyond my knowledge. Loomis 01:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity isn't something absolute. That is, a given person isn't necessarily always and only a given ethnicity. For example, an individual might be classified as "Creole" in Louisiana, where she grew up, as "black" or "African American" by white people in the United States (or by others in the United States) who don't know her or who haven't heard of Creoles. The same person would probably be classified as "American" or even "white" if she went to Africa. Ethnicity is dependent upon context. Thus, a person from Micronesia in Australia would not be considered "Aboriginal". Even though that word can mean the "original inhabitants of a place" so that everyone is in some sense aboriginal, and many Australians are aboriginal Britons, "Aboriginal", especially with a capital "A", refers in Australia to the original inhabitants of that continent only. Micronesians are not the original inhabitants of Australia, so they would not consider themselves ethnically Aboriginal. I don't know enough about ethnicity in Australia to know how they would be classified there. In the United States, the government and some non-government people would define them as "Pacific Islanders". However, within Micronesia, a Micronesian would probably be identified ethnically by his or her island of origin. The island of origin is very likely the basis for that person's self-identification. Examples of Micronesian ethnic groups are the Yapese from Yap and the Chuukese from Chuuk. Marco polo 14:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying ethnicity is absolute, I'm just saing that it's a lot more appropriate than "Aboriginal", as even up here in Canada, our indigenous peoples (note the plural) are often referred to as our "Aboriginal Peoples" (note the capital "A"). However, to be fair, the term "Aboriginal", whether in the Australian or Canadian context, is somewhat of an exonym(depite the fact that it's been commonly adopted by Aboriginal peoples themselves, just as many North American Aboriginal very often refer to themselves by that ridiculous misnomer of an exonym "Indians". But ask an "Aboriginal" from around where I live what his or her "ethnicity" is, and s/he'd very likely reply "Iroquois" or "Mohawk" or "Cree". Loomis 13:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to get projects from company/ or making clients?

I started a very small software company.I want to know that how any company make someone his client. I want projects for my company but I don't know where i get it? So, pls help me. I am regular reader of Digit.I don't find any one better to help me. My email <removed> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.187.187 (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

DDB 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Riddle Song (Traditional)

Where did the song come from? How has it developed? I understand it is a lullaby, has it always been? I understand it predates 1700's. Are there Greek or Chinese antecedants? Not to be confused with the Walt Whitman poem.

link The Riddle Song

[G] I gave my love a [C] cherry that has no [G] stone, I [D] gave my love a [G] chicken that has no [D] bone, I gave my love a [G] ring that has no [D] end, I [C] gave my love a [Am] baby with [C] no [G] crying.

How can there be a cherry that has no stone? How can there be a chicken that has no bone? How can there be a ring that has no end? How can there be a baby with no crying?

A cherry, when it's blooming, it has no stone, A chicken when it's pipping, it has no bone, A ring when it's rolling, it has no end, A baby when it's sleeping, has no crying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ddball (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC).Sorry, I'd not signed it. Trying now DDB 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some says it's a "Traditional Appalachian version". Your resarch may end toward places where chicken and cherries did grow and the custom to offer a ring - and have crying babies - was strong. That method was used with a strange success to place indo european origins near the Vistule. -- DLL ^{.. T} 14:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking down folk songs is incredibly difficult with so many versions and are rarely recorded. This seems even more difficult as varying riddles and dialogues are added to many songs and riddles have been popular in english literature since old english. Captain Wedderburn's Courtship and Riddles Wisely Expounded are two early printed examples but similar versions surely go back much further. I certainly don't know of greek or chinese atecedants which seem unlikely although they may have songs of a comparable style. English and Scottish Ballads by Francis James Child mentions the Old Danish Svend Vonved to which is related. meltBanana 00:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you meltbanana and dll. Muchly appreciated DDB 02:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name this book

A friend is trying to find a book she heard about (recently, I would guess) on the BBC. She describes it as "a book (fiction) by a female author, who i think is a reporter, about algerian workers in either the US or the UK. she did some reporting on algerian workers and then decided there was enough material for a book, i guess." Not a very helpful description, I agree, but in the hope that this is a book that's recently had some publicity, can anyone identify it? Thanks · rodii · 00:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor by Lorraine Adams? (Extract) Skarioffszky 10:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, dunno, but thank you! · rodii · 19:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the world seem to hate Saddam Hussein?

Saddam wasn't the nicest guy.

If we replace Saddam's name with any that of any human being you've ever met or known (and also your own name and my own name) then we'll still have a true statement.

What exactly is it about him (not what anyone's saying about him or portrayals of him) that makes him so easy to hate and so hard to love? He's done wrong and for a while he thought he was right. I don't know what he's thinking right now but unless someone tells him that there's still hope and that he can still be loved, there's a chance he might change.

The above paragraph could also be about any human being you've ever met or known (and also you yourself and me myself (except if you're female then you may have to alter the pronouns but that's not a big deal)) and we'd still have a true statement.

So discuss why Saddam is so hated, or perhaps make the choice to show him that there's still hope in the world. Give him a present and hope that that'll cheer him up. Christmas is two days from now. The gifts might arrive late if you send them now, so the sooner you send him a letter/e-mail/bunch of flowers, the better. (and again, you could do this for anyone, not just Saddam) Itrade 14:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see… A wealthy, arrogant, absolute dictator who raped & tortured people for entertainment and killed anyone who disagreed with him (by the thousands) … If you'd like to put your name to that you might be disliked too — regardless, this isn't the place for that sort of philosophical discussion.--Invisifan 16:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I asked why he was hated, not disliked. If he's done wrong, I've done wrong and (You can of course replace John's name for anyone else's in this discussion (I'll just say John because John's a very common name (John and Bob. Most common example dudes)) John's done wrong, then we could still meet up, tell each other about what our last dinner was like and then high five to eating good food. (If: All done wrong; But then: High fives and food are totally sweet)

I posted this because I believe that love ( is firstly a choice, secondly an attitude and finally one of the true messages of Christmas.

I posted this here because I didn't want to move it to the misc help desk just yet. Seeing your response ("regardless, this isn't the place for that sort of philosophical discussion.") I guess I'll move it over there and see what happens. But I'll leave it here, too, because I think Saddam deserves a chance to be loved. Itrade 07:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say it, but I really dont think this is the place to be arguing about Christian ethics, and also whether or not it is right to love or hate Saddam. I say this because neither has any relevance to the article itself. Also, the way in which you gave a bible reference as if it is fact was extremely annoying and preachy, I wouldnt recommend continuing to preach about kindness, "factual" Bible stories are extremely patronising. That said, I agree with what you said to a degree, the fact that he is a murderer shouldn`t detract from the food, so long as he pays the bill. Plebmonk 07:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be straight with you, and not completely buying into the relevence thingy, it isn't hatred or personal between Bush and Hussein (I know you didn't bring the US pres up). The issue is not about hatred. The free Iraqi peoples are testing their new laws out, and they have to be careful. To execute Hussein immediately is justifiable. However, the legal process by which this sentence is to occur needs to be established .. for the sake of other Iraqi peoples.

Nothing we do to Hussein will chgange his mind or his acts. It doesn't matter to the heads of Syria, Iran or North Korea. But how the Iraqi government treats this person is a blueprint for how they treat others .. IMHO DDB 08:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that even as evil dictators go, Saddam was one of the most evil of recent memory. I suggest reading this Atlantic Monthly profile of him. -- Mwalcoff 09:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find that many people do not truly 'hate' Saddam' because it is difficult to have such strong feelings about somebody you do not know/have not met. Nobody is 100% pure evil and so, yes, even Saddam will have 'good' factors and has the possibility to change/atone for his sins. The way he is treated/what the courts do as a result of their actions should not be decided on whether or not he is loved or hated, but on what the justice system says. As someone once said "you go to prison as punishment, not to be punished". Whilst in prison he should be treat no different to other prisoners. Your question is a poor one because the actions of Saddam are not merely something you can say "you have done bad/everybody has done bad" - there are degrees of goodness and bad and whilst nobody is perfect, few people will have brought about a reign of terror and destruction as Saddam. Forgiving is noble and realising the error of your ways is a step on the path to redemption, but it is naive to expect people to be able to forgive such nefarious actions. ny156uk 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love the equivalence of mass murder and repressive dictatorship with how just about everyone "does something wrong" in their life. Yeah, I've done things wrong, but I've never killed thousands of people just because of their political opinions. I think there are some lines which can be drawn. --24.147.86.187 15:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: lots of people have an emotional need for scapegoats, targets of hate, symbols of "evil", etc. It's entirely possible to understand Saddam Hussein as a human being, made in God's image and capable of redemption, but many people find it more gratifying to vilify him. It allows us to say things like "I've done things wrong, but I've never killed thousands," which is more satisfying than saying, "in different circumstances, I could have been that guy". Judging is easy; compassion is hard. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As unsympathetic people go, Saddam has been loved. Even now, there are those who would speak of compassion for Saddam who have nothing but opposition to the US President, Bush. DDB 09:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]