Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 July 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.

July 13

English royal succession discrepency

Request comments:

Under Act of Parliament 1331, foreign title holders not born in England are not part of the royal line of succession. This not only barred the Portuguese allied Lancastrian heirs of Edward III (which included Henry the Navigator), but was reason for Henry VIII to bar the Scottish line via Margaret from succeeding Elizabeth, also should have been enough to keep Philip of Spain, William of Orange as well as Hanoverian descendants off of the throne, in self interest, rather than jure uxoris.

Foreign-born were, in order, from Denmark (Sweyn Forkbeard), then Hungary (Edgar Aetheling), Scotland (St. Margaret), Rome (Henry IV, Salian emperor), France (William the Conqueror), Acre (Princess Joan), Wales (Edward II), Portugal (Edward/Duarte of Portugal), etc. with repetitions from these nations, interwoven for the line of primogeniture.

I'm just digging now to see the Edwardian Portuguese line, considering the ancient alliance and it being the most recent foreign origin of royal blood, before the hypocritical & typical Tudor "approval" for interjection of the Scottish James VI on the basis of contrived religious policy, followed later with his foreign heirs, most of which, like James himself, were originally non-Anglo-Protestants, much less Anglo-Catholics. There was a vague accessory hope for uniting the two kingdoms into a more powerful "Britain", by allowing the Scottish male line to succeed in England, rather than the English male line to succeed in Scotland. (the Scots would never allow a reverse) A similar set of unions were to follow, under the Hanoverians, when the "official" construction of "Britain" occurred, or at least confirmed by Parliament, designer and architect of Protestant unifications, through the machinations of the Lords Cromwell, whether the Earl of Essex or his nephew the Lord Protector and their Prime Minister followers.

what's the question? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping for an analysis of the nativist legislation, before and after the unions and adoption of Protestantism. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty working through all your rhetorical flourishes to find the basic meaning, but having a foreigner come to rule one's country would seem to be a legitimate political concern in most contexts. However, in the post-medieval period foreign monarchs did in fact ascend to rule over England in 1603 (James I, Scottish), 1689 (William III, Dutch), and 1714 (George I, German)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the value of such legislation as the 1331 act of parliament and the succession act of Henry VIII, which bar foreigners, if Parliament simply overrides the code, without actually eliminating it? What present legal status is afforded legislation which has never been abolished? How else to put it, than a government which acts as if it is above its own laws? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your analysis that Edward II was foreign-born, as England had annexed Wales by 1331 and made it part of England. I suspect the answer to your question lies in the English Reformation somewhere: if Henry VIII (or Elizabeth) had passed an edict saying only non-Catholics were eligible to take the throne, this may have included the intent that the 1331 law be rescinded. I'm also not sure of your point about the English male line taking over in Scotland: surely the point was that there was no English line of succession full stop so the question is not relevant. I would also point out that, until the English Revolution in the 1650s, Parliament was not the supreme legislator in this country: the King could still demand that his Subjects obey his own laws, and not those passed by Parliament. This was the very thing that got Charles I beheaded.--TammyMoet (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How did Parliament override both the 1331 act and the Henrician succession acts (both of which were exclusionary), to import James and all the others in his wake, all the while presenting their case as though it was nativist, vis a vis Philip of Spain, or even the old French dynasties? If you point to the Reformation, then that is a further cause of inquiry: how do German ministers become more natural and customary than Roman priests, except by a coup d'etat via the "fidei defensor"? In addition, I wonder how you could say that the Tudors themselves were not a Parliamentarian faction which was supported by dissidents to overthrow the legitimate monarchy, with arguments similar to Simon de Montfort (rebellions can come from the Lords, not just Commons)? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I go back to the point that to all intents and purposes, the monarch during the 16th century was an absolute one, possibly as a legacy of the Wars of the Roses. Parliament was not as authoritative as you seem to think it was during this time: the monarch could do as he or she pleased and quite often did. An example of this was indeed the Reformation, which led to the Dissolution of the Monasteries, which was imposed on England by Henry VIII. Even though Parliament passed an Act making him Supreme Head of the Church, if they hadn't he had the power to have them all beheaded! Henry VIII was given the title of "fidei defensor" by the Pope before the schism with Rome, but chose to keep it after the schism to illustrate his defence of the new "true faith". The Act of Succession 1543 is the act that excluded Margaret Tudor's heirs in Scotland from succeeding, and I suspect that's the Act you're thinking of. However, James I's claims were not from Margaret Tudor, but via Lord Darnley, who was descended from Henry VII. Another thing you seem to discount was the antipathy between England and France/Spain, against whom we had fought wars for centuries - remember the Spanish Armada? the Hundred Years War? The schism with Rome was the event which crystallised the self-identity of England, and polarised thought against Catholic countries. The overriding concern during the 16th and 17th centuries was that no Catholic should ever rule England, and this is what drove succession policy. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That argument ignores the facts of the time. Protestantism in England was foisted by the new Lords (the reviled "new men"), those of whom had recently been part of mercantile links established on par with Richard II's imperial marriage to the Luxembourg dynasty and the Lollard connection to the Hussites...all of which was a result of the Black Death's ramifications. The majority of England was Catholic and so the Plantagenet lineage remained, even through Beaufort bastardy. It was the Parliamentarian betrayal of Richard III with an attainted earl that really set the course of future events along the same lines of a cultural revolution imposed from above. Most of England welcomed Papal support for their devotion, although they of course felt divided consciences and sentiments when their ex-king Philip would be somebody they'd have to fight and it would doom their cause. After all, England provided its own Pope (which gave them Ireland), Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Peter's Pence, Crusading troops and kings beginning even with the West Saxon dynasty and a royal family heavily invested in the affairs of Europe, such as Sicily, Castile, Germany, Cyprus and even Jerusalem itself. It can hardly be the Royal Family's own ambition to undo all they worked for so hard and long to achieve! It meant England would be shut out of Europe and Christendom by its own doing, through the machinations of private greed made national obsession. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If I understand what you're saying correctly, then perhaps the answer is that a family dynasty is sometimes more important than a nationality. James of Scotland became king because he was related to Elizabeth; the fact that he was Scottish was secondary. Same with the Hanoverians later, it didn't matter that they were German, only that they were the next closest bloodline. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You've got the right idea with your last sentence. Henry VIII indeed wanted to break away from Europe and Christendom if it meant he could marry Anne Boleyn, and the Spanish Armada ensured that Elizabeth reinforced the English national identity by means of her famous speech. When England provided a Pope it was 400 years before the Tudors: we'd had at least one civil war by that time and were on the way to another. Where I think your argument fails is its presumption that there was a concensus operating in England throughout those 400 years. History shows that there definitely wasn't. There were a number of families who all fancied a go at ruling England, and through marriage most of them were entitled to. By the time of James I's accession, most if not all Europeanism had died in England, as a result of the Protestant revolution (however it came about). To answer the question of why the Hanoverians were invited to take over the monarchy, the keystone is Protestantism and the extreme antipathy with which all Catholic countries were regarded. After the death of Anne, the last remaining Stuart monarch, there was very little choice available to the English Parliament - who, after all, had reinvented itself after the Commonwealth and didn't want to go back to being a Republic. That was within living memory, whereas all the things you mention (English Pope, Crusades...) were centuries old. So going to Anne's second cousin, because of his descent from the House of Stuart and his Protestantism, was the only real choice they had, having already deposed one king for his Catholicism. The Act of Settlement 1701 ensured that no Catholic would become the monarch of Great Britain. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, if only that made sense. There was a consensus about England's constitution and it was broken by the "new men", whom were considered evil by rich and poor alike. These "new men" slowly overturned the nation's course during the Wars of the Roses, seizing their opportunity as the nation was distracted by royal melodrama. These "new men" were civil servants who introduced bureaucracy as a way of life and means to all ends, being the bedrock behind modern day political systems. It was funded by pilfering from ecclesiastic institutions across the land, against the freedom of religion and conscience, mostly because they themselves didn't have either in one bone of their body. Another thing...you see, anti-Continentalism cannot make sense if your dynasties come from Europe! How blind can the people be made to be? It's like how the Nazis claimed to be White Supremacist and "Indo-Germanic" in particular, but their affection for the Japanese "honourary Aryans" (not that Indo-Aryan culture or heritage is European anyways, but the linguo-fascists never stop the perversion of science through racism, to appropriate foreign culture as its own) is continued by neo-nazis today who, whilst hating Jews and Blacks, find nothing but greatness in the IQ scores of NE Asians. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Stuarts were a curious choice (wolves in sheeps' clothing), including the above mention of Lord Darnley, sharing the same Tudor line as his wife. The Franco-Scottish Auld Alliance can be said to have triumphed over England and Portugal, for the combined forces of the Tudor lineage in both Mary Stewart and Henry Stuart, in the body of James, thoroughly swept away the old order, which Henry VII and VIII frantically tried to stamp out (having been traitors ever since Owen and Katherine of Valois tied the knot). Mary married Francis II and Darnley was heir to the Aubigny tradition of the Stuarts' privileged comfort with the Parisian-ruled French (ie the Capetian dynasty and offshoots), which the old Royals were explicitly against, as warming up to that partisanship of France meant canceling out the claim of Edward III, through the body of the Stuart house, always on comfortable terms with the Bourbons. Even though this was obviously enough to earn an ouster of their position on the Throne with James II, inviting all the Germans in would only please those who engineered, or profited from the changes wrought by Cranmer, Cromwell and all others with Hanseatic kontor or other ties to Saxony. This is obviously Parliament, champion of its own liberties and jealous of any royal dictation, citing some obscure Anglo-Saxonism which hardly existed before expedient excuses were wanting. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the compelling thing here is that the 1331 act is from 1331 and thus likely overridden by later Acts of Parliament. Over time, Parliament essentially established that it could do whatever the heck it darned well pleased with regards to the Monarchy; even when it gave lipservice to acting constitutionally, it's always generally been an after-the-fact justification. This is not to say that Parliament acts arbitrarily in these matters, but it is clear that when it comes down to it, they are fully willing to forgo ancient laws to reach a pragmatic solution which is for the best of the country. See Glorious Revolution... --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, except that Parliament invents protests of Royal powers, such as the contest over ship money during the Cromwellian Rebellion. Unlike the old order, which had well understood precepts, the new order plucked them out of thin air. That's what activist reformers do towards building a "pragmatic solution". It's almost as if the Royal families could be used and abused solely to afford Lutheran aims. One step from a Catholic constitution, to one with Lollard questions, to another which was officially schismatic, to uniting with a Genevan nation, to have the final construct of a Lutheran establishment, alien in both King and Parliament. I can hardly avoid seeing a common cause with the "British Revolution" aka American Independence (a domestic squabble fought overseas). 70.171.239.21 (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Was that a long whinge about parliament?? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are brainwashed into conformity by their propagandas wherever the Monarchy is concerned, but for all other purposes, you have either no opinion, or simply think they're rotten politicians, like any other? Perhaps you could provide a more substantial reply on par with those others here? They have had numerous important things to point out, but all you do is complain, twice. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well kudos to you for refusing to follow conventional wisdom. But I suspect that you are arguing from your prejudices. Come clean then: are you a Portuguese Catholic? Are you a pretender to the throne? Are you a revolutionary? Or are you just trying to use the RefDesk for an argument? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, woe is me for choosing to be devil's advocate. If only enough English people wouldn't allow themselves to be used as fodder for the rabble rousers, the puppet masters who always are actually against them. This self-deception is very odd and extremely tired, a coping skill used by the helpless and hapless English who are forced to put up with issues beyond their control. English pride means nothing ever since we lost France and were in turn, taken over by a Tudor fifth column who passed on their prize to the Scots, who continued on allying themselves against the English people, with their enemies in France and Geneva, passing the country further out of the hands of the natives upon the Hanoverian settlement, which meant it was never going to be normal again. Hey, if you want to object to criticism of those whose nativist rhetoric doesn't match up with their actions putting it to manifest, then perhaps you prefer the delusion and don't want to be reminded that the world's not all roses, that Merrie Englande isn't the product of Whig history and "progression". 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, not a debating society, not a soap box, guys? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You have had nothing important to contribute, a critic from the start. This is your third belly-aching. Come now, if you could have provided something intelligent, then three strikes and you're out now. Don't add anything more to disrupt the discussion. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Those were three reminders that the reference desk is not a debating society, not a soap box. If a debate is what you are after, as you seem to have made clear - please go find an internet discussion forum. There are plenty out there. This isn't one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

English translation for chain of law, police and forensic scientists

Hi all,

I'm looking for a nice translation of the Dutch word strafrechtsketen, or if that doesn't exist, ketenpartner. The word strafrechtsketen means something like "the chain of cooperating instances in law and order, like police, forensic institutes and law enforcement" or maybe something like "chain of criminal law"? The word ketenpartner might be translated as something like "chain of cooperating instances", or "partner in the chain". I would be very pleased if someone could help me with the correct word, since neither of them can be found in my dictionary.

Regards, 159.46.2.67 (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The language reference desk is probably a better place to ask this question. Red Act (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that (didn't know wiki had any). 159.46.2.67 (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you be referring to the chain of custody? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Two famous African Americans

From CNN: "They were the two most famous African-Americans in the world: President Barack Obama and Michael Jackson." Is Martin Luther King not one of the two most famous African-American?--Quest09 (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they meant the ones with the most world-wide publicity on a given day? The most photos in that day's media circus? Certainly Martin Luther King's legacy is more important than Michael Jackson's, and will live on a lot longer....in fact if it were not for King it is unlikely Obama would be President today. Put it down to stupid TV hype. - 125.63.156.249 (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think MJ probably is more famous than MLK, both inside and outside the US. MLK’s legacy is clearly more important and long-lasting, but a living entertainer, that’s been in the news a lot in recent decades, is going to be recognized by more people than a civil rights leader who’s been dead for 41 years, that a lot of youngsters will only know about from history class. MLK is certainly well-known to the intellectual elite, but MJ is part of the modern US pop culture that inundates everybody on the planet. Red Act (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the CNN quote is in the past tense ("they were the two most famous", and not are the two most famous), the meaning seems to be that Jackson and Obama were the two most famous living African Americans, but are no longer, now that Jackson is dead. It was once often claimed that Muhammad Ali was the most famous living black American; maybe he's back at #2, though I think Oprah and Will Smith are on the short list. —Kevin Myers 12:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If Google hits are any indication of fame, it's 17 million for MLK, 208 million for MJ. --Sean 13:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It is rather American-centric to assume that a very important person in American history would be more known worldwide than a person who has spent the last 20 years breaking album records and doing sold-out shows all around the world. For example, Olusegun Obasanjo is an extremely important person in Nigeria and every person in Nigeria knows who he is. However, he is not well-known everywhere in the world. -- kainaw™ 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The question specifically regards "African-Americans"; Olusegun Obasanjo is not African-American. 87.114.25.180 (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kainaw was illustrating his point with that example, not answering the question. Algebraist 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

During his heyday, Muhammad Ali was the most recognized person on the planet. I suspect Michael Jordon shared the same honour at the peak of his career. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And did they base this on any poll? If not, this is just some journalist own's thoughts, hardly worth debating. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Does "Pele", the brazilian soccer player qualify as Afro American?--Radh (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the term "African American" is ever used to refer to residents of any parts of the Americas other than the United States, is it? Wikipedia's definition at African American is "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa," but that is referenced to the United States Census Bureau so it doesn't necessarily cover usage of the term outside of the USA. --Stormie (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots of hyperbole and recentism. A music critic in the 1950's called trumpeter Louis Armstrong "the most famous man in the world" after tours of various countries. Muhammad Ali was in the 1970's "without question the most famous African American in history" per "The concise Oxford companion to African American literature" (2001) [1]. Strangely, W.E.B DuBois was also ""the nation's most famous African American." per "Metropolis in the making" (2001) [2]. Frederick Douglass was "the most famous African American of the 19th century" per "The Cambridge companion to the African American slave narrative" (2007) [3]. Booker T Washington was also "the most famous African American" in the late 19th century per "An African American miscellany selections from a quarter century of ...‎"(1996) [4]. A number of others were the most famous African American painter, poet, novelist, classical dancer, song and dance man, athlete, female impersonator, clergyman, activist, scientist, or jockey. "Most famous African American athlete" changes quite frequently." Jesse Owens to Jackie Robinson to Magic Johnson to Michael Jordan to whomever, with many in between. Ditto with recentism as to "Most famous African American entertainer" especially in crossover audience. Consider Louis Armstrong, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Nat "King" Cole, Ray Charles many rock musicians, eventually Michael Jackson. Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth were "arguably 'the most famous African-American women of the 19th century.' per "Harriet Tubman" (2007). Absent scientific public opinion surveys, it is the writer's opinion. Edison (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Peace with Italy

I remember hearing something about different projects regarding the new boundary between Italy and Jugoslavia after WWII, but there are no mentions about it in this article or anywhere else on Wikipedia (as far as I know). For example I recall that Russia asked for a larger italian area to be annexed to Jugoslavia. I'd like to find somethig about it. --151.51.50.16 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Osimo may be of some interest to you. 87.114.25.180 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I was actually referring to ipotetical projects proposed just after WWII. The Treaty of Osimo is dated 1975. --151.51.2.141 (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ra-Horakhty

Hi, could someone please explain the link between Horus and the name Ra-Horakhty? If you also provide a good reference I will try to add it to the Horus article. At present the Ancient Egyptian Religion template lists a Ra-Horakhty link beside the Ra link and it redirects to Horus. There is no explaination or mention of Ra-Horakhty on Horus so it would be interesting to know exactly... ~ R.T.G 14:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking for reliable sources, I found this brief mention. I don't know if this is reliable, but it says that Ra-Horakhty means "Ra (is) Horus of the Horizon". See also this. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually those sources were telling me that Ra-Horakhty was a combined form of Ra and Horus. As it is not simply a different name for the same thing I will just consult the page before changing anything. Thanks, Who then was a gentleman. ~ R.T.G 01:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Terminology for Early Schools

What is the proper terminology for the early Greek schools? I am writing a paper and I want to refer to the concept of a mentor-student relationship in a college setting (similar to Socrates-Plato). It is a one-on-one relationship but it is not a technical school apprenticeship. The mentor does not teach the student to replace him. The mentor guides the student in the student's area(s) of study. -- kainaw™ 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with mentorship? Tutoring also seems to work; a tutor is a one-on-one instructor who does pretty much what you describe. I would say that one of those fits the bill. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The head of the school, either literally or in a more abstract philosophical sense, was the scholarch. One actual physical school was the Academy of Plato. For younger students there was also the gymnasium, and hence the leader of that school was the gymnasiarch. See also Education in ancient Greece. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I searched for an article about the education system in early Greece, but didn't expect it to have such an obvious name. -- kainaw™ 02:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wittgenstein and pragmat(ic)ism

In the article pragmatism it is stated that Stephen Toulmin calls Wittgenstein "a pragmatist of a sophisticated kind". I feel attracted to both pragmatism and later Wittgenstein. Therefore, I would like to ask (as a layperson, not a philosopher) what exactly are the connections and possibly influences between pragmatism and Wittgenstein. Samulili (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1 possible answer might be: Late Wittgensteinianism is a kind of Lebensphilosophie. 2. More technical: the focus on the use of language (understood by W. in a strongly non-behaviorist way).--Radh (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Googgled: W. did not want to be called a pragmatist, but read a lot of William James and seems to have liked him.--Radh (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Van Gogh painting

According to this picture's caption and a sign visible in the picture, this is a van Gogh painting. Did he really complete such a large painting? Or is it perhaps a reproduction of one of his works? I know nothing of his works, so I don't know where to look to find for myself. Nyttend (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That original painting (Sunflowers, first version) by Van Gogh was Oil on canvas, 73.5 × 60 cm, so this is a reproduction. Googlemeister (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And of course we have an article: Sunflowers (series of paintings). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

General half race families

Usually in half race families if half race is half Native Americans half Mexicians is usual mother side white or Native American or is geneal father side Native American. I know when I use to go to Chinese school, general half Asian family is father being Native American, while on mother side is Chinese. For half black family generally on father side is black, but mother side is white, example of Barack Obama. What about Indian family, in general of half Arabic family is father or mother side being white?--69.226.33.240 (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This article (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/interractab1.txt) has the information you want. (added in...sorry linked directly to the data, it's from this page http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/interrace.html) ny156uk (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a fantastic link Ny. Fascinating and thought provoking results. 86.140.144.220 (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is US Census data, though, and I would hesitate to apply the results to other world populations. // BL \\ (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I didn't know Native American-Asian families were that common. I would have thought that White-Asian or even Black-Asian would be more common. Out of curiosity, OP, where in the US (I'm assuming this is the US we are talking about) was this? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• White/Asian families is commons. In general is white husband APL wife. On of my neighbors is like that. One of my math teacher is asian but her husband is white.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)