Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 July 14

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 14

Cultural migration/adoption

I'm curious to know of some examples throughout history where conquerors ended up assimilating some or much of the culture of the people they conquered (as a brief example, when the Manchus overthrew the Ming dynasty and established their own, many Manchu women wore heels designed to imitate the bound feet of the Han ladies). Thanks.

It's controversial, but you could say that happened with the Normans in post-1066 England. There are examples of Roman writers bemoaning that Romans were picking up too much of the cultures that they had conquered, for example Celtic trousers instead of tunics and togas. I think Strabo was one of those writers. Steewi (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The crusaders were often considered by Europeans to have adopted a lavish, oriental lifestyle. There is one story where they sent ambassadors to Europe to beg for money and military aid, but they were dressed in flashy eastern clothes and didn't seem to need any money, so no one bothered to help. A more obvious example is probably the Germanic tribes who conquered the Roman Empire, they were almost entirely Romanized and even abandoned their own languages for Latin. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Romans copied many aspects of Greek culture following the conquest of Greece (see Roman Empire#Culture). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not too sure about your quoted example. Throughout the Qing Dynasty period, foot binding for Manchus was forbidden by imperial law.

But similar examples from Chinese history may include the other non-Han ruling ethnicities of China, who adopted Han culture and practices to a greater or lesser degree - examples including the Mongols, the Khitans, the Jurchens.

The adoption of mounted archery by the King Wuling of Zhao in the Warring States period from the HunsXiongnu was the first appearance of mounted cavalry in China.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a type of "going native" I suppose. Googling that might help. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Some people never feel cold?

In the very cold places of the world, the inhabitants still know what it's like to feel warm. They make fires and insulate their bodies and most of them now have heated houses and dwellings. However, in the tropics, is it possible someone could live his or her entire life without ever sensing coldness? There are places like the Dallol Depression in Ethiopia where the average temperature is over 90 F. What are some examples of cold things one could experience in a tropical place that is hot all year? 71.227.1.59 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fever often is accompanied by chills, and is everywhere that people are. There is also relative cold. For a bit of OR, I had a house guest (in southern Ontario) from Belize who needed to borrow a ski jacket every time the temperature went below about 22 degress C. The rest of us were walking about in short-sleeved shirts and shorts; he was wearing the ski jacket and long pants. // BL \\ (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A few years ago, I spent two weeks doing field work with hand tools in Florida in June, and upon returning to Ohio, I felt cold, even though it was normal for June in Ohio, where I'd spent all my life. To answer your first question: one could live in southern Kenya, but it's still quite possible to find a place where it's quite cold. Don't know about Ethiopia, however. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In many tropical places, it still gets relatively cold in the dead of night in certain seasons or when it rains. The Sahara desert, for example, is notorious for its cold nights, as the sand does not retain the heat accumulated from the sun during the day. In equatorial climates, a person could experience cold from contact with fast-moving water, even if the ambiant air never gets below 20° C or so. --Xuxl (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The explorers who passed through the Straights Of Magellan, near the tip of South America, reported that the locals there wore no clothes, yet were apparantly comfortable even when it was snowing. People living in the Artic walk around in few clothes on warmer days which would be like mid-winter in temperate climates. The body seems able to adapt by increasing its heat output, although this probably takes days or weeks. Perhaps in the UK the fact that calorie intake has declined yet obesity has increased compared with the past is partly due to central heating meaning that less calories are required to keep warm, as well as less walking and manual work. 78.146.236.46 (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Land Mines between Countries

Which international borders have land mines? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Korean Demilitarized Zone for one. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And the Indo-Pakistani border. Algebraist 03:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also the United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus if you're Turkish. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus isn't recognized by anyone else. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What if you're not Turkish? Do they disappear? (sorry, couldn't resist) Dismas|^(talk) 17:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mined. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Landmine Monitor, Uzbekistan has laid mines on its borders with Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan. The Middle East has plenty of them. For example, there are Israeli minefields along its borders with Lebanon and Syria; Syrian mines; Jordanian mines on its Syrian border; etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And the Greco-Turkish border along the Evros river. It happens quite often that immigrants who try to cross into Greece from Turkey get caught in them. Constantine ✍ 10:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't there land mines between Bangladesh and India? Is India planning to put land mines between India and Bangladesh? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would there be? India and Bangladesh enjoy friendly relations, and I believe always have done. Algebraist 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Algebraist, Indo-Pakistani border has land mines, but Indo-Bangladesh border has no land mines. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Why are you telling me this? Algebraist 02:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the Anon was confused by your slight rhetorical flourish there, Algebraist.

Allow me to rephrase for the benefit of the Anon: "There are no landmines between India and Bangladesh because the two countries currently enjoy friendly relations, and Algebraist believes this has always been the case." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the confusion can be that Bangladesh used to be called East Pakistan. Googlemeister (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Myanmar and Bangladesh don't have a friendly relation, but either side didn't put land mines on their border. Why is that? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Myanmar and Bangladesh have not fought a war. They have cross border trade and even cross-border highways.

I'm not sure why you would assume that any two countries who don't absolutely adore each other would pepper the border with landmines. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh is also a party to the Ottawa Treaty. Algebraist 02:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

PalaceGuard008, you are wrong. Myanmar and Bangladesh have maritime border disputes. The two countries don't like each other. Myanmar is not part of the Ottawa Treaty, so it could put land mines on the border if it wanted to. I am guessing India don't care about Bangladesh much as Pakistan which a big problem now to the Indians. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, where was I wrong? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

They almost did fought a war. Myanmar doesn't really trade with Bangladesh. There is nothing that Myanmar need from Bangladesh except the gas and oil in the disputed sea. A large Burmese troop has been deployed along the border, but the Burmese didn't put any land mine. Does this mean Myanmar is planning an invasion? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Heck, Maine and New Hampshire have had boarder disputes, they don't put down landmines, though. APL (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Half breed people

Where would I find information on people of mixed races. The scientific name is what I'm looking for. In exapmple: Half White / Black, Hispanic / White, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.133.60 (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Multiracial is the usual word used, I think. ~ mazca ^talk 08:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Half-breed" is considered a demeaning and insulting term. And the idea that "Hispanic" is a sparate racial category is a particularly American form of foolishness.

The idea of "race" itself is a purely cultural construct, and has no basis in biology.Rhinoracer (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a cultural construct, that is why people believe in it. But "hispanic" seems to me to be undertstood basically as a sociological, religious, ethnical slot? At least since Franz Boas it is well known that racism has no basis in science, but still...--Radh (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Hispanic" is an ambiguous cultural category. It's use on the US census is purely a political compromise (as are all of the US census "racial" categories, which are rather arbitrary for the most part). (And whether something is a purely cultural concept or not does not, of course, indicate it is a useless or unimportant cultural construct. US census categories are used for particular types of political transactions, for example, and their use as such would remain valuable whether or not there is a strict biological component.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just answering an online survey and at the end, where they ask your ethnicity, for some reason, "Russian" was a separate ethnicity from "White/Caucasian". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's odd. Especially considering "Russian" can mean anything from Caucasian to Middle-Eastern in the South and Asiatic in the East of the country. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See Race and ethnicity in the United States Census: Hispanic status is not a racial issue, but an ethnic one. One can be both White and Hispanic, Black-or-African-American and Hispanic, or even Pacific Islander and Hispanic. Individuals calling themselves White and Asian are classified as two-or-more-races, but Asian and Hispanic (for example) are classified as Hispanic Asians. Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Guess I should have asked "What is a hispanic?" That's what was answered. The term Half Breed People was used to get your attention. There are scientific names for people of mixed races. Those names were what my question was about.

Are there? I would doubt it... There used to be a common use of words like "Mulatto", "Quadroon", "Octaroon" etc. (and an even more baroque proliferation of such terminological classifications in Spain's colonial empire, some of which are conveniently listed on Template:Miscegenation in Spanish colonies), but the "scientific" support for such classifications is not great... AnonMoos (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Historic race crimes

Can the whites ever make up for all their crimes against blacks, Asians, Muslims and the rest of humanity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.64.248 (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. However, they cannot end racism against whites. There will always be uneducated people who are unable and unwilling to form a view of others based on the person and not the skin color. -- kainaw™ 11:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This question demands subjective answers or debate and is therefore outside the remit of the Ref Desks. But the answer really lies with the victims of this and any other crime, large or small. If a victim or their descendant considers the crime forgiven, it is. If not, no amount of "making up" can suffice. Cf the famous story of Holocaust survivor Simon Wiesenthal refusing to forgive the dieing Nazi. --Dweller (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I see that story is currently missing from the biog. Someone? --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't all this lousy crying and whining about Western crimes (see above: Netherlands! most islamophobic country in the world,...) please stop on Reference desk? It is perfectly o.K. to be a Jammerlappen (wet blanket), but please do not bother Wikipedia.--Radh (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What blog? Dweller, this is not about forgiveness. It is about redressing the impact of centuries of white discrimination against blacks, Asians, Muslims and the rest of humanity. Blacks in the USA still face many problems - the result of centuries of discrimination. Note that I am not suggesting that blacks keep whites as slaves for centuries, unless only that is enough to redress the discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.64.248 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Biog" not "blog". You can only "make up" for something if the person who feels aggreived will consent to forgiving. Otherwise, no amount of "making up" will have any effect whatsoever. If you spit in my face and offer me £1,000,000 compensation, it still doesn't "make up" for the offense of what you did, unless I choose to say that it does. On the flip side, I may consent to forgive you in return for just an apology. So really the question is unanswerable, as there are countless people out there, each of whom will have their own subjective response to it. --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, Dweller, you are totally misunderstanding my question. I will try to explain again. The worst discrimination against blacks in the USA, such as slavery, is over. But the discrimination still has long-term negative effect on the blacks in the USA now. They still face poverty, poor health and few get into good universities. My question is about dealing with these long-term effects. Note that my question is about more than blacks in the USA - you can talk about Asians in the USA, Muslims in the USA and Europe, or even South Africa and former Western colonies. I know measuring every single long-term effect of white discrimination against non-whites is impossible, so it is OK to make certain assumptions to make it simpler.

So, what is your question? This is a reference desk. I know it is very hard to understand the conceptual difference between a discussion forum and a reference desk, so I will make it painfully clear. If you want to discuss something, you use a discussion forum. If you want a reference, such as a link to a magazine article or some statistics, you use a reference desk. Nowhere in your ramblings have you made a single request for a reference. -- kainaw™ 15:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The question comes down to a determination of what it would mean to "make up" for past injustices in a materially way. Would paying someone today a large sum of money excuse doing something unspeakably horrible to their great-great-great-grandfather? That's not exactly an easy question to answer.

You could rephrase your query into something a little more concrete if you asked, could the USA adjust the status of Black Americans so that the effects of slavery and racism were not longer evident on their communities? Even that, though, is problematic—it relies on a counter-factual (an imagined, non-racism, non-slavery Black community) and makes rather broad assumptions about the basis for the current state of the Black community (something which is no doubt multi-faceted and caused by a number of factors).

I think most sensitive, empathetic individuals would say that redressing past atrocities is pretty hard if not impossible. A better goal might be to create the conditions by which racism and atrocity could no longer occur, and to increase the possibilities that majority of the members of a given ethnic group are able to achieve their "full potential." This is still subjective, but more focused. What one wants is for nobody to not get a job just because of their skin color, or for others to be hateful of someone just because of what their name is and where they were born. More comprehensively, one would want things like an educational system that actually educated, and opportunities not to be so limited simply because ones parents' opportunities are limited. These are broad goals that we in the USA are no way close to achieving, though things are better off today than probably they ever were before. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can X make up for the harm done at any time in the past to Y? Show me any group that doesn't have some historical blood on its hands. Even on the slavery issue, what about the blacks (and Arabs) who captured the Africans in the first place? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

98.217.14.211, you understood my question! Can we eliminate all white discrimination against non-whites? Would that be enough or would the long-term effects of past discrimination still place non-white communities at a disadvantage? If eliminating all white discrimination against non-whites is not enough, how could all the long-term effects be redressed? Of course, my question is not just about whether it is possible, but how it can be done - especially if you answer "no, we cannot eliminate all white discrimination and its long-term effects" and change the "can we" to "to what extent can we". Kainaw, any links which explore these issues and help answer parts of my question are most welcome.

One reference I can offer for starting to explore this is Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. It's from 1988, so hopefully things have changed somewhat in the US since it was written, but it should still help you to see some of the issues. 86.139.232.168 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this also explores some of the ideas you probably want to think about. 86.139.232.168 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Which country has the highest living standard in the world for "blacks" etc.? Of course this does not try to excuse anything. Do people in the US know that the African slaves were not abducted from Africa, but sold and were not sold to the US, but to the Indies and Brazil etc.?--Radh (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to see how the 'questions' above are relevant, but the only way I can see them being so is if you were trying to suggest that African-Americans should be grateful even to be allowed to live in America, since it has a higher standard of living than many other countries in which black people live. The corollary being that they should shut up about any ill-treatment or prejudice they face. Since that would be an idiotic thing to suggest, I assume I have misunderstood you, Radh? After all, you would not reply to a comment on social services failing to act to save an abused child before their carer killed them (with a suggestion of class-prejudice on the part of the workers) by asking which country has the lowest child mortality rate, would you? Of course not, because it would be profoundly irrelevant to dealing with the issue at hand.

Could you clarify what you actually meant? Because I'm struggling to parse a relevant meaning. 86.139.232.168 (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The question is extremely relevant. You appear to be hinting at a question: What can be done to help blacks overcome constant and extreme racism from whites? In the United States, blacks have the highest standard of living compared to everywhere else in the world. That standard of living continues to improve. Therefore, something is being done in the United States to improve the standard of living for blacks. Comparing a black person who feels oppressed to the murder of a child is absurd. You are still failing miserably to ask a distinct question. All you appear to be doing is ranting about retributions for slavery. As I stated before, this a reference desk. This is not a discussion forum where you can rant as long as you like. Either ask for a specific reference or take your argument to a discussion forum. Attempting to continue this rant is clear vandalism of the reference desk and cannot be tolerated. Feel free to claim that being required to follow the rules is another dose of racism without taking time to consider the race of everyone else here. -- kainaw™ 16:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have mistaken me for someone else, and on top of that have made strange assumptions about my race and motivations. All I have provided in this question is two references where people discuss some of the ideas the OP asked about, and then asked what the relevance of the 'questions' (which were not really questions, but rhetorical devices for providing information) were to the references I provided, since they were placed as a reply to them.

Kainaw, your reply seems as irrelevant to anything I said as Radh's. You also seem to have failed to understand where I used analogy. I'm really quite puzzled as to where this anger has come from, particularly that last sentence. What the hell? 86.139.232.168 (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Due to the anon-IPs, I mistakenly assumed you were the original questioner who is purposely attempting to soapbox and rant on the reference desk. Any attempts to turn the reference desk into a pathetic discussion forum do make me angry - very angry. The original questioner has failed miserably to ask a question. The response from Radh is completely valid: Blacks in the United States have more assistance to improve their standard of living than anywhere else in the world. Radh is obviously answering the question: Is anything being done for blacks in the United States? I still feel that your analogy of comparing a black man who feels oppressed to child abuse is absurd. -- kainaw™ 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing a black person who feels oppressed to child abuse, I was comparing the response. Just as (to use another analogy) if someone describes the scale of distances in the solar system using oranges and grapes spread over a field they are not comparing planets to fruit.

I didn't think the question asked was 'Is anything being done for blacks in the United States?'. I thought it was "Can we eliminate all white discrimination against non-whites? Would that be enough or would the long-term effects of past discrimination still place non-white communities at a disadvantage? If eliminating all white discrimination against non-whites is not enough, how could all the long-term effects be redressed?" which is a quite different set of questions, a set that asks for a thoughtful response and, ideally, references to allow the OP to explore the large number of complex ideas thrown up by these issues. 86.139.232.168 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer was given: Those who were discriminated against in the past are being assisted. They are being helped. Their standard of living is getting better. That can only happen by eliminating discrimination and addressing disadvantages. It is rather silly to pretend to fail to comprehend such a simple answer. -- kainaw™ 18:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly not pretending. The standard of living improving doesn't necessarily correlate with eliminating discrimination or addressing disadvantages, especially when not all of those relate to things measured by the standard of living. Nor does it answer the actual questions asked, none of which were "Are those who were discriminated against in the past being assisted/helped?". Do you really not see the difference between the question you are saying was answered, and the questions asked? The links I provided as references do attempt to answer the questions asked (have a read of them and see). I'd quite like to see some other references provided by other people who know more about it. 86.139.232.168 (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am new to this question. In my extensive and anonymous experience on this page, if a question has to be defended twice, it is not appropriate. The fact that it's relevance under debate is evidence, in itself, that it should not be here: the archives will yield many examples. If something is incapable of a short answer, it should go. 78.144.178.19 (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sons of Washington

I was passed down an original Society of the Cincinnati certificate signed by George Washington. Included were 2 Cincinnati gold Eagles and two commerative medallions.

I need help with one thing. Included is a gold locket about 1 1/2 by 1 inch oval. On side 1 is inscribed "Sons of Washington".

On side 2 is a picture of George Washington. Inscribed above G.W. is the name James Latimer (Dr. Henry Latimer's son-his picture hangs in the US Senate). Below the picture of GW is the date "Feb. 22, 1810". I've had no luck finding out about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Als1328 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a valuable item. Read about your locket and the Sons of Washington here and here. —Kevin Myers 14:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The first link is to a book that has only partial view, while it does seem to contain the answer to what "Sons of Washington" might be, it is not really discernable from the small fragments that is shown by Google Books. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the first link is to an old publication that is fully viewable on Google Books, unless your access to Google Books is different than mine. —Kevin Myers 03:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Snippet view only here. It is probably only available in full view in the US. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The above is assuming that you do not actually have a reproduction of an original. That is something that only an expert would be able to determine. Googlemeister (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, have it looked at by an expert, of course, and you might want to get more than one opinion. And don't ever try to clean it or "fix it up" by yourself. —Kevin Myers 03:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks, especially Kevin. I have seen the Google books entry, but the American collector article is something new. This was the hardest piece to figure out as it was NOT related to the Society of the Cincinnatti. I've had those things figured out for years!! Your help is greatly appreciated!!! The Badge I have is identical to Illustraion IV in the American Collector Archives. My family goes far far back in Delaware history, it has been quite fun researching this. Thanks Again, Greg Als1328 (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese zodiac

For Chinese zodiac birth year, this goes in 12-year cycle. people born in 1957 would be year of Rooster since Paul Kagame is born in 1957, then he is a fire Rooster. Zodia isn't just Goat or Horse. popel born in 1946 would be year of a Dog what but Dog, a golden Dog, a water Dog, earth Dog? Do we have a site about Chinese zodiac year and which type of sign, water, gold, fir, wood, and earth? Since John Kufuor is born in 1938, he is year of Tiger, but what Tiger?--69.231.5.71 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Does Chinese zodiac not answer these questions? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose Chinese calendar#The stem-branch cycle is also relevant. --Anonymous, 05:44 UTC, July 15, 2009.

It goes by Chinese years (which begin in late January through mid-February, depending on lunar phase), not by Gregorian years. A Japanese superstition that "fire Horse" women (hinoeuma) are completely unmarriageable led to a significant increase in abortions and decline in the birth-rate in Japan in 1966... AnonMoos (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What are MPs?

That is, what are the MPs mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of Governance of England?

The Transhumanist 22:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Members of Parliament. I'll add to the article. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)