Humanities desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 18

Black Brazilian President?

Brazil's population is about 50% black. Did Brazil had a black Brazilian president? If not, is there a black Brazilian trying to run for presidency? Sonic99 (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean Pardo, not "black". You may find the article Politics of Brazil useful, as well as President of Brazil. Intelligentsium^review 02:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligentsium -- why can't he mean "black"? You seem to take it for granted that black refers to skin color from a particular location (i.e. Africa) rather than a skin color. If you would take a look at, for example, the cast of the The Cosby Show, there was a variety of very dark, dark, light and very light black people for whom it was not at all bizarre to be referred to as "black" and even be directly related. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Of the five presidents mentioned in the President of Brazil article (Sarney, Collor, Franco, Cardoso, and Lula), all seem to be Hispanic or white. The major candidates mentioned in the 2010 Brazilian general election also seem to be Hispanic. As for your 50% statistic, our article on Brazil's demographics says that only 7% of the population is black. This is sourced from the 2006 census. —Akrabbim^talk 02:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic? Brazilians are of Portuguese extraction, not Spanish. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While in modern usage the term usually refers to just people of Spanish descent, Hispania did include what is now Portugal so it is justifiable to use the term more broadly. --Tango (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, Brazilians are never correctly termed Hispanic (and don't even think of trying that on the Portuguese). --Nricardo (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lusitanic. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil has never had a black president, nor one who was identified as Pardo. Marina Silva is expected to run for the Green Party in the next presidential election. Warofdreams talk 21:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I say black, I mean black people and mixed people who look more african. Why Brazil never had a black or pardo president when non-whites make up a large percentage of the population? Sonic99 (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because people don't vote on the basis of race, alone ? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. This demonstrates that people DO vote on the basis of race. If they didn't, there surely would have been a "black" president elected by now. --MQDuck (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria vs. Tzu Hsi

What were the two female rulers view on each other? I read in a book by [Jean Fritz]] that Tzu Hsi was happy when she outlived Queen Victoria. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An internet search brings up the following passage from a collection of Qing Dynasty stories and anecdotes (collected from books and periodicals) (清稗类钞), attributed to the Empress Cixi, about Queen Victoria:

"予乃最聪明之人，尝闻人言英王维多利亚事，彼于世界关系，殆不及予之半。予事业尚未告成，亦无有能逆料者，或尚有可使外人震惊之事，或尚有迥异于前之事，均未可知。英为世界最强国，然亦非维多利亚一人之力。英多贤才，各事皆由巴力门议定，彼惟画诺而已。我国大事，皆予独裁，虽有军机大臣，亦惟赞襄于平时，皇帝更何知。"

Rough translation:

"I am a most intelligent person. I often hear about Queen Victoria of Britain. Her effect on world affairs does not even match half of mine. My enterprise is not yet complete, and no-one can yet predict what will happen. There may yet be things which will amaze those outside, or which are drastically different to the past - who knows. Britain is the most powerful nation inf the world, but it is not all Victoria's own doing. Britain possesses a great deal of talent - all matters are determined by Parliament, and she only marks her assent. In our country, everything is dictated by me alone. Though we have Grand Councillors, but they only assist on a day-to-day basis; as to the Emperor - what does he know." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Queen Victoria of Tzu Hsi?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I would help out with the Chinese end of things because that's harder to come by. Queen Vic presumably wrote in English so a lot of people should be able to find the sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga and Brahmaputra - Are they tributaries of each other?

The river Ganges flows through Northern India and then bifurcates into two distributaries in West Bengal namely Hugli and Padma. Padma flows to Bangladesh. On the other hand, Brahmaputra's largest distributary, Jamuna comes to Bangladesh and joins Padma and flow together till Bay of Bengal to complete their course. So, can we call Ganga as a tributary of Brahmaputra? Srin ivas 10:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two rivers share a delta and distributaries, but neither is usually considered a tributary of the other. It would be hard to say which is the "principal" river and which is the tributary. Also, each splits into distributaries before any of their distributaries merge. Marco polo (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, we can't call them as tributaries of each other? Srin ivas 05:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the European clothing style spread throughout the world?

Even in places like Japan or Africa people wear trousers and so on. Why has the style of clothing that originated in Europe (more exactly, in England where the suit began as horse riding clothing) become the prefered clothing of virtually every culture? 78.151.108.233 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is due to the influence of the British Empire, I imagine. --Tango (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American hegemony. --Nricardo (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. I think it probably came directly from Britain, not via the USA. I don't think American culture really spread worldwide until we all started watching US television and films. British culture starting spreading as the British Empire grew. When did the rest of the world start wearing European style clothing? --Tango (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading, decades ago, in one of Vance Packard's books, that Isaac Singer, the American who founded the Singer Sewing Machine Company, started a vigorous campaign to persuade 19th-century Japanese to adopt Western dress which could be sewn and mended with his machines. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In China, trousers were adopted during the Warring States period in order to facilitate the development of an effective cavalry. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an educated guess but the last vestiges of frequent use of traditional clothing styles in China and Japan took place by the end of the 1940s. Japan was surely influenced by the American occupation, while China was almost surely influenced by Marxism and/or the Soviet Union (e.g. Mao suit), though Chinese clothing from the 1940s-early 1980s was Western-style, but clearly not American or Western European in fashion. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though in general there is a lot of Western wear in Asia by the end of the 19th century, long before WWII, especially in official and military contexts. For example, check out the duds of the Imperial Japanese Army, who started to dress in such a fashion at least by the 1860s. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you are talking primarily about men's wear. In many parts of the world, traditional clothing is still worn by women—e.g. saris. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an assumption here that it was somewhat foisted upon these nations... I suspect it is more complicated than that. In many of these countries—Japan in particular comes to mind, but there are analogues elsewhere—the idea of dressing in a Western way was very much tied up with ideas about "modernization" in the late-19th century. It was seen as a direct embrace of Western power and success and a rejection of the "traditional" ways that had (allegedly) resulted in the East's declined status vis-a-vis Europe. I do agree that much of this is probably originally a British influence, though there were other colonizers as well, of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese women, I understand, were wearing kimonos, especially in rural areas, into the 1950's. Asian and African fashions have certainly affected European art, clothes and furnishings, as seen from terms such as Chinoiserie and Japonisme. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Mr. 98. To go back a few centuries — as part of his modernisation campaign, Tsar Peter I of Russia forced his people to wear European clothes to help make them more European and less Asian. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images of the Japanese diplomatic staff prior to World War II show them wearing morning coats. That has nothing to do with US occupation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the areas of the world that are associated with terrorism, like Afganasthan (sp?) european clothing is not worn so much. 89.242.102.196 (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frightening to see that your convenient shorthand for Islamic countries that often try to resist US culture is "areas of the world that are associated with terrorism". --MQDuck (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's due to two things: 1) T-shirts (or long-sleeve shirts) and trousers are comfortable and effective, and 2) such clothing is mass-produced and very, very cheap. --MQDuck (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental vaginas

Slow down, it's actually a serious question! I've been reading a number of old limericks, dated from the 1930s and 1940s, which make mention of the idea that the vagina on Asian women runs horizontally (i.e. the "slit" runs left-right). Now, my wife is Asian, so I don't need anyone to tell me that the idea is completely bogus, but I'm curious as to how the idea ever became popular and what the origin might be. In the notes section of the limerick collection, the editor mentions that this was a widespread folk belief at the turn of the century, and the limericks collected from diverse sources make a kind of prima facie case that people at one time did think this a fact. Are there any sources out there that talk about this? At some point, the legend died out (due in no small part, I am sure, to the efforts of these people), but when did the legend die out? It's a "not-mention in polite society" kind of topic, so I'm have a difficult time even finding a single source. Matt Deres (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, here's one from 1944:

A Chinaman hailing from Wusih

Once laid an American floozie.

"How different," he cried,

As he slid it inside,

"To diddle a vertical coozie!"

Obviously that one is from the other POV, but illustrates the same kind of thing. Matt Deres (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just a gynaecological riff on the slitty-eyes/epicanthetic fold business. Have a vague idea that when Dutch and the Japanese started hanging out the idea/joke arouse that Japanese vaginas were more capacious. Declan Clam (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting typo there ;).--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I first heard of this in the early sixties, though I believe entirely as a joke: "Afterward, you can play the harmonica." This would be oral tradition from a Boston-area plumber. PhGustaf (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did this idea extent to South Asians or South East Asians or only East Asians? Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a racist joke referring to "slant-eyed" people, what we used to call "Oriental". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, does your wife know what you post on the Internet ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I think Nil Einne understands who "East Asians" are - Orientals, Mongoloids, etc. The question is whether the idea ever extended to South Asians or South East Asians. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The various limericks refer to people from China, Japan, Manchukuo, Hong Kong, "North China", and then there's one that's based in Palau but concerns Japanese women. And, for the record, I referred to them as "oriental" because that's how they were referred to at the time (and in the book). If I was looking for first hand accounts of slavery in the US, it would do no good to search for "African-American" because that term wasn't used back then. Matt Deres (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "oriental" considered derogatory in the US? I don't believe it would be considered so elsewhere - slightly quaint perhaps, but not derogatory. In the UK, "oriental" as referring to north Asians probably is on par with "antipodians" referring to Australians and New Zealanaders. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's antiquated—it's somewhat on par with "Negro". Not offensive other than the fact that it invokes a somewhat backwards way of talking about race, e.g. it calls to mind Charlie Chan, Yellow Peril, WWII propaganda, etc. It's not a slur, though. See Oriental#American_English. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this this kind of urban legend originated in the racist white mindset, before Asians became model minorities back in the nineties. There's something sort of diametrically opposed about Asian culture to the Western way of thinking. Collectivism versus individualism, and all that. It took a rather diseased mind to take that opposition to a more graphic manifestation, and there we have it, a rather silly, sordid idea about lady parts that at bottom conveys a feeling of 'otherness' and the exotic. Vranak (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it made it easier to dominate a distant country (economically and especially in warfare) if you were told the people are so different from you that they could be considered no more than savages and maybe not even human. Of course, if you were closely involved, it didn't take long to find out that they were just like you. The demonisation of foreign peoples was an easy way to keep the masses back home "on-board" with the economic or military invasion of a distant foreign country. Imperialism has a lot to answer for. Astronaut (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's also the case that exoticizing and eroticizing the locals goes hand-in-hand with colonialism. Wherever you send young men out to police your empire, mixed-race babies show up rather immediately. It's an otherness, but one that is both attractive and repelling at the same time. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True - it's likely analogous to this proto-cybernetic age's combination of the uncanny valley and robot fetishism. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in Orientalism (aren't those foreigners really different from us) and Saartjie Baartman the Hottentot Venus (aren't those physical differences really fascinating and worth exhibiting to the public)/ Elongated labia gives more on the genital variation theme . BrainyBabe (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How too write a "diary" in the proper language of "tone" of the late 18th centurey

my question is basically as i wrote it above, but too be more specific make it 1787 and at the constitutional convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at the text of Fanny Hill an erotic novel written in 1748, or any of the works of Jane Austen 1775 - 1817 to get a feel for the language of the period. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would look at the letters of John Adams that he and his wife exchanged during this time (they are published). They illustrate quite well how a learned American would correspond—a genre with somewhat different stylization than fictional (British) writing. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harriette Wilson's diaries would also be useful here. She was a very influential character. Steewi (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many American journals and diaries of the era that have been published. So many, in fact, that you can choose New England, Southern, religious, secular, a foreign traveler, etc.—these will all have a different tone. Of course, you'll want to read William Pierce's sketches of delegates, written at the Convention. —Kevin Myers 11:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense vs women's intuition

Is women's intuition the same as common sense? How is common sense related to intuition? Christie the puppy lover (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Intuition (knowledge) and Common sense. They really aren't related concepts. Intuition is really about "gut feeling" and a sort of mild precognition, where someone knows what to do without having any experience to base it on. Common sense, on the other hand, is all about experience. Common sense is basing conclusions upon a sort of shared (or common) human experience; while intuition defies explanation, but begs it, common sense needs no explanation, because the shared experience that it derives from makes it readily apparent to everyone. If something is put down as "common sense" it means that every human should understand it instantly; for example killing random strangers is bad; this is taken as "common sense" since nearly all humans from any culture would recognize this as basically true. --Jayron32 00:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think so. Common sense is, in my understanding, a way of cutting through nonsense and bullcrap with down-to-earth, simple insight. It undercuts very sophisticated ways of thinking that may be too complicated to be useful or workable.

Women's intuition, on the other hand, is more about an empathic insight into motives and behaviors. It knows the human heart too well to be fooled into believing professed motives.

How is common sense related to intuition? Well, they both call upon the unconscious to resolve discrepancies, rather than complicated, explicit logic. Vranak (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed some similarities; after all men don't have either! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please. There's no need for inflammatory comments, meant in jest though they may be!

I was thinking a little more about this issue and I'd add that women's intuition is good at taking in available data, synthesizing it into a 'big picture', then making accurate deductions based on that picture. So it's not just about motives. Also, I'd add that women's intuition need not be confined to women. Vranak (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that neither one has been the product of a double-blind scientific study, as far as I know, and both terms are used very frequently to attempt to undercut logic. "Here is a 20-point proof of why this legislation makes sense." "I dispute your proof — anyone with any common sense knows that it's just a bad idea!" Tempshill (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is true that many studies have occasionally found common sense to be more sensible than elaborate theories, when it comes to the realm of human behavior. There has been a lot of work in economics in particular on the irrationality of human markets, and so forth, that reaffirms the value of "intuition" over complicated theory. But all of this just points to the idea that the theories were just wrong from the beginning, which is entirely compatible with a rigorous theoretical outlook on life. And the fact that the commonsensical can be integrated into a theoretical language suggests this as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I add that "women's intuition" isn't a phrase one hears much nowadays in enlightened circles. The traditional Christian inference was that men are logical and women intuitive— and hysterical, "hyster" being Latin for womb. Thus men were leaders and women didn't vote. --Wetman (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women's intuition exists so that women reserve the right to say "I told you so" without taking the risk of being incorrect. Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great answers folks, thanks. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both "women's intuition" and "common sense" are hogwash. They are both merely a bundle of prejudices, stereotypes, folk-knowledge, biases and so on, and an excuse for not thinking or to devalue the more rational thought of others. (Common-sense may also include tacit knowledge in some useages of the phrase.) They appeal to people because they affirm the common sterotypes and prejudices shared by others from the same social background, or serve as an excuse for the intransigent power of the person who thinks they possess them. 89.242.102.196 (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]