Humanities desk
< July 3	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 5 >

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 4

bumpersticker of the day

I saw a mysterious bumper sticker today:

LET'S NOT RENEGE

IN 2012

Any idea what it means? —Tamfang (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quasi-racist play on the word "renege" in connection with the 2012 presidential election would be my first guess, but I could be wrong. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that exactly what the bumper sticker looked like and said, or is that your best approximation of it? Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is exact (if my memory is reliable). I couldn't easily reproduce all inessential details of style, such as the aspect ratio of the flags. —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the play on words? The only thing I can think of is "re-elect a nigger/negro", but that's a really tortured pun (and would be fully racist, not quasi-racist). Did you mean someone else? Aren't bumper stickers usually a little easier to understand? --Tango (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google kinda confirms Evanh2008's guess. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without having to even look it up, it was obviously a redneck-racist play on words. Apparently they'd rather have a white Mormon than a black Christian. So be it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are the "flags" trying to say, nonverbally? Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the flags communicate a message similar to "the south will rise again" and "things was better back when all dem northerners wasn't tryin' to make us let black folks have rights and such". I'm usually more charitable when it comes to nonsense like that, but this particular example is just straight-up dumb. I have yet to determine whether the "renege" is supposed to rhyme with the first syllable of "nigger" or "negro", but it's definitely one or the other. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

/rɪˈnɪg/ is a common (perhaps the usual; it's not a word one hears in conversation very often) pronunciation of the word where I originally come from (North Midland dialect), but I'm not sure exactly what the geographical distribution might be. Deor (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are saying don't "re-nigg" visually, i.e. don't re-elect Obama. Equating the actual U.S. flag with the rebel flag is sad and pathetic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the relevance of the Mormon reference, please. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Obviously, the majority of those opposed to (re-)electing a black man will most likely be voting for Romney in November. It's not terribly relevant to the conversation, other than the fact that a lot of traditional conservative Christians (a largely Republican voting block) don't see Mormonism as a form of Christianity and would not normally cast a vote for anyone they see as a non-Christian. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you have to be an especially racist racist to vote for Mormney? But isn't Obama an atheist ex-Muslim? Wouldn't you just stay home? I still don't get Bugs' point. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Barack Obama, he's a Christian. Maybe you know different, in which case please update the article. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume μηδείς's point is that the sort of people who would be racist enough to talk about not renege(ing) are the sort of people who would believe Obama is an atheist ex-Muslim so for them it's not a choice between an black Christian and a white Mormon but a black atheist ex-Muslim and a white Mormon. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do get it, you just don't realize that you get it. :) Many ultra-right Christians regard Mormonism as a cult and not really Christian. Never mind that Mormons are officially the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Evidently the ultra-right thinks that's a different Jesus Christ than theirs. And, yes, many would rather not vote at all - unless they consider allowing the return of Obama to the White House to be a "greater sin" than voting for someone they consider to be a "pseudo" Christian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be ultra-right to think that the Mormons are talking about a different Jesus to Christians. The Christian Jesus is God: the Mormon Jesus is not. Mormons themselves, all recent claims to the contrary, haven't historically considered themselves Christian, since they believed that all of Christendom was the Whore of Babylon. If believing in some person called Jesus Christ was the only criteria to be Christian, regardless of what you believed about him, then Muslims would be Christian. Mormonism is a religion with Christian roots. As to whether or not you consider Mormonism a cult depends very strongly on which of the many definitions of the word you are using. Definitions are important. In the meaning where a 'cult' is something that differs from orthodoxy, then Mormonism is a cult. In a definition where a 'cult' is something that kills people, Mormonism is not currently a cult. In the definition where a 'cult' is something that uses certain emotional and social manipulation techniques to recruit and retain members, and cut them off from the outside world, Mormonism has some cult-like characteristics, as do Jehovah's Witnesses. For example, Mormonism encourages and widely uses love bombing, as well as controlling access to information about their beliefs until a target has been absorbed into the group, and cutting off members who leave (although not as strictly as Jehovah's Witnesses do). These and certain other properties are certainly 'cult-like', but I don't see that there's a strict definition that lets you say whether or not something completely fits this definition of 'cult'. 86.143.135.49 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Mormon here. Sorry-- I know this isn't about the awful bumper sticker, but I peruse here quite often and post somewhat less often, and I feel like I need to try to clarify, if you'll all allow me. I always enjoy hearing from non-Mormons what my beliefs are, especially inaccurately. Jesus Christ to us is the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Cynics and critics will say that we don't really believe that, but we do. What we have here is ambiguity on the definition of "Christian." Our friend at 86.143.135.49 tells us a lot about what Christianity isn't, but doesn't tell us a lot about what it is. I think, genuinely, and in good faith, (please correct me if I'm wrong), s/he believes that being "Christian" has something to do with subscribing to the early council creeds, and probably accepting (only) the Holy Bible as Scripture. Fair enough, but we use a different, and probably more common, definition. We believe that those that follow Christ are Christians. Since Muslims don't really follow Christ, I wouldn't (and they wouldn't) call them(selves) Christians. I don't think. Maybe I'm wrong. Additionally, Christ himself seems to have defined the word "Christian" in John 13, when he said, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." So, Christ Himself defines the parameters of Christianity. I personally believe that even as a Mormon, I have days when I'm a better Christian than other days. (Maybe many feel this way.) Further, Christ also prohibited the exclusion of fellow (but unknown) followers by his own Apostles in Luke 9: "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." I more than likely can't/won't change any minds here, but I appreciate when those not of our faith allow us to define and explain our own beliefs.Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 19:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware this stuff can be frustrating: as you say, Mormons believe that Jesus is the Son of God (nobody says you don't), but you do not believe that he is God. Because the Godhead in Mormonism is considered to be three separate entities, not one God.

You may say that Muslims do not follow Christ, but they would say they do. They would say that Jesus (Isa) was a prophet and the Christ, and that he was a good Muslim. They would say, as Mormonism says, that the Biblical record of Jesus has been corrupted. So, if they follow Christ, and love one another, are Muslims Christian? If a Nordic pagan loves others, are they a Christian? At this point, would we have to reject the word 'Christian' as meaningless? Or does it have an accepted meaning? A belief that Jesus is God is a basic foundational belief of Christianity that has been used since the first few centuries to define who is and is not a Christian.

We still have the page Great and abominable church. I appreciate that Mormon teaching on this has softened, as seen here. It presumably went out with the devil being represented in rituals by someone dressed as a Protestant minister, which practice I gather has been suppressed. But still, I have had young naive Mormons ask me earnestly who the Catholic Church thinks the Great and Abominable Church is. It was kind of sweet.

Nowhere have I said that Mormons should be harassed or forbidden from doing good things. I am simply pointing out that there actually is a consistent line of reasoning that explains why Mormonism is often not considered Christian (although it is certainly based on Christianity, just as Islam is), that it is fairly reasonable to say that the Mormon Jesus is not the same as the Christian Jesus (in that one is God, and the other is not. That's a pretty big difference) and that historically (do you know any Mormons from a generation or two above you who you trust, and could ask?) Mormonism did not consider itself part of Christianity, because it considered Christianity to be completely corrupt from the last Apostle onwards.

More recently, there has been a drive to 'mainstream' Mormonism. It actually makes me really wish that I was an anthropologist or at least a sociologist, because it looks fascinating from here. Beliefs, practices and even Scriptures have been smoothed out, to conform to mainstream Christian practice. Goodbye bloody oaths, goodbye "white and delightsome", goodbye "only living Church", goodbye "What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing", goodbye belief that secret handshakes will be required to enter Heaven. Interestingly, hello "why don't Christians consider us Christian?", hello publicity campaigns, hello attempts to integrate some extracts of writings by Early Church Fathers into Mormon publications (even though they must surely have been written after the Great Apostasy). It's terribly interesting, and I'll remain interested in seeing whether the strategy pays off (it's a risky manoeuvre, as you risk losing your USP, and requiring less of members can lead to diminished respect). Maybe, in 20 years time, the Godhead will have become a single God, and Mormons will become just another Christian group with an odd history. 86.143.135.49 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Shrugs.) I don't find this discussion frustrating, except perhaps that each of the points that you describe above all have an accompanying historical, sociological, doctrinal, and spiritual context, and this really isn't the forum for me to expound those contexts adequately. And, perhaps I have this wrong, but I'm not confident that you'd be able, even given an adequate context and explanation, even to the point of intellectual cohesiveness, to then say, "Oh, well, I may not agree with that, but it makes sense." That is to say, I could write pages and pages and quote scripture after scripture to explain my position, but my experience has been that such exchanges are only beneficial when both parties are open-minded. I don't mean that pejoratively-- I just mean that my schedule can't afford it today. It makes sense to me, though, and that will do for today. Wishing you all the best, though. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 23:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many mainstream Christians consider the Mormons a "cult" since the denomination claims to have its own Prophet and since it denies most tenets of mainstream Christianity. The "Let's not Renege" = "Let's not re-elect the Nigger" bumper sticker would seem appallingly racist to most US citizens, akin to a KKK cross burning. Edison (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I for one draw a distinction between a violent act (burning a cross on someone's lawn) and rude speech. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is something that annoys me to no end, given that the word "cult" has an actual, formal meaning other than "stuff we don't like". What ever happened to good old-fashioned words like "heretic" and "infidel"? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How well does the particular shoe fit the particular foot? Edison (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. If you actually care about the meaning of words, it doesn't fit at all. Again, the word "cult" does not mean "wrong" or "unbiblical". The dictionary I currently have in front of me says that "cult" means "[a] religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.". The Branch Davidians were a cult. The Peoples Temple was a cult. Mormonism is not a cult, regardless of how right or wrong you think it is. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Mormonism has reformed somewhat, "cult" would be a fair way to describe it in it's early days. They were "extremist" in that they massacred a wagon train of settlers and "false" in that most non-Mormons consider Joseph Smith to be a false prophet. They lived in an unconventional manner (polygamy) under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader (Brigham Young), and many, including Romney's ancestors, fled to Mexico rather than give up polygamy, etc. StuRat (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may be a good thing he prompted you to clarify, because while I can't speak for everyone, I did understand your meaning but I at first took it that you were representing your own sincere definition of Christian, as opposed to parroting the position, as I now know the case to be. Snow (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the above a reply to me or Edison? If it's to me, I can see how you might have thought that, but no Inquisitions for me, thanks. : ) It's just the misuse of the English language that gets to me. Mormonism is not a cult in the same way that a cat is not a tree. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, was commenting to Bugs, actually. Snow (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks y'all. —Tamfang (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was being satirical. Keep in mind that some of these characters have called the Roman Catholic Church a "cult". If that be so, it must be the world's largest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that it hasn't been already mentioned, but "Renegade" is Obama's Secret Service codename. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a "codename" if everyone knows what it is? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I promise not to tell anyone. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they just want you to think that's his codename. As with Area 51, the "secret" government testing location that everyone knows about, and might well be a decoy away from the real secret government testing location. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Secret Service codename -- they may have been secret or semi-secret in some past decades, but that's not the case recently... AnonMoos (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember when it was discovered that "renegade" was his code name, this was taken as evidence that he was a "renegade" in the 15th century Spanish sense, a crypto-Muslim. Hilarious stuff. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find this kind of pathetic call for the "land of the free" to vote by racism astonishing and depressing. However, it serves usefully to squash back down my rising horror at the abominable and vomit-worthy mangling of the pronunciation of "renege". --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhong Title

What is the equivalent of the Chinese noble title 仲 in English? It was used by minor nobles in the Zhou Dynasty.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese surname says: "In ancient usage, the characters of meng (孟), zhong (仲), shu (叔) and ji (季) were used to denote the first, second, third and fourth eldest sons in a family."A8875 (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To emphasise, 仲 was not a title of nobility, it was an indication of a person's order of birth. People were often referred to by these markers as part of, or instead of, their personal given names. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the sequence quoted by A8875, I understood the more usual sequence to be bo (伯), zhong (仲), shu (叔) and ji (季). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are the rulers of the State of Fan and zh:蔡仲 of the State of Cai.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Cai Zhong it seems clear that Zhong was used as a name to refer to that person instead of his personal given name, which was Hu. I think the interpretation of this name as the "Elder of Cai" presented in the relevant Wikipedia article is an erroneous interpretation, and the succession box that lists "Elder of Cai" as a title also seems to be erroneous. I consulted several dictionaries and in none of them was "elder" suggested as a meaning of 仲, nor was 仲 given as a title of nobility.

For the State of Fan, the Chinese Wikipedia article lists the title of their rulers as "Zhong", but this is inconsistent with most external sources. I would suggest that an editor mistook the titles adopted by its rulers to refer to themselves to be an actual title of nobility, which it was not.

The order of the titles of nobility in the Zhou dynasty was clear cut, and "Zhong" was not one of them. Because of the paucity of records from the Zhou dynasty for minor states, the actual titles granted to their rulers are often now lost. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina constitional amendments

Article VI. Section 2 of the South Carolina Constitution[1] states: "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution. (1972 (57) 3181; 1973 (58) 83.)"

My best understanding of "(1972 (57) 3181; 1973 (58) 83.)" is that this section was amended 1972 and again in 1973. I'm trying to track down the exact text of these constitutional amendments, but unfortunately the state website [2] only has electronic records of acts as far back as 1975. I am not physically located in South Carolina so I doubt my local public and university libraries will be of any help.

I realize this clause is null and void after Torcaso_v._Watkins, but I would still like to see how it changed over time. A8875 (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mizrahi and sephardi jews population in Israel

Which cities has significant population of Mizrahi Jews? Which cities has significant population of Sephardi Jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.153 (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Israeli government, there are 14 cities in the country. Of the 14, I'd expect all 14 to have significant populations of both Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NB the terms you use are ambiguous. Mizrahi can mean Jews of middle-east extraction, and it can also refer to modern Orthodox Jews. I've assumed you mean the former. Sephardi can mean of Spanish and Portuguese extraction, or following the Sephardic rite of religious practice. I presume you mean the latter. In actuality, Mizrahi Jews can be viewed as a subset of Sephardi Jews, but this is a contentious assertion. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal question regarding the age of consent

In the United Kingdom the age of consent for gay men used to be 21 until the 1990s. If a man in his 40s had sex with a man in his teens, at the time it was considered to be against the law.

Fast forward to today, and the man in his teens has grown up. The age of consent for gay men is now 16. If he went to the police would he still be able to report the older man for having committed a crime, even though the age of consent is now much lower? If the younger man did that, what would the likely outcome be? -- role^player 17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the introduction to this page: "The reference desk will not answer (and will usually remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or request medical opinions, or seek guidance on legal matters. Such questions should be directed to an appropriate professional, or brought to an internet site dedicated to medical or legal questions." AlexTiefling (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question does not seem to be asking for specific advice, but rather a matter of principle. How are acts which were criminal at the time of commission treated when newer law decriminalizes them? The OP can certainly reword his question or confirm I am right in my interpretation. This question seems to be that of the opposite of ex post facto law. Unfortunately a quick look at that article does not give a hint as to the opposite concept. Ex-ante (at least according to our stub) is not relevant. I do vaguely recall a case in the US where a convicted sex-offender was refused clemency when the law was changed after his conviction, even though a change in the law meant he would not have been convicted under the latter circumstances. I believe the case was in Georgia, but cannot recall the exact details. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Medeis is correct. My question is regarding the principle of the law in the UK, and whether something that was considered a crime when the age of consent was 21 would still be considered to have been a crime even though the age of consent has been lowered. Sorry it was worded badly. -- role^player 18:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some laws explicitly say whether they apply to offences committed before the law was passed, although that usually comes up in reference to ongoing cases rather than cases that are brought years after the fact. I don't know if this particular change in law had such a clause. If it didn't, then I think by default it would still be a crime since it was a crime at the time it was committed. One important factor is whether the Crown Prosecution Service would consider the prosecution to be in the public interest - since it is no longer illegal, they probably wouldn't. The complainant could try and bring a private prosecution, I suppose. The judge would still have some freedom in the sentencing. I don't know about underage homosexual sex in particular, but most offences in English law carry maximum sentences but not minimum ones (murder carries a mandatory life sentence - that's the only minimum sentence I know about). That means the judge could just give an "unconditional discharge", which means you are officially convicted of the crime, but there is no punishment. --Tango (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it common in Britain that judges give "unconditional discharge"?? Or is it a very hypothetical scenario.--nids (♂) 20:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the CPS wouldn't prosecute if that were the likely outcome. --Tango (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found our article: Discharge (sentencing)#England and Wales. It gives one example. --Tango (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some stats here. It happens more often than I'd thought. It might be cases where someone was charged with multiple offences and only found guilty of a lesser one, which wasn't worth sentencing them for and wouldn't have been prosecuted on its own. --Tango (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament has the power to make retroactive laws. For the retroactivity of homosexual consent (and for that matter—legalisation of sodomy), I'd suggest seeking the advice of a solicitor, or reading the relevant act yourself. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Fifelfoo's comment — see parliamentary supremacy, which means that Parliament may do anything they want, including making ex post facto laws. Nyttend (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the subsequent passing of legislation lowering the age of consent would apply ex post facto through implied repeal and the sex act would be considered pursuant to the most recent changes. That being said, Alan Turing was not granted a posthumous pardon for homosexual acts that were subsequently legalised, though this has little legal bearing. Practically speaking, prosecuting in this case would not be considered in the public interest and the CPS would not take action and could terminate a private prosecution under the POA 1985.Ankh.Morpork 20:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a legal concept known as the principle of retroactivity which basically says that when a law is changed courts should use the law that is more favorable for the defendant. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the UK is a party, says " If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby" (article 15). I don't know the specifics about if and how this has been made into UK law.Sjö (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the letter of the law, I'm skeptical that the CPS would prosecute a case like this. They've got better things to do with their time than prosecute people for doing something that isn't illegal any more. bobrayner (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US federal prisoner mug shots

Do US federal courts publish mug shots of prisoners from before the digital era? We have no PD or freely-licensed images of Charles Taylor, so an image from his 1984 Massachusetts District Court extradition trial would be quite helpful if I knew where to look to find one. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they did. Someone just needs to find one. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic grey area

On this map there is an area just south of Lake Erie, and north of the Shawnee and Cherokee, that has been left grey with no named tribes. Were there no indigenous Indians in this area, or has it been left blank because of lack of knowledge of the appropriate linguistic group? 31.185.153.231 (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That map was authored by William C. Sturtevant, who died in 2007, so he is unavailable for questions. However, you might find helpful information at http://www.native-languages.org/states.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember rightly, much of Ohio had been largely depopulated for quite a while before settlement; if this map be meant to reflect languages just before contact, it's likely grey because of a lack of Indians. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what the map is supposed to show. That area overlaps pretty strongly with the domain of the Monongahela culture, whose linguistic affinities are not clear. Looie496 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This area was unpopulated during the historical area when records would have been made of the native languages spoken in the area. It is not free of monuments, however. I remember having heard of this being caused by disease; the area was actually quite densely populated and so may have suffered a particularly strong population crash. I don't have a source, unfortunately, but am going on memory from a decade back. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio#Native Americans says: The Hopewell, however, disappeared from the Ohio Valley in about 600 AD. Little is known about the people who replaced them.[49] Researchers have identified two additional, distinct prehistoric cultures: the Fort Ancient people and the Whittlesey Focus people.[49] 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the Beaver Wars of the 1600s for the reason. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Beaver Wars are usually pointed to as the cause of the region's depopulation. A quote from this book, [3]: "For reasons that are still unclear, many of the Fort Ancient sites in the Upper Ohio Valley were abandoned by the seventeenth century. Most scholars believe that the inhabitants of the region were probably forced out by the intertribal impact of colonial expansion and warefare taking place far away to the south and east. ...the arrival of Europeans and their goods, along with the increase in death rates from epidemics and war, had a ripple effect that spread across the inland continent long before Europeans themselves arrived in any great numbers. This turned much of the Upper Ohio Valley into an area of low population density as the indigenous inhabitants were uprooted." The book goes on to say that after being depopulated the region was gradually resettled by groups such as the Lenape, Shawnee, Miami, Mingo, Wyandot, and others.

Another source, [4], quote: "...early historical sources describe devastating raids by Iroquois societies in southern Ontario and New York state as part of the Beaver Wars in the early to mid-seventeenth century, which disrupted many native societies across the region..." If nothing else, it is clear that the eastern interior of America was thrown into chaos by "ripple effects" of the coastal European colonies. A great deal about the chaos remains unknown. An example is the case of the Westo—a group of natives who apparently migrated from somewhere in or near the Ohio Country south to the frontiers of colonial Virginia and South Carolina. They might have been a fragment of the Erie people who had fled south during the chaos of the Beaver Wars. Around the same time a group of Shawnee appeared in South Carolina, apparently also fleeing the chaos and war in the north. Settling on the Savannah River these Shawnee became known as the "Savannah Indians". They fought and defeated the Westo. The Savannah River had been known as the Westobou River until the Shawnee Savannah took over. Anyway, these are just a few examples of the bits and pieces we do know about the general chaos that existed in the "grey area" on that map, from the Ohio Country to the inland frontiers of Virginia and Carolina. The map also makes some assumptions that may be unwarranted, such as the Yuchi controlling the upper Tennessee River Valley. Pfly (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of which goes some way to narrowing down the period this map is meant to represent which is an interesting question in its own right. I find your comments on the marked territory for the Yuchi interesting, since there's a few elements that seemed speculative or oversimplified to me also, with regard to other groups in the northwest. In general I'd say there's a propensity on this map to lump groups together under the name of the most recognizable tribe for that region. In the west in particular, where native populations remained as small and decentralized as virtually anywhere in the entirety of the Americas, there were scores of languages families that are believed to have been remarkably unrelated. The map on the right does a better job of representing that diversity and even it is an incomplete picture. But if Sturtevant's map is meant to depict populations after western colonization was already advancing then perhaps the map is meant to represent groups that had survived up into some point when European colonization was significantly advanced and many of these groups had declined or outright disappeared -- and the surviving language groups, due to assimilation or forced relocation technically covered a significantly larger region than they had pre-contact. Snow (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I was going to point out a few other things on the Sturtevant map that struck me as odd, but had to go. It's obvious that the map isn't supposed to show any single point in time but something more like "how things were around the time of contact". But what exactly this means isn't clear to me. The Comanche, for example, are shown in an area more or less corresponding to Comancheria, but the Comanche migrated to this region well after they were known to the Spanish in New Mexico. At that time they occupied a region more to the north, with the upper Arkansas River serving as a focal point. And before that they were living more to the north, along the Platte River in Wyoming. This map shows the Comanche situation fairly late in the historical era. Before about 1700, well after the establishment of Spanish New Mexico, "Comancheria" was controlled by the Apache, and was known to the Spanish as Apacheria. That kind of thing contrasts oddly with the way the map shows the Yuchi, Cherokee, Timucua, and others, making it hard to me to understand quite what the map is trying to tell us. Still, I admit I like the map, despite its flaws. Pfly (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Han Dynasty

Were all the descendants of Emperor Wu of Han exterminated by Wang Mang or by others by the advent of Eastern Han Dynasty since the only claimaints, including the new Emperor Guangwu of Han, were descendants of Emperor Wu's brother(s)? Even later famous members of the Imperial Liu Clan were descendants of Emperor Wen or Emperor Jing rather than Emperor Wu, like Liu Bei, Liu Biao and Liu Zhang. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Always hard to say what happened to the descendants of someone who lived more than 2000 years ago, there is some Internet chatter about that precise question but they are mostly original research and not suitable for Wikipedia purposes. The pragmatic reality seems to be that, because the militarily strongest leaders who deposed Wang Mang were from a branch descended from Emeperor Jing and not from Emepror Wu, it was that branch of the Liu family which held power and were the most prominent during the Eastern Han dynasty, and the direct male line descendants of Emperor Wu more or less sank into obscurity. However, they were certainly not exterminated. See this page for a relatively comprehensive, but original research, summary of the fates of the various branches of Emperor Wu's male line descendants. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]