Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 September 10

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.

September 10

Do black africans and black Caribbeans have children out of wedlocks?

Do black african women in Africa and black women in the Caribbean giving births out of wedlocks? I heard that 70 percent of all births among African-Americans happen out of wedlock. Is it only just happening in the black communities in America, UK, etc? What about in a South American country like Brazil? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that at least one woman in each of those communities have given birth out of wedlock, which would answer your first question in the affirmative, one wouldn't even need a reference to consider that obvious fact, given the hundreds of millions of women in those communities who give birth every year. Surely, not every one of them is married. Your second question is confirmed Here which indicates that more than 70 % of births to African-American women are to unmarried women. Other countries may or may not use racial classification systems which are analogous to traditional American classification systems, so concepts like "black" and "African-Xian" would carry different meanings in different countries, making answering the rest of your questions difficult to answer. --Jayron32 03:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The PO should also consider that the marriage designation of "wedlock" somewhat implies Judao-Christian culture, and may or may not correspond very well to some current cultures and/or religions in the areas concerned. Heck, in my own white UK case, I like some of my acquaintances would be/are handfasted! (The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Marriage is a cultural universal. Love marriages (as opposed to arranged marriages etc) are pretty much a Western thing (and a recent one, too), but marriage "as such" is a universal. Going all cultural-relativist on this is engaging in obfuscation and obscurantism. Asmrulz (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

and on your first sentence. And for your second. Your third sentence is just an opinion, and rudely offered at that. Please remember you are at a reference desk. Actually, don't bother looking for citations or clarification, as the links below indicate that your claims are clearly wrong, or at least very poorly phrased. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for the OP, but I think they did have a point in that definitions of marriages varied quite a lot. Aand also that there were circumstances where a child may be born outside of marriage but it wouldn't be outside of some sort of recognised relationship. And even if outside a relationship, it may not be considered for lack of a better term discouraged or undesirable, for the birth to happen that way.

If you're talking about history, some cultures had Concubinage and similar concepts. Children born to these relationships had varying degrees of legal protections, but it would be confusing to simply group them with other children born outside of marriage. Legally, these concepts have largely died out but practically, they do occur to some degree. To be fair, even in many places in the past and definitely nowadays, the number of children born to these relations is likely to be so small they won't be make any real difference to statistics, but they're still concepts which should be considered.

Perhaps more significant, in many countries only a legally recognised marriage is likely to be considered when it comes to classifying whether or not the child is born outside of marriage. So a child may be born to a couple living in a stable committed relationship, which depending on the place and other factors, may have been considered a marriage, but won't be now.

According to [1] [2], it's fairly common in Latin America for couples to live in a consensual union, and many of them are never legalised. (Whether or not these unions are likely to have been considered marriages anywhere, I'm not commenting on although I suspect there would be at least some place some time which would have considered these marriages.) I didn't look at whether that source discussed births, but the sources below did show many of these countries having fairly high rates of births outside of marriage.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

See also [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable it is but [4] has 19% of births in Kenya, 6% in Nigeria and 59% in South Africa outside of marriage in 2008-2009. Depending on your definitions, a large majority of Kenya's and Nigeria's population is likely to be "black", so even if you assume non blacks have zero births outside of marriage, the percentages won't be that much higher than these. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

More figures [5] [6] DRC 19% in 2007, Ethiopia 11% in 2011, Ghana 30% in 2007, Kenya 24% in 2008-2009 (no idea why this is different from earlier), Nigeria 6% in 2008, South Africa 63% in 1998, Tanzania 29% in 2011-2012, and Uganda 54% in 2001. This one gives a source for the figures. Somewhat touched by the earlier source and particularly touched by this one, children may live with extended family members, or other people, without or without one or both of their parents, and this won't just depend on the marital status at birth. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the above source also shows fairly high rates of births outside of marriage in a number of countries with fairly high percentage of "whites" such as the UK, France, Sweden and Hungary. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and it also gives the rates of married vs. cohabiting couples. It looks like there's a pretty strong relationship between cohabitation and children born to unmarried parents (unsurprisingly).Sjö (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Sjö (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What about the caribbean countries such as Jamaica? Is it very common or not common for ummarried women to have children in Jamaica? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

See also Aid to Families with Dependent Children (about a US program from the 1930's to 1996 which was said to provide an incentive for women to have children outside marriage), Single parent, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. Edison (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Geographical distribution of wearing shoes indoor or not

Some places in the US a majority of the people wear shoes indoors; some places it's the opposite. Is there a geographical pattern to this? I'm looking for a site similar to PopVsSoda[7] regarding this shoes-or-not phenomenon. My other car is a cadr (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that there is a clear geographical pattern. Wearing shoes indoors is (in very broad - generalized terms) an American cultural norm. That said, not wearing shoes indoors is more common in communities with specific immigrant/ethnic populations (where the community retains the cultural norms of the country they came from, and people have not yet adopted the US cultural norms) Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Rmhermen (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Are we talking about "shoes" as opposed to socks or bare feet, or as opposed to slippers? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

There might be some correlation to places with theft problems. That's why cowboys sleep with their boots on, at least in this American children's book. He slept outside, but still, most modern shoemats I know are right at the door, essentially vulnerable to whoever wants to walk off in them, especially during parties. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course there's nothing stopping people taking their shoes off outside and carrying them inside for storage. (The alternative is taking them off indoors somewhere near the door where they are stored if cultural norms allow that.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, "at" the door is usually inside, from my travels, but porches and balconies aren't so rare. The thing about using a closet is closets are often dark, especially at the bottom. You get Mother Teresa drunk enough and send her into the darkness after dark, medium-sized shoes often enough, she'll slip up eventually. There's only so much individuality to go around at "proper" parties (as opposed to raves). It's not always a moral decision, but may the Lord of Light guide us. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for that mental image of a drunken nun staggering into the night in inadvertently stolen cowboy boots. —Tamfang (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

My experience is that shoes come off at the door in colder/wetter climates, where it's more likely that your shoes are covered in rain, snow, mud, or street goop. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That's ten-twelths of my partying days. The coats go on the bed in the coat room, but if you put all the boots there, too, how's anybody supposed to get to their coat? So that's why it's not called the bootroom. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

As to why certain Englishmen called the drinking room The Boot Room, Wikipedia doesn't know, and the official website has been taken over by the Japanese. So that's that. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Some populations, like diabetics, are (no medical advice intended) cautioned never to go barefoot indoors, so if they removed shoes at the door they would need slippers.It would seem odd to carry a pair of slippers around, and also odd to put on someone else's slippers (though no worse than renting bowling shoes or ice skates). People commonly park muddy/snowy/wet shoes/boots at the door when entering someone's home, but are more likely to keep shoes on when they are clean and dry. Some Asians I have known in the US routinely switch from outdoor shoes to slippers when entering the home. Edison (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This may be painfully obvious, but for thoroughness' sake, it's fairly common to transform wet and dirty shoes into somewhat clean and dry ones by wiping them on a doormat. They certainly don't get them their shiniest, though. Might be a correlation between shoeless places and places with light carpeting (or carpeting at all). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

May not the distribution of buildings have some relevance here? I would imagine that in a workplace or public building people don't leave their shoes outside, (mosques excepted?) but when sitting down either at home or behind a desk some people might find it more comfortable to slip their shoes off. I don't think that phenomenon can be plotted geographically unless temperature has something to do with it, in which case the prevalence of air conditioning might come into play. 80.43.196.11 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal observation from the UK, its pretty usual to take your shoes off at home (some people don't, some people always do, some people insist that visitors do so, and others will take them off themselves but think its rude to demand guests do the same). Its normal to leave your shoes on in public buildings, at work, etc. In contrast, in Japan, its pretty much universal for people to take their shoes off indores everywhere (plastic slippers are provided to wear instead). Iapetus (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as an Australian-born editor who has lived in both Australia and the UK, I would say it is uncommon for people to wear shoes indoors in the UK, and even less uncommon in Australia. It seems odd and uncomfortable to wear shoes absolutely non-stop. Not to mention unhygienic, smelly and sweaty. In fact, in Australia, it is common for people to be barefoot in public, in places such as shopping centres, fast food outlets, as reported by others. This is common amongst teenagers and young adults. I visited a shopping centre in a suburb of Sydney not too long ago, and every single male teenager and young adult was barefoot, along with nearly all females. In contrast to what an editor said above, being barefoot is actually more common amongst those of European heritage in South Africa. The trend of being barefoot, amongst both Europeans and the Māori people has been noted by various journalistic sources, including the New York Times. So, obviously, wearing shoes indoors is even less common. It would seem wearing shoes inside always is more of a US phenomenon. AusLondonder (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

How can liberal democracy work in places with high racial and religious diversity?

I am from Singapore and we have a general election today. Our society has high racial and religious diversity, with conservative Chinese (Buddhists/Taoists) the largest group, plus indigenous Malays, Indian (mostly Tamil) minority and influential Christian minority including Eurasians/Europeans, Peranakans, Filipinos and Westernised Chinese. The ruling party is in power since independence and rejects liberal democracy which will lead to racial conflict, for example if parties seek Chinese votes in ways that harm the minority races. Our society largely accepts this view and in the last election, liberal opposition parties (Reform Party, Singapore Democratic Alliance, Singapore Democratic Party) did much worse than moderate/conservative opposition parties focusing on bread and butter issues (Workers Party, Singapore Peoples Party, National Solidarity Party).

Western groups pressure Singapore to have more liberal democracy, but we notice that most European countries are based on one main race. When they become more diverse, liberal democracy allows rise of racist parties, plus extreme racism is supported as free speech. Our relationship with the West is complex because Singapore was a British colony from 1819 to 1942 (when we fell to the Japanese who massacred many thousand Chinese) then from 1945 to 1963 when Singaporeans fought for independence, angry that the British cannot protect us and were very racist against us for 100+ years. A child custody case made long standing Malay grievances develop into riots against Europeans, Eurasians and other Christians. Due to being exploited by the British, memories of the massacre and being exploited by the British, many Chinese turned to communism, starting many strikes and riots in the 1950s. Minority races worried that the communist party would win elections, so Singapore became part of Malaysia but disagreed with their racial politics, where all parties are formed along racial lines and Malays get special rights because British rule made them poorer than other races. Hence there were riots between Chinese and Malays in 1964, then Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965 and opposition politicians were detained to eliminate communism and racial politics.

We are surrounded by Malaysia and Indonesia, so if we mistreat our Malays, they may invade us (or cut our water or sand). That is our history and circumstances. Since then, Singapore has made progress towards racial harmony. Of course, we are not perfect and still have some racial problems, but much less than in the West where people get killed due to their race. It helps that we make changes to our election process (like seats where candidates must be a group with at least one minority race) and racist comments can lead to police investigation, even jail. Which countries with high racial and religious diversity choose liberal democracy? How successful is their liberal democracy and do they suffer from racial politics or even racial conflict? What do they do to prevent racial problems arising from liberal democracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.60.126.54 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Switzerland isn't Singapore but it has two major and two minor languages and a historic religious division. It traditionally defuses conflict by devolving authority to smaller units – creating them if necessary, as in the self-partition of Appenzell. — A liberal society (in my view at least) is one that respects citizens' liberty and thus the political stakes are lower than they would otherwise be; you won't have a bitter conflict over the official state haircut (to invent a silly example) if the state has no authority over haircuts. —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  Well put. Also consider that, for people inclined to tell other people what to do, intolerance of differences scales to the differences available. If there aren't any Muslims, then Catholics will fight Protestants. If there aren't any blacks, then people with Irish ancestry will fight people with Italian ancestry. There's a famous quote (or meme) about how when all other differences have been leveled, it will be sufficient cause for war that some people break their eggs on the big end and some on the little end. I'm not sure who said that first, though I think that particular quote may be from Shaw(?). I know the idea shows up in Gulliver's Travels, so Shaw was certainly not the originator. I think, but am not sure, that the notion of endianness in computer science comes from this. --Trovatore (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The name "endianness" derives from Gulliver's Travels, but the concept refers to the certain choices in the design of computers and related devices; choices that would always have had to be made, and which different designers or companies made differently. --65.95.178.150 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I spoke imprecisely. I meant the name. --Trovatore (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Still, Switzerland is overwhelmingly of European descent, and while different languages are spoken, the peoples of Switzerland share many cultural similarities and have little in the way of obvious physical differences. Ethnic diversity in Singapore involves larger cultural differences and ethnic (or racial) groups with distinct physical appearances. A better point of comparison with Singapore might be Canada. Like Singapore, which is roughly 75% ethnic Chinese, Canada is roughly 75% ethnic European. Like the Chinese of Singapore, the ethnic Europeans of Canada speak different languages (mostly English or French). The remaining 25% of Canada's population are "visible minorities", or people of different races. The largest of these are East Asians (mainly Chinese and totaling about 5%) and South Asians (also about 5%), followed by indigenous (Inuit or Amerindian) groups (about 4%), and smaller percentages of people of Southeast Asian, African, and Latin American origin. Canada has a very liberal democracy and low rates of racial conflict. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

My point is that I don't buy that the relative racial or religious homogeneity of one society compared to another really matters much. It scales to the differences available. If first contraconvential unarchists can get along with second contraconventional unarchists, then anyone can get along with anyone. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh, what are you trying to link to there? --65.95.178.150 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• A novel by L. Neil Smith; I haven't read it but infer that it has some satirical elements. —Tamfang (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, definitely read Their Majesties' Bucketeers. In my opinion it's Smith's best work (out of the ones I've read at least; I never got around to reading the Lando Calrissian stories and may have missed a few others). It uses a softer touch on the ideology than most of the stories in the same universe, and the "period" feel applied to an alien race is very well done. --Trovatore (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that whether or not a population is all one race is subjective, depending on how you define "race". Back in the day when it was considered reasonable to classifly people into all sorts of groups based on, say, the ratio of the length of their ears to the radius of curvature of their nostrils (an exaggeration, but only slightly), "white people" were subdivided into multiple races, e.g. Alpine/Mediterranean/Nordic/Dinaric/etc. And today, what people mean by "race", and who gets assigned to which group is very variable and culturally influenced (America still seems to work by the One-drop rule). 109.151.143.201 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

(EC) European countries may generally be significantly one race, but that's changing due to migration. And some non European Western countries at least do have significant percentage of people of other ethnicities or race.

The US is one of the most obvious examples. Per Demographics of the United States it's 72.4% European American, 12.6% African American, 4.8% Asian American, 6.2% some other race plus a few percentage in other categories. By comparison, per Demographics of Singapore, Singapore has about 74.3% Chinese, 13.3% Malay, 9.1% Indian and 3.3% other. New Zealand another point of comparison has 74.0% European, 14.9% Māori, 11.8% Asian, 7.4% Pacific peoples, 1.2 Middle Eastern, Latin American, African and 1.7% other ethinicty. (The numbers will add up to more than 100% because some people will identify with more than one ethnicity.) [8]

Religion is more complicated. Singapore BTW has 33.3% Buddhist, 18.3% Christian, 17% no religion, 14.7% Islam, 10.9% Taoism/Chinese traditional belief, 5.1% Hindu and 0.7% other religions. NZ is mostly made up those without religion, and those who are Christian, only about 6% have another religion, the largest of which is Hinduism at 2.1%, see Religion in New Zealand. The US is somewhat similar although the number without religion is a fair amount smaller.

However you shouldn't assume just because broad groupings are the same, it means there aren't religious tensions. The Sunni-Shia and other divides in the Islamic world is an obvious example. But religion or the Protestant-Catholic split was also a factor in the Northern Ireland problems. Just as important, there can be significant disagreements between some of those without religion and some of those with religion due to religion related issues. There are plenty of examples of this in the US.

Despite the problems that may occur in the US and NZ, I don't think you'll find many that consider the Singaporean model of "democracy" a good alternative. Some aspects of governance and economic policy perhaps. In fact, considering the problems face by liberal democracies solely along religious and ethnic lines would often be considered a mistake. Frankly I suspect many from outside the US would say the US already has problems with their democracy for various reasons which have contributed to some of their current problems along ethic lines, and there's a good chance they'll be far worse if they tried a model of "democracy" anything like Singapore.

The history, culture etc between NZ, US and Singapore are fairly different, which would give rise to differing issues, but this still doesn't mean people would consider the Singapore model necessary, particularly not in the long term. Singapore is after all a developed country with a highly educated population now.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Now I want to add a reason why Canada's experience may not be comparable to that of Singapore. Both countries have histories of conquest and displacement. In Canada's case, Europeans were conquerors and the indigenous (mainly Amerindian) population were displaced. The indigenous people were displaced initially by Europeans, but the largest "visible minorities" in Canada are immigrants chosen for their skills and employability. As a result, Canada's Asian minorities are relatively affluent and are in effect among the displacers. In Singapore, Europeans were also conquerors, and the Malays were conquered, but it was mainly Chinese people who displaced the Malays. In both countries, there is resentment on the part of the displaced peoples, who are economically disadvantaged. The difference is that in Canada, the Amerindian population is only 4% of the total, and it is largely confined to rural areas and smaller cities far from the country's metropolitan centers. While there is a limited degree of racial conflict between Canada's whites and indigenous people, it is limited by the small size and remoteness of the indigenous population. In Singapore, by contrast, the Malays are the largest minority, with about 13% of the population, and because Singapore is a city-state, the Malay population is in close proximity to the dominant Chinese majority. These differences may mean that the risk of ethnic conflict is larger in Singapore.

Therefore, a country like the United States might be a better analogy to Singapore, and of course the United States does have racial conflict. Still, I strongly doubt that most members of minority groups in the United States would favor a system like Singapore's. I think that most Americans who belong to racial minorities would argue that it is better to air conflicts openly, though preferably not violently, so that injustices can be addressed and hopefully resolved. Of course, there is some debate whether the United States is really a model liberal democracy. Marco polo (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Race, religion, and language are non-issues in Canadian elections (minus Quebec where they want to protect their distinct culture). Canadians are highly educated, have a decent economy, medium inequality, high social mobility, are not religious fanatics, and interact with others of different cultures everyday, so we have no reason nor want to point fingers at particular minority groups. 24.57.54.196 (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Canadians don't need racism... that's what the Newfies are for. Blueboar (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it can't. Maybe that's why the USSA and increasingly the EUSSR are not democracies, but, like Singapore, managerial states. It's a feature, not a bug. "The multi-cultural society is] hard, fast, cruel and it lacks solidarity, it is characterized by stark social imbalances (...), it has the tendency to come apart forming a variety of groups and communities, losing its cohesion and the binding quality of its values." - this is coming from a proponent!

What society lacks in shared values, it will make up in policing. Everything achieved by the (left-wing) national liberation movements of the 18th and 19th centuries is being undone. We're reverting to Feudalism. "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." Asmrulz (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this a forum, or a Reference Desk? Might be time to review the WP:Reference_desk/Guidelines

The Wikipedia article on liberal democracy lists their many challenges, including a section on ethnic and religious conflicts. It cites only one book and may well need balancing with other points of view. Political pluralism article comes closer to the mark for neutrality, but is more philosophical than empirical, the heart of your specific questions:

1. "Which countries with high racial and religious diversity choose liberal democracy?"
2. "How successful is their liberal democracy and do they suffer from racial politics or even racial conflict?"
3. "What do they do to prevent racial problems arising from liberal democracy?"

WorldCat offers a wealth of suggestions for the more inclusive subject term su:Cultural pluralism - Political aspects, including quantitative studies that may address the first two, as well as broader overviews of strategies used in pursuit of the last.

An example for the religious diversity in liberal democracies aspect would be Fox, Jonathan (2008). A World Survey of Religion and the State. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-88131-9., which uses a 62-variable data set for 175 governments.

Real answers to your questions are out there, but not here, or so it appears now. Can we do better? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This question seems wide-ranging and so it is hard to really answer all of it, but I would say that laws against hate speech are controversial. Sitting in the U.S., it doesn't seem to me that we have done so badly without them, transitioning steadily from a very racist culture to one where blacks can become president, and cracking down on at least the more blatant police abuses that were targeted at blacks. But the most fundamental, groundbreaking progress toward civil rights was made in the 50s and 60s when many politicians freely used racial epithets! Meanwhile, in France there is Dieudonne and such being prosecuted even while the freedom of Charlie Hebdo is rightly idolized, which understandably fuels greater resentment. Similar situations exist in many countries with a crude paper of civility slapped over crumbling internal relations. So I don't see freedom as an obstruction to racial harmony, but as a prerequisite; the more freedom people have, the better it will be.

The other aspect I should comment on is that race seems extremely labile. A bit more than a century ago, American businesses would say "Irish and Negroes need not apply", perhaps spelling the latter a bit less politely. Now Irish and English are both "white" in America. Even Germans, discriminated against during the second World War, are already "white". Puerto Ricans and Mexicans, once viewed as two totally different races, are now one race of 'Latinos'. I suspect what happens is that the United States Census has a form, collects data on how many "black" and "white" and "Hispanic" there are, and pandering politicians adjust their rhetoric to a bland, homogenized model of what they think the groups predominant in a district want to hear - but that's just speculation. In any case, I see no reason to assume that Singapore will continue to think of people as belonging to the same sort of races they do today - with luck, soon no country will think about races at all! Wnt (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)