Humanities desk
< November 25	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 27 >

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.

November 26

African Americans and East Indians

Are there any notable East Indians of African American origin? When I Google African Americans and East Indians, not too many articles come up. Poodlesun (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure what you're asking about. In certain Caribbean countries, such as Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana, there are large populations of African origin as well as large populations of subcontinental origin. AnonMoos (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He might have the East and West Indies confused. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If so, see East Indies (Southeast Asia) and West Indies (Caribbean). Alansplodge (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, could we please use terms appropriately. The term “African-American” refers to people of African origin born in the United States. The West Indies (Carribean) has a large percentage of people of African origin, but not many who came there via the US. Second, the article on the East Indies does not discuss the ethnic demographics of the region, so that article isn’t helpful. Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sensu stricto the East Indies generally refers to the islands of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Philippines, so that leaves us only a few countries to research the demographics of: Demographics of the Philippines, Demographics of Indonesia, Demographics of Malaysia, Demographics of Papua New Guinea and Demographics of Brunei I think should cover them. Perhaps also Demographics of Singapore. --Jayron 32 13:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the question, a more relative article is the one on the American diaspora. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article is somewhat also redundant to Emigration from the United States. Neither really mentions African Americans specifically. They also only deals with American citizens living abroad, and does not handle descendants of those people, who may or may not still be citizens and may or may not be counted as residents or citizens of their new homeland, for various reasons. --Jayron 32 17:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you build a tube to space?

Could you build a tube to space? 201.251.17.228 (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean like a space elevator? --Jayron 32 13:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much the same as any space elevator, whether it's a tube, a wire, or a tower. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Is There a Limit to How Tall Buildings Can Get? Cambalachero (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all the advances in science in regards to creating organs with your cells and advances in DNA editing would it ever be possible to grow and organ that one didnt have in the first place such as a trans women getting a genetically similar uterus?

With all the advances in science in regards to creating organs with your cells and advances in DNA editing would it ever be possible to grow and organ that one didnt have in the first place such as a trans women getting a genetically similar uterus? 101.51.4.239 (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we cannot predict the future. If the past is any indication, it would be foolhardy to say that the answer is a definite "No" - many once impossible things have been accomplished and organ printing is still in its infancy. Matt Deres (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toys R Us bankruptcy and "a dollar more than the liquidators"

My understanding was, a core problem for Toys R Us was the 2006 leveraged buyout, which saddled the company with massive debt. But a potential buyer of the bankrupt company was not expected to offer a price for the company which would pay all that debt.

The administrators handling theToys R Us bankruptcy said that in order to acquire the company, all a buyer would have needed to offer was "a dollar more than the liquidators". (I.e. a dollar more than would be realized by liquidating the stock). Yet nobody stepped forward to offer that dollar.

If the problem for Toys R Us was merely the debt burden it was carrying, and it was otherwise a viable going concern, why would no buyer have stepped forward to buy the company as a going concern? The price would have been cheap, and generally, there is considerable value lost in winding up a company. I don't see how the debt burden from the leveraged buyout would have posed a problem; the buyer need not offer a sum which covers it all - only the "dollar more than the liquidators". So why no buyer? (Was the stock worth more than the company as a whole? Or is there some other explanation?)

@John M Baker: as usual, I ping you as our resident corporate expert. Others welcome to answer too, of course. Eliyohub (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed the Toys R Us bankruptcy, although you would think I would have excellent reason to do so. A fundamental question, however, is who would buy the reorganized entity. I don't think there are any potential strategic buyers for the company (e.g., a company like Walmart or Federated), so any buyer would have to be an opportunistic buyer (e.g., a private equity fund that wants to buy a toy retailer on the cheap). Such a buyer would be looking for a company that would throw off cash to service new debt. It's not clear, in this retailing environment, that TRU would be throwing off that kind of cash. In this regard, note that it can be difficult to scale down; if half the TRU stores are profitable, for example, the buyer would still have to fund operations of the entire TRU headquarters, which might result in operating expenses too great to sustain. Also, in the United States a bankruptcy reorganization requires not only an optimal financial result but also a workout of the debt issues, and it can be difficult to get the necessary agreement of creditors; I don't know to what extent this may have been a factor here. John M Baker (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on if people believed that Toys 'R' Us's sole problems was the bad debt it accumulated through the LBO, or if there were other structural problems going forward that makes a brick and mortar big box toy store was a viable business model in the future. Brick and mortar retail is generally on the decline, as shopping malls are half-empty and much retail has moved on to online businesses like Amazon and general-purpose retailers like WalMart and Target. The debt problems may have hastened the eventual collapse of the business, but there are many who probably felt it was a failing concern going forward anyways. Net sales had declined for most of the past 10 years. It may not have been worth saving. If it were, there would be other brick-and-mortar big-box toy stores who would fill that market niche. Where are they? The loss of Toys 'R' Us has not created a market vacuum, and whatever such market vacuum it did create is filled by other concerns (Amazon, Walmart, Target). --Jayron 32 17:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overlooking that the company was operating at a loss for years. "The company has not had an annual profit since 2013. It reported a net loss of US$164 million in the quarter ended April 29, 2017. It lost US$126 million in the same period in the prior year." If your operating costs are always higher than your income, you are likely to run out of resources at some point. Dimadick (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not overlooking so much as you just added more data that supported my thesis. Thanks for that. Anyhoo, one could argue that the losses were due not to problems in store sales, but rather due to unfavorable debt management. My argument was mostly that sales were dropping anyways and that even if the company were debt-free, it was a failing business regardless. But yes, that's another reason no one wanted to touch it. It's been dead for years, no one told them until 2017 though. --Jayron 32 17:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Jayron32's point: Toys R Us is a "category killer," a devastating competitor for the small independent toy stores that prevailed in the 1950s when Toys R Us and its largest competitor, Child World, were started. (Child World and the third chain of this type, Lionel Kiddie City, went out of business in the early 1990s.) But TRU's business model required a large amount of high quality retail space for an essentially seasonal business, as toy retailing is dominated by the Christmas season. TRU was therefore in a poor position to compete with Walmart and Target, which can provide a large toy selection at Christmas but reduce the space devoted to this category during other seasons. The advent of Amazon, of course, further weakened TRU's competitive position. It's not clear why someone would want to get into this business at this point. John M Baker (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the largest competitor to Toys 'R' Us as a toy-only business was KB Toys, which went out of business about 10 years ago. While it generally operated much smaller store sizes compared to Toys 'R' Us, they were usually in higher-rent locations like shopping malls. The fact that TRU kept going another 10 years is probably inertia more than anything. Interestingly, the brand is supposed to be making a comeback this year as a "pop-up" store brand, similar to Halloween Costume stores and Christmas Ornament stores, which is in all honestly, a better model for seasonal businesses like this . --Jayron 32 19:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a '90s kid I got a lot of video games at the local Toys 'R' Us. I suspect video game sales helped revenues outside of the Christmas season, as games are released throughout the year, and I know I didn't like waiting! Video games moving largely to digital distribution probably had an impact. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reduced importance of the physical videogame market undoubtedly further contributed to TRU's problems.

I find it kind of amazing that KB Toys held on as long as it did. Like many mall chains, their competitive advantage, such as it was, essentially derived from their negotiating position with mall landlords as a major national tenant. Otherwise they had little to differentiate themselves from the old-fashioned toy stores that TRU, Child World, and Lionel eviscerated. But somehow they managed to hold on for years longer than Child World or Lionel. There is still FAO Schwartz, but I don't know how much of a market position they have. And that's pretty much it for toy stores, except for a few small boutiques that have little impact on the larger economic picture. It doesn't make for a very appealing environment for a potential purchaser of TRU. John M Baker (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, FAO Schwarz died at the same time as the other stores. The brand all but died in the mid 2000s (around the same time as KB Toys), it was never a market force, like the other stores, but occupied a niche market as a toy store for rich people. At its peak it only operated 42 stores, which it hit about 1999, but by 2001, the company was sold, 18 of its stores closed, and by 2003 the new owner declared bankruptcy, closing one of its two New York stores in 2004, and there were only a few locations still operating by then. They were basically down to 2-3 stores in 2009 when (ironically) the defunct brand was purchased by Toys 'R' Us. Toys 'R' Us didn't really help it, and the last stores closed in July 2015, with the famous flagship store (the one from the movie Big) closing that month. Like KB Toys, the brand was bought off of Toys 'R' Us and has been recently revived. --Jayron 32 15:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

California governor recall 2003, could Gray Davis have run to replace himself?

Regarding the California gubernatorial recall election in 2003: the ballot had two questions. (1) should the sitting governor Gray Davis be recalled, and (2) if so, who should become the new governor. At the time, Gray Davis had not served more than half his term, and the article notes that he is eligible to run again if he chooses.

My question is, could Gray Davis have run as one of the candidates to become governor on the same ballot as the recall question?

RudolfRed (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, no. The way to vote for Gray Davis was to vote against the recall. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Straight to the source: here's the relevant portion of the California Constitution, which bars a state officer from running as a candidate in an election to recall said officer. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! RudolfRed (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]