Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 23

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.

March 23

Republic vs. Democracy

What exactly is the difference between a republic and a democracy? From what I can tell from their articles and their Wiktionary entries, both require the power to be controlled by the people. But I know that there is a difference!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Put in the simplest terms, a republic is a state without a monarch, and a democracy is a state where the government is chosen by popular election. Some republics are democracies, but not all; some monarchies are democracies, but not all. The United Kingdom has a hereditary sovereign as head of state, but is still a democracy, whereas Saudi Arabia, which also has a sovereign as head of state, is not. The United States is a republic and a democracy; China is a republic but it is not a democracy. Clio the Muse 00:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Its often difficult for modern people to grasp what republicanism really means. The term comes from the Latin 'res publicus' meaning 'public affairs', which is what republicanism referred to, in its earliest and most basic form, i.e. the idea that the state should be run for the benefit of the public, (the people). This is why many modern people have trouble understanding this; to them, the idea that a state should benefit its people is taken completely for granted. Even in most Monarchies today, (including my own, Britain), the assumption that We, the People, come before Her Majesty, the Monarch, is omnipresent. But during many periods of history it was seen as perfectly acceptable that a state be run solely for the benefit of a ruling élite or autocrat.

The idea of legitimacy plays a part in this. Pre-republican states were legitimised by the claims that their ruling élites were ordained by God, or some other rationale that was completely unable to be reasonably discussed. All republics, no matter how tyrannical or corrupt ultimately hold the belief that they act in the will of the people. So if republicanism is rule for the People, then democracy is rule by the People. In democracies all citizens, however that term is defined, must be involved in deciding what should become of their state. 194.80.32.12 01:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't some of these terms cause confustion on who gets what kind of power? How can a democracy (power by the people) not be a republic (for the people)? I would think that the civilian power would be directed towards the civilians! Also, how would a democratic monarchy work out? A democracy demands control by the commoners, but a monarcy requires rule over a state by one ruler. Would that not cause political problems within a nation?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you, Ed, that democracy and monarchy work out very well indeed. Clio the Muse 06:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problems tend to be theoretical, rather than practical - for example, Elizabeth Windsor could in theory veto any law passed by the British Parliament. In practise, she can't, and wouldn't, because the day after she did we'd be a Republic. The term is Constitutional monarchy, in which a monarch sits but has no, or very little power. Interesting are countries such as Ireland and Iceland, who are constitutional republics - their Presidents have broadly the same types of practical powers as the British monarch (i.e. none), the authority resting with their Prime Ministers. If anythihng, there would be greater problems where power was shared, because the lines could be blured - hybrid systems, such as the French and Finnish republics, with power split between the President and Prime Minister also exist. --Mnemeson 12:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

When the terms republic and democracy are used in opposition to each other, sometimes it is that democracy is being used in a more limited sense approaching direct democracy (a regime in which the government is the people in some sense not satisfied by having "the government...chosen by popular election"). It's in terms of this contrast that you can understand, for example, some of the differences among the framers of the U.S. constitution (and some of the ideals behind such political party names as "Republican," "Democratic," Democratic-Republican," etc. — it's certainly not that they were positioning themselves vis-a-vis the question of monarchy, though by using the word "ideals" I'm acknowledging that no one exactly envisioned a sovereign assembly of all the people either!). Wareh 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The democracy/republic chart

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Nepal

Mwalcoff 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I find that explanation that a republic simply means "the country is there for its people" quite interesting. I always assumed that "res publica" meant more than that, I thought it meant "the people decide how the country is run"81.165.186.254 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a precise definition of the word republic. The word derives from Latin res publica, literally "public things, public business". Modern republics are named after the Roman Republic, which was ruled by a combination of oligarchy (the senate), direct democracy (the popular assemblies), and representative democracy (the elected magistrates), but whose defining feature was the refusal to allow any one person absolute power. The point at which the republic is generally agreed to have ended was when Augustus took absolute power and established a functioning monarchy. If China is a republic, which it claims to be, it must be because, although it's totalitarian, it's not a monarchy, it's an oligarchy - officials and policies are chosen by the Party, not by a single absolute ruler. --Nicknack009 20:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Submarine names

Why didn't the Germans and Japanese name their submarines in WW II? Wartime rationing? Clarityfiend 03:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe for cultural views on objects of war and anthropomorphism. Vespine 05:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really likely, since they did name their surface warships. -- Necrothesp 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In Germany anyway there had never been any tradition of naming Unterseebooten, in WWI as well as WWII, perhaps because they were considered closer to machines than ships, so modern and so impersonal, something that does not fit within an existing naval tradition. Clio the Muse 06:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it was cultural. After all, we're talking about a couple of militaristic societies here. It's weird - the allies named their subs. Oh well, now that I think about it, it might be a different size cutoff preference. PT boats weren't named and I don't think E-boats were either. Clarityfiend 08:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right in your assumption about E-boats. I'm not sure about cut off preferences, though. As the war progressed German U-boats got steadily larger in size. Type IXD, for example, weighed up to 1779 tons when fully loaded and submerged, and carried a crew of up to sixty-three men. Perhaps the sailors gave their boats unique names, in the same fashion as American bomber crews did with their particular craft? On reflection, and considering the cultural differences, perhaps not. Clio the Muse 08:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The U-boats, like the American PT boats, were considered largely expendable. They were built in large numbers, and destroyed in large numbers. --Carnildo 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They were certainly destroyed in large numbers, though I'm not sure if it is right to contend that the Germans considered them, and their crews, to be 'expendable', Carnildo. Rather, it was quickly obvious to both Hitler and the German High Command that, given the limitations of the surface fleet, the U-boat arm was Germany's only effective naval weapon. In 1939 there were only 57 boats in service; but after Günther Prien and U-47 sank the British battleship Royal Oak in the allegedly safe haven of Scapa Flow, production was rapidly increased. For a time in 1940 it looked as if the U-Boat arm was well on its way to winning the Battle of the Atlantic. Clio the Muse 23:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"I doubt it was cultural." — What else could it be? There is no necessary technical reason to name or to not name boats; it is clearly a cultural convention no matter how it is done. --24.147.86.187 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet, by contrast, Germany named her airships, such as the LZ 129 Hindenburg, whereas British airships were not named. Gandalf61 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Did they? I thought the Hindenburg, and possibly the Graf Zepplin, were the exceptions, and that most German airships only carried type names? Clio the Muse 23:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See Zeppelin. The company apparently started producing named airships when they went into passenger service. Of course, this contrasts with most airplanes today, although I remember that British Airways planes are named (typically "City of [Name]"). Perhaps they were viewed as akin to passenger ships. Britain never got as far as putting airships into passenger service, not after the R-100 disaster, but American military airships of that period were named. --Anonymous, March 23, 2007, 03:52 (UTC).

British submarines weren't named until the late 1920s. The US Navy didn't start naming its submarines until the early 1930s. Before that both navies assigned their submarines an alphanumeric designation. So in actual fact it was they who were changing the way submarines were designated, and the Germans and Japanese were simply keeping the tradition of not naming. -- Necrothesp 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the British, but the Americans named them from the beginning, e.g. USS Alligator, USS Holland, and the subs listed in Category:World War I submarines of the United States have names. Clarityfiend 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet another Holocaust question

Since questions about Jews and the Holocaust are so common here, I thought I'd add another. The pages on The Holocaust and Names of the Holocaust both say that the word "Shoah" is preferred by many Jews and others because the word "Holocaust" is "theologically offensive". I understand that the word "holocaust" comes from Greek and referred to a Greek sacrifical ritual similar to the "olah" (Whole offering), in which sacrifical animals are burnt completely. I don't understand why this makes the word "theologically offensive". The Names of the Holocaust page says "...theologically offensive nature of the original meaning of the word holocaust as a reference to a sacrifice to a god." But wasn't "olah", in ancient times at least, a sacrifice to a god? Is it offensive just because ancient Greeks were not monotheistic? Pfly 06:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is the suggestion that the Jews were a sacrifice to God that is considered offensive, and since this refers to the theological connotation of the word holocaust, this is condensed into calling it "theologically offensive".  --Lambiam^Talk 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to expand on what Lambiam rightly said ("the suggestion that the Jews were a sacrifice to God"): note that the Greek word holocaust is generally used in a Jewish context (= Hebrew `olah), not to describe offerings to the pagan gods. So the whole Greek issue is a red herring. Wareh 16:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Greek etymology as the source of offense in the regard of particular believers. Some people, religious adherents among them, are known to set much store by the significance of foreign-language etymologies of terms that have been adopted into mainstream language, and we would do well to recognize their sensitivities. What I question (see below) is the purported extent of such an objection leading to the substitution of the Hebrew "Shoah" for "Holocaust." --- Deborahjay 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a matter of Wikipedia editing. The explanations (above) by Lambiam and Wareh essentially clarify the rationale for what might be an objection to the use of the word "Holocaust" in English. What needs to be addressed is the wording of the page: is this putative "theological" objection by "many [sic; emphasis mine] Jews" a tenet of any denomination of organized Judaism (presumably in the English-speaking world)? If so, this should be cited. Neither has a citation been provided attesting to the alleged scope of this objection. Otherwise, if this is a matter of conjecture, the sentence might be reworded accordingly. Three possible steps for action:

• Check the page's edit history to determine which User wrote this line, and query the user (via the User Talk page) for clarification and substantiation to be added to the page;
• Leave a comment for discussion on the article's Talk page.
• Interim editing of that statement on the page.

I've done what I can (while having failed to crack the page history, so haven't identified the original editor); thanks to Pfly for bringing attention to this questionable content. -- Deborahjay 17:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

When the term was introduced[1], the text was: "[The term Shoa] is used by many Jews and a growing number of Christians due to theological discomfort with the literal meaning of the word Holocaust; it is considered theologically offensive to imply that the Jews of Europe were a burnt sacrifice to God." The mention of sacrifice was removed[2] by an anon editor who – based on its other edits – had some dubious axe to grind.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction. The reference to "sacrifice" was actually finally removed in a later edit[3].  --Lambiam^Talk 00:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone object to the use of the word Holocaust to refer to the genocide. The first English-language reference to the word Shoah in the OED, from 1967, says Shoah is preferable because it more-specifically refers to the mass-murder of Jews, whereas many events can be called holocausts. But the word Holocaust, with a capital "H," has become so well-known that it's rarely used nowadays except to refer to the Nazi period. -- Mwalcoff 05:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

world bank assistance in India for development

respected sir/madam i want about the world banks assistance in several states of india. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.212.111.130 (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

What is the name of this type of paintings?

Hi. For my masters thesis (on packing small rectangles within a large), I would like to have a painting of a certain style on the front page, but I cannot remember what it is called. Perhaps someone here can help me?

The central theme of the simple abstract style of painting is a set of very colorful rectangles, with strongly pronounced edges. The background is usually white, and some rectangles are aligned and some unaligned. Occasionally non-rectangles feature as well. I believe the genre is quite popular.

Thanks in advance Søren 130.225.96.2 11:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this article on geometric abstract art will help. A.Z. 11:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How about De Stijl.—eric 11:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that will do nicely.

Søren130.225.96.2 12:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, the artist Piet Mondrian was also mentioned in the link A.Z. gave. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 13:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the reproduction rights to the works of Mondrian are held by the Mondrian Trust (aka Mondrian/Holtzman Trust), http://www.mondriantrust.com.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And that, depending on whether your masters thesis is going to be commercially published or merely distributed to your advisors and then stuck on a shelf somewhere, you may have an educational fair use allowance to use it anyway. But if you do use it, make sure you attribute it properly, or your profs will surely notice. Jfarber 17:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the US Copyright Act applies in Danmark.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but happily, Denmark has own copyright laws, which include educational fair use. Jfarber 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, if the university has made an agreement on the exploitation of paintings with an organisation comprising a substantial number of painters of such paintings which are used in Denmark, and if the educational activities covered by that agreement comprise the reproduction of such paintings on the cover of Ph.D. theses. (I'm just using the phraseology of the law here.) Something tells me that the university might just have overlooked the need for such an agreement.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen such agreements in even the smaller private schools in the US, and they tend to runa wide gamut. It is my understanding that such agreements are common between major colleges and national copyright organizations, in which a flat fee is paid yearly, and the terms are broadly defined, so that unanticipated uses of educational benefit can be easily interpreted as within the terms of the agreement. I don't know enough about Demark universities to make a guess either way, but given the broad defining terms in all such agreements I've seen in the US, given how rare it is for a Masters Degree work to NOT count as internal academic work for educational purposes, given that it would be eay to make a case that the querent feels there would be obvious benefit to the understanding of his topic through use of this type of image, and given, more generally, how often a teacher or student might need to use images for in-institution purposes of one type or another tied to educational purposes, I'd think that a) it's worth checking with the university, and b) a blanket agreement with general terms allowing use "for educational purposes within the organization" is not as unlikely as you think. It's hard to imagine a college being able to teach effectively without such agreements, in fact, unless they've got lawyers lurking in the corners of every library, right next to the copy machine... Jfarber 01:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Suprematism... AnonMoos 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

the black prince. why was he called that?

why was the black prince called the black prince?--Lerdthenerd 11:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't. "Although Edward is almost always now called the "Black Prince", there is no record of this name being used during his lifetime. He was instead known as Edward of Woodstock, after his place of birth." (see Edward, the Black Prince. --Wetman 12:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In terms of why he is now called The Black Prince, according to the article it is either because of the black suit of armour he was given early in his career and wore at subsequent battles (that is the traditional view, the one I was taught at school) or because he was so successful against the French that he was cast as a "black" plague against them. Batmanand | Talk 13:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The name can be traced back no earlier than 1563, to Richard Grafton's Abridgement of the Chronicles of England, and is now assumed, with no certain evidence, to have been accorded because he wore a dark suit of armour. I have never come across the 'black plague' story, Batmanand, and would be grateful for a source for this. If the French did indeed drape him in this colour it is surely because of his conduct at the 1370 siege of Limoges. Incidentally, on a note of sheer battiness, his mother, Philippa of of Hainault, appears on a list of one hundred great 'black Britons', for no other reason than because of her association with him. Clio the Muse 14:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read the talk pages of Edward and Philippa of Hainault you will see there is a contemporary description, supposedly of Philippa, which suggests black features. This a has led to speculation about her heritage but the black britain classification is on fairly slim evidence. meltBanana 20:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now read the talk page, and I see there is a highly ambiguous reference to the ODNB and 'black features', which may, or may not, apply to Philippa. I do not have this reference book to hand, so am unable to check the exact wording. I am, in any case, not quite sure what 'black features' means in this context. In the Middle Ages such an expression would have been used to denote mood, never skin colour or physiognomy. Do be careful of the article on Philippa, by the way: it contains two rather silly errors, one of fact and another of interpretation. Clio the Muse 20:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the description which may be about Philippa or one of her sisters and here is the nearest contemporary image of her. Although black as a noun meaning a black person only goes back as far as the 17thC black in reference to the skin colour of a blackamoor is attested in the 13thC. BTW I'm not trying to prove she was black or any other colour/race just explaining the evidence some people cite. meltBanana 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"The lady whom we saw has not uncomely hair, betwixt blue-black and brown. Her head is cleaned shaped; her forehead high and broad, and standing somewhat forward. Her face narrows between the eyes, and the lower part of her face is still more narrow and slender than the forehead. Her eyes are blackish brown and deep. Her nose is fairly smooth and even, save that is somewhat broad at the tip and flattened, yet it is no snub nose. Her nostrils are also broad, her mouth fairly wide. Her lips somewhat full and especially the lower lip…all her limbs are well set and unmaimed, and nought is amiss so far as a man may see. Moreover, she is brown of skin all over, and much like her father, and in all things she is pleasant enough, as it seems to us."

Thank you for that quotation, MeltBanana, which I assume is from the ODNB? Does it give a source for this description? I do appreciate that you are not trying to prove a specific claim about Philippa, simply detailing the sources. My questioning here arises from my tiresome need to test the evidence, at all hazards! One other point: you say that the word 'blackamoor' is attested in the 13th century, though I personally can only trace its use back to the first half of the sixteenth century. Do you have a source for this also? Clio the Muse 02:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That actual text is from somewhere on the net so I can't vouch for its complete accuracy as it was translated from french and I don't have the MS. It is a diplomatic letter from Walter de Stapeldon who did the viewing, the ODNB only refers to the uncertainty of the subject viewed. The cite from the 13thC is in Ancrene Wisse and is actually "Blac as a bloamon" 'bloamon' being a mangled mixture of blackman and the Old Norse for blackamoor. I simplified a little, se the trouble it getyou into. meltBanana 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. If you manage at some point to come across the text of Stapeldon's complete letter I would be pleased if you could let me know. Best wishes Clio the Muse 03:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Tada! You need a google books account (free). meltBanana 19:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yoconut

Hello

i heard the word Yoconut and beleive this to be a Young Coconut! if so is it a new word, and that is worry you do not have it in your database!

Looking so forward to your reply.

Best of regards

Martin from Sweden

(This is not really a question for the Humanities reference desk.) Are you by any chance Martin Giles, the Yoconut marketing and promotion guy? Your product has been launched only a few days ago. To include it in an encyclopedia, it needs to have some notability, and we need reliable sources (independent of a company marketing the product) as well. There is also a guideline to avoid neologisms.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And maybe you should consider a new name, as this one sounds like coconut flavored yogurt StuRat 15:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought it was too, Stu. makes note to start pre-peeled orange company... Dismas|^(talk) 18:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Gee, and here I thought it described Yoko Ono's fan base. Seriously, if young coconuts are already seen as edible and marketable, then they'd already be in the entry for Coconut. And what d'ya know! There they are! The fact that someone has decided to sell 'em pre-peeled, and market them with a new name, doesn't make them anything new; people have been eating young coconuts for thousands of years. I'm sure they taste delicious, and I suppose the convenience will make the product desirable for some, but that doesn't mean I can start a company that sells pre-peeled oranges, call 'em "YOURanges", and expect to automatically pass the notability standard. And yes, this would have ideally been a Language desk question, but the answer would be the same there, too. Jfarber 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yoko Ono's fan base ? Wouldn't that be just Yoko ? :-) StuRat 17:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If so, it would explain why the term is singular, wouldn't it? But seriously, Yoko's body of work as a member of the Fluxus movement is quite impressive and well-respected in the art world. Jfarber 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if young coconuts cause the same mild allergic reaction I have with regular coconut. Both the meat and milk seem to cause an irritation to my throat. StuRat 17:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it were me, I wouldn't try and see :-) Remember, past reactions being slight are no indication of the severity of future reactions. Skittle 17:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

why does our society fail to recognize the merits of recreational drug use ?

how come our society (which condones and sometimes even promotes over medication) fails to recognize the merits of certain recreational drugs ? Take for instance Methamphetamine just by it's very description society should embrace the drug whole heartedly i.e; increased awareness and activity, diminshed appetite, sense of euphria/well-being,. Now taken in moderation this should be the wonder drug of the new millenium for employers all the way down to the common worker yet we as a society condem and imprison those who partake of this substance. And yet alcohol by it's description should be banished from the land i.e; slurred speach, difficulty in hand-eye coordination, slowed responce time,seems like a no-brainer to mewho about yourselves? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.53.124.109 (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

See Arguments for and against drug prohibition. I'd be surprised if anything new beyond the arguments in this article could be said here. Please mind: Wikipedia (including the reference desk) is not a soapbox.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

While arguments can certainly be made that some currently illegal drugs (like marijuana) are less harmful than some currently legal drugs (like tobacco and alcohol), methamphetamines are not one I would make that argument for. They are extremely harmful and destroy people's lives. They are sometimes prescribed medically, but only as a last resort. StuRat 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with drugs is their habit forming capacities and addictiveness. One reason why alcohol, a reasonably strong drug, doesn't produce a majority of alcoholics is because it is very heavily socially framed. Drinking behaviours are very culturally and socially controlled. I don't see how you could control the widespread consumption of meths. When you see what heavy users of methamphetamines go through in terms of health and psychological problems I don't see how one could justifie their use. Whereas occasional consumtion of about any drugs can be considered a interesting mind opening experience there is no way of keeping it on that level if you promote a widespread use of drugs. Keria 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that's true. Cigarettes have high addictiveness, yet are legal. LSD has very low, yet is illegal. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the question is posed seriously. It strikes me as ironic... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This COULD be a legit question, so I'm going to take it seriously. That said, it sounds like the best way to actually answer this question (and hopefully close the discussion) without resorting to soapboxing is to note that...

• Some parts of society do recognize benefits to some use of some drugs, though opinions vary (i.e. the question ascribes to "society" something which is actually much more subtle; "fail to recognize" seems a bit strong).
• Regardless, and in general, society generally concludes that the drawbacks and dangers of drug use, on both an individual and societal level, far outweigh any potential individual or societal benefits.

disclaimer: I believe this to be an actual answer to the actual question which, hopefully, also pre-empts any remaining soapboxing and debate on everything from which drug has which properties to the various issues surrounding use and legality. But I have been known to make an ass out of Uma Thurman. Jfarber 17:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Jfarber, I think the person who asked the question would benefit from a more detailed answer regarding the historic reasons which made, for instance, coffee and alcohol so acceptable in the West but banned in Islamic countries and cocaine so acceptable in some Latin American countries while certain specific drugs with the same effects as those cited are not acceptable in all places. A.Z. 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Native Americans (American Indian)

I am Athabaskan from Alaksa and I currently live on the east coast. I have a friend who claims she is also Native American by her great grandfather. However, it turns out that he was only maybe 1/10 Indian. Yet, she tells everyone that she is even though she is blue-eyed, blond haired and lacks any of the common physical features of a Native person. I told my uncle about this and he said he remembers a time when it was shameful to admit that one would have any Indian blood. Why is it now a days, everyone wants to be Indian?

Racism in some areas are going away, for one thing. And different things are interesting to some people. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question. It isn't that people "want to be Indian" all-of-a-sudden, it's that this country has matured enough for people to realize there's nothing wrong with being all or part Amerindian. With regards to her blue eyes and blond hair, I direct you to Chuck Norris; he's fully half Amerindian, but he could easily pass as white. Oh, and one last thing: it would be very hard for a person to be "1/10" Amerindian, seeing as ancestry goes in powers of 2! Picaroon 20:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for why "everyone" wants to be identified as part of any group, of course, nor would I go so far as to say that such a statement is true. But I think it's more than just that there's "nothing wrong with it" anymore. Special privledges are accorded to members of many non-caucasian populations in US culture these days, including everything from college scholarship eligibility to special federal grants to an opportunity for racial pride which is not otherwise afforded/accepted in caucasian populations in many (dare I say most?) communities within US culture. And being "unique" or "different" has its appeal, too, to many people, young and old, as a way of creating a self-identity which is distinct from the norm. Oh, and it is certainly possible to end up 1/10th of something racially, if you've got more than one ancestor with that racial type in the mix...Jfarber 21:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Most Native American tribes set a blood requirement for tribal membership, individuals obtain Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood tracing their ancestry back to someone listed on the Dawes Rolls. One that does not set a minimum blood requirement is the Cherokee Nation, twenty-one percent of tribal members have between 1/16 and 1/64 degree of Cherokee blood, twenty-nine percent (over 50,000 members) have somewhere between 1/64 and 1/2048. (Sturm, Circe (2002), Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, pp. 88-9.) Maybe your friend is Cherokee?—eric 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

...It connects them to those they understand as “their people”; it allows them to express something central to their sense of self...There can be other, more tangible rewards as well...some social service and philanthropic organizations...do not require any documentary proof of identity for those who apply. The same is true of minority scholarships offered by at least some universities....is sometimes used as a sort of access card to American Indian spiritual and cultural practices...particularly evident in some expressions of the New Age movement...New Age adherents frequently express an insatiable interest in all forms of American Indian culture, but especially spiritual and ceremonial practices. ..Finally, some individuals may use the definition of self-identification simply as a means to gain attention or admiration. As a recent expression goes, “it's in to be skin”( “skin”being a slang term by which Indians sometimes identify themselves). In other words, an Indian identity has recently become not only safer to assert than it once was; it has even become a source of pride and an object of envy in certain quarters, and a number of people have accordingly become eager to claim it. (Garroutte, Eva Marie (2003) Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America, pp. 84-5.)

—eric 21:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a long history of people pretending to be American Indians, both in print and in real life, from Two Moon Meridas to Grey Owl to Chief Buffalo Child Long Lance to Jamake Highwater to Iron Eyes Cody to Ward Churchill.... I'm surprised Wikipedia doesn't have an article called something like Native American imposters -- there's a sizable literature on this. In the United States, being part Indian became cool particularly in relation to the Civil Rights Movement and counter-culture of the late 1960s. When I was growing up in the '70s, almost everyone had a Cherokee ancestor, though of course no one could actually tell you the name of their Indian ancestor, since it was usually just a (dubious) family tradition. So, I'm sure people who actually did have native heritage, however slight, were likely to emphasize this. —Kevin 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Many people from long-time American southern ancestry purport to have Cherokee blood from the mid 19th century or earlier. The Randolphs of Virginia are descended from Pocahantas and proud of it. Edison 05:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the woman who Marlon Brando sent up to collect his Oscar pretend to be American Indian?82.32.238.139 09:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sacheen Littlefeather (born Maria Cruz) was sent by the American Indian Movement when Brando requested an Indian to refuse the award for him. Per Sacheen Littlefeather" Cruz is of Mexican ancestry, with heritage that includes Apache, Yaqui, Pueblo and Caucasian blood". Thus she was not really "pretending".Edison 14:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Although there is no article, there is a brief list here - Wikidemo 05:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Female House Speakers

Nancy Pelosi is obviously drawing a great deal of attention for becoming the first female Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. However, I'm wondering who the first female Speaker of a state House of Representatives/Assembly (or whatever the lower house of a state's legislature is called) was. I can't find the answer anywhere on Wikipedia. TysK 20:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Betty Boothroyd was Speaker of the British House of Commons from 1992 to 2000, but although she was the speaker of the lower house of parliament, I don't think the positions are really comparable. For your question to be meaningful, you have to find out if a country has a position that's equivalent to Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. --Nicknack009 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Canada had a woman as speaker of the House of Commons in 1980: Jeanne Sauvé. --Mathew5000 02:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Just noticed you said "state" - presumably you mean states of the US, in which case my answer is completely irrelevant. --Nicknack009 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Minnie Craig of North Dakota in 1933.(Simon-Rosenthal, Cindy (1998) When Women Lead: Integrative Leadership in State Legislatures, p. 8; and [4])—eric 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Craig was the first to serve in a permanent capacity, Sarah Lucille Turner served as "acting" speaker of the Missouri General Assembly in 1923. In 1931 Louise H. Coe of New Mexico became the first President Pro Tem. (Martin, Mart (1999), The Almanac of Women and Minorities in American Politics, p. 113-4).—eric 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)