Humanities desk
< December 23	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 25 >

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.

December 24

In the USA, are there more White female-Asian male relationships, or are there more White male-Black female relationships?

Just wondering how these statistics compare, if any are available.--Jeremy of the Grapevine (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen discussions of these numbers, but I don't know the source offhand. You probably should adjust whatever raw numbers you get by proportional populations. Shadowjams (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Interracial marriage in the United States has a chart that might answer the question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I found that was to go to google and enter ["mixed marriage" "united states"]. That took me to a wikipedia article on that general topic, and there was a link to the article mentioned above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, no, not a interracial marriage question again!--Quest09 (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

japan feudal era chronological chain of events

I have heard, read, and watched movies about it a lot. But I never really understood how things really went, in what order. In Japan feudal era (Warring States/ Sengoku Jidai)

Why it started? Who started it? who fought in it? for whose sake?

There were so many groups that seems like each had a side of their own in the conflict. And it's always hard to make the connections.

I think I understand that there were two sides, Imperial and Shogunate but then again, I sometime read that they were allied at some point... and then fought against each other again.

It's very unclear to me.

I will appreciate it if you can help me with this.

Thank you very much.212.179.165.129 (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried reading History of Japan#Feudal Japan (12th - 19th century)? --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This level of complication is likely to be found in any country's history over such a long period. For instance, all British American colonies fought together against the French and Indians in four wars, a group of them then fought against their British overlords twice within half a century, then half of them fought the other half 50 years later. Then, altogether again, they fought 5 or 6 wars alongside their former rulers - all of this occurring within about 300 years. (Not to mention a dozen or more wars fought, not involving Britain) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest way to explain the Warring states period is: there were a heap of local warlords (daimyo) and they pretty much fought free-for-all battles against each other, with alliances being fragile and entirely pragmatical arrangements and with the institute of Shogunate put on hold between Ashikaga and Tokugawa and the imperial court being a pretty much non-entity (ruling out the Shogunate vs. Imperial battles you mention - perhaps you thought of the Meiji restoration where such a battle really took place?).

Anyway, to answer your questions, look up the following articles: Ashikaga shogunate - for the shogunate preceding the Warring states, this Shogunate grew increasingly weak and the power vacuum left led to: the Onin war which was the initiator of the above mentioned free-for-all fighting, and then the Battle of Sekigahara for the battle that finished it and started the Tokugawa Shogunate. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What books should high school students read?

First of all, I don't enjoy reading books, especially great literary works. I do sometimes enjoy watching movies based on these works. So I guess what I want to know is whether a novel made into a movie I might watch qualifies under this definition:

When I was in junior high school and high school, we had to read books and do reports on them. When I was a senior these books had to be chosen from a list. At some point I think we were supposed to use references in the 800 section of the Dewey Decimal System in our papers on these books, in preparation for college.

So what books from the past 30 years would be on this list now? Obviously I know what books were on the list when I was in high school: I read To Kill a Mockingbird, The Catcher in the Rye, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Animal Farm, and David Copperfield, among others; other students read The Scarlet Letter, Far from the Madding Crowd and Of Mice and Men.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm going with your section heading. What should they read? Books that will get them interested in reading and not turn them off from reading forever as I think happens too often. No one I think should read the Scarlet Letter in high school. Whether its a great book or not, kids (speaking in averages here) despise it. As an adult I still hate it, but that's not the point. Some books most kids are going to hate and others many will not. Feeding kids a literary diet of olives and aspic and brussels sprouts is stupid. We should give them PB&J (but the top shelf stuff) until they're ready for more sophisticated fare. The analogy breaks down there because everyone needs to eat. What happens with books is some learn to hate all books. Don't make kids read Moby Dick and Silas Marner and the Sun Also Rises and Ulysses. But yes to Animal Farm and so on. So what Would I put on that top shelf PB&J list? I'd have to sit down longer to tell you, but off the top of my head, /some/ of those on your list, Flowers For Algernon, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Handmaid's Tale, maybe some Judy Blume, and maybe more modern fare. The main point is to maximize the chances of actually creating a reader.--162.83.163.199 (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're literally asking what are kids in high school assigned to read these days then the answers are going to vary quite a bit based on which state (assuming the US) and whether the schools are public or private, and even from teacher to teacher. The ones you listed are all still commonly encountered. Perhaps there's a professional American educator on the board who can give you a sample list? 61.189.63.130 (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add - my little brother just finished (private) high school and one summer he was assigned Slaughterhouse Five and Ender's Game. I thought the latter was a surprising (and cool) addition to the usual Summer Reading dross. 61.189.63.130 (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not asking what the kids will like or what they are reading. I'm asking if, when I watch a movie based on a novel, is it truly one of those works that they assign in school? I've heard, for example, that as good as Stephen King's movie's often are, he doesn't count.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I started with "I'm going with your section heading", and did exactly that is because I'm not really understanding your question and I'm still not despite your clarification. Are you asking whether the movies based on these novels are true enough to the books that you by watching the films you can feel you've come fairly close reading the novel? They've made many of these books into movies but I can't say I can name many that are at all true to the books, much less even attempt to explore all the subtleties found through the writing.--162.83.163.199 (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't from the last 30 years, it's been a bit over 50, but Lord of the Flies might be a movie that you'd enjoy and the book is very good and assigned to high school classes. This next one is also 50 y.o. During my senior (junior?) year, we were allowed to pick out our own book. The teacher had to approve it but we were allowed to pick anything we wanted. I chose Starship Troopers and without any hesitation, the teacher approved it and I loved it. It got me reading the rest of Heinlein's works. The movie however is horrible when compared with the book except for the possible exception of the shower scene. Although if you like sci-fi war movies, you might like it. Dismas|^(talk) 23:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's very much personal opinion, but I've read all of Heinlein, and I think the Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Orphans of the Sky are far better reads.--162.83.163.199 (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer (to the question in the first paragraph) is no. Watching a movie based on a great work of literature does not compare to having read the book. Reading a book and watching a film are fundamentally different experiences. A once-common maxim is that great books do not make great movies, since something is lost in the translation. Bad or mediocre books, however, can make fine films, since they may be improved through adaptation. There are a few good films made from great books, but these are exceptions, and still do not replace the reading experience. One should read the great books and watch the great films. —Kevin Myers 01:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend Brave New World and books of the Arthurian legend. The first is just a really good book with dark overtones warning of a possible future. The Arthurian books form the basis for quite a large portion of the symbolism present in novels of the last 50 years. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk regulars know that I always recommend Ronald Colman, so if you want to watch a film of a novel that's frequently assigned in high school, I'll suggest this one. Deor (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sister in law is an English teacher in England, and recommends that teenagers read Terry Pratchett books. She draws comparisons between Pratchett's work and Shakespeare. (Personally I think that's a little far-fetched.) It seems to keep her students engaged with reading! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that far-fetched if the Pratchett book in question is Wyrd Sisters, which is full of deliberate allusions to Macbeth and Hamlet. Malcolm XIV (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to 162.83.163.199, I wasn't asking whether the movies were true to the books, though that would be important. I'm asking if the books themselves are the type of literary quality high school students are expected to read. I might think a movie is good (let's say John Grisham, for example), but the critics might see that movie as not that kind of literature. I'm not looking necessarily to be entertained, but to be educated, in a sense.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to frustrate you, but even with your latest post, I have no idea what you're really after. Are you asking if the books popular movies have been based on would be good for HS kids to read? That's what it seems like, but it's kind of a really broad and subjective question. Or do you want recent books (which some people consider classics) which have been made into movies? I guess I'm a bit stumped as to why it matters that the book is a classic and there's a movie been made. If the book is good, who cares if there's a movie and if the movie is good, who cares if it came from a book? The Shawshank Redemption was an outstanding movie based on a decent novella - I would recommend the movie. Stand By Me was a mostly terrible film based on a very good, but uneven, novella - I would recommend the book. Neil Gaiman's Coraline has won a bunch of awards and was made into an even better (IMO) movie - I would recommend both, partly to help illustrate the relative strengths of the two mediums. But I also have a feeling that I'm not providing you with what you want. Matt Deres (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seriously, you make no sense. Please work to clarify what you are asking about. You are mixing things up in a very haphazard way— you say things like, "I'm asking if the books themselves are the type of literary quality high school students are expected to read" and then immediately start talking about movies. Do you mean movies, or books? What are you really asking about? --Mr.98 (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishment. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm making perfect sense. Brave New World was on the list 30 years ago.

To the person saying I should read the book, I won't. I don't like to read. I will, however, watch the movie if I think I can stand it. That's as close as I'll get. So what I want to know is what books would be on the list for high school students to read now--the real quality literary works--so I can watch the movies. That's all I will ever do. Is The Shawshank Redemption on that list? I did watch the movie.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To people who are still not understanding, I think I get what Vchimpanzee is saying. They find reading books difficult and unpleasant, but they want to be familiar with books in the literary canon so they can join in with discussions of them, recognise allusions, etc. One way from them to do this is to watch movies made of these books, which will usually give them the plot and some of the more memorable scenes. They would like to be given a list of such movies made of books in the literary canon: books being on high school reading lists is taken as a proxy for them being a part of the literary canon.

Now, we may all think that someone competent at reading who doesn't enjoy reading books has been reading the wrong books (perhaps with too much emphasis on reading 'improving' books rather than enjoyable books), but that was not the question asked. I will suggest that audio books (from your local library) may be a good alternative. 86.176.48.114 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big mistake not to read, because that's how people find out information and learning that makes them smart, knowledgable and in the long run wealthy. I suggest reading anything that you like - magazines, very short books, comics, science fiction, whatever you enjoy. Soon you will begin enjoying reading. As a non-American I do notice how very verbose many American instructional books or textbooks are - unfortunately they are often written as a memoir, and you get chapters of junk about the author while the information about the subject that you got the book for is just hidden away in a few lines here and there. Even as a very good reader I find such books unreadable - it is not worth searching through the haystack of waffle to find the needle of information or know-how. I can supply a couple of titles as examples if requested. 92.24.98.128 (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]