Humanities desk
< June 13	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 15 >

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.

June 14

United States draft exceptions

Hypothetically speaking, if you were gay and the federal government initiated a draft, would you be required to go to war? Just something I'm wondering (conversation came up with a friend). ^blurred _peace ☮ 00:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the don't ask, don't tell policy is in effect, if you were openly gay, you couldn't serve in the armed forces of the United States. If you kept your orientation a secret from everyone, you could. Of course, if there was a draft, it could well be that they would repeal or change that policy at the same time just to make sure people couldn't get out of the military simply by clearing their throat and saying loudly, "I'm a homosexual" -- because right now, that's pretty much all it takes to get discharged. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the draft was being used for 'Nam', the US Army needed everyone it could get. As a result even people who were caught committing sodomy could stay in the forces as long as they could 'convince' an army tribunal it was a one off offence (something the tribunal worked hard to convince themselves of). This led to the so called 'Queen for a Day' rule, which is discussed in the history section of the article linked to above. Prokhorovka (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speculating, but these days, the US would only initiate a draft if it were in a broad war, and a broad war would probably cause a typical US patriotic reaction among the populace, so recruitment centers might be so swamped that they might not go begging for recruits, and there would be no lack of manpower that would put pressure on the military to revoke "don't ask, don't tell" in the interest of increasing recruitment. (In other words, I speculate a draft probably won't be necessary.) For what it's worth, a section in our Draft Dodger article states that pretending to be homosexual in order to avoid the draft constitutes draft evasion, which is punishable. This book says that, at least during the Vietnam War, the penalty for draft evasion was as much as 5 years in jail and a US$10,000 fine. Tempshill (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you don't actually have to be gay, it's quite enough to be bisexual (and as things stand now, it's not like you need to actually engage in homosexual acts, it's enough to state that you feel those urges). In any case, what would you have to do to prove that you swing both ways ? Get photographed at a gay club? Kiss a guy? Listen to lot of Kylie Minogue? Really, I can't imagine a prosecutor bothering with something like that; there's no way you can prove that someone isn't a bisexual. Even if you get a previous statement from the guy claiming that he's completely straight, well, hey, maybe he was in the closet at the time. That would hardly be unusual. And in any case, the way don't ask, don't tell works right now, it applies to anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts". Hell, you don't even need to be the least bit gay; all you need to do is declare your intent to fool around with other guys, and that's pretty much all it takes. "I know I'm straight, but seriously guys, I'm gonna suck a penis the first chance I get, and you can take that to the bank." Boom, you're discharged. Is that stupid? Well, sure. But that's what you get from having a stupid policy in the first place. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "m4m personals" on Craigslist are full of ads saying "I want a guy to suck my dick; straights only, no gays!" --Sean 12:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure. Denial is a beautiful thing. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) According to Homer Simpson, it's as simple as making a pass at your superior officer. Principal Skinner thinks it's a great idea. Steewi (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider the possibility that, given current political climates, it's more likely that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy would be completely revoked than the draft be re-instituted. That is, it's likely that sometime before reinstating the draft, the US military would revoke its ban on openly gay soldiers. -- 128.104.112.114 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that. The military (for the most part) makes its own rules. On top of that you have a crapload of men all in the same dorm room, showering together and sleeping near each other in basic training. Haveing an openly gay person in the dorm would make for a very uncomfortable learning environment. I expect that if the military ever did repeal the DADT policy, they would undoubtedly attempt to put gays in a dorm with women, and full lesbians in a dorm with women. Bi's probably still wouldn't be allowed. Which brings an interesting thought to mind. About 50, 60 years from now, we can expect a full blown immersion of gays into society. I admit, we're already starting, but I mean someday when gays are treated as equally as African Americans are today. When that day finally comes, and even the religious groups have begun tolerating gays, will the church change from "one partner of the opposite sex" to "one partner" in that bisexuals still would be frowned upon even if gays and lesbians are fully integrated into the church?Drew Smith What I've done 11:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haveing an openly gay person in the dorm would make for a very uncomfortable learning environment. Now, that's a furphy that deserves demolition. Straight and gay people mingle in many contexts where they shower together and sleep in the same room, but there's no issue. Even if there were a gay person who was out to have sex with anything on 2 legs (itself a common misperception about what gay people are about), short of rape, sex requires consent. Even in an ordinary workplace, straight and gay people work alongside each other, but there are no calls for the gay person to be removed because "they might have designs on me". Again, even if they did, the words "no, thank you" still have all the power they ever had. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol sale in Finland

Right now, a guy told on TV that it is illegal to sell alcohol within city limits in Finland. Searching the web gives the impression that Finns are heavy drinkers. I found out there was a prohibition sometime back, but not now. Perhaps he was talking about a specific city or a specific time period? 88.242.249.233 (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That guy was talking out of his ass. Retail sale of alcohol within city limits in Finland is perfectly legal, though anything stronger than beer can only be sold at the government-owned Alko stores (we have an alcoholic beverage retailing monopoly here) -- but they are quite plentiful. I am unaware of any city in Finland where the sale of alcohol is illegal, and I would imagine that such a city would be the subject of national ridicule. We did have a prohibition, but it ended in 1932 (and, like prohibitions everywhere, it was wholly ineffective in limiting the consumption of the prohibited substance). Alcoholism is a traditional Finnish problem; the idea that you can't buy booze here is as far-fetched as a major American city without a McDonald's. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange stone structure

Can anyone help identify this stone structure (link is to image on Commons) on the west bank (I think) of the Wear River, next to Prebends Bridge? The bank opposite to that of the Cathedral. It's about 3-4 metres high. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is Reveal by Richard Cole. --Cam (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you very much. Impressed with that. Those pages are good as well. From the name, I searched a bit and found this and this. The latter link (to a picture) will help if anyone reads this in future, as I now need to ask for this to be deleted from Commons as it is a modern artwork and copyright stuff applies. I think. I've made the picture into a link as well, which may go red at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have commons delete it exactly as much as as you need to have commons delete every picture of every car, bridge, street, mobile phone, or building. Commons has a fairytale view of copyright that jibes with the law of no country on earth; if they were to apply it with any consistency they'd host nothing but scans from old books and pictures of clouds. We should not harm Wikipedia by abetting their quixotic folly. 87.112.85.111 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, they just told me it doesn't need deleting. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are all sunglasses sold in the UK UV-protective?

Even if I buy a pair from Poundland will they still protect your eyes from UV? The ones I have already have the CE mark on them, which indicates they conform with euopean standards. But is the worst CE standard enough to significantly protect against UV? 78.151.102.179 (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should all have the CE mark which indicates they protect against UV.[1][2][3] Ideally you want BS EN 1836:2005[4] (there are also earlier versions of BS EN 1836) which shows they offer a high quality of protection. (Some products can self-certify they comply to CE regulations - not sure if this applies to sunglasses - but BS is a bit more stringent.) There's a risk if you buy cheap sunglasses that they're counterfeit and therefore don't really match up to standards, or are so badly manufactured that the protection will come off, crack, peel, etc. And the size of the sunglasses matters: large wraparound offer better protection to the eyes.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol vs drugs

Why is alcohol legal when other recreational drugs aren't? If you want to compare to a single specific drug, then I was thinking of cannabis, but comparisons to any drug would be fine... Vimescarrot (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are historical reasons primarily. In the United States, for example, marijuana's illegality goes back to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937—nothing more, nothing less. Add momentum and moral overtones and it's regarded as a grievous sin politically to advocate revoking its illegality (though it is of note that recent polls by Zogby say 52% of Americans believe in decriminalization of some form—which is pretty amazing, if you ask me).

Alcohol has been used for centuries but has not always been legal; see Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Prohibition in the United States, etc. In the end people in power decided that whatever the benefits of lessening the "evil" of alcohol might be, the illegality of it created vast criminal industries and a vast new category of casual criminals. It was re-legalized again with the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Anyway, all this is to say: it is somewhat arbitrary, it is based on political considerations in many cases, it is based on perceived ideas about the morality of certain vices, and it is based in part on the economics of it (hence cigarettes, by now know to be a major, major killer worldwide, but nobody is seriously planning to ban them for both economic and political reasons). If you are looking for a "logical" reason that marijuana is legally considered to be as or more dangerous and prone to abuse as, say, heroin, crack cocaine, and PCP.... there obviously isn't one. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the difference continues is because of inertia. You can't legalise most illegal drugs, because they kill people (to put it bluntly) and you'd annoy people; you can't illegalise alcohol or tobacco because it's against tradition, people's rights (it's my life, sort of thing) and naturally the tax benefits (governments used to actually admit that, eg. in the People's Budget) as well as non-compliance. So the mostly historical reasons have stood the test of time. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by "test of time" you mean, "has been contentious for seventy years, is very blurry in some places, and at the moment a rather sizable group of people are seriously questioning quite a lot of the fundamental principles." I mean, the US Congress is just about set to let the FDA regulate cigarettes for health purposes, and, as noted, quite a lot of people think that the system of treating all mild narcotics as horrible immoral things is problematic and has a very detrimental affect on the society and the budget. Legalization of drugs is more complicated than "they kill people" (their illegalization, it has been argued, probably kills more people in the long run), and places that have legalized drugs to a great extent have reported generally much better success on related public health and crime issues than have the places that treat them as deadly contraband. (I'm not trying to start a debate here, but you're simplifying things quite a bit. The "drugs are bad and kill you" approach is a vast simplification of an extremely complicated issue, not to mention the wide variety of things that are categorized as "drugs".) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply trying to avoid complications. I know it's complicated, but the health risks associated with drugs are still the number one reasons why those that are currently illegal won't be made legal, even if they are only as dangerous as legal ones. What I meant by 'test of time' was simply that the legal/illegal status of drugs, as a whole, and although regulation has changed, haven't changed basically at all in the UK, at least, in the last 50 years. The line that is legal/illegal (as opposed to levels of regulation) hasn't been crossed much. I was taking that example to the logical conclusion that this is due to inertia, and offered some reasons. Actually, there are a lot of similarities to gun ownership within the US and between the US and UK. Same contrast, and similar processes of restricting the traditionally allowed product in response to percieved dangers. And considering that gun legalisation (anything further than current) is way outside of mainstream in the UK , despite arguments similar to drugs (make it less 'cool', regulated is better than secret, that sort of thing), it may be fair to draw parallels to the drug issue, with some drugs never going to be made legal, and those that are, more highly regulated. I have no idea how strong drives are in parts of America to make guns largely illegal. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to read about cannabis, it's effects, dangers, classification, etc you could have a look at this Masters thesis: 'CANNABIS – RECLASSIFICATION – MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1971' (it is UK centric) here. Appendix A shows 'DRUGS RANKED FOR DANGEROUSNESS'. For example, tobacco - 112,000 fatalities a year; alchohol, 400,000 fatalities a year; heroin 700 fatalities a year. Interesting numbers. --Joe^Talk_Work 23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sure that the number of people who die crossing the street is greater than the number of people who die jumping off 20-story buildings while listening to Green Day and eating a plastic bag. That doesn't mean crossing the street is more dangerous than jumping off buildings, plastic bag or not; it simply means vastly more people do the former than the latter.

A better way to assess a drug's harm would be to look at its physical effects. That's what this graph does, and as you can see, alcohol and tobacco are both ranked higher than marijuana. However, heroin easily tops the list; the only reason it causes only 700 fatalities a year is that far more people smoke and drink than use heroin. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant to the assessment of relative harms. AllanHainey (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the largest US city without a McDonalds?

The question #Alcohol sale in Finland above led me to wondering what is the largest US city without a McDonalds? The nearest I can find to an answer on Google is this one, which lists Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Montpelier, Vermont. Google also finds at least 3 McD's locations in Harrisburg, but apparently none in Montpelier. Montpelier has a population of 8000 or so; is there anywhere more populous that doesn't? (For the sake of clarity let's take "city" to have its proper legal meaning, rather than any old conurbation). THanks. 87.112.85.111 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe there is a McDonald's in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, population 49,958. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how you came by that information. Is it a city you're familiar with personally, or what? --Anonymous, 19:01 UTC, June 14, 2009.

I did a Google Maps search for McDonald's in Cleveland Heights and didn't come up with any. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what prompted you to try that particular city for this search? --Anon, 07:26, June 15.

Montpelier is the only state capitol without a McDonalds. As a Vermont resident, I'm pretty happy with that. Dismas|^(talk) 19:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montpelier is the only state capitol without <blank>, where <blank> is anything resembling organized civilization. Been to Montpelier several times myself. There's not much of a "to" there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, when I was writing the phrase "as far-fetched as a major American city without a McDonald's", I pretty much guessed that something like this would happen. And I did it anyway. That's just how I roll. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see your McDonalds and raise it, who knows what is the largest US incorporated place without any national fast-food outlet? Rockpocket 23:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a definitive source for a US town, but Barrow, Alaska (~4000 people) doesn't appear to have any. In the UK Llandeilo in Wales would qualify [5] with ~3000 people. Rockpocket 00:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't some towns have no-fast-food ordinances? I'm sure I've heard of such things at least being proposed. That would pretty much rule out a McDonalds unless it drastically changed its menu and dining style. APL (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia City, Nevada seems to be such a place. Quoting the article: "Keeping with tradition, Virginia City does not have any chain stores or fast food restaurants." Contributions/152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there's a McDonald's in Harrisburg Pennsylvania near Italian Lake. Source: I live nearby. As for this topic, how are you defining "largest"? If its by area than there might not be any McDonalds in Sitka, Alaska, the largest city by land area. As for population, you might want to look for city ordinances specifically banning McDonalds. A large city (over 20000) that bans McDonalds would be at least one of the largest in the country to do so. And by the way, Starbucks has since moved into town (in the Whitaker Center) Them From Space 00:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind there is a McDonalds in Sitka. Go figure. Them From Space 01:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's has an electronic dead cat swinger that you can use to verify presence or absence. Harrisburg has several McDonaldses and the linked thread never said otherwise, it only said they didn't have a Starbucks. Montpelier and Cleveland Heights don't have McDonald's, but it kind of seems like cheating because the nearest one is 2–3 miles away, it just happens to be in a suburb with a different name. Bethel, Alaska (pop ~6000) appears to be the largest Alaskan city without a McDonald's, and when they lack McDonald's in Alaska they don't mess around. The nearest one looks to be about 350 miles away by plane. There are no roads. -- BenRG (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon, MA has 17, 408 people and nary a McD's209.6.18.79 (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were the Original Egyptians Black?

Not the civilization and the dynasties, I mean were the Native Original Egyptians black? I heard that the Nubians were Egypts natives until the Sumerians came from the middle east and started the egyptians civilization and they moved south which they started the civlization Nubia when the egyptians came and bring thier culture to them which made Kush. thats what i heard though but is it a fact? Were the country egypt original natives were negroid? Were they there first before the egyptian civilization started?--arab 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs)

There is a documented controversy on this. Altho I think it may be a case of mainstream scholarship on one side, and Afrocentrists on the other side, but I'm not real sure. See Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Friday (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As would be expected from basic geography, Egypt has been a kind of transition zone between Africa and the middle east in a number of respects (including skin color), and I really don't see why this is some supposed great mystery which needs to receive some out-of-the-ordinary and speculative "explanation". Mesopotamian civilization certainly exerted some kind of influence on the early beginnings of Egyptian civilization, but the nature and extent of this influence has been debated (it may have mainly consisted of stimulus diffusion), and it certainly did not include large numbers of Sumerians settling in Egypt (something which can be excluded on basic linguistic grounds, among other reasons). AnonMoos (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say that in the many centuries that man populated Egypt prior to 'civilisation' appearing, that there would have been black people and lighter skinned 'mediteranian' type people also. Especially as (the area we know as) Egypt would of been the main route which mankind probably left Africa.Popcorn II (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question presupposes that it is possible to say unequivocally whether any given people is "black" or not. The very label "black" is one that is meaningful only in modern western cultures. For that matter, the meaning of the word "black" (or "noir" or "schwartz" etc) varies subtly from one western culture to another. No ancient people had a term that meant "black" in the modern sense. Indeed, in ancient times, there was really no concept of race. Races have little basis in biology; rather, they are categories into which modern western culture sorts people based on their appearance. If your question is, into which racial category would modern westerners sort the "original Egyptians", then I think even here, it is difficult to offer a simple answer. Egyptians today are mostly somewhere between "white" and "black" in modern terms. Some Egyptians may look more "white" to westerners; others may look more "black". Most probably look somewhere in between. All of the evidence suggests that historical movements of people into Egypt have been small relative to the population of Egypt at the time. This means that the new arrivals would have been absorbed into the existing population. Therefore, the appearance of Egyptians has probably not changed much since prehistoric times. As AnonMoos suggests, modern westerners would probably consider prehistoric Egyptians neither completely "white" nor completely "black". Marco polo (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the Arabs of modern Egypt would look rather similar to the ancient Egyptians? Our questioner's contribution history suggests that s/he is coming from an American perspective; in this context, if I understand your answers rightly, the answer would likely be no. The Census Bureau's definition of race includes those with ancestry in the Middle East and North Africa among "White"; they definitely don't fit the definition of "Black or African-American". This answer may be meaningless if the question is approached from a different direction, but as long as we're going from a common US perspective, it shouldn't be that difficult of a question. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A point I haven't seen mentioned in the debate is that Europeans have been evolving to be lighter coloured because of the lack of sun, for instance the gene SLC24A5 only became prevalent amongst them between 12 and 5 thousand years ago. I'm a bit surprised the paintings show Assyrians as so light colored as they wouldn't have had such such pressure to have light skin as those in northern Europe. I'd have thought it would be quite possible for Egyptians then to be a little darker than now even without any great movements of people. They didn't seem to cover themselves in robes which indicates they may have been too dark for the environment. Comparing colors then with now may be even less meaningful than the usual comparison of skin colors. Dmcq (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Museum of Egyptian Antiquities in Cairo has among it's items a display of small wooden figurines of an army of archers and lance bearers. Half of them dark tan, the other half what is usually described as "Nubian" and may be called "black" by comparisson. [6] Ramses II's wife is Nefertari is thought by some to have been Nubian. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP was asking about pre-civilisation.Popcorn II (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Holiday (Part 2)

I asked earlier about the world's oldest celebrated holiday: "What is the oldest event which is celebrated as a holiday? I imagine there are many which predate Christmas. Also what is the oldest "ennial" (quadrennial, millennial, etc.) event that has been celebrated?" (see [[7]])

Anyway, I was able to located the 2,500 year celebration of Iran's monarchy which I believe predates any of the other suggestions. Out of curiosity, can anyone think of a holiday which is even older? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1995-96, the "Jerusalem 3000" celebrations marked the 3,000th anniversary of King David's capture of the city. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, Larnaca arbitrarily celebrated its 4,000th anniversary [8]. Warofdreams talk 00:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September first is the start of year 7519 in the Byzantine calendar. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm did anyone celebrate the 7500th anniversary? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any really old upcoming holidays I can celebrate? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]