Humanities desk
< September 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 2 >

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.

October 1

Dominica

Resolved

Why do Dominica and the Dominican Republic have similar names? Jc iindyysgvxc (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our articles, Dominican Republic is named after Saint Dominic, whereas Dominica "comes from the Italian word for Sunday (domenica), which was the day on which it was spotted by Christopher Columbus." --Saalstin (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)They are both derived from Domini (lord, "god" in this context). The difference is that Dominica comes through Italian domenica— Sunday (which in Christian countries is the "Lord's day"), and the Dominican Republic is named for Santo Domingo (which is also the name of their capital city), or Saint Dominic, in the English speaking world. Intelligentsium 01:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First-rate on a lake

Resolved

Reading a section farther up the page on naval forces in lakes, I seem to recall that once upon a time, the Royal Navy had a first-rate ship of the line which was built, launched, and operated entirely on a freshwater lake. What was it's name, and which lake was it that it sailed around on? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The HMS Ontario was the largest sail warship on the U.S./Canadian Great Lakes but apparantly was only a "sixth-rate" ship. Rmhermen (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few larger by tonnage but smaller by cannon count vessels participated in the Battle of Lake Erie 30-some years later. Rmhermen (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1813 the US started two 87-gun ships of the line, New Orleans and Chippewa on Lake Ontario[1].

They never floated; construction was terminated at the end of the war. PhGustaf (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. HMS St. Lawrence was a 112-gun ship of the line that served on Lake Ontario during the War of 1812. She was bigger than the average first-rater. And she "served" only in the sense of just sitting there and scaring her opponents into port. If the war had gone on longer and the US liners had gone to sea (well, lake) we might have had some good battle stories to tell. PhGustaf (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS St. Lawrence. That was it, thanks :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marrying Adopted brother/sister or cousin

Say that you were adopted into a family and you fell in love with your /bro/sis/1st cousin and you decided that you guys wanted to get married. Is that legal? --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what jurisdiction? Algebraist 14:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anywhere in the US --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every state has its own marriage laws, so there could be 50 different answers. Consider that Woody Allen married his former wife's adopted daughter, that might give a clue - at least for the state of New York. Start with the article on Marriage and see where it takes you. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were never married, and Woody wasn't her adoptive father, so it wasn't quite as sketchy as it seems... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, the statement "anywhere in the US" only helps a little, because each state has its own laws. There is very little at the federal level that regulates marriages. I wouldn't be surprised if marrying adoptive siblings was illegal, even though genetically it's not incest. But each state's laws must be studied. If there's not a jumping-off point for that in Marriage or Marriage laws or something, he might have to go to Google, as we cannot really offer legal advice here. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Code of Virginia:

§ 20-38.1. Certain marriages prohibited.

(a) The following marriages are prohibited:

(1) A marriage entered into prior to the dissolution of an earlier marriage of one of the parties;

(2) A marriage between an ancestor and descendant, or between a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption;

(3) A marriage between an uncle and a niece or between an aunt and a nephew, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood.

(b) [Repealed.]

(1975, c. 644; 1978, c. 647.)

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+20-38.1

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a small choirboy in 1960s Britain, I used to entertain myself by reading the "Table of Kindred and Affinity" in the back of the Book of Common Prayer. I used to try to imagine who would want to marry his own grandmother! You can see the list here... http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570145.html Alansplodge 1 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Jewish law is concerned, adoption does not change the status of a child. The person adopting the child is just an agent of the biological parents. The biological parents always remain the only parents. It would thus follow that there is no prohibition in marrying one's adopted brother/sister or cousin. Simonschaim (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely to the point of impossibility that children brought up together from birth to six years will fall in love or lust with each other. See Imprinting (psychology). BrainyBabe (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even close to true. See Incest#Between childhood siblings. It certainly happens. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny the existence of child-child (or more accurately, minor-minor) sexual activity within the family, but I understand sexual abuse to be primarily about power, not love or lust. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, in the US, or other areas influenced by English common law, it is illegal to marry any "blood relative," i.e. someone with whom you have a genetic relationship. These laws were conceived long before knowledge of DNA, but ideas of "blood" and ancestry were considered important. This would rule out a marriage between any 2 persons who share even one parent. Similarly it would prohibit the marriage between a person and someone sharing at least one parent as their own parents, i.e. a biological aunt/uncle. Historically, English law made adopted children full members of their adopted families, with no special legal distinctions between adopted and biological siblings. This has historically meant that by default one could not marry one's adopted brother/sister, though at many points in time, local governments have made provisions where this could happen, based on the recognition that the two persons were not "blood-relatives" even if they were from the same household. Marriages between first cousins were never prohibited, and in elite social circles at certain times the "perfect match" was your father's brother's son/daughter as this would keep the family's inherited wealth concentrated in the same line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.122.183 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western influence in Africa

On this topic, I've found it relatively easy to find points suggesting that western influences were positive. On the negative side, however, points are harder to make. In my mind, one can say that the problems that resulted in war, urest and conflict after independence were (or partly) caused by the colonial government. Are there any solid examples of this?

Secondly, are there any good examples in history (and I'm sure there are) of where "the West" intervened and made things worse, particularly those that were attempting to solve an "African problem" and failed (I should point out that I'd also like any other external influence to Africa, eg. Soviet/Chinese)? I've got the arms trade into Africa (the Soviet type) to start off with. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean other than Slavery and when the CIA invented AIDS? ;)

In all seriousness, do you mean after independence? I think there quite a few examples of Europeans not acting in the best interest of the locals during colonial times (and even later), the Belgian Congo and apartheid probably being the most famous. There's also the whole blood diamond market fueled by Western consumers. TastyCakes (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article argues for colonial roots to the Rwandan genocide. Recury (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya that's a good example. Also, while the UN may not have worsened the genocide, its ineffectiveness over the course of it was just heartbreaking. See Shake Hands with the Devil. TastyCakes (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. The less obvious the point the better really: most places went downhill after independence (considerable caveats) and that the West harmed Africa during the invasion. Oh, and intervening badly is stronger than not intervening (BTW, this is for a [pointless] speech, I just need some background).- Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 18:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also are you judging by western standards of what is good? Is health care good a good idea when it causes overpopulation? Is yet more people doing the same as everybody else a good thing? Dmcq (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe is an excellent case of how a colonial power (the British) created a country which became very powerful (named Rhodesia at the time) then went off the rails after the British left. Sure, during its height in power the native populations were second-rate citizens with next-to-no rights, but the economic infrastructure and military were envied by lots of other African nations - even South Africa came to consider Zimbabwe a viable threat to its own power and status after independence. Then the country just fell apart into the worst imaginable economic and political equivalent of absolute chaos in a country which still 'elects' the same government that brought the situation about in the first place. And the western powers don't do anything about it - all the British can do is ban them from playing international cricket. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Speech went well. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 15:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"That is so gay"

When pre-teenagers nowadays so "that is so gay", they're obviously using it as a pejorative and an insult. But they're obviously not saying it specifically pertains to men being sexually attracted to other men, or to a lesser extent, women being sexually attracted to other women. I don't think they're even aware of the concept of homosexuality - they're just using the word "gay" because they've heard it's a good expression of what they're trying to convey. So what do they mean? "Stupid", "uninteresting", "outdated", or something similar? JIP | Talk 19:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Dull, untrendy, adult-oriented, unsexy, picayune, intellectual..." Conversely, could anyone say specifically what British gays really meant by Naff? --Wetman (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly want to know what it means when (American) teenager say something is "so gay," unless they specifically mean male homoeroticism, it just means "bad." Mac Davis (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More like "lame". Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really is to be taken as almost, but not quite, entirely unlike cool. —Akrabbim^talk 21:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with contemptible. Vranak (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second lame, but one quibble with the OP: there's nothing "nowadays" about this. This has been used in exactly this form and for this meaning since at least the late 80s.Fuhghettaboutit (talk) --22:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lame, weak, "unmanly", the way teens used to say something was "queer". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay is also being used in this sense to mean intellectual. If something is being characterized as being gay it is being denounced for being overly preoccupied with cerebral qualities that the speaker finds objectionable. This is original research. This is the sense in which I sometimes hear it used. Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see somebody already pointed out the "intellectual" angle on this. Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being "too" intellectual can also be considered "unmanly". That's not exactly a new problem, of course. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning in the 1970s, people started denigrating other people as "homos," whether they were gay or not. It started on campuses, according to Cassell's Dictionary of Slang.--Drknkn (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in the 1980s, they began to use the word gay to denote someone who is "stupid, ugly, eccentric" according to the source above.--Drknkn (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, again "unmanly" or "abnormal" or "queer" or whatever term, not specifically denoting homosexual as such, just "not a real man". Just as with "fag". As the ever-politically-incorrect George Carlin once said, in his neighborhood, "a fag was someone who wouldn't go downtown and help beat up queers." →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Think Before You Speak. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might refer to "Someone whose abilities exceed mine in some meritorious accomplishment." Edison (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

‘Lame’ or ‘rubbish’, according to the BBC programme complaints committee, when defending Chris Moyles' use of the word. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Salon article from 2000, "That is so gay!" means "lame, wrongheaded, queer in the original sense." The current popularity of the phrase among today's yutes is due, without question, to its frequent use on South Park. The show's usage of the phrase is anti-homophobic, in the show's typically backhanded way. In the show, the phrase usually doesn't reference homosexuality, and so they effectively remove the homophobia from the old playground insult. The Think Before You Speak campaign resists this trend by insisting that the homophobia be read back into the phrase. Good or bad? You decide. —Kevin Myers 17:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if it sucks, its gay plain and simple --Talk Shugoːː 15:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name 'European Union'

Hello, When the European Community was renamed the European Union what other names, if any, were suggested? Thanks in advance, 79.78.66.1 (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been renamed, as such. There are lots of overlapping European bodies which are collectively known as the EU, the EC is still one of those. The Lisbon Treaty will tidy all that up and make the EU the only body, if it is ever ratified. --Tango (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as our article will tell you, the European Union got its name upon the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, or if you prefer, when the Treaty came into force in 1993. I don't know if there was any debate on the choice of name.--Rallette (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did it cease to be the "Common Market?" That is the term I am more familiar with. Edison (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]