Humanities desk
< July 1	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 3 >

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.

July 2

Richard Francis Burton and getting into Mecca

One thing I've always wondered is why Burton pretended to be a Pashtun instead of a European. Why couldn't he have said that he was a Briton who had converted to Islam while in India? It seems to me that the hostility of many Muslims (both Arabs and others) to Europeans might have been overcome by the novelty of a European who had converted, and the fact that he'd spent plenty of time in India might well have been a sufficient explanation for such an unlikely conversion. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, most non-Europeans who had to deal with Europeans learned pretty quickly not to believe anything they said. Any time Europeans came to look at something, the basic assumption was that they were scouting it out as a preliminary to invasion -- which was usually not far from the truth. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a fair observation. The real explanation is, of course, that it was extremely uncommon at the time for a European to convert to Islam, and hardly any Muslim would have believed Burton if he had said he had. Victorian Britain was not today's Britain; converting to Islam, for a British person, would have meant having to move to an Islamic country to be able to lead anything like a "normal" social life.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed that any european was seen as an enemy and would be subjected to violence or death. 92.29.118.212 (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone list any celebrities who are half white and half black besides Obama and Halle Berry?

Can anyone list any celebrities who are half white and half black besides Obama and Halle Berry? Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not. Given that 'white', 'black' and 'celebrity' are all simplistic social constructs (at best), I can't see any reason why any sane person would want to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[After an edit conflict] I suspect that's a very American question. To me as a non-American, it just seems a very odd and probably racist question. What does half black mean? Is black explicitly defined? Is white explicitly defined? It's my understanding that a lot of African-Americans have some "white" ancestry anyway. (And maybe some of those "whites" have....) I just wish skin colour didn't worry people so much. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a simple example of somebody half black and half white: [1]. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some worry about it; others are merely interested in it as being part of the variety of the human species. I think Derek Jeter is mixed-race. Roy Campanella was. So was Ted Williams, if you consider Hispanic to be a separate "race" (which I don't, but the US government apparently does). Alex Haley had mixed ancestry. Moses Fleetwood Walker, the first or at least best-known black ballplayer before they drew the color line, was described by contemporaries as "Mulatto", a term that's no longer in favor but essentially means mixed-race. Tiger Woods and Tai Babilonia are also mixed race, but not "pure" black + white, but rather a "rainbow". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK and supported by our article the US government doesn't generally consider Hispanic to be a seperate race. Nil Einne (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on PBS a show a while ago in which Henry Louis Gates, the host, asked a number of famous black leaders if he could test their DNA to determine what proportion of recent European ancestry each of them had. It emerged that virtually all of them had more than they believed, even Don Cheadle, who looks as purely African as anybody could. Gates himself was surprised to find that he had 50% European ancestry, which he said was almost a little bit embarrassing, since he is head of the Black Studies department at Harvard. Looie496 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: The show was African American Lives. Reading our article, it says that 19.6% of African Americans have at least 25% European ancestry, but only 1% have more than 50% European ancestry. Looie496 (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup question; why would someone's racial background be relevant in their feeling comfortable or embarrassed at being head of a department at a major university? Does this sort of comfort or embarrassment happen a lot in the USA? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! (This is a good question). Michael Jackson is half white and half black. I wonder who else... --188.28.104.202 (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's Clarence Thomas, who many would argue is "black on the outside and white on the inside". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, while I usually disagree very strongly with Justice Thomas, those who would argue that would be quite wrong, as can be seen by the grounds of his dissent on a law that forbade burning crosses; his personal experience and interpretation of what such acts meant to Southern blacks was very different from those of his liberal and conservative white brethren on the court. As an aside, since Justice Thomas's wife is white, their children might fall into a similar category as Barack Obama. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another perspective. Is this only about American celebrities? Most (certainly not all) Australian Aboriginal people who have ever become famous would have a mixture of Aboriginal, European, and possibly other ancestry. Do Americans think Australian Aboriginal people are black? HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Neptune will enlighten us. Australian Aborigines are obviously dark-skinned, but they're not "black" in the sense we USA'ns use it, as a synonym for (and predecessor to) "African American". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

I disagree completely. I would call someone of significant Australian aboriginal descent "black". (But not "African American", because that would be silly.)

"Black" is a visual descriptor, like "tall" or "blonde".

Of course, that makes the question difficult to answer literally, but I suppose he's probably looking for someone with one parent with dark skin and another parent of light skin, which is straightforward enough. APL (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Black" is definitely not a synonym for "African American". "Black" is a description of skin colour and, by inference, ethnicity. "African American" includes a description of nationality. --Tango (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I said in the USA. Elsewhere in the world, "black" will obviously mean different things. The term "black" in South Africa obviously didn't refer to African Americans. More like "Native Africans" or "Aboriginal Africans". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once in awhile, we get a question that people avoid answering directly in order to make a point. This is one of those. The main point that people want to make -- that "race" is a social construct that doesn't really lend itself to "half" this and "half" that in any truly meaningful way -- is a good one, and one that should be made. Having made that point, we can now rephrase the question to make it meaningful. Here goes: there are a number of famous people who have one parent considered "black" by their society, and another considered "white". Barack Obama and Halle Berry are two examples. Are there others? I would guess that there are very many, from Frederick Douglass to Rashida Jones. —Kevin Myers 07:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

personal conflict unrelated to answering the question

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I didn't avoid answering just to make a point. I couldn't answer because the question needed an awful lot more definition to make sense to a thinking person. Maybe it was simpler for Americans, but I won't apologise for not being one. HiLo48 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to apologize for not being American. It's not your fault. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should apologize, though, for the very obvious chip on your shoulder about Americans, and you should take it off your shoulder. --Trovatore (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore your post is ad hominem and out of order. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No more out of order than HiLo "suspecting", without adducing any shred of evidence whatsoever, that the question is "very American". that is incredibly offensive. HiLo should apologize. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question names only American celebrities and it uses racial categories that are central to Racial segregation in the United States, which is also the country that enforced anti-miscegenation laws from 1913 to 1948 in 30 out of 48 states. Instead of directing your misguided knee-jerk patriotic kick at HiLo48 who obviously could cite unending examples of American preoccupation with black/white social isues I suggest you quietly respect the belated progress made by ethical Americans in this field, to wit Abraham Lincoln, the Supreme Court judges in Loving v. Virginia and Martin Luther King, Jr.. No other country than America where you happen to live and work has endured this shameful history. HiLo has said nothing that is offensive. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddlyable, that's total bullshit as a defense of what HiLo said. Giving no justification whatsoever, he "suspected" that it was "a very American question", and then went on to assume that it was, saying as though it were relevant that he was a non-American. That there's a history of American bad acts on race is undisputed, but in no way ameliorates that extremely offensive behavior, which is outside the pale of civilized discourse. By the way I am not particularly a patriot, but I will not be silent in the face of such utter provocation. --Trovatore (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Giggs and his dad Danny Wilson sort of illustrate why the question is a bit odd. If Giggs's dad is half-black then is Giggs a quarter black? In this photo, is Danny Wilson black? 86.144.90.37 (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless such examples. We don't need to belabor the point that terms like "half black" don't mean much, but readers who wanted to learn more about such terms could start with quadroon. —Kevin Myers 07:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better way to approach this is to ask about famous people who have a self-identity as being "multi-racial". Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Kravitz is half black, half white. Tiger Woods is about as multiracial as you can get. I think he has ancestors from all inhabited continents except South America and Australia. Pais (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would Franco Harris have been the first "half-white, half-black" American to become famous in the modern era? His success might have been a landmark, coming just a few years after the Supreme Court threw out miscegenation laws. Harris was embraced by both the Italian-American and African-American populations. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In common terminology this question can be answered. But as soon as someone tries to answer with any semblance of objectivity or based upon defined terms, responses break down to almost meaninglessness. This may be true for many other questions as well, but this particular one seems especially suited to being unanswerable—except in common terms—which probably embody some of the overly simplistic thinking that objective responders are trying to avoid. But it is a question that has resonance with a lot of people, as evidenced by the considerable number of responses. It is perhaps a question that arises involuntarily in even those such as myself trying to avoid giving a response that plays into a "street level" and unsophisticated mentality concerning race. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Keys and Dan Hill come to mind. Lenny Kravitz is half Black and half Semitic. Wiwaxia (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jaye Davidson is also half-black, half-white, though maybe he doesn't count as a celebrity anymore. Pais (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snoopy, though he is more white then black. Googlemeister (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section 29 of the Canadian Charter Rights of Freedom

Does Section 29 only applies to Roman Catholic and Protestant schools? What about Islamic schools and Jewish schools? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.250 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it means that Catholic schools in provinces where Catholics are a minority (notably Ontario) and Protestant schools in provinces where Protestants are a minority (i.e. Quebec) have official school boards and government funding. This is in the Charter because the 1982 Constitution reaffirms this point from the 1867 Constitution, when it was more of a serious problem - the Catholic church dominated Quebec at the time, and Protestants (mostly Anglicans) were dominant in Ontario, to the point that the Protestant and Catholic minorities in those provinces were effectively second class citizens. In 1867 there weren't many Jews in Canada, and there probably weren't any Muslims at all, so they didn't get any special mention, and they still don't. By he way, we also have an article on Section 29 of the Canadian of Charter Rights and Freedoms. (And all the other ones, for your other questions.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on Islam in Canada, the 1871 census found 13 Muslims in the country. So some, but hardly a significant community. Warofdreams talk 12:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what is wrong with the gold standard

I watched a documentary called money masters and there solution for the economic downturn is: Step 1: Directs the Treasury Department to issue U.S. Notes (like Lincoln’s Greenbacks; can also be in electronic deposit format) to pay off the National debt.

Step 2: Increases the reserve ratio private banks are required to maintain from 10% to 100%, thereby terminating their ability to create money, while simultaneously absorbing the funds created to retire the national debt. Also getting rid of fractional reserve banking and the federal reserve in the process Inflation wont be a problem as they will use the extra money to give to the banks so they have the money they need cover the money they have loaned out.

However, they disagree with the gold standard saying then that gold is too scarce and it could not be used efficiently and the people that have the gold would have the power of the currency. Is there anyway to keep the gold backed money flexible also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.96.241 (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Gold standard, particularly Gold standard#Disadvantages. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not as long as gold is scarce, no. However, we could use more common metals, like silver, or perhaps a broad range of natural resources. Using more than one natural resource to back currencies does create a problem when the prices of those resources change, relative to each other, though. Also, this tends to increase the price and lead to the hording of those resources. Still, these effects may well be better than the risks of inflation, hyperinflation, and total currency collapse with an unbacked currency. StuRat (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's insane. If you set the reserve ratio for banks to 100%, they will have to retain all the money deposited in them, which means they will have no way to make money, which means there will be no banks. (And that isn't the only problem with the proposal.) Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this devalue the U.S. dollar and increase the price of imports? Or would the dollar need to be unfloated and revert to a fixed exchange rate?
Sleigh (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The banks would make a profit based on the difference between the interest they charge on the loans they make, and the interest they pay to their depositors. To sleighs point all the new money created would have to go to the banks somehow ,I have not figured out, to stop the inflation but that's where my question about the gold standard comes in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.96.241 (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if they need to keep 100% of the money people deposit on hand, they can not loan any money. Googlemeister (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Society Islands Kingdoms

How many seperate kingdoms were there in the Society Islands in French Polynesia? I know Huahine, Raiatea, Tahiti, and Bora Bora were. But were the other islands seperate kingdoms before they were annexed to France. Also Society Islands article gives the annexation date of all the islands in 1880 but most of other islands were not annexed till 1888 and Bora Bora wasn't annexed until 1893. Why is that? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

codifying an existing debt

This is not a request for legal advice, but I was reading the contract article, which pretty much says that the main thing (or just about) that makes a contract valid is consideration. I was wondering what were to happen if a relationship were going south and you wanted to codify an already existing (orally agreed) debt, for example? If you say "B has owed A $2000 since 2000, when A did some work for B" and both sign it, does it become something A can collect on or what? This is just a hypothetical example, but I'm curious how "consideration" is dealt with when getting onto paper something from before... Thanks... --188.28.30.218 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, putting it in writing does make it legally binding, while an oral contract is typically only enforceable if both parties agree to the terms in court. The consideration, here, is the work which was done and/or the $2000. One potential problem is if a court thinks the attempt to collect the $2000 is only due to the end of the relationship. StuRat (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stu, not asking for legal advice here (in fact, this is just about hte hypothetical! There is no $2000 or work done in 2000). But, the uestion here is: why would it be a problem if the "atempt to collect the $2000 is only due to the end of the relationship"? I would think that would not matter... 188.28.41.89 (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The important point is that the contract is _not_ the physical piece of paper, but the _agreement_ between the parties. A and B aren't creating a new contract, they're just putting their existing one (in which the consideration due to B is getting the work done, and the consideration due to A is getting the money) into writing. It _may_ help A's chances of recovering the money (for example, B's acknowledgement of the debt may deprive him of a limitation defence), but the reasons for A and B deciding to put the matter in writing won't affect the validity of the original contract. Incidentally, StuRat's statement "putting it in writing does make it legally binding" isn't necessarily true. Some types of contracts (such as Deeds) have more stringent requirements for execution (We don't have an article on the legal execution of documents?) than just the parties' signatures, and an oral contract which isn't legally binding can't be made binding just by writing it down. Putting a contract in writing may make it more _enforceable_ (as the courts will now have concrete evidence that it exists), but there's nothing miraculous about a piece of paper (in law, at least). StuRat's point about motivation is that B may have an estoppel against A - if A assured B that he wasn't going to enforce the contract (and insist on payment), then A will be prevented in equity (rather than in law) from attempting to enforce it because of the relationship breakdown. But that would require evidence that A _did_ make such a representation (and that B acted on it to his detriment, and various other things which make it advisable for A and B to consult a lawyer in this sort of situation). Tevildo (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put it in simpler terms, the court might be worried that this work was really a gift, and that once the relationship ended, person A then starting claiming it was work for pay. The two ways to disprove this notion is for both parties to testify in court that it wasn't a gift, or for them to both put that in writing and then present that in court. In a case such as this, a simple written contract should do the trick. The only ways I see to get out of the written contract would be if person B argued successfully that their signature was forged, or that they signed under duress, or didn't understand what they were signing (this would be difficult to prove with such a simple contract, unless person B had diminished capacity). Then there's always bankruptcy, which doesn't really invalidate the contract, it just makes it uncollectable. StuRat (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

old british public schools system

I'm reading early PG Wodehouse, which are school stories. I have no problem following the cricket and rugby football stuff, and the slang is pretty easy to figure out, but I would like some sources that explain the school system. These books were published around 1905 and are set in England. How old are the boys in each form? Why do the forms start at 4 instead of 1 and why are only two of them divided? (4th and 5th, lower and upper) Did they have any other classes besides maths, Latin translation and Greek translation? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.120.65 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Study?, For the time period and type of school, non participation in the Anglican or Catholic churches was virtually unheard of. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been known as Religious Instruction or RI, or maybe Religious Education or RE. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not familiar with Wodehouse's books, we still had forms in secondary school in my day, early/mid 70s. 1st formers were 11-12 years old, 4th formers were 14-15, 5th formers 15-16, lower 6th 16-17, and upper 6th 17-18. I presume the particular schools only started with 14 year-olds, hence the 4th form would be the initial class (back in those days I think the end of compulsory schooling was at 14 - it certainly was for my parents in the 1930s - so the pupils in Wodehouse's schools would be the privileged ones who could continue to be educated after the working class had started working). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly but not identically, my own (Public (≡ US Private) boarding) school in the late 60s and early 70s began with 2nd formers of ages 11-12, the "1st form" notionally covering the 7-11 year olds at its associated primary Prep School (and more abstractly the majority who had attended other primary schools). The 2nd and 3rd forms were marked off as "Lower School" from the 4th form (13-14) and up; it also inserted (as was common in such schools) a "Remove form" at 14-15, therefter being aligned with Arwel's description. The "Remove" may have been a relic reflecting a once existing division between those who were expecting to go on to University and those who were not: it features in fictional schools of roughly the Wodehousian period by writers such as "Frank Richards"; the article on Richards' Greyfriars School includes a detailed analysis of its form structure, yet another slight variant, which may be of interest.

P. G. Wodehouse himself attended a Prep school from 10-12 before entering Dulwich College which, as you will see its article's lede, retains today a 4-tier (Junior, Lower, Middle and Upper) structure with divisions at ages 11, 13 and 16. His fictional schools were likely modelled on something similar.

As to (boys') Public school subjects in Wodehouse's period, this probably varied somewhat from school to school depending on the preoccupations of their Headmasters and/or owners. From my general knowledge and particular reading of similar stories by Frank Richards and others, not to mention Tom Brown's Schooldays, they might also have included some or all of History, Geography, Art, Chemistry, Physics and Biology and/or Science. Some of these might have been alternatives to others, and/or optional extras, as likely would have been Music for some pupils, though at some schools some pupils would have explicitly entered as choristers. Girls' Public schools would have course have had a markedly different emphasis in that period, though they would have had some subject overlap. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.62 (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The religious class might have been known as "Divinity" as it was at the fictional St. Custard's, attended by Nigel Molesworth. The curriculum would have been extremely limited but there would have been History, Geography and probably also a nod at Science. English came into the public schools quite late. French, I would have thought, but perhaps it was optional. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also "Religious Knowledge" (RK) or "Scripture", both of which I remember from my (non-public-school) youth. Bertie Wooster famously won a prep-school prize for "Scripture Knowledge", which is mentioned in many of the Jeeves & Wooster stories. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the traditional British fee-paying school system, young children of primary school age attenf a Preparatory school until the age of 13 when can sit the Common Entrance Exam. This is their passport to a private secondary school - the older and grander ones are confusingly called Public schools, because they started as charitable institutions. Fiction set in prep schools includes the Jennings books. Alansplodge (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]