Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 1

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 1

UK Law

What is the UK law that says if your surname is Kent (or a similar idea) you cannot make your son's first name 'Duke' and his middle name 'of' (or something similar)? 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one. UK parents are essentially free to name their children anything they please. I do not have any sources for this, yet, but I will find some. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC Article --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And as for changing of names, the UK Deed Poll Service says that there isn't a law preventing a change of name to Duke/Lord etc (Q22) but they will summarily reject any names that "may result in others believing you have a conferred or inherited honour, title, rank or academic award" ([1]). The overall current law probably relating to this is the Fraud Act 2006 (I am not a lawyer etc..). Nanonic (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That company is covering itself: as it offers a guarantee that its documents will be accepted by the authorities, it will not accept any proposed names that may be rejected by officialdom. Sussexonian (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if this exists, but it seems reasonable that impersonating a peer of the realm would be a crime at common law? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Back in the days when being a peer automatically meant a seat in the House of Lords, I can see such an impersonation being cause for the impersonator to be held in contempt of the Parliament. But peers have no special privileges anymore, so pretending to be one is doing no harm - unless the impersonation was done for the purposes of fraud, which would be a matter of interest to the law, just as impersonating anyone for the purposes of fraud would be. IAN, however, AL. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Being a life peer still entitles one to sit in the House of Lords, and being a hereditary peer entitles one to participate in the selection process by which representatives of hereditary peers are chosen to sit in the House of Lords. But my train of thought was more that impersonating a peer might have been a crime back when being a peer meant something more than just symbolic, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to abolish it. But this is just speculation. I can't say IANAL but for the purpose of this discussion I'm impersonating a non-lawyer. --PalaceGuard008

According to the Deed Poll Office, if you adopt a first name such as Lord, Sir etc., it would be classed as a presumed title and it would be rejected by the Identity & Passport Service unless you provide additional documentary evidence that you are using the "name" for all purposes. But if you can show that you really plan to use that as your name, then yes - it is legal. Little brown owl (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(Talk) 16:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Some wikilinks that may be of indirect interest: Screaming Lord Sutch, Naseem Hamed and Duke McKenzie. --Dweller (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And the marvellously punsome Ted Hankey. --Dweller (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pike river mine NZ

how is it worse than that one with 43 people dead if it only had around 30? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.82.196.91 (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pike River Mine disaster doesn't say that. It says it was the worst such disaster since the one that killed 43. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division (United States)

The first section indicates that the 7th Infantry Division returned to the United States after the Korean War.

First of all, the Korean War has never officially ended. There is merely a truce with ongoing peace talks.

Secondarily, there may be some ambiguity caused by the statement that the 7th returned to the United States after the Korean War. Some would think by that statement that the 7th returned after the truce in 1953. That is not correct. I was with the 7th in 1968-69 along the DMZ as part of a troop build-up following the capture of the USS Pueblo in February, 1968-69.

Something should be in the article about the 7th's participation in a significant increase in hostilities and North Korean infiltration following the capture of the Pueblo. The Army has written books about it ("Low Level Combat") and it's probably available from the GPO.

The article does state accurately that the 7th returned to the U.S. in 1971, but that is several paragraphs down from the statement that the 7th returned to the U.S. following the Korean War. People will be misled by the the opening passage about the 7th returning after the Korean War. The Korean War did not end in 1971, 0r 1953 for that matter.

B. Jerome Wheeler [email address removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.186.74 (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed your email address to protect you from spam. This should be posted on the article's talk page and not here. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you know you can edit Wikipedia articles yourself, to clarify anything misleading like that ? Just pick the edit button at the top of the section in question, and give it a try. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Korean War article uses the ternm "Armistice" which may be the best solution. If you're going to change the details of the movement of the division, you need to have a reliable reference to back it up - see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Alansplodge (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wars de facto end when people stop dying and killing each other, and not when politicians sign a piece of paper. Flamarande (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wars end when one side overwhelms the other. Sometimes they can't, and then situations like Korea and the Middle East go on endlessly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the terms "hot war" and "cold war" are useful here. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Support dog

What assistance can a dog provide to an autistic person? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How interesting. This site says: "Autism assistance dogs can be partnered with autistic children and their families. An autism assistance dog acts as a guide, anchor and continuous focus for the child. This can have a very reassuring and calming effect, enabling autistic children to better make sense of and interact with the world around them.". And there are details here about practical implementation in the UK. Karenjc 11:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain this is done in the USA also. Properly trained dogs have all kinds of therapeutic uses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's Therapy dog article is fairly short, but it has a great collection of external links. The basic idea behind therapy dogs is that dogs are, relative to their mental power, excellent at social cognition. Considering that autism is often described as an impairment of social cognition, it seems likely a fruitful possibility. --M@rēino 16:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We even have an article on the Autism service dog. —Angr (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I should have seen that coming! :) --M@rēino 21:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Casual Detachment?

While reading about Frank Buckles, I at first thought there was a misprint when his article said he belonged to the 1st Fort Riley Casual Detachment, but that appears not to be the case. Anybody have more info on this type of unit? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

According to this page, a "Casual Detachment" is a group of men "detached" or ordered to operate separate from their regiment or company for a specific duty. Looie496 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Flag

http://twitpic.com/4515rt can you post this picture to the site re: Libya? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizzyphus (talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Only if the photographer releases it under a free license that permits commercial reuse and derivatives. —Angr (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a striking poster, there, isn't it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that the al-qaeda flag? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, see Flag of Libya and Islamic fundamentalism at Flags of the World — Kpalion^(talk) 20:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That website won't work, but you've answered my question. I can see now why Gadaffi is warning the world about what's coming once he falls - and why the rebels don't want foreign intervention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Gaddafi has claimed that al-Qaeda is among the groups responsible for the uprising, but how likely is that? The tricolour flag goes back to the Libyan monarchy, which wasn't really "fundamentalist", they come from a family of Sufi mystics. Gaddafi overthrew the monarchy because of their support for (or at least their passive non-opposition to) Israel, and the all-green flag represents fundamentalist Islam more than the black/red/green one. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I get a bit nervous when I see that moon and star. But it's not like Libya is some great ally of ours anyway. His supporters seem to have conveniently forgotten about Lockerbie, for example. But what I don't get is, what is that "rebel flag" doing in the Libya article? Has the government been overthrown and they forgot to tell us about it? Or could it be (gasp!) POV-pushing on the part of certain editors, who are trying to have wikipedia participate in that overthrow in some small way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs -- the true Islamic extremists think that the star-and-crescent is a medieval cultural symbol, which has nothing to do with the pure Islam of the time of Muhammad or the glorious Arab caliphates before the Seljuk Turkish invasions. That's why there's no star or crescent on the flag of Saudi Arabia, or on the flag of Afghanistan under the Taliban, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and they get a bit nervous when they see that cross with that guy nailed at it. Quest09 (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Quest09 -- Which country has a flag with a crucifix (not just a cross) on it?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose none. I was just pointed at the fact that Muslims and Christians can get nervous seeing each other symbols. Quest09 (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean Islamic fundamentalism at Flags of the World, by the way. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Grandiose.— Kpalion^(talk) 23:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What surprises me is that the anti-Qaddhafi forces in Libya are using the flag of the Kingdom of Libya of the 1950s and '60s. I can hardly believe that means they want the monarchy back, though. —Angr (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It is common for republics to use a royalist flag. The Flag of Russia used after the break-up of the Soviet Union was originally Tsarist. In 1991 Bulgaria re-adopted the old Flag of Bulgaria assocated with the Bulgarian Tsars. Both countries are still republics. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you say the name Lucien Febvre?

Lucien Febvre, Jules Michelet- How are these names pronounced? --117.201.241.43 (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My best guesses are [lysjɛ̃ fɛvʁ] and [ʒyl miʃle]. —Angr (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

spl0uf efforts sounds better than mine. [2]--Aspro (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That site requires a login. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not for just listening it doesn't.--Aspro (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Katiba in Benghazi

I've been trying to find the Katiba, which played such an important role in the Battle for Benghazi, in Wikimapia[3], but I didn't see anything by that name (nor named "كتيبة") there. Does anyone know the coordinates of that complex? — Sebastian 19:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, no responses so far. Please don't be discouraged by my asking for coordinates - anything that would indicate the location would be helpful. — Sebastian 04:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Google Translate, كتيبة is just the Arabic word for "battalion", so maybe the "Katiba compound" mentioned in that article isn't really a proper place name that would be labeled on maps. —Angr (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it perhaps just another name for the Al-Birka Barracks? Nanonic (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

terms fetishism

I know that Jungle Fever refers to either a white woman likes black man or white man likes black woman and yellow fever means that a white man likes Asian woman and/or white woman likes Asian man. So is there term where a white man likes Indian woman or white woman likes Indian man?; a white man likes latina woman or white woman likes latino man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.234 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Was it not you who had asked this question very recently at the Entertainment desk? In any event, see meltBanana's answer there: "Fever fetishism". ---Sluzzelin talk 20:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

65.92.152.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

65.92.149.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yes, both based in Toronto, same service provider. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the same guy who kept asking about ethnic neighbourhoods in Toronto, and about posting erotic ads for Arab girls in Toronto newspapers. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yellow fever is a disease. I don't know about the other stuff. There is a Jungle Fever article, but I haven't looked at it yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also remember that any such terms are steeped in centuries of racial politics, and thus likely to cause offense. --M@rēino 15:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Like when Mr. and Ms. Pac-Man sued for defamation over "Pac-Man Fever". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a youth culture in Afghanistan?

Is there a youth culture in Afghanistan or in other countries associated with extremism? In the West our youth culture means that the young are skeptical and critical of the older culture, and only take it on selectively as they grow up. I'm wondering if the abscence of a youth culture means that society would get stuck in a rut and not be able to grow and adapt. Thanks 92.15.29.32 (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've heard that this is a factor in Iran, where the Islamic fundamentalist youth culture that swept the Shah out in 1979 is now in their 50's and the new youth culture has little use for Muslim extremism. So, give the extremists another 40 years to die off, and I suspect the Iranian government will become less of a pariah and stop funding terrorism. StuRat (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the average age in 'problem' countries is very low. So it would only take a few years before a youth culture had an effect. 92.15.29.32 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we've established what we mean when we refer to a youth culture. Is a youth culture going to contain similarities across widely separated geographical regions of the Earth? What would those similarities be? Is youth culture defined as the culture of young people that is at odds with the culture of an older generation? Is youth culture always a culture that takes exception in some fundamental way with the premises of an older generation? Are we assuming that in the absence of this assumed-to-exist youth culture that young people do not have a culture that they identify as their own? Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Have not you ever been a youth? Please base your ideas on that rather than over-analysing a not very good article. 92.24.178.131 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we've established what "countries associated with extremism" stands for either, for that matter. I mean for pete's sake, there are certain types of extremism I can quite easily associate with the USA, although I'm not certain the OP had that particular country in mind. Or did he? TomorrowTime (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My view of your questions from my memories of my youth culture: Yes. Pop music, fit celebrities, fashion, Hollywood movies, probably; although the specific details vary from country to country. From youth's point of view, yes. That's the idea. Yes, by definition. Edit: I've removed a link to what I thought was a Youth Culture article, as that redirects to a not very good article that is more about counter-culture. 92.15.29.32 (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The first sentences of Youth subculture read:

"A youth subculture is a youth-based subculture with distinct styles, behaviors, and interests. Youth subcultures offer participants an identity outside of that ascribed by social institutions such as family, work, home and school. Youth subcultures that show a systematic hostility to the dominant culture are sometimes described as countercultures.'

That leaves open the possibility of there being "youth cultures" that are simply the ways of young people, and "youth cultures" that "show a systematic hostility to the dominant culture"—those are known as "countercultures".

The question posed above would seem to refer not to "youth culture" in general but specifically to "counterculture". Bus stop (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not refer to counterculture. I wish people would stop putting words into others mouths all the time. The article is over-doing it - listening to pop music does not mean you are an anarchist, does it? Please stop being over-analytical of some dodgy text as if it was gospel. Havnt you ever been youthful? 92.24.178.131 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think Busstop gets the idea. I do not mean any anarchist counterculture as she/he seems to think, but just normal youthfulness in the West, or at least in the UK. You may recall that while being youthful, there was a lot of interest in rather ephemeral things like pop music, fashion, the latest Hollywood movies. That is what I would call youth culture. 92.24.178.131 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase the question: in countries like Afghanistan, do people go straight from being children to having the same interests and tastes as the middle aged? In the UK for example, when youthful, people take an interest in youthful things such as pop-music, fashion, the latest movies. In other words, do young people have the same interests and preferances as their parents generation? 92.24.178.131 (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect to Afghanistan in particular it's very difficult to generalise. Following some 30 years of assorted conflict and interference from certain countries the main focus is just on getting by.

However, there is some clear stratification in the urban areas, less so in the rural areas. The effect of the Hindu Kush is quite compelling with the North being distinctly different from the South.

ALR (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP's question was clear, and we can stick to the topic instead of debating the terminology (I refer to some of the comments above, not all). Youth culture in general depends on affluence. In America, it emerged mainly after the Second World War, when the total value of goods and services, in the space of about 10 years, went up about 250%. Young people started getting allowances from their parents, instead of contributing to the family budget from their own part-time jobs, and the commodities they sought were exactly those that would make them so prominent as a group - cars, jeans, records and the like. As marketers took an interest in them, and as they themselves took an interest in black music (rhythm and blues, which became rock and roll), an identifiable youth culture, and a preliminary generation gap emerged.

Whether there are enough of the necessary conditions in Afghanistan, or whether poverty and a mainly rural population are factors weighing too heavily against social change, I cannot tell. I can talk a little more about Iran, though mainly in the 80s, and it is in keeping with StuRat's answer. That country has always been a special case. From the time of the revolution, it has been an Islamic dictatorship superimposed on a society still reeling from an imposed Shah, against a background of a political culture that was once ready for democracy. This is just my simplistic summary, but dictatorship in Iran does not seem fundamental or natural to the society, from everything my Iranian friends have told me. The country regards students as a national asset, so it is hard for the (usually young, I think) revolutionary guards when their job is to suppress student revolt of any sort (or so I remember seeing on the news some years ago). Consequently, there is certainly a culture of opposition among the youth. There is also, from what I can tell, a thriving middle class, as the country is developing, and not economically backward. As for specific examples, in the 80s, Western bands, though illegal, were highly popular among the youth, and my friends suprised me by being able to discuss artists like Pink Floyd with knowledge and understanding. The interdiction on Western culture of course makes it more popular, whenever it can be smuggled in. The ban on all secular music (at least I think it is all banned) has little effect, with musical instruments routinely being smuggled in to weddings and parties, at some risk to the participants. Somehow, the government is not all-powerful, and the youth will likely be an agent of social change in the future, as the anger and hatred that inspired the revolution become forgotten, and people find they want the better lives that secular and free societies can provide. It's been emotional (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It was said that in the Soviet Union, Western jeans and pop records sold for high prices. Perhaps this desire for Western goods, particularly youth culture goods, eventually resulted in the fall of the Iron Curtain, a process which seems similar to the revolutions in the Arabic world currently. I read once that even Osama Bin Laden and his friends used to listen to collect and exchange audio tapes, so there is a desire for pop-culture goods which can be supplied and encouraged. With alluring cultural choices becoming available, eventually the militant ideology will seem old-fashioned and boring. 92.15.8.168 (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

92.15.8.168—you say, "It was said that in the Soviet Union, Western jeans and pop records sold for high prices. Perhaps this desire for Western goods, particularly youth culture goods, eventually resulted in the fall of the Iron Curtain, a process which seems similar to the revolutions in the Arabic world currently."

Why would "Western jeans and pop records" result in "the fall of the Iron Curtain"? Can you explain to me how that mechanism works? Bus stop (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

People wanted access to the Western lifestyle of consumer goods that communism was not providing. The western lifestyle could be seen in Western tv that was also recieved across the border, and doubtless other things that leaked through. The trickle of people escaping to the west became a flood as the border in one of the Iron Curtain countries opened, and later they all opened. Newsreels showed huge crowds of mostly younger people waiting to cross the border. Communism provided a long waiting list for a Trabant and other scarce basic items, while here in the West we lived in consumer paradise. When you went into a typical Eastern Bloc shop there would be few things on the shelves, and it cost many months salary to buy a colour tv. See the Fall Of The Iron Curtain section of Iron_curtain and Revolutions of 1989. And Eastern Bloc emigration and defection 92.24.177.69 (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OBL was a westernised Saudi until his early 20s, and later became enamoured of the philosophies of increasingly deviant Islam.

There is an implicit assumption in all of this that "youth culture" implies westernised consumerism. It may be a desire to introduce specific vaariants of Islam or similar.

ALR (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OBL left behind a big collection of audio tapes when he had to suddenly flee from one of his caves. I read a long article online about it. They passed into the possession of some American academic who was studying them. 92.24.177.69 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, do not alter definitions to suit your own purposes. I think the definition of Western youth culture is well known by most people at least. Defining youth culture in some idiosyncratic personal way is going to lead to confusion and pages and pages of verbage from pedants. 92.24.177.69 (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

92.24.177.69—Can I suggest something? If your IP address is changing from post to post, could you please make it clear if there is continuity between different IP addresses weighing in here? Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

the question should have been more specific then. If one wishes to look at it from an analytical perspective one would divide ones target audiences in various ways, one of which would be age related. As a result there would be a "youth" category, which may have certain common characteristics. Those characteristics would be manifested in a number of ways. What we see in Afghanistan does vary depending on where one is. There is a sophistication amongst "youth" in some of the cities, with a different flavour to that in, for example, Masar-e-Sharif than that in Herat and in some parts of Kabul. That reflects a number of things, including which community or tribal affiliation is recognised. This Target Audience Analysis would inform ones actions towards them.

The other issue is, as identified above, what one means by "extremism"...

ALR (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read the previous paragraph again. 92.24.177.69 (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have. Do you want an answer from someone who understands the subject, or not?

ALR (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are Native Americans Nations free to not live by federal or state standards and still be funded by the federal and state governments?

Enough.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why when we are broke do we continually support corrupt causes like HUD housing for Native American Nations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.113.225 (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Maybe some sort of reparations? Schyler! (one language) 23:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Historic treaties. The land the reservations are on is Native American land, and is governed by their laws. This is a case of a nation within a nation, like the Sioux Nation. Reservations have their own police, their own laws, their own jurisdiction, etc; which is why they can gamble or follow whatever other laws they like. We support them with HUDD just like how we support all poverty stricken areas with HUDD.AerobicFox (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Note that the autonomy of Native American reservations is rather limited. For example, crimes committed by people living on the reservation, against people outside the reservation, likely would be handled under US law. StuRat (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Why were Native Asian Americans not just made citizens like everyone else and left to buy land like anyone else? Why do people think Native Asian Americans have gotten anything for nature of the times was if you could not pay for something or defend it you did not own it. Why should they be treated so special, even now in America, if you don't pay the taxes you will lose your property. Why were the Indians given anything other than the right to be citizens of the new america? Won't the whole idea of something for nothing ruin our country and this whole Indian thing, just another example of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.113.225 (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC) This is a really weird question. Because Native American's had their own nations, that's why they weren't made citizens of the U.S. Most native Americans did not want to be U.S. citizens or live in the U.S., the U.S. government took their land, and told them to leave their land and go somewhere else that was vastly less desirable. Eventually they assimilated with America and became U.S. citizens, but they haven't really been given anything apart from recent affirmative action measures. Keep in mind that Native American reservations have some of the highest suicide rates and alcohol abuse rates in the country.AerobicFox (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC) I also don't understand your use of the word "Asian" in the question. It's true that most Native Americans are descendants of people who came from Asia thousands of years ago, but since then they've changed rather dramatically, so I certainly wouldn't call them "Asian". StuRat (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Dear 76.178.113.225 -- The category of "Indians not taxed" mentioned in the U.S. Constitution has been obsolete and non-existent since at least 1924. The policy of breaking up reservations and allocating each individual Indian family "40 acres and a mule" to set them up as self-sufficient farmers, while cutting them loose from any legal collective tribal identity or special continuing government aid (beyond a few years of transitional agricultural assistance) has been followed during several periods (most recently during the Eisenhower administration), but really has not been a great overall success any time it was tried -- see Dawes Act, etc... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 40 acres and a mule was never an Indian policy or any other kind of policy or promise ever. A U.S. general gave some ex-slaves 40 acres and gave some ex-slaves some "excess-to-purposes" Army mules but the land was taken back soon after and no law was ever passed about it. The Dawes Act gave 160 acres to the head of family and 40 acres to each minor - but no mules at all. 75.41.110.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC). I was being metaphorical, which is why I enclosed it within quote marks. The Dawes Act was well-intentioned on the part of some who advocated for it, but it did rather little to create a class of self-reliant independent Indian yeoman farmers who had abandoned their traditional culture and were socially accepted by whites and well-integrated into "mainstream" American society -- which was its professed goal. AnonMoos (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC) The US forefathers came and stole the land, often murdering those who lived on it. We tried the tack of making them "good cultured Christianized Americans" and it failed miserably, so now often they don't really have their original culture or American culture, the effects of which cause a whole lot of problems (I am reading a book called Lakota Woman by Mary Crow Dog). Essentially, the reservations are the plots of land which the US forefathers didn't want, and forced the Native Americans to live there. To tell them that they need to be taxpaying Americans at this point is morally (in my mind) just like me coming to your house, killing your family, seizing your land, forcing you to sign a treaty to live and work in the outhouse, and then on top of all that, requiring you to pay me for my services (after all, I have to give you food, because you can no longer make ends meet). Rather than worrying about "something for nothing" here, I am far more concerned about the fact that the entire origin of my country is genocide, stealing land, and coercion. "Won't the whole idea of something for nothing ruin our country and this whole Indian thing, just another example of it?" Well, the US government has a history of making sure that the Native Americans cannot be self sufficient (for example, in "The Beautiful and the Dangerous" by Tedlock, the Bureau of Indian Affairs limited the number of sheep that the men could herd, thus destroying a vital part of the tribe's livelihood). That's my take on it, somebody will disagree, I am sure. Falconusp t c 05:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC) That's a little one sided. I suppose you aren't familiar with the common native American raids against settlers and people in the west. There was back-stabbing and broken treaties by the native Americans as well, and to be frank, if Native Americans were stronger they probably would've wiped us out also.AerobicFox (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC) It may be a little one-sided, but I think that if invaders were moving in toward my land, I would do something about it before they were on my land. I believe that a US History teacher at my high school said that there is not a treaty with the Native Americans that the US has honored. Again, I know people will disagree, but the fact that the Native Americans weren't as strong as the Europeans doesn't mean that they should have been wiped out. Falconusp t c 16:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Indians were pretty good at killing each other also. The invading Americans weren't saints, but neither were the native Americans. It's unfortunate that they couldn't figure out a way to coexist peacefully, but that's show biz. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Yes, but because there are warring factions in a foreign land doesn't mean that somebody needs to invade and obliterate them. Falconusp t c 16:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC) And just because a group of people got pushed off their traditional homeland 100 years before I was born doesn't mean that somebody needs to try and make me feel guilty about it. Googlemeister (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Of course not. I can take no responsibility for what my ancestors did. Nevertheless, it is important, and is highly relevant to today, and to the question of why we don't just tell them to become tax-paying Americans, though admittedly we are drifting from that question, which is in large part my fault. Falconusp t c 17:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Only if you unfairly profit from it. How long until stolen property belongs to the thiefs? Or their heirs? This is only partially a rhetorical question - how to deal with historical injustices is a genuinely hard question. If you believe you have a right to inherited advantages, you also have to accept the attached responsibilities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)