Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 May 15
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 14 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 16 > |
| 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. |
May 15
[edit]How did Shakespeare die?
[edit]Our article on him mentions nothing about his death cause, it seems, only his death date. Not even a single speculation. Is there any widely believed reason for how he died? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe it was recorded anywhere. His death was not given any public attention or any outpourings of homage such as those that followed hard upon the deaths of Spenser, Beaumont, Bacon, Jonson, Drayton and Burbage. About 50 years after he died, someone said he died of a fever, but how would they know? Besides, fever is a symptom of many conditions, so that's not telling us anything much. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 10:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, JackofOz is referring to Vicar Ward's account: "Shakespeare, Drayton, and Ben Jonson had a merrie meeting, and it seems drank too hard, for Shakespeare died of a feavour ther contracted." ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Jack is taking the opportunity to trot out anti-Stratfordian canards which are wholly beside the point and also wholly false. There was a famous poem by William Basse that circulated after his death and there were several other tributes, which are comparable in number to those for other deaceased poets and playwrights at the time. They don't say how he died, but that was normal. Unless someone died in dramatic circumstances, like Marlowe, it would not normally be mentioned. And that's on the assumption that it was known at all. People died of undiagnosed natural causes all the time of course. Paul B (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The fever theory Jack mentions comes from the diary of John Ward, a Stratford vicar, who in around 1661 said the late bard had a drinking bout with Drayton and Ben Jonson at which he caught the fatal illness (see here). But that was indeed written half a century after Shakespeare's death and no proof is offered. People have drawn inferences from the fact that Shakespeare's will is dated only a month before his burial (transcript here) suggesting that he knew he was terminally ill when he made it. Some also point to the alleged shakiness of his signature on the will as evidence that he was indeed ill when he signed it. A Google search on "shakespeare death" will provide plenty of speculation, but no harder evidence than this. - Karenjc 10:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- As you say, there is endless speculation, but little real evidence. He may have had a progressive illness of some sort, which would explain his retirement from the stage in 1613. Something like Parkinsons would have forced him to give up performing, but left him in charge of his faculties. He may had a sexually transmitted disease such as syphilis (Katherine Duncan-Jones thought he had syphilis) as there are many references to the effects of syphilis in the sonnets. In the 2005 film A Waste of Shame he is depicted as syphilitic. Or it could have been something sudden. Or cancer. Or anything. In the 1973 play Bingo he kills himself with suicide pills in despair at the pointlessness of worldly success. Paul B (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The fever theory Jack mentions comes from the diary of John Ward, a Stratford vicar, who in around 1661 said the late bard had a drinking bout with Drayton and Ben Jonson at which he caught the fatal illness (see here). But that was indeed written half a century after Shakespeare's death and no proof is offered. People have drawn inferences from the fact that Shakespeare's will is dated only a month before his burial (transcript here) suggesting that he knew he was terminally ill when he made it. Some also point to the alleged shakiness of his signature on the will as evidence that he was indeed ill when he signed it. A Google search on "shakespeare death" will provide plenty of speculation, but no harder evidence than this. - Karenjc 10:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Paul B: Basse's elegy may have been written up to 7 years (1623) after S's death (1616). And that would be consistent with S's passing being little noted at the time. And that would be consistent with no record of how he died ever having been kept. My opening response is quite correct. Not even slightly false, let alone "wholly false". -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 13:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- The following statement is wholly false: "His death was not given any public attention or any outpourings of homage such as those that followed hard upon the deaths of Spenser, Beaumont, Bacon, Jonson, Drayton and Burbage." It would serve no purpose to go into the details here, but you can read Stanley Wells' essay "Allusions to Shakespeare to 1642" in which the comparisons to the other writers you mention are analysed. There are in fact 27 manuscript copies of the Basse poem known to exist, so the assertion "not given any public attention or any outpourings of homage" is clearly untrue. Yes, it's first commented on in print in 1623, but only someone who is blinding themselves to common sense would think that's supposed to prove it was only written in that year. Paul B (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I did not say it "was written in 1623". I said it "may" have been written "up to 7 years" after Shakespeare's death. All we know for sure is that it was extant by 1623, and that's what our article on William Basse says. My opening sentence ("I don't believe [the cause of his death] was recorded anywhere") is still correct, and that is the primary element of my response to the OP's question. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- The following statement is wholly false: "His death was not given any public attention or any outpourings of homage such as those that followed hard upon the deaths of Spenser, Beaumont, Bacon, Jonson, Drayton and Burbage." It would serve no purpose to go into the details here, but you can read Stanley Wells' essay "Allusions to Shakespeare to 1642" in which the comparisons to the other writers you mention are analysed. There are in fact 27 manuscript copies of the Basse poem known to exist, so the assertion "not given any public attention or any outpourings of homage" is clearly untrue. Yes, it's first commented on in print in 1623, but only someone who is blinding themselves to common sense would think that's supposed to prove it was only written in that year. Paul B (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Paul B: Basse's elegy may have been written up to 7 years (1623) after S's death (1616). And that would be consistent with S's passing being little noted at the time. And that would be consistent with no record of how he died ever having been kept. My opening response is quite correct. Not even slightly false, let alone "wholly false". -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 13:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I find it surprising nobody cared that he died... Wasn't he supposed to be popular during his time? I think of him as the Michael Jackson of stage. Shakespeare is most probably the most famous historic playwright ever... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- While Shakespeare was well-known and liked during his life-time, he didn't have the rock-star image and profile of his friend Ben Jonson; he also didn't die in London, so news (and details) travelled that much more slowly. At home in Stratford, he was just a moderately successful local businessman, and heaven knows we have few enough details about the causes of (non-violent) death of most people of that class in that era. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Jonson died many years later, by which time he had built up followers known as the Tribe of Ben. Shakespeare does not seem to have been interested in that kind of self-promotion. Almost all his money was ploughed back into his family in Stratford. But there were indeed as many comments on him as one would expect given the cultural norms of the time. Paul B (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- The OP also needs to consider that the modern-day obsession with celebrities simply did not exist then, nor was there a profit-driven mass media to report every tiny detail of people's lives. What very few proto-newspapers there were in Europe at that time printed stories about political events, wars, dynastic changes (like death of one king and accession of his heir), and natural disasters, very rarely the doings of private persons like Shakespeare. The comparison with someone like Michael Jackson in this media-crazed age of ours just doesn't apply. Textorus (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- All the evidence around only ever hints at anything, we know, for example, roughly when he retired from working in London and returned to his family, when he wrote and rewrote his will, just days before his death, if I remember right, surviving samples of his handwriting suggest that his health deteriorated sharply in the last few days, as with any part of his life all we have to go on are tiny fragments, that you can make any sort of theory fit, with a little effort. 213.104.128.16 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- The OP also needs to consider that the modern-day obsession with celebrities simply did not exist then, nor was there a profit-driven mass media to report every tiny detail of people's lives. What very few proto-newspapers there were in Europe at that time printed stories about political events, wars, dynastic changes (like death of one king and accession of his heir), and natural disasters, very rarely the doings of private persons like Shakespeare. The comparison with someone like Michael Jackson in this media-crazed age of ours just doesn't apply. Textorus (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Jonson died many years later, by which time he had built up followers known as the Tribe of Ben. Shakespeare does not seem to have been interested in that kind of self-promotion. Almost all his money was ploughed back into his family in Stratford. But there were indeed as many comments on him as one would expect given the cultural norms of the time. Paul B (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- While Shakespeare was well-known and liked during his life-time, he didn't have the rock-star image and profile of his friend Ben Jonson; he also didn't die in London, so news (and details) travelled that much more slowly. At home in Stratford, he was just a moderately successful local businessman, and heaven knows we have few enough details about the causes of (non-violent) death of most people of that class in that era. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I find it surprising nobody cared that he died... Wasn't he supposed to be popular during his time? I think of him as the Michael Jackson of stage. Shakespeare is most probably the most famous historic playwright ever... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- That Shakespeare signed his will shortly before death is strong evidence that his death was natural. It was customary then for men to have a will prepared when death was expected, so the timing is not coincidental. His will shows that he was giving careful consideration to protecting his daughter Susanna, so he must have still had considerable presence of mind. He seems to have begun preparation of his will in January, signed it in March, and died on April 23, so he likely died of some natural cause over a period of at least several months. John M Baker (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Is newly-elected Green Party Member of Legislative Assembly Andrew J. Weaver the first scientist to be elected to provincial legislature in Canada? Either way, I would like to see a source. Thanks. ~AH1 (discuss!) 11:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have definitive proof for you at the provincial level, but it's not very likely. Here is a list of the occupations of all the members of federal parliament, and a quick skim finds at least three in the first few names: medical geographer Kirsty Duncan, former astronaut Marc Garneau and physicist Ted Hsu. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- William Fraser Tolmie, surgeon, fur trader, scientist, and member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia from 1874 to 1878. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Non-unified Germanic people
[edit]How did it happen that most Germanic kingdoms unified into Germany, but not all? I understand that the Austria–Prussia rivalry would explain Austria being an independent country, but what about the Dutch and the Swiss-German? Had they had their chance to unity with the rest? Were they rejected or did they rejected the idea? How did they developed an independent identity? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Religion, culture, history, and geography. Religion, because the Swiss and Dutch were Calvinist, the Austrians Roman Catholic and the northern Germans Lutheran. Culture because both the Swiss and Dutch had become, either de facto or de jure independent from the other Germanic states for a very long time. Part of that was geography: the Swiss had been essentially independent from the time of the founding of the Old Swiss Confederacy in 1291 which was an alliance between several small states in the Alps. Being in the Alps, they were essentially cut off from the rest of lowland Germany, which meant they were left to provide for their own affairs, even if (nominally) they were subject to the Holy Roman Empire. Over time, other Alpine polities joined up, gradually forming the modern federation. The Dutch people and language had arisen from the same group of Germans that established both France and the Holy Roman Empire (the Franks), but had historically been distinct from either of them; the establishment of Lotharingia had created a distinct political entity separate from France and Germany, and while it did not survive very long, the area of the Low Countries has always been a sort of "buffer region" between the two large powers, sometimes ruled by one or the other, but often having a fair degree of autonomy. While formally incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire, the HRE itself was fairly disunified, and the Dutch developed their own distinct culture and language distinct from the eastern Germans. The various Dutch petty states (County of Holland, Duchy of Gelre, Bishopric of Utrecht, etc.) These lands were eventually inherited by the Duke of Burgundy, who had aspirations to re-establish the "Middle Kingdom" of Lothairingia. The Dukes of Burgundy never did so, but what they did do was provide the various petty Dutch states political unity and autonomy that then passed to the Spanish Hapsburgs via the division of the Hapsburg Empire after Charles V. This is quite important, as the Austrian Hapsburgs got control of the HRE, thus Germany and the Netherlands became effectively separated. The Dutch, being not Spanish, not Catholic, and not particularly happy being ruled from Madrid, revolted, and established the Dutch Republic. By this point, they weren't really Germans any more, as 500 years as a distinct culture and language will do that. After all, the English, Swedish, Danish, Norwegians, and Icelanders aren't Germans either, though they all have common roots in the same Germanic Peoples that spread over Europe during the first millenium AD. Germany itself was the last of the major European powers to unify, only doing so in 1871. See Unification of Germany. --Jayron32 13:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the short version of this is basically that the Low Countries and Switzerland had developed separately and independently from the rest of Germany for hundreds of years by the time Germany was unified. john k (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that. --Jayron32 16:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Would it not also be at least partly simply because they were not assimilated by the emerging German Empire, or in cases when they were, had been forcibly separated from that state at some point, a major part of European politics of the time, of course, was attempting to maintain the 'Balance of Power' by preventing one country from becoming too big and powerful, looking for example at the redrawing of national boundaries after major wars, the Netherlands were deliberately created as an independent buffer state between old enemies France and Germany back in 1814, and with Austria having remained too much for Prussia to consider conquering prior to 1918, they were assimilated into the new German state soon after that, an arrangement that was only able to last until 1945. 213.104.128.16 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, the issue was explained concisely by John K. above. The concept of Balance of Power is a 19th century one, dating from Metternich's conservative view of Europe, and resulting after the post-Napoleonic Congress of Vienna. By that late of a date, both the Netherlands and Switzerland were well established and accepted as independent states in their own right, with as much historical right to an independent existence as any other state. No 19th century European would have thought of The Netherlands as a "German state" as it would have been a de facto independent and unified state for 3 centuries (and de jure independent for two) by that point. And Switzerland had been so for almost 600 years by then. The Netherlands wasn't created as a buffer state in 1814. It was merely re-established (as a Monarchy rather than a Republic because of the attitudes of Metternich et. al.; though the Dutch Republic ran like a Monarchy in every way but name, so much so that one Stadtholder was even invited to be King of England). No one considered the Netherlands as under the influence or belonging to any other country. The whole point of the Congress of Vienna was to wipe away the results of the French Revolution/Napoleonic era and re-establish the old European order, and to insure that such an event never happened again. Balance of power issues had some bit to play in the separation of Austria from Germany, though mostly the events that controlled that were internal to the German-Austrian politics at the time, and not manipulated by the Concert of Europe. See German question for some background. --Jayron32 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just to quibble a bit over a tangential issue, the idea of the Balance of Power was considerably older than the Concert of Europe. I believe it dates back to the late seventeenth century, and that, at the very least, "Balance of Power" conceptions informed William III's anti-French coalition building. The Wikipedia article Balance of power (international relations) gives some historical context, although not particularly well sourced. But, yeah, balance of power conceptions didn't have too much to do with Switzerland and the Netherlands not becoming part of Germany. I think it's really worth understanding that "Germany" was not a new concept in 1871 - Bismarck's actions transformed what "Germany" meant in a political context, but, unlike with Italy, there was almost always some sort of political entity that was designed to encompass and define "Germany" in a political sense - first the Holy Roman Empire, and then the German Confederation. Neither of these polities was a strong state - they were instead confederations of numerous states or quasi-states. It wouldn't have made any sense to create buffer states against "Germany" at the Congress of Vienna, because "Germany" itself (i.e., the German Confederation) was essentially a buffer - its purposes were to sublimate the rivalry between Prussia and Austria into a mutual concern for the welfare of the German lands as a whole, to contain French expansionism, and to preserve monarchical government within Germany itself. There was no interest in 1814 in containing or balancing against "Germany". Nor was there any interest in containing or balancing against Prussia, which was seen to be by a considerable margin the smallest and weakest of the five great powers. john k (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, the issue was explained concisely by John K. above. The concept of Balance of Power is a 19th century one, dating from Metternich's conservative view of Europe, and resulting after the post-Napoleonic Congress of Vienna. By that late of a date, both the Netherlands and Switzerland were well established and accepted as independent states in their own right, with as much historical right to an independent existence as any other state. No 19th century European would have thought of The Netherlands as a "German state" as it would have been a de facto independent and unified state for 3 centuries (and de jure independent for two) by that point. And Switzerland had been so for almost 600 years by then. The Netherlands wasn't created as a buffer state in 1814. It was merely re-established (as a Monarchy rather than a Republic because of the attitudes of Metternich et. al.; though the Dutch Republic ran like a Monarchy in every way but name, so much so that one Stadtholder was even invited to be King of England). No one considered the Netherlands as under the influence or belonging to any other country. The whole point of the Congress of Vienna was to wipe away the results of the French Revolution/Napoleonic era and re-establish the old European order, and to insure that such an event never happened again. Balance of power issues had some bit to play in the separation of Austria from Germany, though mostly the events that controlled that were internal to the German-Austrian politics at the time, and not manipulated by the Concert of Europe. See German question for some background. --Jayron32 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Would it not also be at least partly simply because they were not assimilated by the emerging German Empire, or in cases when they were, had been forcibly separated from that state at some point, a major part of European politics of the time, of course, was attempting to maintain the 'Balance of Power' by preventing one country from becoming too big and powerful, looking for example at the redrawing of national boundaries after major wars, the Netherlands were deliberately created as an independent buffer state between old enemies France and Germany back in 1814, and with Austria having remained too much for Prussia to consider conquering prior to 1918, they were assimilated into the new German state soon after that, an arrangement that was only able to last until 1945. 213.104.128.16 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that. --Jayron32 16:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the short version of this is basically that the Low Countries and Switzerland had developed separately and independently from the rest of Germany for hundreds of years by the time Germany was unified. john k (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
What was the year and decade that had most amount number ones albums and songs?
[edit]I want to know the year and also the decade, that had the most amount of songs or albums on its list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.132.99 (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your IP address geolocates to Brazil but my guess is that you're asking about the UK charts. If so, List of UK Singles Chart number ones has the answers for singles. The table in that article is sortable by clicking on the column headers. It looks like the year 2000 had the most number 1s with 42 and I'm pretty sure the 2000s had more number ones than any other decade as well. --Viennese Waltz 15:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- My guess is that they are more likely to be talking about the US charts. It depends which particular versions of the charts are used, but, just doing a quick count from our articles on no.1 singles, it seems that the figures for Billboard for the last six decades are: 1950s - 117; 1960s - 206; 1970s - 254; 1980s - 233; 1990s - 142; 2000s - 130. So, the most US chart-toppers were in the 1970s. I believe that the peak years were 1974 and 1975, which each had 35 different no.1s. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I was talking about worldwide and about sales. But if a worlwide chart is not possible, it can be USA one.177.179.72.193 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The Life and Death of George C. Parker
[edit]Greetings! I'm looking for the birth/death dates and locations of George C. Parker. I tried to access the SSDI but links seem to go in circles and I can't find the online search. Any suggestions / help? For the one who comes up with the answers I'll make a reasonable price offer for the Brandenburger Tor... GEEZERnil nisi bene 15:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Call the New York State Archives? They have detailed Sing Sing records. Research Assistance: 518) 474-8955. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- That seems to be a reasonable approach. I have contacted them in writing. Thx! GEEZERnil nisi bene 06:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Got an automated answer. Although I did not mention it, they tell me, they they do not do "genealogic research" for the public. I am NOT related to this guy (although I admire his chuzpe...). <sigh> GEEZERnil nisi bene 08:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- That seems to be a reasonable approach. I have contacted them in writing. Thx! GEEZERnil nisi bene 06:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- You may find the good people at Rootsweb can help you. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Meet the Press
[edit]Is Meet the Press broadcast live or taped? I'm talking about the 9-10 AM Eastern Time slot, since the Wikipedia article says that it's shown at the same local time in other time zones and rebroadcast on other days. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32105890/ns/meet_the_press-about_us/t/meet-press-frequently-asked-questions and the article don't mention this. 2001:18E8:2:1020:245D:B4E8:59EF:BB91 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt it is broadcast "live" (few of the "Sunday news shows" are). But I am not sure when it is taped. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I found this with McCain enroute to a taping timestamped 5:04 so safe to say its taped about an hour or two before the show runs. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 17:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yahoo! Answers is not a reliable source, but someone who purports to be a control-room operator at an NBC affiliate station says the show is indeed broadcast live in the Eastern Time zone. Textorus (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's my impression, too. David Gregory, the host, usually makes clear when a full-length interview with someone like Sen. McCain, the President, a prominent educator or a foreign visitor has been taped (and often edited) and shown either at the beginning or at the end of the show. There's also often an invitation to see the full interview at NBC's Meet the Press website. The rest of the show, when not pre-empted by sports or a special event, usually seems to be live East Coast time, with occasional references to breaking news. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! Found some pictures of Lee H. Hamilton on the set while I was at work; the broadcast date was included, and I wasn't sure whether or not to put that down as a possible date for when the pictures were taken. 2001:18E8:2:1020:CDCA:8938:1F9F:A938 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's my impression, too. David Gregory, the host, usually makes clear when a full-length interview with someone like Sen. McCain, the President, a prominent educator or a foreign visitor has been taped (and often edited) and shown either at the beginning or at the end of the show. There's also often an invitation to see the full interview at NBC's Meet the Press website. The rest of the show, when not pre-empted by sports or a special event, usually seems to be live East Coast time, with occasional references to breaking news. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yahoo! Answers is not a reliable source, but someone who purports to be a control-room operator at an NBC affiliate station says the show is indeed broadcast live in the Eastern Time zone. Textorus (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I found this with McCain enroute to a taping timestamped 5:04 so safe to say its taped about an hour or two before the show runs. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 17:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Aboriginal Australians populations in the USA
[edit]Is there any Aboriginal Australians populations in the USA. Because In California I have never heard of Aboriginal Australians populations, if they are Indigenous Australians populations in the USA where are they likely to be concentrated? In Wyoming? Rocky Mountain Areas. Is there likely Indigenous Australian populations in Northeastern states or southeastern states?--69.233.254.115 (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- These sorts of questions can be answered using the "American Fact Finder" portion of the U.S. Census website, www.census.gov, directly accessible here. It takes some playing around with, and I'm a but short on time myself, but if the question is at all answerable, you can do so via that site. --Jayron32 23:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- So, All I do on American Fact Finder is [1] or should I just type in American Fact Finder/census.gov on Google or Bing toolbar, just key in like Los Angeles Area, California or San Francisco, California, when I do more practice,should it be pretty easy. Most, often I save websites on Bookmark, so next time I can just click it on popup.--69.233.254.115 (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Be aware that many Aboriginal Australians do not have physical characteristics that make them stand out from Europeans with exclusively (or mostly) European ancestry. In Australia it is mostly a matter of self-identification to be defined as one. Roughly 2.5% of the Australian population identifies as Aboriginal. They are active in all walks of life. A lot of Australians visit the USA. You might be close to one (or several) right now. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- In the U.S., such matters are also purely self-identification. The data of this sort is collected by the American Community Survey, an ongoing comprehensive survey of demographics in the U.S. by the Census Bureau, and there's not genetic test or proof required for questions of ethnicity and race and ancestral origin. They just ask you what you consider yourself, and you check a box. That's it. --Jayron32 00:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can you explain what you mean by populations, or why you would expect there to be Australian aboriginals in places where American aboriginals are found? μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, assuming (like everyone's recent ancestors except the Native Americans) they emigrated here. It is not beyond the realm of possibility than someone who is an ethnic Australian Aborigine would emigrate to the U.S. The question is completely and totally understandable, and also completely and totally answerable with the references I provided, so I have no idea at all what your objection is. --Jayron32 03:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's no "objection". It's just that words like population (reread the OP) are usually used to mean something collective or tribal in an ethnological context, and the OP specifically mentions geographical areas of the US like the Rockies where indigenous tribes are found, but Australian emigrees would not particularly be expected. You'll note, Jayron, I didn't indent under you, and so as not objecting to what you said. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Some more numbers... (I teach Mathematics. I like numbers) There's at least 5% of Australians outside the country at any given time. (Yeah, we go Walkabout a lot.) That's over a million wanderers. Let's say 100,000 are in the USA. (I have no formal basis for that guess.) If 2.5% of them are Aboriginal, that's 2,500 Australian Aboriginal people in the USA right now. Not sure exactly where though. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, assuming (like everyone's recent ancestors except the Native Americans) they emigrated here. It is not beyond the realm of possibility than someone who is an ethnic Australian Aborigine would emigrate to the U.S. The question is completely and totally understandable, and also completely and totally answerable with the references I provided, so I have no idea at all what your objection is. --Jayron32 03:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Demographic groups do not emigrate at uniformly distributed rates. But I do appreciate the attempt at some rigor to an interesting, but particularly difficult to answer question. Shadowjams (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Demographic data is based on permanent residence, and doesn't count people temporarily in a country as tourists. john k (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- The American Fact Finder lists 61,000 Australians in the U.S. (first reported ancestry list). That would be about 1,500 Aboriginal Australians - if they migrate at the same rate as other Australian populations do. Rmhermen (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- The OP's question seems to imply that he thinks Aboriginal Australians in the USA (as visitors or residents) would choose to gather in some specific locations. I don't know why that would be an assumption worth making; certainly when I have been some other country as a tourist or lived in another country as an ex-pat, I have not specifically sought out fellow Britons. Astronaut (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- So tourists randomly select towns they visit with no regard to other factors? Similarly with immigrants? Shadowjams (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore the OP seems to think that they would choose those places because they are similar to the austrailian outback! LOL Yes, and they dont live in houses and use boomerangs to hunt roadrunners165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- The phenomenon of immigrants gathering into tight-knit communities is easily observable in most western nations. A quick Google reveals that "The Los Angeles suburb of Santa Monica is sometimes called "Little Britain." That's because of the number of British expats living there."[2] So although there may be many who are happy to immerse themselves in a new culture, there are also many who prefer to live amongst their fellow countrymen. Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Because overseas travel is somewhat expensive, economically disadvantaged groups are much less likely to engage in it. Likewise, economically and socially disadvantaged groups in any country are less likely to obtain the advanced educational credentials needed to secure employment and resident visas overseas. For these reasons, I think it is fair to assume that the proportion of Australian Aborigines among the Australian emigré population is much lower than their proportion in the population of Australia. It is unlikely that there are even 1,000 Australian Aborigines in the United States. I've lived here for half a century (in different metropolitan areas, all relatively cosmopolitan) and don't think I've ever seen an Australian Aborigine with recognizable physical features. Perhaps there are 100-500 in the whole United States, if that many. There is no reason to suppose that these individuals are clustered in any one part of the country. Marco polo (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your thinking and mine are identical, Sr Polo. Economic and social disadvantage has been the lot of Australian Aborigines since 1788, and there's no reason to believe that wouldn't have translated to their propensity for overseas travel. We'd have to factor down HiLo's raw numbers based on their proportion of the general Australian population, but by how much I could not say. Certainly many have gone o/s; some have studied o/s and would have had to assume temporary residency like anyone else. There may be examples of groups of Aboriginal students who have travelled and lived together. But as for any significant sustained population of them in discrete locations overseas, I rather doubt that. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Poor people (let's get rid of "economically disadvantaged" newspeak) tend to travel less, but if the history of mass immigration shows anything, poor people tend to leave at much higher rates than rich people do. I know what Jack and Marco are saying, and I don't doubt that, but I think it's worth pointing out the obvious point that seems to have been glossed over. Shadowjams (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's a lot more complex than just "poor". Read this, for example.
- Australian Aborigines have a well-recognised relationship with and connection to the land of their heritage, and the notion of migrating to some foreign country to escape their difficult circumstances and build a better life would be anathema to most of them. And against the trend of history. Vast numbers of people have come TO Australia for exactly that reason. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Poor people (let's get rid of "economically disadvantaged" newspeak) tend to travel less, but if the history of mass immigration shows anything, poor people tend to leave at much higher rates than rich people do. I know what Jack and Marco are saying, and I don't doubt that, but I think it's worth pointing out the obvious point that seems to have been glossed over. Shadowjams (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your thinking and mine are identical, Sr Polo. Economic and social disadvantage has been the lot of Australian Aborigines since 1788, and there's no reason to believe that wouldn't have translated to their propensity for overseas travel. We'd have to factor down HiLo's raw numbers based on their proportion of the general Australian population, but by how much I could not say. Certainly many have gone o/s; some have studied o/s and would have had to assume temporary residency like anyone else. There may be examples of groups of Aboriginal students who have travelled and lived together. But as for any significant sustained population of them in discrete locations overseas, I rather doubt that. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Because overseas travel is somewhat expensive, economically disadvantaged groups are much less likely to engage in it. Likewise, economically and socially disadvantaged groups in any country are less likely to obtain the advanced educational credentials needed to secure employment and resident visas overseas. For these reasons, I think it is fair to assume that the proportion of Australian Aborigines among the Australian emigré population is much lower than their proportion in the population of Australia. It is unlikely that there are even 1,000 Australian Aborigines in the United States. I've lived here for half a century (in different metropolitan areas, all relatively cosmopolitan) and don't think I've ever seen an Australian Aborigine with recognizable physical features. Perhaps there are 100-500 in the whole United States, if that many. There is no reason to suppose that these individuals are clustered in any one part of the country. Marco polo (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- So tourists randomly select towns they visit with no regard to other factors? Similarly with immigrants? Shadowjams (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)