Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< November 12 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 14 >
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.


November 13

[edit]

Volcanism

[edit]

This question has been moved to the science desk. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good book on the development of the canon

[edit]

I would like to read a good book on the development of the Christian canon. I'm most interested in the Roman Catholic and Protestant canons, though I suspect at least some exploration of the Jewish and Eastern Orthodox ones will be necessary for context. I'd like a thorough one that is accessible to an educated reader but not overtechnical. Scholarly articles that provide a good overview would work too. Does the RD have any to recommend? ÷seresin 03:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published an article on the subject at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000880.
—Wavelength (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce M. Metzger is a great example of the liberal/critical perspective, and as his article notes, he won respect from people of all shades of belief; see his work at the top of the "Further reading" section of our article on the Muratorian fragment. I can't give you anything from the conservative/biblical inerrancy perspective with equal confidence, so instead I'll offer two suggestions. J. Gresham Machen is a great representative of that position overall, so you might want to check the last book in his article's "Works" section. I'm not familiar with F. F. Bruce, but statements in his article seem to suggest that he's often considered a leading author in the conservative/biblical inerrancy perspective; you may well want to check his book that's cited at Muratorian fragment. Note that all three of these guys come from Protestant perspectives, so you may end up needing to find some Catholic, Orthodox, or Jewish authors. I don't know whom to suggest there, while two of my three suggestions are Presbyterians; as a Presbyterian myself, I know more about the Presbyterian writers because I've not read as much from other Protestant denominational families or from non-Protestant writers. Nyttend (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Volume 1 of The Cambridge History of the Bible has the chapters "Canonical and Non-Canonical" and "The New Testament Canon" that deal with canon formation with regard to the Old Testament and the New Testament, respectively. Deor (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robin Lane Fox, a classicist with no particular axe to grind, wrote The Unauthorized Version, which discusses the developments of canons of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.--Wetman (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the New Testament, Bart Ehrman lists his two favourites [1]: a more basic account: Harry Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) and the major scholarly account: Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) You can buy an audio or video copy of Bart Ehrman's set of lectures on the topic as well: [2]
For the Old Testament and Hebrew Bible, the only suggestion I have (this may be a bad suggestion) is Trebolle, Julio, "Canon of the Old Testament" in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 1 (Abingdon, 2006), pp. 548–63. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican Latin and Byzantine Church Bazaars

[edit]

Both the Byzantine Catholic church I was baptized in, and the local Roman Catholic church where I grew up held annual Bazaars. I see watching Downton Abbey this is also an Anglican tradition. They are all even called the same thing in English. Can anyone suggest if this is a common inheritance from before the Anglican-Roman split? Or is it a modern innovation? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I couldn't really find anything useful for you I did find Trinity Church (Arendal)#Today's Church (last paragraph). I had trouble understanding it until I saw the picture below with a permanent bazaar, File:Arendal Kirkebasaren.JPG. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An anecdote from down here, where they tend to be called fetes. Bill Hayden was known for dreading being asked to attend what he referred to as "fetes worse than death". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you had to go pretty far to get there, Jack, but the puncline was worth it. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This probably goes back to at least the Middle Ages where the bazaar would be neverending. There would constantly be people and animals in and around the church and going there for an actual religious service would be difficult and distracting. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@JackofOz:, I would have thought a fete somewhat different to a church bazaar even though they could have both been held by churches. I would think of a bazaar as more like a jumble sale where only goods are sold and it just starts at a certain time. On the other hand I would expect a fete to sell goods but that there would be other forms of entertainment held, as it points out in the article, and while starting at a certain time is usually opened by someone notable. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OED records the word since 1340 with the meaning “An Oriental [sic, apologies] market-place or permanent market”. However, your meaning, “A fancy fair in imitation of the Eastern bazaar; esp. a sale of useful and ornamental articles, in behalf of some charitable or religious object” appears only since 1807. Here are the first few entries:
1807 R. Southey Lett. from Eng. I. vii. 82 My way..took me through a place called Exeter Change, which is precisely a Bazar, a sort of street under cover, or large long room, with a row of shops on either hand, and a thoroughfare between them; the shops being furnished with such articles as might..remind a passenger of his wants.
1816 Soho Bazaar.
1829 R. Southey Sir T. More II. 216 No Vanity Fair opened in aid of the funds, under the title of a Ladies' Bazaar.
It’s surprising we don’t have an article on the Soho Bazaar which opened in 1815 and ran for 70 years; here is a blog post about it. <OR> It definitely seems a candidate for the origin of this particular use of the word.</OR> Taknaran (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the interpretation I will accept based on the above comments is that churches from at least the Middle Ages tended to have standing fairs, and that they became called bazaars in the 1800's when town commerce took over as the regular market, and bazaars became special events. Thanks for the responses. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6¼¢ in 1815

[edit]

According to one of the sources I just used to write Wabash County Courthouse (Illinois), the county commissioners paid 6¼¢ to rent a building as the courthouse in 1815. I'm familiar with the Half cent (United States coin), but not with anything smaller, and I note that the article says no coin lesser than ½¢ was ever minted. How were the commissioners to pay 6¼ cents? Just assume that they'd still be there a year later and make change? Nyttend (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Mill (currency); there were also tax tokens that had various mill values to deal with fractional sales tax (this was in the depression era, more so, though), see: [3], [4], and [5].Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be a problem if they rented it for four years and paid in a lump sum. I don't know if they'd do that but it would mean 25 cents every four years which is sort of round. Or a dollar for a 16 years lease. A nominal $1 value is pretty common so that might explain it, except for wondering why 16 years. RJFJR (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The amount was "1/2 bit" ( Medio real) ... the Spanish silver dollar was legal tender until 1857. Not all that incredible a value -- there were letters with postage due of 18 3/4 cents. Collect (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Also, we still have just about every gas station in the US charging something and 9/10 of a cent for each gallon of gasoline. StuRat (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Roman Catholics have a higher tendency to engage in social justice than other types of Christians?

[edit]

Do practicing Roman Catholics have a higher tendency to engage in social justice than other types of Christians? 140.254.227.70 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "engage in social justice"? --Viennese Waltz 17:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Engage in social justice work. Engage in social work. Engage in charitable/philanthropic/humanitarian causes. Help people. Defend the weak, the sick, the lame, the homeless, the social outcasts that are oppressed by everyone else in society. 140.254.227.70 (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounded like you wanted to know if I carried a sword and meted out justice on the street. (I do.) μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has no easy answer, you'll have to read a lot and sort out various statistics, figure out whose you trust, etc. I googled /catholic protestant comparison charity philanthropy/, here's the most relevant and authoritative info I found:
-- from here [6] Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you need a rough translation, that says that (for that study), being Protestant made one slightly more likely to donate to charities, but being Catholic did not. However, in both groups, more church attendance is correlated with more donation. Confusing the issue, donations to ones own church are often considered "charitable", though some studies try to separate that part out. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note however that the survey linked above relates to the U.S. - things may be entirely different elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to return to the OP's question, which actually asked about social justice, rather than donating money. As you can see, we have an article about it, telling us that it exists in "a society...based upon the principles of equality and solidarity". Given the extremely heirarchical nature of the Catholic Church and the wealth concentrated in The Vatican, social justice would hardly seem to fit that organisation. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
During some periods of U.S. history (don't know about elsewhere), when prominent and vocal Protestant voices often seemed to be focusing mainly on questions of individual vice, sin, and salvation, prominent Catholics sometimes took a broader view (Rerum Novarum, etc.). However, see also Social gospel etc. AnonMoos (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is too broad to be a meaningful questions. "Other types of Christians" in include some groups like Quakers who are very high on social justice and others that are not. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Sandford Fleming (surveyer) & Ian Fleming (James Bond & British Intelligence Officer)

[edit]

Is there a family relationship between Sir Sandford Fleming - inventor of Standard Time in the 1800s and Ian Fleming who was both a British author (James Bond) and a British Intelligence Officer during WWII.

It would appear that the two may be related through Robert Fleming (a British financier) who founded the financial firm that bears his name. <wikipedia>

Ongar1 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)ongar1[reply]

I've just checked on Ancestry.com to see if any of the family trees there contain both names - and none do. Not definitive, obviously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can a non-Black person who is adopted into a Black family at a young age be considered part of the "African American" culture and thus ethnically "African American"?

[edit]

Can a non-Black person who is adopted into a Black family at a young age be considered part of the "African American" culture and thus ethnically "African American"? Would such a person still be considered a "minority" due to family background rather than by personal appearance or by the color of their skin and facial structure and hair texture? 140.254.227.70 (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well for starters, no-one can be considered part of any group on the basis of the colour of their skin, their "facial structure" or their "hair texture". FFS. --Viennese Waltz 17:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I am asking whether or not it's possible for a person to be "African American" by being adopted into an African American family, even though the biological parents may look different racially. 140.254.227.70 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm telling you that you can't categorize people on the basis of how they look, so the premise of your question is flawed. --Viennese Waltz 17:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not categorizing people on the basis of how they look. If you don't believe me, REAL people do self-identify as being "African American". I am just wondering if an authority figure (academic researcher or a government official) can come in and deny the self-identification simply because they look differently or not align to the social group. 140.254.227.70 (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"African American" is an undefined euphemistic neologism. People aren't cultures, or parts of cultures (like traditions, which are memes), they are physical entities, living organisms. This question, in so far as it is coherent, amounts, with its "be considered", to a mere request for opinion. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, what's got into this desk today. African American is not "undefined", it's an ethnicity. Read African American and come back to me if you have any questions. --Viennese Waltz 17:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My statement was perfectly clear, there's not a bit of it you failed to understand, yet you pull one word out of context (you tell me definitively whether Barack Obama, for example, is African-American), and hold up to me our article as if it is a reference? μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not adopted, but a similar example was Johnny Otis, son of Greek immigrants, who said: "As a kid I decided that if our society dictated that one had to be black or white, I would be black." Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A caucasian raised in a black family in the US would be like a Octaroon raised in a black family. Octaroons have theoretically 1/8 African ancestry and generally look about the same as their caucasian second cousins. The public would assume he had some African ancestry if he spoke with the same language patterns as his adoptive siblings and his parents. In the old Jim Crow laws of the Deep South in the late 19th and mid 20th century, "one drop" of African blood made the person as much a black person as 100% African ancestry. If he were blond/blue, then present-day Americans might assume he was adopted. In the worst case, they might assume he was kidnapped, like the two recent European cases involving children of Romas. Of course genetics is what it is, and there was a recent case of fraternal twins where one looked very white and the other was dark. The parents each had a black father and a white mother. If the parents were 50% African ancestry then each of the twins is also 50% African. We can't give legal advice as to whether some special scholarship or special admissions to some program which provides a preference for "African Americans" would be available to a caucasian raised in a black family. Edison (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one-drop rule has become especially ironic given the increasing acceptance of the Recent African origin of modern humans model. If one, as an exercise, accepts both that and the one-drop rule, one is forced to conclude that everybody should have been classified as black under those Jim Crow laws which adopted the one-drop rule. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 15:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]
I'm concerned that you might think that an academic researcher is an authority figure. She isn't. Just tell her what your ethnic identity is, and if she doesn't respect it, then decline to take part in the research. If she does have a legitimate reason to ask about race, e.g. in a study of sickle cell trait, then participation in the research is still optional. I don't think government officials have much cause to define you by ethnicity or race either, in most countries. You might be asked for equalities monitoring, but that's confidential. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's a case in point. I have 2 sons. The younger is my biological child. The elder was my (then) wife's son from her first marriage, and I adopted him after we married. My ex-wife is a first-generation Australian of Russian origin; elder son's father was born in China to a Russian family and migrated here at a young age (he died a couple of years ago). I'm a 5th generation Australian but consider myself an Irish Australian because of the preponderance of my heritage (there's also Scottish and English in there, but I choose the ethnicity I most closely identify with). My younger son usually thinks of himself as a Russian Australian, mainly because he had his maternal grandparents (until their death) and his mother close at hand all his life to teach him the Russian language and the ways of Russian culture. But he is also of half-Irish heritage, and it is open to him to also identify himself as Irish Australian (or also Scottish or English, but that is much less likely). But my elder son has no such option, not really. Now, this case doesn't have the skin colour factor, and if Son No. 1 told people he was of Irish heritage, nobody could readily gainsay him. But if I were Masai and Son No. 1 claimed African ethnicity on the basis of being my adopted son, people would probably assume his parents were white South Africans or Zimbabweans or something. If he then informed them his Dad is an 8-foot tall Masai warrior, they'd do a double take and questions would start getting asked. Now, if it had been my parents who lived close by, and not the Russian grandparents, I'm sure the Irish factor would have been emphasised more strongly than it was, and maybe my kids would be calling themselves Irish, as at least one of them would be perfectly entitled to do. So, it's never a simple matter when it comes to which group(s) we identify with, and that's why people generally get to choose for themselves. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is not true that grandparents each contribute exactly 25% of a child's genome. Due to chromosomal crossover, a parent can pass along anywhere from 0 to 23 of a grandparent's chromosomes, and usually some mixture that varies from 25% of the total inheritance. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Otis used to be famous in Los Angeles, though he was not adopted... AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only valid question would be: Is there a known person that regularly fills-in official forms in America by ticking "African American", (maybe because s/he was adopted by parents who fill-in "African American" on those forms), although both her/his biological parents fill in "white/Caucasian". --Lgriot (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The flaw with the question is that it conflates culture with ethnicity. While there is often some degree of overlap, I don't think it is correct to assume that these two concepts are identical. Certainly anyone raised in a particular culture will self-identify with that culture to some extent, even if the other members of that culture are predominantly of a different ethnicity. Consider an Japanese boy adopted by Italian parents and raised in Italy. Unless his Italian parents make a point of teaching him about his Japanese "ethnic heritage", he would grow up Italian. Culturally he would be Italian... even though ethnically he would remain oriental. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, I wonder how many non-blacks have been adopted by black families? I suspect it's not very many. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term ethnicity is being stretched to the breaking point when it is applied to both uncontacted peoples and Americans. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would that we were at the point where ethnicity was reduced to such mundane traits as hair color or shoe size. It's better than it was 50 years ago, but it's a long, slow process. Maybe by the year 3000 or so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are churches racially segregated?

[edit]

You know how in surveys there would be like Black Protestant Americans, Mainline Protestant Americans, Catholic Americans, Evangelical Americans, Unaffiliated and Other? Well, is this to imply that American churches are racially segregated? Are non-Black people allowed to become members at Black churches? Also, some Hispanic people may look black, but really they do not self-identify as "black" or "colored" and may have Caribbean heritage and are Catholic. Where do these people fit in in terms of how they identify themselves? 140.254.136.168 (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any churches in the US which refuse entry to those of "the wrong race". I'm not sure if that would be legal, either. However, some people might feel less welcome than others (and yes, this is rather non-Christian behavior). Also, since populations often self-segregate in where they live, this also naturally results in unbalanced church membership. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's about time we blocked these bullshit race and otherwise baiting questions from colleges in Ohio. You'd think this person (a term I use lightly) would have better to do than troll these desks. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. Every question on the Ref Desks should be considered on its merits. Nobody except the OP can ever know what their real, underlying motives for asking questions are, and whether these differ from the face value appearance, which is all the rest of us ever know. Without strong evidence, we can't be impugning OPs' motives. This is a perfectly reasonable question. I myself have often wondered about this very issue. We see movies like The Blues Brothers, where in the church scene Jake and Elwood stand out like sore thumbs by being the only white people there, and they only went there because they were sent by the Cab Calloway character, not because they had a sudden urge to go to church. The very strong impression I as an outsider have gained is that there is very real segregation in some southern churches, but whether this is enforced in any official way, or maintained by people simply choosing to flock together in accordance with the colour of their plumage, is the question. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jake and Elwood were raising money for the Catholic orphanage in that movie, though. Different churches have very different worship styles (as well as theology). Certain traditions like call and response and spirituals are most associated with African Americans while many "high church" elements are rare in those churches. People tend to group by their family background, neighborhood and learned theology - all of which tend to keep races in the churches they were brought up in and in racially separated Sunday mornings.[7] Rmhermen (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are letting your animosities show through, JackofOz. For once Medeis actually has a point. These are obvious trolling questions and to bring up WP:NOTCENSORED is somewhat facetious considering the similar nature of the sanctions imposed on a lot of other similar ref desk trolls. Anyway this is a discussion for the ref desk talk page not here. The less feeding the better and all that (although it seems to me the train has left the station long ago regarding that one). --Saddhiyama (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure there are "churches" in the US (and worldwide) who do indeed refuse entry to people of the wrong race (their version). See Christian Identity. Of course these are fringe groups. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion would make so much more sense if there was a meaningful definition of race that everyone agreed upon. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In America, which race is which is pretty obvious. Maybe it's different down under. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Australians tend not to care about race anywhere near as much as Americans. The way it's used by the masses most places seems to be an unscientific concept anyway. And given the persistent arguments and vandalism at Barack Obama, it's apparent that Americans don't always agree. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That "comparison" conveniently leaves out that Australians are 75% of descent from the British isles, 94% European overall, 4.5% Asian, and 1% aboriginal by population. You haven't any real issues at this point to have issues over. (Australian Gov figures, as of 1988.) μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obama is roughly half-white and half-black. I say roughly because research has determined he had a black ancestor on his "white" side. In the old days, the racists in America would have called him black, end of story. Since 2009, the descendants of those racists have been arguing that he can't be called black because he's roughly half-white. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those terrible Democrats, just imagine what posters like Bugs are gonna write on this board about you voting for Obama in the years to come. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 01:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding self-segregation... There is a phenomenon in the African-American community where the negative racial segregation of the past has morphed into a positive cultural self-segregation of the present. "Negro churches" (as they were once called) may have started because, in the days of segregation, African-Americans were not welcome in mainstream (white) churches, but the "Negro churches" also played a key role in the fight for racial equality during the era of segregation. And they became central to the cultural history of the black community. The modern African-American community is justifiably proud of that heritage... so some African-Americans continue to self-segregate by maintaining their churches. The motivation is a positive one... it is one way African-Americans affirm their own cultural history and identity. Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_November_13&oldid=1141892825"