Humanities desk
< December 8	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 10 >

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.

December 9

Do Europeans consume more offal meat than European-Americans or European-Australians?

I read the wiki article on offal, and it appears that offal is pretty common in Europe since there are so many recipes based on it. Meanwhile, offal meat is not commonly consumed in America or Australia but it is in ethnic dishes, which may or may not be mainstream. Giblets, on the other hand, may have greater consumption. Do Europeans consume offal more often or in greater amounts than their American or Australian counterparts? If so, what might have caused the reduction in offal consumption, especially mammalian, among the latter group? 140.254.245.209 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This book is likely to help you in your research. --Jayron32 17:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I also found this report which covers the US only, but may have useful information for you. --Jayron32 17:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second source does not explain why. The first source sounds good, but my local library doesn't have it. The second source reaffirms the notion that foreigners from developing countries eat more offal than Americans. It does not explain why Americans eat less. 140.254.245.209 (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I think there was a wiki article that claimed Chinese American food fits the American palate better that Chinese food in China, because it's blander and coarser and sweeter. It may explain why Americans eat less offal, because offal products, as mentioned by the second source you linked, have stronger, distinctive flavor. 140.254.245.209 (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer to your question but adding some interesting concrete details to this section: an article posted on the BBC site a few days ago: The French delicacy made of 25 layers of pig intestines. Yum. The article Andouille gives some background if you don't know what "andouille" is. Contact Basemetal here 18:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than traditional dishes eaten by older Australians such as steak and kidney pie or black pudding for breakfast, meat pies contain unlisted offal.
Sleigh (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of a side note because the question seems to be looking for knowing consumption, but hot dogs are something of a (American) national obsession, and are commonly made with offal meat.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historically muscle meat has been considered preferable to gut meat, and this is seen in the choice cuts of Passover and temple sacrifices in Judaism, and the association of royalty and choice cuts, such as "beefeaters". America was famous for offering a chicken in every pot, and cornfed beef, while sausage, including hotdog and scrapple, are the old-world foods (frankfurters and pon haus). I never ate oxtail, tripe, or other such foods until I lived with Mexicans for a year during college. My mother eats liver, giblets, and pig's feet and other such delicacies from the homeland, but my mother's mother would never serve anything but muscle meats to guests. (Of course liver is often still considered superior due to its nutrients.) μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that non-European Americans do have long traditions of eating offal, and some rural European Americans do as well. Chitterlings, souse, liver in various preparations, Menudo, Brain (food) in various forms (sesos in Mexican-American cuisine, Fried-brain sandwich in the Ohio Valley), Sweetbread, rocky mountain oysters and testicles in general, are all well known in the U.S. They are less known in middle-class suburbia, but in rural America, even rural White America, offal is well known as a foodstuff. --Jayron32 03:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there's meat rationing during WWII, which my father blames for his mother cooking stinking kidneys so often. He was also put on a special diet at age 6 including a liquor ration due to dietary-caused diverticulitis. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Church know about child marriages that were going on during Shakespeare's time or do anything about it?

In Romeo and Juliet, Paris mentions to Lord Capulet that women younger than Juliet are already married. And Juliet is presumed to be in her early-to-mid teens. Assuming that the play is set in Italy at, around or earlier than Shakespeare's time, what did the Church have to say about marriage of such young women? Did they care at all, or was marriage more of a pagan-cultural phenomenon? I mean, there was the friar in the play, so it's assumed that Italy was already Christian at that time. 140.254.136.182 (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paganism died out in Italy about 1000 years before Romeo and Juliet was set. Age of consent in Vatican City is 12 to this day. Girls as young as 12 were getting married into the 20th century, even in America (IIRC, age of consent in Utah is 14 for girls). Not condoning it at all, but it's not some ancient mistake, it's something we're still working on. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, does that mean young 12-year-old Catholic women nowadays can marry at 12 and not break canon law but may break legal law in their jurisdiction? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the age of consent still being 12, it appears they changed the minimum age one can receive a Catholic wedding to 14. This lay-Catholic site more or less says it's a sin to marry someone under 18 or even 21. This non-Catholic site, however, says it's still just a minimum of 14, though I'd assume that the priest's willingness would be comparable to that of the society they come from (i.e. a priest from Boston or London would probably call the would-be-husband a pedophile and contact social services). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. Apparently age of consent in Vatican City is 18. Contact Basemetal here 21:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With this kind of question one has to hurry because of those g*dm*#&$f^& edit conflits. Just wanted to add: Google "age of consent canon law" ok? Search engines exist for a reason. Contact Basemetal here 21:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The canon that applies seems still to be canon 1083 and that sets the age of consent at 16 and 14. There seems to be a discrepancy between Vatican City and Canon Law? Odd. Contact Basemetal here 21:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There'd be no point in having distinct corpora of laws if they were always identical. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very amusing, Jack, but surely they shouldn't appear to be in direct conflict? IBE (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was being serious, IBE. I ask again, what's the point of having distinct sets of rules unless they differ in some material way or ways? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean they have to differ in every way? I understand that Vatican City Law must include laws about traffic, parking, foreign embassies, fire regulations, criminal law, banking, etc. that are not part of Canon Law. But you wouldn't expect a discrepancy in this area, would you? What does this mean in fact? That in Vatican City you can get married at 16 but if you have sex before the age of 18 you go to jail? Or does this mean that the Catholic Church has no problem marrying you at 16 if the law of your country will allow it but in their backyard they won't do it before you are 18? Does that entirely make sense to you? Would you for example imagine that Canon Law had some clause regarding interest rate but that banking regulations in Vatican City would not follow it? Or are you saying that because 18 > 16 it is enough that Vatican City Law is compatible with Canon Law? Contact Basemetal here 09:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the play is set in Italy, of course Shakespeare himself lived in Elizabethan (and Protestant) England. According to Ages of consent in Europe, the age of consent at the time was 12 in England and Wales. This didn't change until 1875, when it was raised to 13; it was not until 1885 that it was raised to 16.

According to Marriageable age, canon (Catholic) law in this area derived from Roman law, which required a woman to be 12 before she could marry, though requiring parental consent if she was under 24. The requirement of parental consent was removed from canon law in the 12th century, to some controversy, making a marriage to a 12-year-old girl valid even if it had been deliberately hidden from her parents.

This is simply an area where social norms have changed vastly in the intervening time. Just as judicial torture, death for anal intercourse, hospitality to travellers, duelling, chivalry, serfdom, slavery, indentured servitude, domestic service, hunting pigs with spears, wars with Scotland, scutage, privateering, going to battle in bright red coats, bathing once a month, wearing of ruffs and breeches ~~and Bristol~~ were once thought perfectly normal but have today completely or largely died out, so has the custom of marrying 12-year-olds. This is probably a Good Thing. GoldenRing (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did they know about it, they endorsed it. Only 50 years after Shakespeare (in Italy), the nobility were marrying off their 12-year-old daughters. Consider Olimpia Giustiniani who at 12 was married to a 22-year-old suitor for political reasons. The marriage was not only the result of Machiavellian strategising by Catholic Cardinals and their families, the wedding itself was conducted by Pope Innocent X. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual tradition

What is ‘Mysticism’ and ‘occult’? Is it a Spiritual tradition? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

We have articles on mysticism and occult. There's an idea around here that Wikipedia has an article on everything -- not literally true but close! So when you have a question about a single one-word concept, it's a good idea to check for articles here first. Those articles are written by many people over many years, and will likely be far better than anyone here will type up in a few minutes. If you have questions about what's in those articles, we'll can try to clarify specific points for you. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)A general intro:

Mysticism refers to a variety of spiritual practices, beliefs, and traditions found in many (if not most) religions. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic mysticism usually seeks some sort of union with God (not necessarily becoming or identifying with God, but more commonly letting one's life force be replaced by the Holy Spirit, submit one's will to God's, or something else along those lines). Frequent prayer may be involved. Theistic Indian mysticism (such as Hinduism) usually involves actual identification with a deity (who is usually a facet of Brahman if the deity chosen is not Brahman) and attempts to realize the illusionary nature of perceived reality. Nontheistic Indian mysticism (such as Buddhism) is similar, though ultimately nontheistic, with the ultimate goal of extinguishing the notion of the self rather than being reabsorbed into Brahman (as in Hinduism). Meditation and yoga are typically involved, prayer as well (though more so in Hinduism). Taoist mysticism usually involves attempting to "go with the flow" of the Tao, more or less, and develop a state of doing without doing (or doing without trying).
Occultism (or "the occult") is the study of hidden religious doctrines (either orthodox or heretical) originally, though it has come to include pseudoscientific beliefs that were "hidden" by mainstream scientists (and not just rejected as patent nonsense). Abrahamic occultism usually involves learning the names of various angels (and maybe demons), perhaps through knowledge of the magical numerical meanings of Hebrew, Arabic, or Greek (or even English).

The two may overlap, or they may be completely separate. For example, the writings of Hildegard of Bingen or Rumi are generally mystical, but not occult; while the Lesser Key of Solomon is plenty occult but less mystical than Star Wars; and Rosicrucianism and Martinism are both occult and mystical. Actually, speaking of Star Wars, I suppose a comparison would be that mysticism is really getting into the Hero's Journey aspect of Star Wars (we are all Luke Skywalker, and we all have our Death Stars to destroy), while occultism would be knowing every bloody character in the Star Wars expanded universe and acting like it matters. There can be overlap, such as reading one of the fictional Jedi manuals or playing a Star Wars game set in the EU to remind oneself "I am the hero of my lifestory, and should act like it." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Acknowledged. Thank you -- (Russell.mo (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

@SemanticMantis: You have mentioned two good points that can help me a lot.

1st thing 1st: I’m trying to distinguish ‘religions’ and ‘spiritual’ traditions from the List of religions and spiritual traditions. I understand the obvious ones and stuck from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions#Mysticism_and_occult.

2nd: How can I improve my English writing skills? I have/am improved/improving my reading skills, and I do need to improve my writing skills.

Could you help me please? Or request someone who can please?

(Russell.mo (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

For question 1) The difference between religion and spiritual tradition is likely that religions have formally and well developed doctrine and mythology, whereas spiritual traditions are somewhat less developed and formalized. To put it into more lay terms, "doctrine" is the set of rules followers of a religion are supposed to follow, while "mythology" is the set of stories and narratives that describe the background and operation of the religion. (In this sense, we don't place objective "truth" or "false" values on mythology; stories may be absolutely true, based on history with embellishment, or entirely made up, but it's still mythology in any sense). In Judaism, for example, the doctrine might be thought of as the ten commandments and like pronouncements, while something like The Exodus would be mythology. --Jayron32 03:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add to what Jayron said by mentioning that religions are more likely to have a hierarchy based on doctrine and focus on orthodoxy (correct belief) and orthopraxy (correct practice) than actual experience; while spiritual traditions are more likely to be either individualistic or focused on a charismatic teacher, and are more likely to focus on personal experience.

As for improving writing skills, reading and writing are the best means of doing so. Wikipedia provides some means of doing both, but the reading can be lower quality and is patched together from multiple writing voices. For formal writing, I would recommend reading both fiction you enjoy and academic works relating to topics that interest you, take notes on those books, and write reports on them. That is, write essays which explain how what you read makes some sort of argument, and defend (or argue against) that argument. That's (mostly) how native speakers with degrees in English are taught to improve their skills. For informal writing, I would recommend starting with formal writing and studying contractions, idioms, and slang. The last can be especially problematic because of how quickly slang can change and how local it can be. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys, thank you both. I appreciate the English improvement knowledge especially. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

SemanticMantis Ian.thomson Guys, I wrote "the following is a list of denominations for each religions and spiritual traditions" rather than "the following is a list of religions and spiritual traditions", believing that knowledgeable people will be able distinguish. I have not inserted the embolden part yet, I'll if one of you (or anyone else) clarify. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I am not sure how I feel about that as many of the spiritual traditions and mysticisms are practiced along with a religious denomination. For example, Kabbalah might be studied by a Conservative, Orthodox, or Reform Jew; Sufi Islam is practiced by both Sunni and Shia Muslims, while a Martinist lodge or a Rosicrucian lodge might feature Baptists, Calvinists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, and more. Hoodoo is also practiced by agnostics, Christians, new-agers, and Vodouisants. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recognize this building?

This is from the BBC site, from the story about the Senate report about CIA interrogations. Do you recognize the building? (What's wrong with captions, BBC?) Contact Basemetal here 21:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, it's an example of Brutalist_architecture -- nb "Brutalist" in the case of architecture refers to raw concrete, not to brutality. Also, when I looked for the image in context, I found this article from the BBC [1] (presumably the one you saw?), which includes the caption "Armed police guard the US embassy in London..." - Sure enough, our article Embassy_of_the_United_States,_London seems to picture the same building. If you still can't see the caption when you load my link, you might have a browser problem... SemanticMantis (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I was looking at this page (specifically a gallery of 4 pictures illustrating the headline "CIA lied over 'brutal' interrogations"). I shoulda followed the link. Had I done that I would have gotten to the article you linked to where I can clearly see the caption. The picture in that article is not exactly the one I linked to. It is a higher resolution version of it though. Thanks. Should I conclude that one has to always "follow the link" wherever it may take us? Or is that "the lead"? Contact Basemetal here 22:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to see a caption for a photo used in a gallery like that, it's just done to make the page look more interesting. So yes, if you want to find out more details about a photo used like that, you're always going to have to follow a link. --Viennese Waltz 09:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Identify the fashion predecessor of Worth!

Hello! I have read here and there that the leading dressmaker of fashion in Paris before the famous Charles Frederick Worth was a "Madame Palmyre", who was evidently the leading fashion designer in Paris in the 1830s to 1850s. However, it doesn't say much more than that. Who was she, what was her full name and her birth- and death year? Can anyone identify her? Thanks!--Aciram (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The" Madame Palmyre is the subject of this picture by Toulouse-Lautrec - this is an article (in French) giving the basic details of her career. "Elle tient un restaurant-cabaret fréquenté par les homosexuels des deux sexes", which doesn't really need translation. However, the dates are rather later (late rather than mid nineteenth century) than you mention, and I can't immediately find any references to her being a fashion designer rather than a nightclub proprietor. Tevildo (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fak - Polynesian language?

What is "Fak" suppose to denote for in this book?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's presumably what Hale calls the Fakaafo dialect, now referred to as the Fakaofo dialect of the Tuvaluan language. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KAVEBEAR: Hey KAVEBEAR. Fiddlersmouth is confirmed as correct. The philology section of the book has an introduction providing the legend for these abbreviationsl just scroll to the beginning of the list. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]