Humanities desk
< October 21	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 22

Why are dirt-poor white guys considered "privileged", and what can we do about it?

I've noticed a disturbing trend among fellow liberals here on the US West Coast: they seem to consider me "privileged" despite my poverty, just because I'm a straight, cisgender, non-Hispanic white man. I've read through the usual "privilege checklist" articles, and I'm pretty sure my poverty and my Asperger's Syndrome make all my white/male/cis/straight "privilege" moot at best (e.g. not having the stigma of being a "quota hire" -- because I wasn't hired at all, and have been unemployed for over a year; being able to date and expect X -- that would require me to be able to get a date at all; and that doesn't even consider how being female would've helped when that co-worker randomly accused me of "stalking"). How does anyone reconcile the whole privilege narrative with the existence of poor white cishet males like me? Is there a movement I can join to take back the kind of income-inequality liberalism for the US that Canada and Western Europe seem to still have? Neon Merlin 02:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider how much worse shape you could be in if you were a poor black female. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See White privilege for (a lot) more details. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a Poor White article. Across the Atlantic, Poor white boys get 'a worse start in life' says equality report.

Be that as it may, this is not a forum for correcting the perceived wrongs of society, so we really can't enter into the kind of debate that I think you're looking for. Alansplodge (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you got to do: Move to Spokane, plan of getting rich. Learn to sing some hobboes songs. --Askedonty (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The flip side of long-standing race discrimination in this country is the built-in assumption that whites are born with an advantage. As you've observed, this is not necessarily true. What you probably need to do is take a hard look at yourself and ask, "What's holding me back? Why am I not successful? What can I do to be successful?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is always "advantage relative to what"? Not all whites have an advantage relative to all blacks, or even the average black person. But, societal reality being what it is, Bugs comment is very much to the point. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considered by whom? Who are "we", why are all opinions important, and why is WP the place to WP:WHITEGREATWRONGS? For a brilliant discussion of this topic see the treatise The Old-Boys' Network: Extermination, Complacency or "Reform"? μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is quite simple. Take every disadvantage a poor white person has. Now add to that "threat of getting randomly shot by police for no reason" and "arbitrary walled off access to socioeconomic systems such as credit, homes, and education" and you get the crux of what white privilege means. The simple answer to the OP's problem is thusly: Take a white person and a person of color in the U.S. that are otherwise equal in socioeconomics and cancel out all of the bad stuff they have in common. There's still a lot of negative stuff the person of color has to deal with that the white person doesn't. That collection of shit is what we call "white privilege". White people are blind to it because they literally have never seen it before. Black people in America deal with it every second of every day. It defines their existence. W. E. B. Du Bois presciently wrote in The Souls of Black Folk in 1903 of the Double consciousness of people of color in America; that constant reminder that one is both American and not American because of the way one is treated by the power structure of the Country. The situation has certainly gotten MUCH BETTER than it was in 1903, don't get me wrong. But "better than it was" is not a synonym for "as good as it should be." People of color still face issues that provide a barrier to full integration into the American society. As a side note, no one, by the way, is proposing that the solution is "Police should kill more white people". The solution is simply "Police shouldn't kill black people" And the like. The solution to the problem of "white privilege" isn't "punish white people" It is "stop punishing black people". All solutions to the problems created by white privilege involve NO disadvantages to those same white people. --Jayron 32 11:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know the day I'll put my badge on I tell you to check your sociology, you know. Of course they shouldn't. --Askedonty (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"White privilege" is a racist term. I would just call them out for being racist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people who use the term "racist" doesn't mean that black people aren't being killed by police or that black people have equal access to housing or educational opportunities. Being mad at the words doesn't make the problem go away. --Jayron 32 13:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"White privilege" is obviously about race, but it's not racist. I'm a white guy who is very much aware of the advantages "white privilege" affords me in America. I didn't do anything special to "deserve" that privilege - it just is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now know something that I didn't know before. (And it's not what you think it is.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to identify classic short story about thugs deceiving a person by hanging him from cliff blind folded but like only like 2 feet from the ground

Hi,

I am trying to identify name and author of a short story. My recollection is that it is by an English or American author, and most likely the story is dating from 1850s to 1950s. It can't be really obscure because I read in a high-school text book. However google is not giving any hints.

The story goes like this: The narrator is on the road by walk after dark going to somewhere, suddenly two or three brigands waylay him, perhaps they had an earlier grudge with him. They effectively blind fold him (perhaps put him in a sack). The brigands move towards the sea cliffs, the narrator can hear the sound of the sea below him. Brigands tell narrator that he is being hung over the cliff, and when the rope he is tied with gives way, he will crash to his death below. Brigands leave after tying him up. The narrator spends the night in trauma thinking of his impeding death. By early morning the rope gives way, and he falls. To his surprise and releif he finds that the brigands had tied him up only just two feet above the ground, and rather were giving him a warning/teaching, and were not intending to kill him.

Any hints will be much appreciated. Thanks. Gulielmus estavius (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really help you, but the plot seems almost exactly opposite to the plot of "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly the same story is presented, as a true anecdote, in this collection dated 1839. Maybe your short story is based on it! Littell's Spirit of the Magazines and Annuals, page 662 Fishlandia (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In part this resembles what happens to Gloucester in King Lear, but it's the other way about: he wants to throw himself over a cliff, and is persuaded that he is standing on one. --ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using genetics tests to determine ancestry/ethnicity/heritage

First of all, do people mark a difference between ancestry, ethnicity, and heritage? Or do they all lump them as one with nationality? What kind of identification do genetics tests use to say that person is of so-and-so ethnic group? I mean, if one thinks one is "ethnically English", what does that really mean? Or is one really primarily Anglo-Saxon with a little bit of Norman and Welsh and Scottish? Is being Ancient Roman an ethnic group or nationality? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finding your mitochondrial DNA (matrilineal) lineage is easy, and also relatively easy to interpret, as is also your Y chromosome lineage (patrilineal), if you have a Y chromosome...

It gets messy and complicated with the "autosomal" chromosomes (which contain the great majority of a person's DNA). I'm not sure how much confidence I'd place in an autosomal ethnic genetic heritage report, unless the procedures involved were explained at length, and I felt I understood at least the basic principles involved. AnonMoos (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an Ancestry.com "white paper" on the subject: [2] and an exmple of more recent results [3]. Rmhermen (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this page of explanation from Ancestry.com you can see in the image for "Reference Panel" how they handle error bars and comparisons to reference examples. Rmhermen (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One-drop rule.
Sleigh (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The one-drop rule was traditionally applied to determine who was considered "colored"/"negro"/African-American in the United States, but has little relevance to other cases... AnonMoos (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity, race, nationality, and all the rest are socially created concepts and have little if any genetic component. To say you have "English ancestry" means merely that you have people, back in time, in England, but it has absolutely no bearing on if you are considered English today, unless you coincidentally were also raised in England. As Ethnic group notes, "a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, society, culture or nation. You'll note the importance of self identity and how little of that is strictly genetic. --Jayron 32 16:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

settlers moving West

Why didn't settlers moving West go by boat instead of covered wagon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.168.93 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some did, but it was a lot more expensive than going overland. There were two routes, via Cape Horn which was notoriously stormy: "The trip could take from three to six months and cost from $100 to $300 dollars". The other route was to sail to Panama, cross the disease-ridden isthmus overland and then find another ship to sail up the Pacific coast; "It cost between $200 and $400 dollars". See Three Ways West - Route by Sea. I suspect that neither sea route was practical if you wanted to take livestock with you. Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Mississippi River watershed. You can take a boat down the Ohio River to St. Louis, but all the rivers to the west of that point are flowing downstream eastward, away from your destination. You are also constrained to follow their course, while horses and oxen allow you to change path and destination.

The ocean voyage was only sensible for rich passengers willing to risk rounding South America going to port cities in California.

If you are going as far west as the Colorado River watershed, you have crossed the Continental Divide and need to go through passes over the highest (relatively) points of your trip. It was pointed out to us in studying the US Civil War in high school that the river sheds, the Rocky and Appalachian Mountains all sew our country together north to south, not east to west. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The European colonization of the Americas started in 1492. The era of steamboats in USA began much later in Philadelphia in 1787 and the first continuous passenger line was established in 1811. So most settlers never had an option to take a boat. --Kharon (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis and Clark traveled up the Missouri until they ran out of river and had to walk a long distance before reaching the Columbia. The Oregon Trail, California Trial, etc. existed because there was no waterway across the Great Plains. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lewis and Clark Expedition was made, according to Thomas Jefferson, to find "the most direct and practicable water communication across this continent, for the purposes of commerce." It started in May 1804 so it was very likely already considering the mentioned above available steamboats. Befor that the only reasonable option to get a boat upsteam was to literary pull it by men (like the Burlak) or by animals. This was a very common, established transportation method in Europa and in some countries like England canals where build all over the country exactly for that. But this never became a common way of transportation in the States. The settlers where much better off anyway, just pulling their wagon instead of loading it on someones boat and then pull that. Besides traveling on wild rivers was a quite risky thing with the fragile, wooden boats used in that time. --Kharon (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Erie Canal, probably USA's most famous canal was barges pulled by livestock. There was a fairly brief canal building fad in the East US between the river and walking era and the railroad and steamboat era. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could imagine that there might have been thoughts of building canals between the Platte and other western rivers, but the construction of the railroads made that unnecessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from File:Oregontrail 1907.jpg, the Trail followed the Platte River as far as it could, then the wagons were on mostly dry land for a while before they picked up the Snake River. By sticking with the Missouri, L&C failed their mission in one strict sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no good sea routes. Explorers spent 300 years or so before finally (mostly) giving up the dream. See Northwest Passage. The passage was finally found in 1850, but is so far north that it was not a practical route. -Arch dude (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The expedition which first actually traversed the Northwest Passage started in 1903; they finally got to the other end in 1906. See Roald Amundsen#Northwest Passage (1903–1906). Alansplodge (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portage and transport of goods across Central America was actually considerable, an important trade system was Bolivian Silver to China for fine goods (porcelain and silk, for example) which was then shipped back to Europe. The Spanish used these trade routes extensively; Spanish Colonization of the Philippines was primarily to facility cross-Pacific trade designed to get trade goods eventually back to Europe by crossing the Americas. Most of these goods were originally carried by mule train or other pack animals for several centuries. To answer the OP's question, of the lucrative Spain - China trade route, other than a few hundred miles across central America, most of it WAS by boat. The book 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created has a large section devoted to this trade route. However, as many have noted, there is no easy direct western boat route between Europe and Asia, the route around Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America is insanely long and treacherous, it was literally usually cheaper and easier to offload goods on the eastern coast of and carry it overland to waiting boats on the Pacific side. One of the reasons why the Panama Canal was situated where it was is because the two termini of the canal (Panama City and Colón, Panama were already well-known termini of this overland trade route, first well trodden by mule trains and other pack animals, and later by the Panama Railroad. Getting a sea-level canal built across Panama was rather daunting, it ruined the life and career of some great engineers (i.e. Ferdinand de Lesseps) and almost took down the government of France (see Panama scandals). It was not an easy job, and is rightly considered one of the major engineering feats of history when it finally WAS completed. So, "taking a boat" westward from Europe to Asia was, for all but the last century, all but impossible. --Jayron 32 16:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free movement of citizens

Besides the EU, Australia+NZ, and US+Canada, how many countries are in an agreement for the free movement of citizens (for work, not just for travel)?--Hofhof (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is not complete free movement between Canada and the US. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open border#List of groups of states with common open borders has a list, though this may not be exhaustive. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US universities

How common is for US university students to study something completely not related to their degree, just for learning for the sake of learning? For example, a comp. sci. student learning lit. Or a lit. student learning comp. sci. --Hofhof (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty common when I was an undergraduate, but more in the first two years of study than the last two... AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highly uncommon in the US i guess, since admission to a US-University almost always has a hefty price tag. So this can at best be considered possible when your parents are very rich and supportive. --Kharon (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this incorrect, but it is the opposite of what universities (especially the better ones) actually do. There are distribution requirements such that students must take courses from a range of disciplines. I'm in the College of Agriculture and our students have to take courses in English, humanities, social sciences, ethics, etc. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree Kharon's answer is very weird. This is actually something US universities tend to be known for, at least in the anglosphere, arising at least partially out of historical differences, the general 4 year programme even for a basic degree, the differences in the basic schooling system, etc. In fact as Major (academic) mentions, it's somewhat common for US students to not "declare" a major until the end of their second year. By comparison in NZ, Australia, much of the UK (AFAIK), Malaysia, Singapore and actually I think a fair amount of the Commonwealth, you've generally chosen a major when you enrol. Some flexibility is may be possible, including changing a major without having to do extra courses depending on the precise majors involved, still the flexibility tends to be a lot less than in the US system which as said tends to be noted for it's breadth at the lower levels. In fact IIRC when the University of Auckland introduced their general education requirement back in 2006?, the US system was noted as part of the inspiration but it's still very limited compared to the US, only normally requiring one or two courses [4]. If you search for breadth vs depth or something, I'm sure you'll find plenty of discussions like [5] [6] from the UK. (The later mentions how Scotland is slightly more similar to the US than England.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Perpetual student. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what level of study you mean, liberal arts colleges require a range of study of all students but usually only to the level of one or two classes. The science degree I got requires about 1/2 of your credits in science, 1/3 in humanities/general studies and the remainder your choice. Some humanities majors have fewer requirements and so make taking a minor or second major easier. Rmhermen (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually usually required that a liberal arts major take several classes outside his major in various categories. Since I double majored in biology (which covered the math and hard science requirements) and philosophy, as well as honors English, and Greek, Latin and German, I only had to take a class in history (The Bourbon Restoration to the Revolutions of 1848) to cover the six areas required at that time. I was only a few classes short of a third BA major in linguistics. So it is even encouraged that students branch out--although for some this may be a waste and burden, rather than a blessing.

When I took Russian and Zulu and enough 400-level Spanish as a post-grad to get a teaching certification in that subject I was horrified to learn the requirement had been raised from six to twelve non-major courses, half of which were patently political (e. g. "Queer Studies"). This basically meant that you didn't have time for your own curiosity while you were being indoctrinated. In any case, this question can't really be answered, since such statistics can't be applied (motivations are unknown) and each school's catalog requirements differ. μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One American told me jokingly that his double major Economics and Music was a result of what his parents wanted (something with a future) and what he wanted (out of love for the field). B8-tome (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My undergraduate degree is in journalism, and to complete that degree track, the university required I either take two full years of a single foreign language or declare a minor in a separate discipline. I selected a minor in American studies and took a wide array of social science and humanities courses to fulfill the requirement — Mexican history, modern Native American film, the history of slavery in North America, geography and sense of place in the American West, etc. So it really depends on the student, the degree track, and the student's desires. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., post-secondary education follows a roughly three-tiered system (with some considerable variation)
The "four-year university", which is largely organized on the liberal arts education model: Students are given a broad education in the "liberal arts" and also have a "major" which is a chosen field of study. Most bachlors degree programs in the U.S. require students to have considerable study in 5 broad areas outside of their own major, usually 1) English 2) Mathematics 3) Science 4) Social Studies 5) Foreign Language. Thus, even a Physics major would be expected to take some course work in history, and an English major also has to take several maths and sciences.

The "Community college" which is generally designed to be much more focused on trades and technical fields; students usually are required to take a few rudimentary writing and mathematics classes, but most of their education is in their chosen field of study. Many classes are of the same level as University classes, but the program is more tailored towards work-related training. Thus, you may be able to take the same level of chemistry class at a University as at a Community College, the difference being that at a Community College, you would usually only take such a class in furtherance of a specific career choice (for example, nursing) rather than just to "take it" to meet a liberal arts requirement.

The "Technical school" which is generally designed solely for training in the trades, and where training is designed solely to meet certification requirements in specific, usually manual, trades. For example, auto repair or welding or IT. In these schools there is often no requirements at all other than "give us your money, and we'll teach you a specific skill". These schools grant certificates that usually give a person recognized completion of the training program, but you don't take ANY classes outside of the training program (i.e. not even writing or math).
I hope that helps. --Jayron 32 16:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a couple of references with hard numbers to these anecdotes. Though I can't find a general survey or comparison of American university elective requirements, it's easy to look at what individual example universities require. The first two that came up for me:

* Harvard, 6 to 10 electives out of 32 credits: about 25%.

* Chicago, 8 to 18 electives out of 42 courses: about 30%. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 October 22