Humanities desk
< September 20	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 22 >

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.

September 21

Country formation past and present

Back in the olden days, ancient civilizations appear as if they just expand and conquer new territories. They fight against outsiders/barbarians and unite all the local tribes into one government by military force. Recently, I've just watched a YouTube video that in order to make a country, the United Nations must approve of it. Why do modern countries need approval while ancient societies apparently just took over whatever land there was? Examples are the Roman Empire, the Incan empire, the Mongolian expansion across Asia, etc. And none of them was democratic in the modern sense of the term. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube videos aren't the best source of information. Countries do not require UN approval to exist; a couple nations aren't recognized by the UN, while many failed states are UN members. Of 19 (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason things have changed is that history marches on, and people had really had enough of this 'expand and conquer' in the various European wars. For the current system you could start by looking at the League of Nations, but the idea of sovereign states coexisting peacefully goes back a few hundred years. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be conflating two related but separate things: the formation of a state/country, and its expansion/acquisition of territory. There are various ideas about what makes a country a country: Declarative_theory says that all it requires: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. Constitutive_theory says that a country is only a country if other countries agree that it is. Not all countries are accepted as such by all other countries. The right or ability of a country to seize territory from other people is usually separate from its own existence. Various countries hold territory that some people or countries claim should be theirs (or independent), without disputing the right of the country itself to exist. (Examples: China and Tibet; Britain and Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands; etc. An interesting case is Bir Tawil which both Egypt and Sudan claim belongs to the other country, because claiming it as their own would mean acknowledging that some of their other territory would belong to the other country). Seizing territory by force used to be considered perfectly acceptable, but gradually came to be seen as unacceptable and was outlawed after WWII. Iapetus (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our Annexation article has more information on that last point, and some recent counter-examples. For a country largely unregognised by the international community, see Northern Cyprus. Alansplodge (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with all of these sorts of definitions is that edge cases always exist that in common sense everyone agrees are probably countries, but which fail some basic definition. For example, if we require recognition by other countries, how many countries is "enough"? Does 50%+1 countries count as enough? If two countries withdraw recognition, does that make that country cease to exist? What does recognition entail? If I refuse to deal with another country, does that count as not recognizing them, or does the withdrawl of prior acceptance tacitly imply that I recognize their existence, but that I just don't like what they are doing? Such conundrums are why alternate definitions of statehood exist that do not require formal recognition by others, which is often a political tool used to punish one's enemies rather than an objective measure. The "declaritive theory" of statehood doesn't require that others recognize a state, merely that the facts on the ground support the notion that a state does what a state does, that is it has a defined a) population b) territory c) government and d) capacity to enter into relations with others. That is, so long as the state in question could enter diplomatic or economic relationships with other states, it is a state. If other states refuse to reciprocate, that's on them. --Jayron 32 11:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually said most of that, although I realize now that the formatting (now changed) made the first half of my comment look completely detached from the second half. Iapetus (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, that's my fault for not reading more clearly. I apologize for stealing your thunder there. You clearly basically said the same thing. --Jayron 32 15:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting case study on states and whether they are recognized by other states is the Republic of Somaliland.

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there countries where gay military members are allowed but gay sex isn't?

Or gay sex has to be done off-base and/or only with civilians but heterosexual sex is less restricted? For that matter are there countries where straight sex (off-duty) has extra restrictions in the military? Form 1438-LT, Consent for One (1) instance of vaginal relations signed before 3 witnesses Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The usual rule is against fraternization between different ranks. Homosexuality has been around in the military for a lot longer than heterosexual sex. Apply your common sense. μηδείς (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to the question about extra restrictions on straight sex, while a few US states may have adultery laws still on the books, in practice they are almost never enforced and may be unenforceable. It's different in the military, particularly when the wronged spouse is also a serviceman. --Trovatore (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Singapore still requires national service from gay men [1] [2] [3] LGBT rights in Singapore#Civil Service. There may be some restrictions on service, but this often doesn't include completely preventing militart service. In the past, 'effiminate' gay men were often exempted but most of the sources suggest this is no longer the case and instead psychologists will evaluate fitness for service by other criteria. Yet as the last source notes, male-male sexual activity is generally illegal albeit rarely enforced. (But unlike with the US case, I don't think it's considered unenforceable.) I think you'll find this is actually often the case, even in less tolerant regimes. In fact them being gay may not be even considered or recognised by the military. Male-male sexual activity tends to be what's forbidden although some regimes may also pursue people for other reasons even without evidence of sexual activity. (I'm more thinking the general case rather than specifically in the military as while the military may impose extra restrictions, they don't generally allow things which are forbidden for ordinary civilians except those which directly relate to the job.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most proscriptions against homosexuality do not punish being, they punish action For example, (from a different field), the Catholic Church does not officially ban homosexuality, they ban specific forms of sexual activity. Similarly, most organizations like military organizations cannot punish a person for their internal private thoughts or feelings (such feelings are difficult to prove under due process for example) but they can punish a person for actions. --Jayron 32 11:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That glosses over the very important fact that people's sexuality is not neccessarily a secret.

For someone who isn't straight, a good amount of deception and acting is needed to keep sexuality a "private thought". (People aren't expected to act like their sexuality is a secret, so if you expect to be treated as straight, you have to pretend you are straight.)

In this day and age it's usually considered pretty offensive to automatically assume gay people are going to put up that kind of facade. And even more offensive to pretend that because they can pretend to be straight, it doesn't count as descrimination to punish them for admitting to be gay. ApLundell (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's confirmation bias. Butch and effeminate lesbians and gays may stand out, but most homosexuals act and pass for straight, no "acting" involved. One doesn't notice this at the checkout counter, so of course the only homosexuals one is aware of are the flamboyant ones; hence all homos are flamboyant in the imagination of straights. μηδείς (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also plenty of effeminate straight men (and butch straight women). Your mannerisms and personality do not determine your sexuality. Furthermore, there's no "pretense" if you aren't committing the banned act, who is to know? They can't know you are homosexual, really, if you don't tell them. You can be caught engaging in a sexual act, but the act is not itself proof of homosexual identity (see, for example, Down-low (sexual slang)), NOR does being homosexual mean you are sexually active. --Jayron 32 15:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you two posting from the 1950s?

Being forced (for fear of persecution) to keep your sexuality a secret is absolutely a pretense. I don't think you'll find any gay person who says otherwise. It's not about "mannerisms". It's about having to lie any time the conversation comes around to women. It's about not putting a pin-up you're interested in on your locker. It's about the million other sex-related things in our society that us straight people never think of.

In this age of sharing everything about yourself on social media, being closseted gay, now more than ever, is about pretense. (And it was never not.)

ApLundell (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how taking an oppositional tone is useful when every single word you just said agreed with every single thing both Medeis and I said. I can't disagree with anything you just said because I have already pre-agreed with it with everything I already said, and if that wasn't clear, I apologize for my lack of clarity. You are correct, and nothing you said right there I have any disagreement with, nor did I intend anything I said before to imply that I would have disagreed with it.--Jayron 32 03:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what Jayron said. I have been out since my early teens, during the Reagan administration. I have never felt oppressed. I even used to wear a pink triangle to the shopping mall (with my girlfriend and two flamboyant male friends) to enjoy the looks I got (since I am not otherwise obviously bisexual). μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're from the Northeast. If y'all did that in a very un-liberal area like rural Wyoming or Alabama I suspect it would be different. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to check the article Sexual orientation and military service, which deals with military regulations concerning gay, lesbian and bisexual people in various countries. It is incomplete, but deals with a rather diverse set a standards. Of interest is the ambiguous position of South Korea. Practically all male citizens are conscripted into the country's military forces, since service is mandatory. Homosexuality is not officially persecuted. Article 92 of the Military Penal Code categorizes all sexual relations between members of the same sex as "sexual harassment", and does not recognize the possibility of consensual relations. Those found guilty of such relations may face rape charges and serve time in a military prison. Dimadick (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Employees on large capital programmes

Large capital programmes, which employ people specifically for her project, all employ thousands of people but they all eventually come to an end. So what happens to the staff when it ends. I suppose the most notable example, applicable to any country are the summer Olympic Games. This normally involves a multi billion dollar infrastructure programme which comes to an end. 193.240.153.130 (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Large capital programmes subcontract most work out to many different firms, who bid on contracts for and work on multiple contracts all the time, so often they shift personnel to other projects. For example, a construction company who is contracted to build a stadium for a particular Olympic games may then shift personnel to work on a project to build a housing complex or a shopping mall. The organizing body of such a large, multi-level project probably only directly employs a miniscule proportion of the labor itself. --Jayron 32 10:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old age: 55-58 years

Would people die of old age at the age of 55-58? 31.53.86.149 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medically, no one can die of old age. They can die of either natural or unnatural causes. Socially, old age death depends on what is considered "old". A man with white hair and wrinkles who has lived on Earth for generations may be said to die of old age. But medically he may die of some kind of organ failure or chronic disease. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you die of being old. Shit breaks down just because it's existed for a long time. Senescence is a built in part of life. That's why, while in the average, human lifespan has increased greatly over time, in the extremes, it has not. People have always maxed out at a bit more than a century, old bodies still behave like old bodies. We have pushed the edges out a bit, maybe a year or two here, a decade or so there, but we still seem to be running up against hard limits of aging which have been documented for millennia. When people today die of old age, they die because some vital part of their body wore out from just being too old to the point where it failed and killed them. This may even be programmed into our genetic code in some ways that merely patching the failing parts cannot work forever. So, yes, we die because our body wears out from over-use. That's what "dieing of old age means". It means we die of the stuff that kills old people because they are just old. --Jayron 32 03:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even then though, the "sheer old age" conditions tend to limit ability, rather than kill the patient. The final death is far more likely to be some opportunistic infection, often a common and usually trivial one that has consequences exceeding its normal implications. As we medicalise old age, we fill care homes with the extremely frail elderly who couldn't last long outside their isolated, overheated and infection controlled bubbles. This is not necessarily a good thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources confirm that, medically, no one can die of old age. In any case, 55-58 is not particularly old in any culture these days.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now we're just playing games with words and pedantry. True, old age is not a medical condition, but being old does bring on the same sorts of medical conditions in all people, and death by causes which are tied to being old is "death by old age". It's just playing games with words to make ones self look smarter, and is the worst kind of pedantry. --Jayron 32 13:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, when people say "died of old age", they mean either a heart attack/stroke, an infection like the flu or pneumonia that the body can normally fight, or a complication of a condition like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Heart attacks and strokes are fairly common in 55-58 year olds (especially with unhealthy lifestyles), severe infections relatively rare (unless they have an underlying immunodeficiency), and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's are extremely rare (they almost always begin after 60). Smurrayinchester 08:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the UK Office of National Statistics published mortality causes data earlier this week. Among 55-59 year olds, the main causes of death are cancers and heart conditions (alcoholic liver disease and suicide are the main exceptions). In +85s, it's dementia, heart conditions and infections. Smurrayinchester 08:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Old age" is what Harold Shipman wrote on death certificates. Here's some official guidance: [4], [5]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.170.106 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The actor William Hartnell was 55 years old when he started playing the first incarnation of the Doctor in Doctor Who in 1963. And when he left the series 3 years later, he was 58. In his final story, the First Doctor regenerated because he was dying from old age. According to [wikia], he appeared to be a man in his mid-fifties. 31.53.86.149 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Hartnell is thought to have been suffering from vascular dementia, even during the Who filming. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about his character, the First Doctor? Even though he was in his 50s, how come he was dying from old age? 31.53.86.149 (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the script said he was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever dies of old age, but there is quite a large group of aging-associated diseases that can and will undermine a person's health and living conditions. "Of the roughly 150,000 people who die each day across the globe, about two thirds—100,000 per day—die of age-related causes."

As for death in your 50s, the List of countries by life expectancy covers differences in life expectancy between countries. A number of countries in the list have much lower life expectancy than the others.Not everyone is as lucky as Japan, the country with the highest life expectancy. :

1)Burkina Faso. 59.9 years.
2)Togo. 59.9 years.
3)Democratic Republic of the Congo. 59.8 years.
4)Burundi. 59.6 years.
5)Guinea. 59.0 years.
6)Guinea-Bissau. 58.9 years.
7)Swaziland. 58.9 years.
8)Malawi. 58.3 years.
9)Mali. 58.2 years.
10)Equatorial Guinea. 58.2 years.
11)Mozambique. 57.6 years.
12)South Sudan. 57.3 years.
13)Cameroon. 57.3 years.
14)Somalia. 55.0 years.
15)Nigeria. 54.5 years.
16)Lesotho. 53.7 years.
17)Ivory Coast. 53.3 years.
18)Chad. 53.1 years.
19)Central African Republic. 52.5 years.
20)Angola. 52.4 years.
21)Sierra Leone. 50.1 years. Dimadick (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Life expectancy includes deaths for things other than senescence-related deaths. The growth of life expectancy in developed countries is primarily from the elimination of death from infectious diseases and women dying during childbirth, NOT from the reduction of sensescence-related deaths. That is, the average rises because early deaths are eliminated, but at the higher end, people still max out at about the same age. --Jayron 32 02:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Even 2500 years ago, if one survived infant mortality and childhood disease there was a reasonable prospect of making it to age of 70 or a little beyond. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asian country with no last name but a lot of Biblical names

Which Southeastern Asian country does not have last names but has a lot of Biblical names? They may have a very Biblical first name and middle name but no family name. I'm not sure if it's Vietnam (but the Vietnamese have a lot of Nyugens) or the Philippines or some other Southeastern country. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would be Indonesia. Their naming practices are changing, but some of their leaders within living memory had only one name, eg. Sukarno. See Indonesian names#Indonesian naming system. Also, it's highly Muslimised and they use many Biblical names. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me this also depends on what you mean by "does not have last names". Most Malays in Malaysia follow the Arabic tradition and use patronyms and many Indians in Malaysia likewise use patronyms. Malay names are not not generally mononymic, the patronym will commonly be used in formal address (unlike for example Icelandic names). But unlike with a number of Arabs, the patronym is not generally used like a surname. Hence Anwar Ibrahim or Anwar, but not generally Ibrahim; and Mahathir Mohamad or Mahathir not Mohamad let alone bin Mohamad. (Foreign media can be inconsistent.) For Malays given the Arabic and Islamic influence many of the names are likewise Arabic versions of names featured in the Quran and bible, Ibrahim being an obvious example here.

As per our articles, patronyms when used in this fashion are generally considered separate from surnames or last names. (Although if something asks for your last name and doesn't accept nothing, putting the patronym may be common.)

Incidentally, Chinese do normally have surnames but while last name generally translates to surname, Chinese in Malaysia follow normal Chinese naming practice and so the surname is not generally the last part of the name but the first. Hence Lim Kit Siang's surname is Lim but his name is almost always written and spoken as Lim Kit Siang, not Kit Siang Lim. (Those who move to places where given name surname order is the norm generally have little choice but to adopt that fashion, and likewise on scientific papers and a few other things. Although this is one area where even most foreign press are generally able to cope for those who remain in Malaysia.) Although the surname isn't always even the first name, if the person also has a English name, they will generally follow English naming order for that part of the name hence Daniel Lee Chee Hun's surname is Lee. However although the name may be written out like formally, it will be fairly rare for the person to be referred to by the whole name. Generally Daniel Lee, or maybe Lee Chee Hun in some cases. Actually our article suggests now Danell Lee.)

There are various other practices among other ethnic groups in Malaysia, see Malaysian names for a bit more. Quite a few of them likewise don't really have surnames.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think JackOfOz has it right, and I misspoke. I should have said "two personal given names and no shared family name". 140.254.70.33 (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's unclear, a patronym is only shared among siblings. It's not shared among other family members. A cousin's patronym will be his or her's fathers and a father's patronym will be his father's. Did you mean to say one or two or more? Because if you meant only to say two, JackofOz didn't say two given names without a family are common among Indonesians and as far as I know, they aren't that common and this seems to be semi supported by our article. I mean two personal given names and no shared family name is possibly more common among Indonesians than in many other places but that's a different point. Many Indonesians especially older ones are mononymic as JackofOz said and only have a single given name and no family name. Increasingly some are adopting either surnames or patronyms. Some do have two (or more) given names without a shared family name, but while our article doesn't given percentages, it does suggest that mononymic is one of the most common older practices with the adoption of a surname or patronym increasing. I mean after all, Sukarno's daughter is Megawati Sukarnoputri Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel isn't an English name, it's Hebrew. You mean a name in the Latin alphabet.
Sleigh (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Hebrew-derived English name. Same goes for Peter and Pedro. Peter is the English version of the Biblical name; Pedro is the Spanish version. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at Peter (given name), the Biblical Greek version would have been πέτρος (Petros), which is a translation of the word Jesus would have used, Cephas, in his native Aramaic. Daniel is actually pretty close to the original Hebrew form, AFAIK.--Jayron 32 00:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However (as I think you agree?) it is the English version no matter how close (or even if it's exact). And no I did not mean a name in the Latin alphabet. Lee Chee Hun is clearly also a name in the latin alphabet, no matter whether it'd s romanisation from the Chinese characters (which depending on the person may be barely used).

I chose my words carefully. Although other terms are often used like Western name or European name, English name is IMO the most accurate description. Most Malaysian Chinese who do chose to give their children such names, give them names like Daniel, Alex, Diana, Melissa, or yes Peter or simply take a look at List of Malaysians of Chinese descent. They do not give them names like Jacques, Hans, Mikhail, Luigi, Pablo, as the primary influence is from English which most Malaysian Chinese speak to some degree, and the Anglosphere is where the influence comes from.

Note I'm explicitly not saying it's wrong to say the name is a Hebrew name, that's an argument I'd rather not get into as it's IMO unnecessary. Likewise if you want to say Ibrahim is an Arabic name and Malay name be my guest. I'm simply saying it's so widespread among English speakers who are primarily thinking of names in English that it makes little sense to say it isn't an English name no matter the origins.

Notably while Malaysian Chinese who are Christian are probably aware of the biblical origins, and possibly aware of it's therefore of Hebrew origin, those who aren't may not be aware of such and will primarily be aware of the Western or European origin, although really mostly English. (Even for something like Daniel which tends to be the same in most European languages which use the latin alphabet, the primary influence still tends to be English.)

Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Malaya might be a hint as to why that is so. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]