Humanities desk
< September 7	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 9 >

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 8

Why did the Southeastern US's population grow much faster than the interior South's?

Based on this map, you can see that the population of the Southeastern U.S.--specifically Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida--grew much faster than the population of the interior Southern U.S. (specifically U.S. states such as Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia):

https://i1.wp.com/factsmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/us-states-population-growth-rate.png

Out of the nine interior southern U.S. states, only Tennessee grew by more than 100% between 1950 and 2016. In contrast, out of the seven Southeastern U.S. states, all of them other than South Carolina grew by 150% or more between 1950 and 2016.

What exactly is the reason for this discrepancy? Why exactly did the Southeastern U.S. grow much faster than the interior Southern U.S. did between 1950 and 2016? Futurist110 (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several things to consider, the first that came to mind was your keyword: "interior". Access to ports and major navigable rivers is vital for commerce (thus growth), and the Appalachians were a hindrance (later mitigated by rail and highway). The second is relative population; by 1950, some states were already quite populous, with less "room to grow"; whereas places like Nevada (which saw 1,736% growth in that period) were virtually unpopulated. I'm sure there are other reasons such as access to resources, etc. (as discussed below). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent this reflect the trend for growth to be concentrated in urban and suburban areas, and by strong higher education institutions attracting economic growth. One might also speculate on the role of certain political and sociological factors. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that all of the states cited as quicker growers either have or are close to major economic centers, with transport made easier by the interstate highway system, the exceptions being North Carolina (a relatively slow grower compared to the others) and Florida (which was less attractive to live in in 1950 due to the lack of widespread air conditioning). Florida also benefited from development prompted by the space program, and from being attractive to retirees due to weather and low taxes. There have always been fewer, less populous cities in the interior South. Note that the attractiveness of cities to some does not exempt them from population and economic near-collapse when their reason for being goes away (Detroit, though outside the area mentioned, a city dominated by the same political party for the entire period spoken of, or Baltimore, whose role as a port and manufacturing center has long been in decline).--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken on North Carolina and Florida; North Carolina has the sixth fastest growing metro area in the U.S. (the Research Triangle), and the third largest in the southeast after the Fort Myers, Florda and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina areas. Metrolina and the Piedmont Triad are only just off of that list of top 20 fastest growing metro areas; List of U.S. states and territories by population growth rate shows that in the Southeast, the three fastest growing states are 1) Florida 2) South Carolina and 3) North Carolina. --Jayron 32 01:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why basketball and volleyball but not baseball or football?

Why have basketball and volleyball spread around the world, but not baseball or football? In the case of football it might be that the gear is significantly more expensive, but I fail to see any reason why Europeans/Africans and so on don't play baseball. --Doroletho (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball and American football are both played in England. But cricket and soccer, respectively, were there first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is random speculation but perhaps because basketball and volleyball can be played casually almost anywhere and with a very limited number of people whereas one needs proper teams to play baseball or gridiron in any sensible way? Basketball and volleyball also seem much simpler rule wise which perhaps plays a role. I also found this article about "how the NBA went global" which perhaps answers part of the question. 37.138.73.248 (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Baseball is a simple game. You throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So is cricket and imagine learning the rules of cricket if you didn't know any bat and ball sport. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket is kind of like baseball with only two bases. I recall taking a foreign-born colleague to a baseball game. He had never seen either baseball or cricket, and found it baffling. Of the two, cricket might be easier to grasp for someone who's never seen a bat-and-ball game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our article List of organized baseball leagues is informative. Baseball is played seriously and is very popular in many Latin American countries and in Japan, Korea and the Philippines. I am interested in a guy named Les Mann who tried very hard to spread baseball around the world. He was responsible for getting baseball included as a demonstration sport at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Japan, Korea, Philippines, many Latin American countries have had American influence via the presence of large numbers of American military.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball and American football are both played in England, true, but so are shin kicking and ferret legging. I'm not sure which are the more popular. They are both very minor sports. Perhaps it's because we already had perfectly adequate sports of walloping balls with sticks, and large blokes running into each other. OTOH basketball (which is also extremely minor in the UK) at least doesn't have such a direct competition. We do have netball though, and that's much more common than volleyball. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A more interesting original question might have been why global sports like cricket and rugby (and football of course) are not more popular in the US, when they are popular elsewhere. Although some elements of US culture (some music, some films, some TV, some soft drinks, etc.) are popular around the world, the original questioner may not be aware that many other elements are viewed with complete bewilderment (and occasionally despair) in other countries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because at the time association football was becoming popular in the UK (late 19th century), baseball was the big team sport in the US, played at many levels, and given the attitude of many Americans towards Britain in the 19th century, a sport seen as British (baseball, despite its origins, was not) wouldn't necessarily be popular. Soccer has become more popular in the US as those who played it at a youth level have grown up. Cricket is less widely played. I don't even think I saw it on television, growing up in the US in the 1970s.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket and soccer have histories in America, but baseball and American football eventually exceeded them in popularity, at least in terms of professional sports. Soccer was certainly well-known in America. Yogi Berra said he and his friends played soccer when they were kids. It's a great kids' game because they have lots of energy and can run all afternoon. And in the early days, some large expanses of land were used for both cricket and baseball. (Elysian Fields, Hoboken, New Jersey for example. And Recreation Park in Detroit.[1]) The obvious problem with cricket is that it took days to play, while a baseball game would be over in a couple of hours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in Baseball in Japan, it was first established there in the 1870s. One event that expanded interest was a 1920s tour involving Babe Ruth and a number of other top-level American players. That gave the game in Japan a boost. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First-class cricket takes days to play, certainly, but each team goes to the wicket twice. On games afternoons during the summer there is no problem in completing a game during the time available. If a pupil was due for after-school detention and the playing field was some distance from the school that pupil would be expected to return after the match. 86.133.58.126 (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peripheral to the discussion of baseball's popularity in England, some might care to read our article Baseball Ground, and perhaps also Baseball in the United Kingdom. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.253 (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best to think that it is rare for two sports occupying a similar ecological niche to both be established in the same culture. The "hitting a ball with a stick" sport is either cricket or baseball but rarely both in the same place; the "tackling a runner with an oblong ball" sport is either Rugby or American/Canadian football but rarely both, etc. Of course I'm sure someone will find an exception or two, but by-and-large, that seems true. Basketball spread in many places because they didn't have a "throw a ball into a hoop" game locally that basketball had to supplant. --Jayron 32 01:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And then you have a country like Germany that has neither a "hit ball with stick" sport nor a "tackling a runner with an oblong ball" sport. Add to that plenty of american cultural influence due to military presence, past and present. And still neither of the two sports have any meaningful following, nor are they played much from what i could see(rugby and cricket certainly are even less popular than the american 'variations'). In the end there probably just are so many factors that make or break any given sport in any given place that it is impossible to say. 91.97.248.0 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what are the popular sports in Germany? Soccer (as a spectacle) is more of an international business these days, so it's everywhere. But what do people in villages and smal towns play for their own amusement? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RP online has an article leading to a list of the most popular sports in Germany by number of corresponding club members (Vereinsmitglieder). The link actually shows the figures for North Rhine-Westphalia, you have to click on the map of Germany or forward a page in order to see the nationwide data, listing the following top five sports:

Football / soccer (6,592,290 members)
Gymnastics (5,018,819) Actually "Turnen", the German popular variety of gymnastics, see also all sorts of forms listed in that article and the articles on Turners, Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, ...)
Tennis (1,439,736)
Athletics (833,009)
Handball (!) (786,748)

The article was published in 2015 and says its figures are from the German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB).

Of course there are local differences, for example North Rhine-Westphalia's top five also include swimming. Another map there shows, however, that every State of Germany's number one sport by membership is either football (in 10 states) or gymnastics (in 6 states).

And I realize this isn't quite what you asked, but I found no numbers on what people play in towns and villages (whether as member of clubs or not, and the DSOB obviously didn't count individual joggers or even people who have membership cards at a local gym). In terms of ball games, I believe no observer of German towns and villages will deny that football is number one, very visible outdoors, and often played ad-hoc without membership etc, like basketball in lots of places in the U.S. Other lists I saw mention table tennis besides the three ball games already given above. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key issue here is that basketball and volleyball can both be played indoors in a gymnasium. Here in the UK, most people play those sports while they are in school, substantially fewer play them as adults at the local sports centre and very few actually pay to watch a match. You can only see basketball and volleyball on mainstream TV when the Olympics aor Commonwealth Games come around. See Outside of annual NBA event, Brits slow to embrace basketball: "We don't have a strong professional league, there's no easy access to facilities or to good coaches, we don't have a hugely wide participation base, we don't have enough good professional clubs, and we don't have a clear, predefined pathway for young talent." Alansplodge (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had an idea that soccer is regarded as a "cissy" sport in the United States and Australia, which is why they don't play it (there are soccer leagues in Australia, but many of the teams have Italian names). I attended one Australian rules football match - as I recall the shape of the ball and the goalposts is similar to rugby, which is also strong in Australia. Soccer is strong all over Europe - Ireland has Gaelic football and I believe soccer is weaker there. "Tackling a runner with an oblong ball" sport seems to be confined to English speaking countries. 62.49.80.34 (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or "sissy" as Americans spell it. I recall a Miller Light Beer commercial where Dick Butkus squared off against a ~~soccer~~ player, and at some point Butkus referred to the ~~soccer~~ player's "cute little shorts". My mistake - Butkus was actually talking about Rugby![2] Just imagine what he would say about soccer! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, people do play association football a lot in organised amateur teams. Almost every small town has a team, even a fair few of tiny places have teams. There are 24.958 teams with over 7 million people registered for teams in Germany, out of a population of 82 million,(primary source and in german but should be trustowrthy). Basketball is not that popular but always played in school, same for volleyball. They are part of the curriculum in physical education. So every German pupil will have come into contact with the two sports. 91.96.117.113 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a number of about 23,000 people being registered for baseball teams in 2017. Basektball has over 200.000 registered and volleyball has over 400.000 registered players in more than 7000 teams, all in 2017. Can't seem to find numbers on gridiron though. 91.96.117.113 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formulas for popular art

Certain chord progressions in music are more likely to be popular (like I–V–vi–IV progression), but are there other formulas that apply to the popularity of other forms of art? What are they? 121.45.102.242 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tutu tata drum pattern in braindead rock music. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tutu tata, whoa-oh-oh? Or the other thing? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the drum pattern, I don't know what it's called. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm down for "tutu tata" if you are. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Mean in fine art --TammyMoet (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Scrub that, I knw what I'm thinking of but it's obviously not known as that. It's the form of a spiral leading to the focus of a painting...--TammyMoet (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is something called the Golden ratio. Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paint by number kits sold rather well, though the resultant art didn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saving the cat and other formulas, in movies.[3] 2607:FCD0:100:8303:5D:0:0:B7D4 (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most pervasive formula in movies would be the three-act structure. There are lots of books available that teach you to write screenplays to this formula. The hero's journey is also popular as a story structure. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related: Painting by Numbers: Komar and Melamid's Scientific Guide to Art ^{(ISBN 0520218612)} (hmmm... I thought we had a article). Which is a semi-serious, but mostly tongue-in-cheek analysis of formulaic art. Somewhat related to the somewhat-related is: The People's Choice: Music -- I KNOW we have an article on that -- I helped edit it. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC) ... that should probably redirect to: "The Most Unwanted Song"[reply]

France 1815-1848

Is 1815-1848 classified as First Empire? If not, why not? Is there a similar title... better than Bourbon restoration? MBG02 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the French First Empire is 1804 to 1815, under Napoleon who actually used the title emperor. Whether France was still an empire after that is a good question - since it had and still has overseas colonies, it has pretty much always been one, at least under that definition of empire - but aside from the Second Empire period, its rulers haven't called themselves emperors. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These terms refer to the system of government rather than the possession of overseas colonies. The progression goes:-

French Revolution (1789–1792)
French First Republic (1792–1804)
First French Empire under Napoleon I (1804–1814/1815)
Bourbon Restoration under Louis XVIII and Charles X (1814/1815–1830)
July Monarchy under Louis Philippe d'Orléans (1830–1848)
Second Republic (1848–1852)
Second Empire under Napoleon III (1852–1870)
Third Republic (1870-1940)

Our article, France in the long nineteenth century, gives an overview. Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The UK monarchs disdained to claim to be "British emperors" or anything of the kind, and were satisfied with the title "King" in that context. They only claimed to be "Emperors of India" after the Mughal dynasty was deposed (and gave up the title after India became independent in 1947). I would guess that the Bourbons had a somewhat similar attitude, only reinforced by the fact that the title "Emperor" was associated with the Bonaparte family... AnonMoos (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British monarchs did not "disdain", they where forced by civil institutions who claimed to stand above the monarchy. See Trial and execution of Charles I for example. --Kharon (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar the Peaceful (943-975 AD) liked to refer to himself as Totius Albionis imperator augustus (August Emperor of all Albion) after he temporarily subdued the Scots, but the title didn't catch on. Alansplodge (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historians call it the Bourbon Restoration, but at the time, diplomats and journalists simply referred to it as the Kingdom of France (when not using just "France"), right? --Lgriot (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Often today simply and unqualified, "The Restoration", La Restauration (it happened only once). If regarding colonial possessions you look at the Spanish Empire article it starts, "(Spanish: Imperio Español; Latin: Imperium Hispanicum), historically known as the Hispanic Monarchy." The presence of a Latin translation suggests that historical references for the system as an empire exist. But the system of european colonial possessions is usually explained and described by the economic doctrine of mercantilism. It sounds economics priorily and less politics. Yet the French Third Republic did make use of the term Empire for referring to its colonial possession. --Askedonty (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankincense

(Prompted by 05Sep Q above). What was frankincense called in Hebrew, at the time. What, in Greek, and what in the Septuagint. Why was “frankincense” used in the 16C (onwards) translations. 120.16.137.31 (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankincense has everything you need - in Hebrew it was lebonah, and libanos in Greek (actually our article doesn't say so but that's what the Magi bring in the Greek New Testament account). Franc incense (pure incense) was what it was called in medieval French, which is where the English word comes from. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's pronounced Fronk incense! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are the instruments that cover at least the b1 to c5 range?

What are the list of instruments that cover at least the b1 to c5 range?177.177.208.76 (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a list per se, but the article on Range (music) includes a long chart showing instruments and their (standard) ranges. Maybe someone else will filter out those that fit your range - there are several. (I added "standard" because a lot of instruments, particularly in the wind and strings families, allow for playing notes way above their standard highest note. See e.g. altissimo and harmonic. This is not reflected in the chart.) ---Sluzzelin talk 06:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]