Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities

Humanities desk
< April 12	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 14 >

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

1 April 13

[edit] April 13

[edit] Obama as "post-racial"

I've just come across a statement in my readings that posits Barack Obama as the "post-racial candidate" in an "apparently still racial" America. What on earth can "post-racial" possibly mean?? I'm pretty sure Obama has a race at present, and that he openly talks about it. Or is this phrase intended to mean "post-racism"? Because that's not true either. I am very confused and would appreciate elucidation. --Masamage ♫ 00:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us a link to the source of the statement? It is difficult to comment on something like this without a context. Thanks ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It was only mentioned in passing, but you can just google "post-racial" to see what I mean. There are tons of examples, which suggests it's an idea that's entered the mainstream, but I can't find an original source or what it's intended to communicate. --Masamage ♫ 00:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Obama is neither white nor truly black (in that he is not of African American origin and both has a white parent and was raised in a white family), he defies and confounds traditional U.S. racial categories. By defying categorization, he exposes the arbitrariness of the categories. Also, he is not culturally black, although his wife is black and he attends (or used to attend) a mostly black church. He has striven to keep race out of his presidential campaign and asserted that he is neither a candidate for black people nor for white people but for all Americans. He suggests, and many of his followers hope, that by winning the presidency, Obama, who has bridged the gap between white and black in his own life, will bring white and blacks together and heal racial wounds. Hence the idea that an Obama presidency would be postracial by moving beyond racial divides. (Note that I am trying to present the point of view of those who consider Obama postracial, even though I myself doubt that his presidency would be so transformative.) Marco polo (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Clumsy expression: post-racialist was doubtless intended. So few of us truly are post-racialist. It's a start to be aware of our own in-built "race"-thinking. --Wetman (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama has intentionally tried to avoid becoming involved in the politics of race. An earlier black candidates in the US, Jesse Jackson, used "racial equality" as part of his campaign. However, this disenchanted whites, who saw him as pitting blacks against whites, so he lost. Obama has tried to avoid this happening to him, and has thus had very little to say about racial discrimination. Hillary has actually said more about racial inequality than him. StuRat (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the term "post-racialist" used in North America? Once upon a time, "racialist" was a word used by South Africans, Australians and the English (I don't know about the Scots, the Irish or the Welsh,) where Canadians and Americans would use "racist". I don't think I have ever heard "racialist" in any other context in North America. Perhaps there are those in Wiki RefDeskLand who can enlighten me. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The word is very uncommon in the United States. Whenever I have heard it used among Americans, it has generally been intended and interpreted as a synonym or perhaps a euphemism of "racist". Lantzy ^talk 17:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea of "post-racial" to many Blacks is something that any mulatto has physically achieved by "...putting a little cream in their coffee," whereas to many Whites all mulattoes represent in the context of Western heritage, only a Trojan Horse. 71.100.171.178 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misreading the above, but, it seems to say that "post-racial" refers to people of mixed heritage (black-white, which is not a useful distinction, I think). I have not yet seen such a meaning attached to the phrase. I feel this may be a not very thinly disguised presentation of original, racist research, and, as such, may be trolling. There is something distasteful about the wording, this opinion being, of course, my own, original conclusion. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the title posted by the OP: Obama as "post-racial" unless of course Obama is not of mixed race. But your further comment reminds me of a trend since the beginning of the civil right movement called the "race card" which has long since made "post-racial" a meaningless term. 71.100.171.178 (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is shared and supported by some other contributors to the WP:RD. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

But not all, necessarily. Maybe the term was used to refer to the knowledge, now scientifically proven, that all humans are of the same "race" and thus any distinction drawn between people of supposedly different "races" is a false distinction. We know better than that now, so we're "post-racial". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The point above is that even if "post-racial" is based on recognition of insignificant genetic deferences able to erase the genetic basis for defining separate races it is still not a magic bullet which can erase cultural differences that may be one second, one decade or 4,000 to 10,000 years old. 71.100.171.178 (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than debate about who read what and who means what, when the very words seem to twist before my eyes, I'll stay with Jack's explanation. My race card is thus full -or was that "dance" card? ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack's explanation of the correct meaning of the phrase is most likely correct, however, that does not mean that the phrase is not a pipe dream since race is not based entirely upon genetics. Such thinking is atypical wishful thinking of newcomers to Western Civilization but in error nonetheless. Recently I saw a poster that showed a retarded kid participating in the Special Olympics. The caption said, "If he wins is he still retarded?" IMHO it does not matter unless he is competing outside his peer group, which is the Special Olympics. You may desire that race not be an unspoken criteria for members of a group to which you want to belong but I prefer to stay within my own peer group where the invitation and welcome are genuine with far less risk of not being universal or fake. 71.100.171.178 (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How sad for you. Oh, and atypical means the opposite of typical...

Not sad in the least except for misplaced sympathy for such newcomers, and yes, not typical wishful thinking since wishful thinking is typically positive. 71.100.171.178 (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason Obama is seen as a "post-racial" candidate, at least her in the UK, is that he is the first black person to campaign for the presidency who is not campaigning largely on the fact that he is black. The fact that he is black is rarely addressed by Obama, and as such he is seen as representing a step forward for American politics, as he is symbolic of an America that is actually considering electing a black man to office. He is post-racial insofar as race is not relevant to his campaign, or at least never explicitly mentioned by the man himself, although the media seems to have quite a fixation on the fact. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be foolish for a Irish Catholic to run for office in the UK even though his official political platform was not Irish Catholicism? 71.100.171.178 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, and I don't understand how that applies. This article in the Telegraph states that there are at least three Catholic MPs in the Cabinet, and the only reason the issue has been brought up there is because of their specifically religious beliefs. They were not elected on solely Catholic platforms, although that analogy would apply much more in Northern Ireland, where there are deep religious divisions. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And although not stated what would you assume the unspoken but underlying platform of a candidate with an Irish Protestant mother and a Irish Catholic father to be if religion was an issue across the land? 71.100.171.178 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the response--that makes a lot more sense now, especially the notion that he's not basing his campaign on his race. It is kind of a sloppy phrase, but at least it means something. X) (I was trying to figure out who post racial, in what it sounds like it means, could apply to. Michael Jackson?) --Masamage ♫ 17:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General European situation of plays/operas around 13th to 16th century

Around the 13th to 16th century, were women alowed to cast plays/operas? Or, were female roles also performed by men like in ancient China? Was it common in that period for men to cast female roles? If yes, is sexual discrimination the reason? And lastly, would you be so kind to give me links of articles that can futher answer my questions? Thanks! -- Felipe Aira 07:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a little early, 10th and 11th centuries, but Hrosvit of Gandersheim and Hildegard of Bingen wrote plays and possibly an opera. I think there must have been female roles for them, since they wrote in nunneries. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In Britain until the restoration of Charles II in 1660 all female roles had to be played by men (usually young boys). Opera was invented in the late 16th Century in Italy and became increasingly popular throughout Europe in the 18th Century (which by that time most countries allowed women to act in them). In Italy the 16th Century Commedia dell'arte included 3 women in its troupe. I'm not sure about the sexual discrimination part of your question; there is evidence that women enjoyed acting (Elizabeth I included) but professional female actors were unheard of and probably scorned, perhaps because of the link between acting and prostitution (i.e. doing something entertaining with your body for money). Even in the 18th century when female acting was recognised and enjoyed, it still wasn't seen as a fashionable or respected profession. See: History of theatre, Origins of Opera, English Renaissance theatre, Medieval theatre. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a History of women in theatre article could be created? Perhaps another exciting adventure for the Ref Desk Task Force? Lord Foppington (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a clarification about your use of the verb "cast", Felipe. The person who decides which actors/singers will play/sing which roles is the one who casts the play/opera. This is often the director. The players themselves do not "cast" a play or opera, they appear in it. Is this what you meant? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you start it, my Lord, I will try to help you along, as the female director! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My Lady Muse, I would be most honoured! Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you build it, they will come. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pitcairners?

In the German Wikipedia, there is an article de:Pitcairner about the people of Pitcairn Island and their Norfolk Island offspring. There is no other article like that in any other Wikipedia. Do you think that they are relevant in their own right? --KnightMove (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How interesting. On a basic look it appears to be notable enough, so I'll write a stub when I've gathered some sources. PeterSymonds | talk 12:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Demographics of the Pitcairn Islands? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, didn't see that one. I've redirected Pitcairner there. PeterSymonds | talk 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this article is *not* about the specific inhabitants of Pitcairn, but about all offspring of the Bounty mutineers, including those on Norfolk Island. They are regarded as an ethnic group of mixed ancestry in their own right. The question is whether this point of view and this article are legitimate. --KnightMove (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. But I'll need time to work on it because sources are not readily available. The redirect can stay for now until I (or someone else who beats me to it) can write a half-decent article about it. PeterSymonds | talk 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who was invited to this Investiture?

Who was invited (via Royal Invitation) to attend the Investiture Ceremony of Prince Edward of England (later became King Edward VIII)which was held in Wales on July !3,1911? Mtdeluna (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtdeluna (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Full lists aren't published on the web. I suggest getting in touch with the Public Information Office at Buckingham Palace (by phone or post; they don't respond to e-mails). The address is here. PeterSymonds | talk 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 6% of the population

What affects only six percent of the population of, say, the Western world but is considered perfectly normal and acceptable? Preferably more or less even distribution (i.e. 6% are of German decent (made that up) is not useful) ----Seans Potato Business 14:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanity? 172.142.17.75 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I like. But seriously, what sort of thing were you thinking of? I don't understand the question. PeterSymonds | talk 15:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Left-handedness is a bit above 6%, but would fit otherwise. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Western World is a grouping that it's hard to search for statistics for. Worldwide, about 6 per cent are Buddhist. in the UK, married couples have a 6 per cent risk of breakup in the three years following the birth of a child, 6 per cent of (non-disabled) women are self-employed and 6 per cent of children attend independent fee-paying schools. In Canada, 6 per cent of adults over 40 have diabetes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJedits (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a riddle? Any hidden agenda concerning homosexuality? --KnightMove (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

lol; it's a riddle (i.e. I've a hidden agenda re: homosexuality) and I think left-handedness is useful while the percentage of non-disabled self-employed women is workable and offbeat. Thanks everyone. --Seans Potato Business 16:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Price of Hummer H2

How much does a new Hummer H2 cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.53.15 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

$56,690-$56,735 (£28,765-£28,787). [1] PeterSymonds | talk 14:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.53.15 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elder von Mildenstein

Who, please, is Elder von Mildenstein? Lewis Cifer (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can find, he was the person in charge of the Jewish section of the Sicherheitsdienst, a Nazi secret service branch. He was there in 1934 and 1935, but that's all I can find. PeterSymonds | talk 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As per http://hitlernews.cloudworth.com/gestapo-rsha-nazi-secret-police.php: Nazi intelligence Sicherheitsdienst in Palestine.

 In early 1933, Baron Leopold Itz Edler von Mildenstein, a man who a few years later was to become chief of the Jewish section of the SD (the Sicherheitsdienst, the SS intelligence branch headed by Reinhard Heydrich), was invited to tour Palestine and to write a series of articles for Goebbels´s Der Angriff. And so it was that the Mildensteins accompanied by Kurt Tuchler, a leading member of the Berlin Zionist Organisation, visited settlements in Eretz Israel. The highly positive articles, 'A Nazi Visits Palestine,' were duly published, and a special medallion cast, with a swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other.

The original idea of the Nazi politicians seems to have been to "merely" expell German Jews and resettle them in what is now Israel. I think there is a reference by Clio.t.M (answer to Mussolini) above on the Wannsee Conference which changed this original concept. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: The reference is in the answer to your question about Adolf Eichmann. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

PPS: Sorry, I guess you are reading Adolf Eichmann: The Mind of a War Criminal / David Cesarani, so you know about this anyway.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here, slightly adapted, is an answer I gave last June to a question on this very individual. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all surprised that the career of Mildenstein is being used as political ammunition because he was involved in attempting to construct a working political 'partnership' between the Nazi state and Zionist movement. Now, could any subject be more loaded than that?! I have to move carefully here, and will try to be as objective as I can. The chief point to hold in mind is that the aim of Nazi policy for much of the pre-war period was to encourage as much Jewish migration from Germany as possible. Inevitably, whatever political and ideological differences existed, this aim overlapped, to a significant degree, with similar aims by the Zionists, anxious to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

One has to remember that when the Nazis came to power in January 1933 they had no agreed solution on how the perceived 'Jewish problem' was to be tackled. There were those, of course, like Julius Streicher, who advocated an immediate expulsion of all Jewish people from German territory, though more moderate influences were quick to point out the implications of such a move for the German economy, still in deep depression. Beyond approving limited gestures, like the one-day boycott of Jewish businesses in April 1933, Hitler gave no clear lead in the matter, which left the way open to initiatives by agencies within the state; agencies like the SS, which began to research possible policy options. And from the midst of the SS came Baron Leopold Itz von Mildenstein, a self-appointed 'expert' on the Jewish question.

Mildenstein, who was born in Prague in 1902, had taken an early interest in Zionism, even going so far as to attend Zionist conferences to help deepen his understanding of the movement. He actively promoted Zionism as a way out of the official impasse on the Jewish question; as a way, in other words, of making Germany Judenrein (free of Jews). The Zionists, whose movement had grown tremendously in popularity among German Jews since Hitler came to power, were keen to co-operate. On April 7 1933 the Juedische Rundschau, the bi-weekly paper of the movement, declared that of all Jewish groups only the Zionist Federation of Germany were capable of approaching the Nazis in good faith as 'honest partners.' The Federation then commissioned one Kurt Tuchler to make contact with possible Zionist sympathisers within the Nazi Party, with the aim of easing emigration to Palestine. Tuchler approached Mildenstein, who was asked to write something positive about Jewish Palestine in the Nazi press. Mildenstein agreed, on condition that he be allowed to visit the country in person, with Tuchler as his guide. So, in the spring of 1933 an odd little party of four set out from Berlin, consisting of Mildenstein and Tuchler with their respective wives. Mildenstein's experiences were later reported in twelve instalments in Der Angriff, Goebbels' own paper, beginning on 26 September 1934, under the title Ein Nazi faehrt nach Palestina ( A Nazi travels to Palestine). Perhaps the most curious aspect of this whole bizarre affair is that Der Angriff even commissioned a medal to celebrate this journey, with a Swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other.

On his return, Mildenstein's suggestion that the solution to the Jewish problem lay in mass migration to Palestine was accepted by his superiors within the SS. In 1935 he was put in charge of the Jewish Desk in the RSHA-Section 11/112-, under the overall control of Reinhardt Heydrich. SS officials were even instructed to encourage the activities of the Zionists within the Jewish community, who were to be favoured over the 'assimilationists', said to be the real danger to National Socialism. Even the anti-Jewish Nuremberg Laws of September 1935 had a special Zionist 'provision', allowing the Jews to fly their own flag.

In the end Mildenstein fell out of favour, because migration to Palestine was not proceeding at a fast enough rate. His departure from the RSHA after ten months in office also saw a shift in SS policy, marked by the publication of a pamphlet warning of the dangers of a strong Jewish state in the Middle East. It was written by another 'expert', who had been invited to join Section 11/112 by Mildenstein himself. His name was Adolf Eichmann.

If anyone would like to follow my footsteps here I would recommend the following;

The Jews in Germany by H. G. Adler, 1969.
Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt, 1970.
The War Against the Jews by Lucy Dawidowicz, 1975
German and Jew by G. L. Mosse, 1970
Baron von Mildenstein and the SS support of Zionism in Germany, 1934-1936 by Jacob Boas, in History Today, January 1980.

And, of course, the relevant editions of Der Angriff. Clio the Muse 01:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, when I first read the phrase "Jewish section of the Sicherheitsdienst" I imagined that there were a whole section of Jews who were working for the Sicherheitsdienst - leading me to wonder how it was that a Jewish family had been raised to the German nobility (as Edler) and then granted the title of Baron. In fact, this was a Catholic family of Bohemia ennobled in Austria on 4 October 1788. I haven't found the date they were made Freiherren. - Nunh-huh 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethical System

What ethical system would the idea of allowing anything that is done with the participants' consent come under? I tried reading the articles, but they're not particularly optimised for searching by concepts.

Thanks, D aniel (‽) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is basically a form of liberalism, more specifically, its extreme incarnation, libertarianism. Some libertarians, and perhaps some who would identify themselves as liberals, would go so far as to allow even the use of hard drugs in private, though this is relatively uncommon, I believe, and not voiced often in politics. Typically libertarians believe in a "nightwatchman state" that exerts a fair amount of control over matters of individual liberty that could still have a decaying influence on society, but this is still where the system you refer to would belong. 203.221.127.95 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I like to think of myself as a libertarian, but even libertarians have ethics, understanding ethics as a boundary, beyond which one should not go. To allow literally anything to happen simply on the basis of mutual consent surely defies all ethical categorisation; it is not immoral but amoral. How could any normal code of ethics explain the actions, freely entered into, of Armin Meiwes-the eater-and Bernd Jürgen Brandes-the eaten? Clio the Muse (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, although its presentation of the topic leaves much to be desired from an encyclopaedia entry, you may be interested in our article on voluntarism. With regard to specific philosophies, Objectivism, anarchism and – as noted above – the classical liberalism of philosophers such as John Locke incorporate an ethical stance opposing anything but voluntary co-operation.

Related concepts include affinity group (an incarnation of consensus decision-making), consent of the governed, heterarchy and horizontalidad, negative liberty and value pluralism. If you have any further questions I would be happy to attempt to answer them. Skomorokh 03:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I must respectfully disagree with Clio that a moral spectrum delineated solely by mutual consent defies ethical categorization and is amoral. I think this begs the question of what constitutes moral philosophy, but it is a vice shared by many moral philosophers. Voluntarist moral philosophy qualifies as an ethical position because it coherently defines for the moral agent what is good conduct and what is bad. Amoralism declines to make this distinction, or may seek to move beyond good and evil. Skomorokh 03:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to be respectful, Skmorokh-disagree away! I am not saying that a moral system cannot be constructed on the basis of mutual consent; I am saying that the example I have given is beyond even the wildest frontiers of moral relativism. It's not just beyond good and evil, it’s beyond comprehension; beyond Socrates, beyond Epicurus, beyond Locke. Or perhaps this is just me revealing all of my conventional and bourgeoisie preconceptions? Anyway, I shall now return to Henri Bergson to refresh my understanding of the nature of moral obligations! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of what consenting behaviour is allowed by systems (in this case political rather than ethical, but most law is based heavily on a version of ethics), it might be worth having a look at Operation Spanner and Armin Meiwes, as the two cases involve the ability of people to consent to actual bodily harm or murder. The first one seems to be much more of a grey area, but I think I'd agree that if you're consenting to be being branded and severely injured it's probable your ability to consent could be diminished. Very murky ethical waters, these. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Meiwes case is the one I am referring to, Michael, as you will note if you read my opening remarks above. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think going back to my original assessment of "libertarianism" that I may have confused a political ideology with an ethical one. Libertarianism, like liberalism, definitely relates, primarily, to views of the state. I think the same applies to some of the other suggested terms, namely anarchism and voluntarism. On the other hand, I looked up objectivism, and frankly couldn't see how this connected with the question, though it is related to the same general subject matter of ethics. Perhaps I read it wrongly, which does happen, unfortunately. I disagree with Clio that there is no ethics in the position stated. She gives herself away a little, by referring to normal codes of ethics, whereas I would completely accept that the suggestion is so extreme as to be untenable, hence highly abnormal, yet still a possible basis for a (flawed but actual) system of ethics. I would still, caveats aside, use the term libertarianism to describe it. Whatever justifications it has belong to the same body of thought, and indeed, political libertarianism in any extreme form could reasonably attacked using this association. This would involve an appeal to consistency: political libertarianism, defended properly, might lead the proponent quickly into a position of "ethical libertarianism" - it may be difficult to escape. But I think Clio would be able to find a way out :) 203.221.127.124 (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interpret my question.