Humanities desk
< March 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 30 >

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.

March 29[edit]

Is TV and film depiction of racial gangs in prison accurate?[edit]

Are prisons in America are divided along racial lines, white, black and latino? And does virtually everybody in prison join one of those, depending on their race? And is the white gang always white supremacist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.187.75 (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that prison life on TV is a lot more interesting than actual prison life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In North America, maybe. San Antonio Prison looks pretty sweet. So does Tocorón. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many distinct prisons in America, and many separate depictions of them in art. But generally speaking, prison gangs in the United States do tend to divide (and be depicted as dividing) by race, and each gang typically thinks it's the best one. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe a guy selling a book on ways to survive without joining a gang, there are ways to survive without joining a gang. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most dramatic incidents which appear in TV shows (whether about prisons or any other aspect of human life) are things which have occurred in reality. The big difference is that in reality the occasional dramatic incidents will be separated by long periods of uninteresting normality, which would not make very good TV programmes. Wymspen (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a really long list of fictional tropes about it on TV Tropes - [1]. You can compare it to real testimonies in Prison Talk, which is a prisoner support forum, mostly for relatives of prisoners. Basically fiction is about drama and action. Real prison life is boredom and dealing with the legal system. Hofhof (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in my limited experience, the dangerous ones are not necessarily the openly violent or aggressive prisoners. Gang leaders can appear to be very quiet and well behaved. Yet everyone in the prison knows who really calls the shots behind the scenes.

For a football analogy (for you Englishmen out there), the most dangerous hooligans are often the ones who dress casually - not those who openly parade their team colours. Eliyohub (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A TV reality programme was based on this. You can watch at [2], the programme guide is at [3] and the review is at [4]. 86.169.56.176 (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit and the Irish border[edit]

From my reading of the online press (examples: [5], [6]) and the article 50 withdrawal letter from Theresa May (cf. bullet point v.), I see concerns that the "hard border" between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland may come back after the UK leaves the EU.

I fail to understand how this could happen since, as far as I can tell, none wants that to happen nor has proposed reasons to reinstate the border. What am I missing? I made a fair effort to escape my media bubble but I litterally could not find anyone calling for such a border. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an argument that one of the reasons for the Brexit vote is concern over the lack of control over EU immigration into the UK. If there were no hard border with Eire, EU citizens could exercise their right to travel to Eire, cross the no-border into Northern Ireland and then, should they wish, pass directly into mainland Great Britain. So no border with Eire means no control on EU immigration to the UK.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They would have to hide somehow. There might be a consequent uptick in the number of Muhammad O'Reillys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is that they will not have to hide. They will simply take a plane from e.g. Warsaw to Dublin, a bus to Belfast, and a plane to London. Good luck to them, I say. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another concern is to do with the European Union Customs Union. If Britain, as seems likely, leaves the customs union then tariffs would apply to cross-border trade. Not to police the Northern Ireland border would lead to an open door into Europe via the UK, and into the UK via Ireland, with consequent loss of revenues, and loss of control over standards of imported goods. DuncanHill (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both arguments look at least plausible, but I am going to tag you with ^{[citation needed]}. Do you have a link for a politician / activist group making either argument? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OP, User:Phil Holmes has articulated the main reason why it is felt that a hard(er) border might be one solution if the UK is to obtain control over migration from the EU. Other solutions include imposing border checks on movements from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK - which already exists in some form (Operation Gull - see the report cited below). You asked for citations, I suggest reading the coverage in the House of Lords report on Brexit and UK-Ireland relations, which is both fairly current and somewhat balanced. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll probably return to the 1980s situation, where there was a fairly well inspected internal border between NI and the UK mainland. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any questions of what will happen after Brexit will always be answered with "We don't know yet", as nothing was planned. Fgf10 (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do know that a border will be needed somewhere if the Republic of Ireland is in the EU and England is not, and the most likely place is on the border with Northern Ireland. But as Fgf10 says anything could happen, for instance if Scotland voted for independence then a tie up with the Republic so both communities in Northern Ireland could feel safe leaving as well would be on the cards and the border would be the Scottish border. Still a border though and still a pile of bother.. Dmcq (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behold WP:RD/G, which says The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects.

As there is no rational reason for Brexit, it would be a mistake to assume that there are rational solutions to its problems. There will be unintended consequences, often damaging ones. Just today the Welsh (who voted for Brexit, in one infamous Radio 4 vox pop very clearly to keep brown people out - despite Wales being one of the whitest parts of the country) heard calls that the planned M4 relief road might now need to charge tolls.[7] Much of Wales previous road improvement has been EU funded. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please... no. Were I British I would surely be on the same board politically, as would 90+% of Wikipedians, but that was not an answer to my question. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Job Titles[edit]

Who makes job titles? I don't get why there are "Sales Associate I" and "Sales Associate II", why "boss" is never a job title while "supervisor" or "manager" is, and why people make distinctions between "Senior Research Scientist" and "Research Scientist". What if you are self-employed? Do you get to make up your own job title, like "Big Boss"? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the government, other times company bureaucrats. I doubt in most places there are any legal qualifications required. A "Senior Research Scientist" probably makes more money and has more perks than a mere "Research Scientist". If you're your own boss, you can be the "Intergalactic Job Titler Extraordinaire". However, it may have an impact on your resume/job prospects, as this Wall Street Journal article notes. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I once knew someone who owned a company which had a total of four employees including himself. His business card said "president". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See International Standard Classification of Occupations. Organizations are not bound to abide by it, but the system was established to provide standardization. YMMV with regard to whether or not any particular organization follows it, and how closely it does. A related concept to job title is pay grade, and many organizations tie certain job titles to certain pay grades. --Jayron 32 23:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of people who proudly tell everyone they meet that they are founder and CEO of a company, without mentioning said company has one employee and makes no money. To answer the question, yeah, you can call yourself almost anything, although certain titles have legal protection, such as physician, lawyer, etc. Basically deception-by-title is sometimes prohibited. Your title can correlate to some rights, though. Case in point, for a long time in the US, managers were not legally entitled to overtime pay, unlike those they managed. I can't find a source right now, but I recall a certain retailer attempting to exempt its employees from overtime rules by just promoting everyone, but the courts or regulators saw through the ruse. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stories vs Reality[edit]

In stories, it seems that good and evil are usually clearly defined. There is the protagonist, someone you're supposed to relate to or root for, and there is the antagonist, the bad guy, the guy you want gone. But in real life, these things don't seem to be so clearly defined. Tribe A may attack Tribe B for the little patch of fertile soil. If Tribe A wins, it claims everything. If Tribe B wins, it claims everything. Tribe A wins in the battle for having superior technology and kills the people in Tribe B and enslaves the surviving people who surrender. Now, who are you supposed to root for? The losing Tribe B who is dead or the winning Tribe A who kills and enslaves survivors of Tribe B? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who says you have to root for anybody? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bugs, I'm afraid that we, at the reference desk, cannot provide you with sources that tell you how you are supposed to read and interpret literature for yourself. The individual consumer of art is left to find their own meaning, and no one else can really do that for you. --Jayron 32 23:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If by stories you mean fiction, there is not much uniformity in depiction either. :

The protagonist is the main character, the centre of the story. He/she is not necessarily a heroic or remotely positive character. And even some "heroes" seem to perform less than heroic acts, depending on their motivation. For some examples:
- Scarlett O'Hara is the protagonist of the novel Gone with the Wind (1936). Part way through the novel, the wealthy heiress finds herself mostly bankrupt and having to feed and protect her surviving family. In order to do so, she marries two different husbands for their money, increasingly uses and manipulates people, and alienates former allies. By the end of the novel, she buries her only true friend, is estranged from the only husband who truly loved her, and finds herself alone.
- Hercule Poirot is the protagonist of the novel Murder on the Orient Express (1934). He investigates the violent murder of "Samuel Ratchett" (a man using an alias) who was knifed to death in his bed. He finds that 13 different people collaborated in the murder, because Ratchett was a child murderer who they blamed for ruining their lives. They all wanted revenge. Poirot sympathizes with them, lets them get away with murder, and covers their tracks to ensure that they will not get arrested.
- Michael Rogers is the protagonist of the novel Endless Night (1967). An apparently likable man, he marries a wealthy woman for love. When his wife dies suddenly, he is the main suspect and seems to be surrounded by mysterious deaths. Plot twists in the final chapters reveal that Rogers killed his own wife, his mistress, and several other people. The man is a serial killer of questionable sanity.
- Edmond Dantès is the protagonist of the novel The Count of Monte Cristo (1844). An initially kind and naive man who gets caught in a conspiracy, he is betrayed by people he trusts and becomes a political prisoner. After escaping prison and amassing a fortune, he sets out to ruin the lives of the people who betrayed him. In the process he manipulates innocent people and the families of his enemies, and pushes people into bankruptcy, despair, insanity, and suicide. He wants revenge and the ends justify the means.
- Sherlock Holmes is the protagonist of the short story A Case of Identity (1891). He is hired by a woman to locate her missing fiancé Hosmer Angel. He soon discovers that there is no Hosmer Angel, and that it was an identity used by the woman's wicked stepfather to seduce and manipulate her. Holmes chooses to not tell the woman the truth about her fiancé/stepfather and she wastes away her life waiting for "Angel"'s return.
The antagonist represents the opposition to the protagonist, an enemy or rival. He/she/it does not have to be villainous or malicious. They may have similar or identical motives to the protagonist, or to be acting for heroic reasons. For some examples:
- Javert is the primary antagonist of the novel Les Misérables (1862). He is a law enforcement agent and eventually a police inspector who makes it his life's goal to arrest escaped convict Jean Valjean. Javert feels that he is serving the law and devotes himself to guarding a society which looks down on him. He becomes a self-righteous fanatic who knows no boundaries. By the end of his story arc, Javert learns that Valjean is both a criminal and a kind person, that the law which he has served is not infallible and may be unjust, and that he himself is not irreproachable. He can not live with the revelation and commits suicide. Dimadick (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "bad guy" that we "root for" is called an "antihero". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]