Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 June 29

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.

June 29

Princess’s request trope

Salome asked for John the baptist’s head. Herod made it so. Is a princess’s (or queen’s or daughter’s) request to a ruler a common trope in stories from antiquity? I mean specifically not from medieval tales but earlier.

I realize it may not be proper to call Salome a princess.

Temerarius (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly not unheard of. In Greek myths, for example, Zeus often found himself stuck in a bind because he'd promised something to a favourite daughter (or wife). Quick examples: Tithonus and Semele. Matt Deres (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, and Artemis, of course. Matt Deres (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

In Greek mythology, the gods or other characters are often bound by oath (horkos) to fulfill requests or obligations, and can't break that oath even if the consequences are severe. It has less to do with the status of the one requesting, and more to do with the nature of the oath. Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point. However, it is almost always the female character invoking the oath or boon, which satisfies the criteria set by the OP. Matt Deres (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Difference between real massage spa and brothel disguised as massage spa

How do you tell the difference between a real massage spa and a brothel that's disguised as a massage spa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.7.191 (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It depends on where (see Massage parlor). Words to look for include "licensed" or "massage therapy"; conversely, "full service" or "happy ending". —2606:A000:1126:20CE:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Where I live (don't know if this is all of Canada or just Ontario), the key words are "registered massage therapist"). --76.69.47.228 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Empirically. DuncanHill (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Conscription in Sweden

I'm looking for a clearer explanation and possibly statistics about conscription in Sweden prior to the 2010 abolition. Some sources seem to say military service was compulsory for all men once they turned 18, but other sources say the numbers went up and down, which seems to indicate they only conscripted a certain number in various years. Or was it the case that the official rule was for all men over 18 to do military service, but this wasn't enforced? 2001:44B8:20D:5B00:9D5B:CB50:F293:C11C (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This 2009 article says: "Presently, before the suspension of conscription, all men between the ages of 18 and 47 are liable for military service (Article 5 Swedish Act on Defence). Conscription for military service, however, applies essentially only to men between the ages of 18 and 24 and it is also open to women on a voluntary basis. Most conscripts undergo military service of 2 periods totalling around 11 months. The conscript may then apply to undergo a third period of training concentrating on international missions. The conscripts who are accepted for the third period are employed on the basis of a contract with a salary instead of a daily conscription allowance. The employee under contract is on standby, together with the unit, for possible interventions or for carrying out a foreign mission. In the current system, 8,000 people out of an annual cohort of 120,000 Swedish citizens are called in to carry out military service". It's unclear whether the selection was by lottery or on the results of a medical (or both); the same source says: "Failure to appear at medical examination is punishable by a fine". Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A 2005 article called Enduring Conscription: Vagueness and Värnplikt in Sweden (downloadable from this this page) suggests that conscripts were selected by aptitude (often educational) to fulfil various defined roles. Allegedly, they chose conscripts who actually wanted to be conscripted:

"The armed forces claim that 93,4% of those now doing military service are “highly motivated” (Lövgren 2005, bilaga 4). The armed forces have a 'ten point programme' for recruitment focussed on improving the attractiveness of the värnplikt [military service ethos] (and careers in the military more broadly) by improving the material conditions and the links to the outside job-market. The armed forces are pursuing objectives such as increased material benefits, the use of short term contracts, generous bonus and pay systems. The drive also includes extending the recognition of military education, notably by expanding the equivalencies granted in civil universities and professions for military education military" (p. 43-44).

I'm not sure how this differs from voluntary recruitment, but you can read the whole thing yourself if you wish. Alansplodge (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Future US state population by race?

The US Census Bureau (and a number of 3rd parties) provide estimated projections for the future US national population (e.g. 2025, 2040, 2050, etc.) broken down by race (e.g. White, Black, Asian, etc.). Do any of these agencies provide breakout tables for the future populations of the various US states by race? I'm curious how they imagine the growth in non-White population will be distributed around the country. Dragons flight (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Why? HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not? It's my question. Self-identified race is often predictive of voting preferences. For example, 85-95% of black voters have supported Democrats in recent elections. It is often argued that racial changes, especially the growth of the non-white population, will drive long-term political change in the US. I am wondering about how that might play out across states. Dragons flight (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not? Because I'm from a country where we no longer give people racial labels, and it seems to have helped. I'm always fascinated by how certain many Americans are about their racial classifications of people. But interestingly, you mention self-identification. How does that happen in the USA? HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The same it does in I think nearly every other liberal democracy where ethnicity or whatever is part of the census or otherwise collected for statistical purposes. Someone identifies with whatever option/s they chose that are valid answers [1]. The only slight complication tends to be writing your own answers. These tend to be simplified so the data processes will fit the answers as best they can into whatever answers they consider appropriate. (A notably issue is how to handle cases like someone who does write something like Australian or American or New Zealander or whatever.) If Rachel Dolezal wants to self-identify as black on the census, she's free to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. This topic is specifically about race. Does the US actually ask people to self-identify their race on the census? HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what they've got in mind for 2020, but for the 2010 census it asked two race-related questions. The first was about Hispanic or Latino origin, which they were not considering to be a race. The second was specifically about race, and includes options for white, black, American Indian, various types of east Asians, and oceanic. It allowed checking of multiple boxes for mixed-race. It also allowed for a write-in for "other". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yet I already said they did. It's also obvious they do since if they didn't how else would the census have the info? Plus the census site I linked to as a source explicitly notes they do. Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

What value is there to the government in getting racial information? I ask because my country's government manages without it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's the US government's official explanation for all the census questions.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Where do they account for Hispanics? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

They will have trouble with Australians who emigrate there. We don't come with labels around our necks telling everyone whether we are white or not. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

How much intermarrying is there between the whites and the aborigines? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you've missed much of my point. These days, with a massively multicultural nation, and an embarrassing past, we don't use "white" as a label. (Well, a few racists do, but not many.) The only formal label of any kind Australians get is when they self declare their ancestry on the five-yearly, national census. Most Australians are delighted to tell you about their ancestry, although for that census question, 33% say "Australian". (I do.) There is one small exception to what I just wrote. On government forms, people can choose to tick a box asking if they are an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. To get closer to your question, most people who identify as Aboriginal would have some ancestry from elsewhere, partly through choices of partner over the years, and partly because of rape in the early days of European settlement. In general these days, Australians don't care much about the ancestral background of the people they marry, much less than seems to be the case in other countries. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like there aren't many "pure" Aboriginals left. There's plenty of intermarrying elsewhere in general, and plenty in the USA in particular, which can make identification as one particular race kind of a dubious proposition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. The concept of pure Aboriginality is seen as archaic too. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It is very complex. Particularly due to the importance of culture and culture loss. Australian racism and concepts of race were formed out of guerrilla war land theft, shanties and missions, and anti-Chinese labour concepts. This differs from the centrality of broken treaty and war, and plantation slavery to US conceptions. They don't map onto each other well. Our article Racism in Australia claims that currently more than 50% of indigenous people who marry marry non-indigenous people. But this includes both people who identify (including in part) as Torres Strait Islanders and disincludes people who choose not to identify to the government as Aboriginal or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Self closing since while highly relevant to this subthread, the subthread seems very OT especially since the original question remains unanswered Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

< . See these real world opinions, experiences and research of Australia. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. As at least some of the sources reflect, when you talk about marriage it gets particularly complicated. Of course there's those who think it's disgusting when a 'white' woman marries someone of some Asian descent or whatever. It's easy to call this out as racism. (Likewise if someone rejects an interview or whatever from someone because they're Asian, although in that case you do get the problem that a lot of it is probably at least partially unconscious.) It's far more questionable to say it's wrong for a person to not date/hookup with someone of Asian or whatever descent; not because they're opposed to 'racial mixing' or they think there's something wrong with people of whatever descent, but simply because they don't find them attractive. In any case, coming from both New Zealand and Malaysia, the perception in both countries is not that Australia is some sort of post-racial progressive utopia but rather an extremely racist country, even with the modern demographic trends. (Stuff like the Australian policies on migrants including refugees arriving without explicit permission by boat e.g. the Pacific solution and their perceived arrogance or generally poor attitudes and behaviour towards their South East Asian neighbours obviously don't help. Nor do stuff like the 2005 Cronulla riots. And the population and probably other things mean that there tends to be a big difference in how Australia's attempts to mend their historic injustices towards indigenous Australians compared to those in NZ. I.E. While the statistics on Māori are still fairly dire, they are at least enough of a part of everyday society that they aren't almost invisible. By comparison whatever positive changes Australia has made in their treatment of indigenous Australians, it's hard to actually see the effects of these. In some ways, the infamous Hey Hey It's Saturday Blackface#Australia incident epitomises why this is so complicated. There you had a fairly multicultural group doing something many outside Australia, especially those from the US saw as extremely racist and offensive. And it wasn't just the performance, but the response particularly in the Rupert Murdoch press which often wasn't in the form of 'this is why our history and experiences in Australia meant many didn't see this as a problem, but we can understand why you find it offensive and racist and agree it's something we should avoid' but often something like 'look at those PC Americans not realising how superior we are and so this is so clearly not racist'. I mean this wasn't a case like e.g. the controversy over shows like Mind Your Language or Jonah from Tonga since in those cases a lot of what is controversial is a significant part of the performance. But it was far harder to argue that the blackface (and one whiteface) was the same for that performance. The more recent incident [14] was probably handled a little better, also because it was so extreme few could defend it. Still as always people will have different opinions on the issues, [15] [16] and insisting that some other view is clearly wrong because something is clearly not racist doesn't tend to go well. Most countries have a degree of exceptionalism (i.e. like American exceptionalism), Australia does perhaps suffer it more than many. E.g. on a completely different note this comment coming as it was from a Rupert Murdoch publication i.e. the sort of thing normally complaining about the nanny-state [17] "in arguably the most advanced, well-regulated Western democracy in the world" was funny on so many levels.) I don't personally believe that these views are that accurate, but there is also limited evidence that down playing self identification makes a positive difference. (To be clear, this doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do, simply that it should be decided based on other factors.) And even if it does, there's no evidence the difference is enough to magically remove significant prejudice that may exist. Also those who are generally the ones accused of racism (normally the majority) claiming the country is very progressive and not racist is one of those classic tropes. These people might really believe it, and maybe it's true for them personally. But they aren't the ones who experience a lot of the racism from other people. In other words, someone of some European descent in Australia telling those of some Asian or whatever descent that they're wrong and Australia isn't very racist normally just results in people rolling their eyes, unless the person at least has some solid evidence. (This is not to say only the majority are racist. Coming from Malaysia, it's easy to see people complaining about racism in Malaysia, e.g. by the government or Malays towards the Chinese or Indians, who will in another breath complain about "Banglas" or Africans/blacks. Likewise I'm there are quite a few people of some Asian descent in NZ who complain about racism they or others of Asian descent experience, despite their own views and attitudes towards people of Māori or Pacific Island descent. I'm fairly sure you get the same in Australia e.g. towards indigenous Australians. Maybe even worse since the population figures mean many in NZ will at least have some direct personal experience with people of Māori or Pacific Island descent.) This is not to say things haven't improved in Australia significantly over the past 50 years or so. Still when it was only 45 years ago that race was an explicit part of your immigration policy, you clearly had a long way to go. In any case, Australia is hardly unique in having significant improvement. The US is the same. And of course it's also a matter of degrees. Perhaps to some, having 13.71% of voters of the 3rd most populous state voting for a party many see as extremely explicitly racist [18] is a small enough percent it's only a minor concern. By others, especially those more likely to be the victim of racism, it may be bloody scary. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC) The complication I referred to was primarily the social construction of aboriginality ( http://aiatsis.gov.au/research/finding-your-family/before-you-start/proof-aboriginality ). Secondarily it was referring to the complication of mapping Australian racial categories onto US racial categories. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Not sure what you're replying to since you included it in the collapse box but then indented it at the OPs comment yet it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to either the OP's comment nor anything I said. Note that I didn't comment on anything you said since it was of little interest to me. I replied to Hilo48 and indented my comment appropriately. If you just want to add to your original comment, it would be better to put it directly under your comment and indent it appropriately. Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC) The box and fact tag obscured the indent in both browsers I viewed it in, leading to my misreading of the flow of discussion. Apologies. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Haven't been able to find any. I guess you probably already know, but this is the methodology and data used by the US Census Bureau [19]. I wonder how much of the data is already available in a state by state breakdown? Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Some more searching found [20] [21]. It looks like it was done in 1995 at least although the data isn't there, only some simplified info. You may need to order it PPL-47. Interesting I also found [22] on Rand Corporation. At a min, it needs registration for viewing. What's particularly interesting is they say their data is from the US Census Bureau but it's from 2001 to 2025. I don't know if Rand removed the early data perhaps because when they imported it it was not relevant. Or here is a publication from around 2000 with the new projections. Or even if it's just poorly worded they and they made their own projections perhaps using a methodology and data from the US Census. I haven't found more recent data. It doesn't help that the US has the word "states" in their name. There was some analysis of the accuracy of the predictions in 2002 [23] although it doesn't look like they looked at it at the level of ethnicity-state. [] Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

To add to Nil Einne's findings: see this Center for American Progress report related to your question/follow-up. And here is Washington State's very fine-grained population-by-race projection; other states might have produced similar reports. Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I think California has one as well as I saw it in my research. One issue I foresaw with using them would be that the methodology may be different meaning combining them is a bit suspect. OTOH, if you just want to get an idea of how each state may change, it's probably resonable. Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The real problem is that the definition of white changes as time changes. What is non-white in the 19th century USA may become white in the 21st century USA, just ask the jews, italians, greeks, irishs and russians. 49.177.234.140 (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

All of those groups have long been included under Caucasian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

But are Caucasians the only people thought of as white in the USA? HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Americans of primarily European ancestry would equate to white, i.e. Caucasian. If they're mixed-race, it gets trickier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Map of White Americans.png. This is the Census definition, kind of, a 100% Japanese or sub-Saharan descended Latin American is unlikely to call themselves white. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. If you visit Australia, particularly Western Australia, you will meet plenty of immigrants from South Africa, and the vast majority would be what Americans would call white. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It must have to do with the high number of Africans in Africa. If they moved to the US they would be African Americans. Also possibly the number of white South African immigrants to America was 0 or they're counted under Dutch, English, Welsh, Scottish and so on. Technically that should mean the bright color of Mexico should be affixed to Spain instead but America's a lot more interested in your immediate origin when it's in the Americas. Also a lot of Mexican Americans are German did you know that? You'll see Mexicans that look indistinguishable from pale Germans and Mexicans that look like Germans photoshopped brown (I think they're beautiful) and all other mixtures of Spaniard, Amerindian, and German features. Race is complicated. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll be not too poor to touristicate Australia one day. I've had a moderate fascination with Perth since wondering what the furthest major city was in grade 8 and I'd like to see Uluru and the world's longest perfectly straight railroad. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to the people HiLo48 mentioned? if so, they would be African Americans by who's standards? All these OT diversions are really distracting when they're including questionable claims not backed by any sources. The people HiLo48 seems to be referring to most likely would not be classified as African American according to the standards used by the Census Bureau as per my above link [24] "

Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

" Of course as I tried to emphasise above, since the census relies on self identification, if someone does mark or write that they are black or African American, this should be accepted no matter if they look like F. W. de Klerk. The complication becomes if they provide a written answer which isn't so easy to interpret. I imagine anyone who identifies Afrikaner, white South Africa, white African or anything of that sort is not likely to be classified as African American. Someone who simply identifies as African or South African may be more complicated. As I also emphasised above, while the specifics on how these sort of things are handled varies, the problem tends to occur with any statistical data collection for any ethnicity (or similar) type question which allows a written answer. Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The majority of South Africans would be considered African American/Black by most people if they immigrated to the US unless they could pass for white, of course they could identify as whatever they want as you mention. The South Africans HiLo seems to be referring to are likely the minority of South Africans that have a lot of European ancestry (mostly Dutch and/or British probably) and would be considered white. Though nothing's stopping them from putting African or South African.

The 2010 Census form backs up my claim that it distinguishes each Latin American country (even mentioning Salvadoran) from Spaniard.

German Mexican backs up claims of significant German immigration to Mexico. And from living in an area with a lot of Mexican Americans all my life I've seen pale, really German looking Mexican Americans and halfway from as dark to pale as humans get Mexican Americans that otherwise look just like Pennsylvania Germans i.e. some the girls I liked in school and random strangers on the street who by demographics are probably of similar descent (very few non-Hispanic Germans around here). There just aren't enough Hispanic Americans in those parts of Pennsylvania and far too few of those pretty aboriginal or mestizo-looking girls in PA compared to New York City for my assertion to not be true. (Pennsylvania is very German if you don't know). Sorry that's not a source. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me this would apply to the national figures the same it does to state by state figures. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

So they don't distinguish between American Caucasians and European Caucasians? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

When South Africa gained majority rule many people moved across the Indian Ocean to Western Australia, which has a similar climate. You could sell your home in Cottesloe (Johannesburg) and get a new one in Cottesloe (Perth), handy for the beach. One inconvenience of the move (which I was unaware of until today) is that the commuter railway between Perth and Fremantle (which serves Cottesloe) was shut down for four years on the orders of the state government (obviously not ecologically conscious at that time). 2A00:23C0:7905:B600:E055:DF2E:2704:A872 (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)