Humanities desk
< October 7	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 9 >

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

October 8[edit]

USA stock market question.[edit]

Is it good or bad for the company when the stock market rises or drops? I always think it's the opposite for the user. So if it goes up, that is bad for the company because people are gonna sell and the company loses money. And if it drops, then people are shortly putting money into it. Or is it the same for the user when it drops/rises? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

wp:deny

So we're getting and losing the money other people put in / took out, from the stock? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I think you're simplifying this too much. Most shareholders usually don't sell every time their stock value goes up; they instead hope it will keep rising. And if a stock drops, sure, some buyers will see it as a buying opportunity, others will panic and sell more. The company will still own some of its own shares. But most of the shares aren't the concern of the company anymore. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Start by defining your terms: Good for who? Bad for who? How much of a drop, or rise? If a company sells stock today, a drop in the market tomorrow might be seen as good, but if it buys today, it would probably be thought of as bad. Also, bear in mind that when a company's stock goes down, that doesn't necessarily mean "the company loses money." Similarly, when stocks rise, the company isn't necessarily making more money. Aside from the rare times (IPO, for example) when a company sells shares, stock market transactions are between non-company players, i.e., investors.DOR (HK) (talk)

Good for the user while bad for the company, and bad for the user while good for the company. Or, do we say, things are usually good and bad for the user and company at the same time, when the stock value rises or decreases? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

In this context, what is a "user"? DOR (HK) (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholder. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

A rising stock price usually indicates underlying success of the company as investors are willing to pay increasing values for the company's stocks, and this is usually based on indicators of improved business performance. Conversely falling stock prices indicate the opposite, that the company is facing some type of headwinds or downturn. The overall valuation of a company also increases as their stock price rises, making the owners richer (at least on paper). Owners and senior management (who will generally also possess large stock holdings) may chose to sell some of their shares into the market when prices are high, thus turning some of their 'paper' wealth into personal wealth.

Of course underneath all of this are underlying economic factors - so a successful company may still see their stock price falling in a general market selloff, such as that we have been experiencing over 2022, and the stock boom since the early days of the pandemic saw many companies stock prices rise beyond any indicators of fair value for that company based on their actual business output or success. Stocks are also notorious for 'overshooting' the economic indicators, both in positive and negative directions, so a company that puts out a poor financial report for the year may see far greater selloffs than the report actually suggested are warranted, and vice versa - this is an example of herd mentality, as people start to buy or sell quickly the prices start to rise or fall quickly, and more and more people follow the mob, driving the prices beyond a reasonable value for a period of time.

Ultimately, in terms of your question, we'd therefore consider it good for a company if their stock prices increased. This is usually also good for the investors, at least those that already own the stocks, rather than those looking to buy who would prefer a lower price. In terms of the actual day to day operations it doesn't overly matter as generally the stocks being traded on a daily basis don't involve the company itself and thus isn't money coming in and out of the company, it's just different investors buying and selling shares in the company between each other. --jjron (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are all white people racist?[edit]

I am not white but I have to ask this question since quite a handful of academics especially the "critical race theorists" believe that the answer is yes.

Barbara Applebaum: "All white people are racist or complicit by virtue of benefitting from these privileges, even though these privileges cannot be voluntarily renounced through individual action"

In her book White Fragility, Robin DiAngelo says that "White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy."

In her book Privilege Revealed: How Invisible Preference Undermines America, Stephanie Wildman writes that "Whites spend a lot of time trying to convince ourselves and each other that we are not racist. A big step would be for whites to admit that we are racist and then to consider what to do about it."

Derald Sue says that "Seen from this vantage point, Whiteness is an invisible veil that cloaks its racist deleterious effects through individuals, organizations, and society."

Noel Ignatiev of the journal Race Traitor says in page 608 of the book Critical White Studies that "We believe that so long as the white race exists, all movements against what is called 'racism' will fail"

In February 2021, leaked screenshots revealed that Coca Cola's online racism training encourages employees to be "less white"

StellarHalo (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't tell if this is for real, but don't forget xenophobism. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Racism is not limited to white on non-white. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. If a white person says "I hate black people", it's racist. If a black person says "I hate white people", it's not racist. --Viennese Waltz 12:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment works only in countries predominantly populated by whites. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. You don't seem to understand. Racism is not just saying that you hate a certain race of people. Racism is a systematic form of oppression that specifically targets marginalised groups. White people are not a marginalised group, even in countries where they form a minority of the population. Ergo, whites cannot be the victims of racism. --Viennese Waltz 16:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to one particular definition, you are correct. Most people do not use that definition, I'd venture; they're far more likely to use the definition that existed prior to the power+prejudice formulation, as a synonym for bigotry. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That definition bears a striking resemblance to the excrement of an adult male bovine. Racism is hatred based on race. End of sentence. Or do you think a single Nazi living in Nairobi could not be described as racist? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck proving that it's only white-majority countries which have systemic racism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't read my last post. Read it again: this has nothing to do with majority ethnicities in particular countries. It is structural. --Viennese Waltz 21:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that racism is systemic, structural, whatever you want to call it. I can't accept that it's an exclusively white-on-non-white situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that white people cannot be victims of racism is historically ignorant. A great number of white people have been victims of racism from other white people. E.g. Jews, Mediterraneans, the Irish, etc. (And contrary to many comments I see online, this wasn't because "they weren't considered white at the time", it was because the racist anthropologists of the day defined races with all sorts of divisions and subdivisions, such that e.g. Jews were white, but inferior to "Aryans", and "the Mediterranean Race" was Aryan but inferior to "Germanics", and aristocrats were more Germanic than and therefore superior to commoners). Iapetus (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion suffers from a western-centric bias. May I suggest people read our article on Racism in Japan and other similar articles. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People should not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. The notion of a "white race" is an unscientific monstrosity. --Lambiam 12:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A LOT depends on how one defines the terms “racism” and “racist”. It is possible to define these terms in ways that imply that everyone is (to some extent) racist. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There's a definition of "racism" popular in certain circles that says "racism" requires power; that an oppressed people under this definition cannot themselves be racist towards their oppressors. I've never understood the purpose of this definition, but we've seen it used right here; the formula leads to the possibility of someone being grossly bigoted against people of another race, but somehow not "racist". Where did this formulation first arise? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The prejudice plus power article points to Bidol, Patricia A. (1970). Developing New Perspectives on Race. fiveby(zero) 15:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Useful pointer, thanks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This emphasis on a Michigan school superintendent's curricula seem to be due solely to Sivanandan, and there are a few reasons to be cautious i think. Robert Miles' Racism, Bob Blauner's Race And Ethnic Conflict and ~~Benjamin Bowser's Racism and Anti-Racism in World Perspective~~ all i think point to earlier development in the 60's, but google preview is preventing me from looking at the full chapters. fiveby(zero) 17:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm white. I spent most of my life in non-white societies. In those societies, I faced discrimination, often on a daily basis and both personally and professionally. The common term used by the majority population for my race was a color-based insult. What should we call this if not racism? Further, I have seen non-white races discriminate, heavily, against other non-white races. Again, what other term can possibly be used but racism? DOR (HK) (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about "bigotry"? That, I think, is the distinction that the redefiners of "racism" are promoting; bigotry is personal, racism is systemic. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term comes with a bias, which is that implied synonyms are "obstinateness" and "fanaticism". Racism being not similarly restricted, "bigotry" used for conformance only helps redirecting falsely the qualification. --Askedonty (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To me, I would define and draw a line between racism, and prejudiced-racism. Even having racial preferences for dating or relationships can fall under the technical term of racism. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The problem is that "racism" covers a lot of ground. Trying to pin down a "technical" definition of it is slippery. What you find attractive or not is not necessarily anything to do with "racism". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe psychological studies typically turn up biases to favour those most similar to oneself, and this likely stems from our underlying biology. Thus we favour our family over non-family, and those that look most similar to us over those that don't. This is a way to propagate and help the survival of our genes and those with genes most closely related to ours, as the driving force of evolution is to get those genes into future generations. This is likely to lie at the heart of racism. One of the successes of modern, civilised societies is therefore to overcome these base biases on a societal basis and treat everyone equally (yet on a personal basis, which of us (family breakdowns not withstanding) doesn't still look after our own family before the stranger out on the street?).

An interesting study I heard about not long ago investigating these biases involved something like flashing up random images on the screen and it some way measured the response of the individual to each image in terms of a positive or negative initial reaction based around say assumed trustworthiness (I forget the details, but it tried to overcome people consciously overriding their gut-reaction and say clicking on a scale, so it used something like pupil dilation to measure that immediate gut-response). Not surprisingly, white people showed more positive responses to white people's images, and negative responses to non-whites. What was more surprising was that non-white people showed the same responses - to a lesser degree IIRC, but nonetheless, still a more positive overall reaction to white's images. So what can we take out of this? Perhaps not just that white people are racist per the OP, but that our societies themselves are still racist, despite the work we have been doing to improve this situation. --jjron (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question asked about ALL white people. Your use of the word "typically" in your first sentence there is saying NOT all. The answer to the initial question is "Obviously not". HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the word 'typically' wasn't referring to 'typical white people', is was referring to the 'typical findings of the studies'. I don't know what all the studies show and it's not a field I follow on an ongoing basis, so there's likely exceptions to this. FWIW I personally don't think all white people act in a racist way or intentionally implement racist behaviours (many don't), but many studies indicate most, if not all, people (not just whites) have what could be considered racist tendencies. As I said in my previous post, it's our job to overcome these as much as we can. --jjron (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking of the Implicit-association test, which uses reaction time to measure biases. CodeTalker (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Navy promotions[edit]

In Hornblower and the Atropos, Hornblower is made a captain because the Commander-in-Chief is retiring and is allowed to grant three promotions: midshipman to lieutenant, lieutenant to commander and commander to captain. Is this historically accurate? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything obvious, but perhaps the answer lies in Commissioned officers' careers in the Royal Navy, 1690–1815, should you have time to peruse it. Hornblower's career is often said to be based on that of Lord Cochrane, but he was promoted to post captain through the normal channels at The Admiralty, a process much delayed by his earlier court marshal for insubordination, in which he was found not guilty but was reprimanded for his behaviour. Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The line where Cornwallis on giving up the Channel Command states Don’t you remember what is the last privilege granted a retiring Commander-in-Chief?...I’m allowed three promotions. Midshipman to Lieutenant. Lieutenant to Commander. Commander to Captain comes at the end of Hornblower and the Hotspur In the unfinished Hornblower and the Crisis Mardsen says We have not forgotten Admiral Cornwallis’s recommendation that you should be made post and Barrow There would be no need to find you a ship, Captain...You could be given a command in the Sea Fencibles which would confer post rank

At the time commanders-in-chief on foreign stations had the power of promotion, tho subject to later confirmation by the Admiralty.[1][2] I don't see why this "last privilege" would be needed for foreign commands, but perhaps as a courtesy of the First Lord to give some matching power of patronage to Admirals in the prestigious home waters commands. Morrow John (2018). "Admirals and the Georgian Patronage Network". British Flag Officers in the French Wars 1793-1815., tho an earlier period, has comments on the conflicts and jealousies concerning promotion between the commanders and First Lords. Looks promising if someone can tease the missing pages and citations from google. fiveby(zero) 15:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a new line of policy for equity goals?[edit]

Any possibility for a new line of welfare policy model that could potentially achieve equity goals? One that goes beyond or is different from the usual welfare policies or acts as an alternative to the government's role as a provider of well-being? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Grotesquetruth (talk o contribs) 09:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"... - AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@--Lambiam any thoughts on this? Grotesquetruth (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Equality is the core principle of communism, as noted above. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But is equity a communist principle? Equality and equity overlap, but they are not quite the same. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Wall of China - Documentary 2007[edit]

In this documentary, Geng Zhou was a real-life or fictional character, or maybe modeled after one of Qi Jiguang's soldiers? Moreover, can you find information about the mongol leader Chang Ang and his brother? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.137.162 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you find something?

Please, can you search for these information? Thank you very much.

Abrahamic Religions[edit]

Why did non-Jewish cultures (Gentiles, Hellenic, Romans, Arabic) absorb / modify / accept an "alien" religion? Christianity seems to have applied a minimal filter (eating a pork Schnitzel is permitted), the Quran has added a couple of prophets (Alexander the Great (?) and Mohammed). But, by and large, the narrative of the OT was maintained, with clear divergencies to the Quranic Isa / Jesus.

Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does any culture adapt an non-indigenous religion? Why did pagan Europe become Christian? Why was Yahwism adopted by the polytheists of the Middle East? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why Constantine the Great came to adopt Christianity is debated, but he brought it into the mainstream of the Roman Empire. Conversions of later pagan monarchs were often done not out of religious enlightenment, but to open the door to western civilisation, perhaps like former Communist countries applying to join the EU. Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was about to say ... a likely answer to the second question is "because the Romans did". The Western Roman Empire collapsed, but the popes and Clovis I and Charlemagne prospered, and hence the Holy Roman Empire, and they had missionaries. Card Zero (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish monotheism and high ethical standards were attractive to many non-Jews in the Roman empire, and there were non-Jewish "God-fearers" who kind of circled around Judaism without converting. Actually converting was a problem for many, since to fully become a Jew, you basically had to abandon your previous ethnicity and adopt the Jewish ethnicity, obey many ritual prohibitions, be circumcised if male, etc. From that point of view, Christianity came to be an alternative to Judaism with many of the same attractive features as Judaism, but without as many barriers to conversion. AnonMoos (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM -- The attitudes of Christians towards Jewish scripture and the attitudes of Muslims toward Jewish scripture are actually dramatically divergent. Christians incorporated Jewish scripture into their own scripture (and often other ancient books written by Jews, what Protestants call the "Apocrypha"), while Muslims give no special authority to Jewish scripture. The traditional Islamic view is that everything necessary to salvation is contained in the Qur'an, and if anything in Jewish (or Christian) scriptures contradicts anything in the Qur'an, then ipso facto they are corrupted. Muhammad learned everything he knew about Judaism and Christianity strictly orally, from Jews and Christians who were apparently not always the most knowledgeable and orthodox in their own faiths, and who did not always distinguish between the Bible and post-biblical writings. That's why we find in the Qur'an that Haman of the Book of Esther assisted the Pharoah of the Book of Exodus to build the Tower of Babel of the Book of Genesis, while King Solomon was mainly an occult magician who talked to ants. AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire may have something of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did non-Jewish cultures (Gentiles, Hellenic, Romans, Arabic) absorb / modify / accept an "alien" religion?

The answer is syncretism. It wasn't alien at all. Nor was it novel, original, or unique. The Jews themselves adapted the myths, legends, and stories from other cultures before them. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to anybody who has added comments and references, particularly to AnonMoos. Have a pleasant day, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You ask a library's worth of a question. I think the god-fearers might have seen an element of prestige to the Jewish religion, since the Romans admired the Jews as they admired the Egyptians--for having ancient roots. Early Christianity spoke to marginalized groups, including the poor majority. It had a message for them: basically, God cares about you, God thinks of you. And things will get better. How things would get better was a little vague; some people interpreted it as a coming end to Roman rule over the Jews and a general nova res. As time went on ideas coalesced into a Christian idea of heaven that's similar to the modern one. Greco-Roman polytheism didn't offer much in ethics and philosophy; poor people who wouldn't be going to the stoa could get a taste of that stuff from a street preacher. Another marginalized group was women, who didn't have a great lot generally. Paul's misogyny might give us a different idea, but it looks like women could hold stations of prestige and respect in the early church. I think an important thing is that it could be a miserable life being poor, being a woman, and Christianity told them they have something to look forward to. Now... those are parts that it's easy to find appealing. But it wasn't all wine, bread, and good conversation. It was also self-starvation, hair shirts, celibacy, pole-sitting, and martyrdom. I don't know why people liked that stuff. Temerarius (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Temerarius -- asceticism/anti-sexualism was a general cultural current which struck the eastern Mediterranean region during the early A.D. centuries, and was not at all confined to Christianity (it was a founding principle of Manichaeism, etc). Christianity was actually more influenced by this than influencing. Gnosticism had no real influence on Christian theology, and occurred in both "ascetic" and "antinomian" forms, but for whatever reason, ascetic Gnosticism had a significant influence on early Christian attitudes towards sex, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Multiple Launch Rocket System in the Yom Kippur War[edit]

I was reading the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System article because I saw this system mentioned on the news[3]. A sentence caught my attention:

This mindset began to change following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which saw high loss rates, especially from rear-area weapons like surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), as well as the effective Israeli tactic of hitting such sites with MRLs.

Which Multiple Launch Rocket System did the Israeli forces employ during the Yom Kippur War? Thanks. Helian James (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BM-24. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They also devised a home-grown system based on that, called MAR-290, which fortuitously (for them) entered service in 1973, just in time. Alansplodge (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you both. Helian James (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Some neck[edit]

According to our banjolele article, it has the body of a banjo and the neck of a ukulele. Having read all three articles I am no wiser as to the difference between the necks of a banjo and a ukulele. Can anyone here explain the difference? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Banjo vs. Banjolele (What’s The Difference?), the neck of the ukulele is shorter than that of a banjo. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Most ukuleles have only 12 or 14 frets before the body. Banjos range between 17 and 24 usable frets. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The instrument pictured in the banjolele article seems to have 17.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The four-string plectrum banjo is said to have 22 frets. Maybe --jpgordon means exclusively: "usable" frets ? --Askedonty (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusingly, an instrument's frets may be numbered either in total or from the neck joint (where the neck meets the body). You will often here guitars and other instruments identified as having a "12th fret neck joint" or "14th fret neck joint" or some such, and unfortunately for clarity's sake, some people will simply call these a "12 fret instrument" indicating the neck joint location rather than the total number of frets. Other differences exist, however, apart from the number of frets. Instrument necks can vary by the width and taper (generally measured as the difference in width between the nut and the neck joint), by fretboard curvature (generally indicated by the radius of a hypothetical circle that would match the curvature of the fretboard) and by neck profile (thickness and shape of the back of the neck, often indicated by the letters C, D, and V to indicate depth and curvature characteristics). It is quite likely that some, or all, of these characteristics are different between the necks of banjos and ukuleles. --Jayron 32 12:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One other difference is the location of the tuning pegs as well. Ukes generally use classical guitar style tuning pegs, perpendicular to the plane of the headstock. Banjo tuners are invariably on the edges of the headstock, and are usually geared machine tuners. --Jayron 32 12:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]