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.
Considered black by whom? -- HiLo48 01:08, 22 March 2020
By people, groups, and/or countries who categorize people based on "race". Futurist110 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the one country in the world seemingly obsessed with categorising some people according to an inaccurate description of their skin colour was late on the scene in South Asia, and other English language labels became ingrained earlier. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're suggesting that Brits were historically not as "obsessed" with "racial" classifications as Americans were in spite of ruling over a vast empire that contained a lot of people of different "races"? Futurist110 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, according to the Black people Wikipedia article, Australian Aborigines were also previously referred to as "black people". So, it wasn't a term that was used exclusively for people of African descent.
By the way, I believe that Australia had a "race" category on its census until 1966 or so, so Americans were hardly the only ones who were focused on "race". In fact, Australia even had the White Australia policy for most of the 20th century. Futurist110 (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, until the early 1970s, but it's well gone now. hence my reason for using present tense. (Which is what you did in your initial question.) And my comment was not about racial classifications per se, but "categorising some people according to an inaccurate description of their skin colour". HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I meant my question here in both the past tense and the present tense. Maybe I should have made that part clearer. As for US racial classifications, sure, they can be better. For instance, white people can get classified as pink instead while black people can get classified as brown instead. Futurist110 (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's that obsession with skin colour again. It's a very minor genetic difference. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, certainly! If one's skin color was the only factor in determining one's "race", then--as per my original question here--blacks and dark-skinned South Asians (and also dark-skinned Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, and negritos) would all be lumped together into one giant category--with whites, light-skinnedEast Asians, and albinos all being lumped together into a separate giant category. Futurist110 (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I've just been communicating with someone else about William Ricketts, a now deceased local artist in my area, a lot of whose work was based around the idea that Australian Aboriginal and Indian people had a lot in common. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The United States Census has been asking about race continuously from the first one in 1790 to the one coming up a week and half from now, and African-American leaders would be the first to oppose any plan to stop asking. However, South Asians had a somewhat minimal presence in the United States before the 1960s, and Americans didn't necessarily have consistent ideas about how they should be racially classified (certainly the census categories covering them changed dramatically from census to census...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm well-aware of the lack of a large historical Hindu population in the US before the 1960s. Still, Americans must have been aware of India from reading about it in books and newspapers way before that point in time. It's quite interesting that two of my maps above do, in fact, portray south Indians and African blacks as being one race, though. So, this idea doesn't appear to have been completely unheard of--at least among Westerners in the late 19th and/or early 20th centuries. Futurist110 (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I got to know a 19th century German poem about the Plague, doing exactly that by mentioning "Negro Prince[s]" ("Negerfürst") dying in India. So certainly the scope of the word has changed over time. --KnightMove (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, the concept of "Black" was once broad enough to accommodate South Asians. Our article on Ambalavaner Sivanandan describes him as having been "one of the leading Black political thinkers in the UK"; on the Asian Dub Foundation track "Colour Line", you can hear him saying "Black is not just the colour of our skins, it is the colour of our politics". This understanding of "Black" as something broader than Afro-Carribean had faded away by (and I'm guessing very roughly here) the end of the 1990s. Lfh (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Race", in the broadest sense, means a group of shared ancestry or origin. It can be or has been used at various times to mean the entire human species, or everyone descended from a specific individual, or any other (supposed) group. The 19th/early 20th century anthropologists who came up with "modern" ideas of racial classification came up with all sorts of groupings, based on how they assumed peoples were related. A lot of these seem very strange (and contradicted each other), and don't necessarily match up with contemporary ideas of what a "race" would be, and I think were more often based on skull shape (or even language) than skin colour. For example, Arthur de Gobineau, who invented the notion of Aryan superiority, thought “Semites”( Jews and Arabs) and “Hamites” (North Africans) were white, but Finns and Slavs were not. He also thought the French aristocracy (such as himself) were racially superior both to French commoners, and to the English aristocracy. (Which seems to be a fairly common theme among in sort of racial pseudoscience - coming up with all sorts of arbitrary and finely-divided categories, and then ranking them with whichever one you belong to as the best). So to go back to the original question: whether or not someone would have classified Indians as "black" would have depended on whether or not they thought they were more closely related to Africans than anyone else. And whether they thought that would depend on so many arbitrary and pseudoscientific assumptions that it probably isn't possible to give a more meaningful answer. Iapetus (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This non-American, constantly confused about the USA's efforts in allocating people to races and vice versa, has the impression that language still plays a major part in describing someone as Hispanic there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat, since most people from Latin America speak Spanish. This does lead to hilarious examples of ignorance among U.S. whites, like not knowing that most Brazilians speak Portuguese, or assessing people from Spain as not white because they speak Spanish. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on the author, who spent 30 years in India after being born in Edinburgh, talks about brown people, not black ones. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As of the version of last May. Before that, it read "The illustrations and settings of Bannerman's books are all about Indians and their culture". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People from India were not usually considered black in the U.S., but they also usually haven't been considered white: see United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind. "Black" obviously has a ton of baggage in the U.S. due to the legacy of slavery, where in slave states anyone considered "black" was legally unfree. See one drop rule for some more. Race is a social construct, and so who counts as "white", "black", whatever, is determined by society, may involve more than just physical appearance, and can change over time. Until the 20th century "white" in the U.S. generally meant "Northern European" (see WASP); even Southern and Eastern Europeans were often considered "swarthy foreigners" to some degree. A lot of them were, ugh, Papists! Or even worse, Jews! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of language being used to pigeonhole people, I suspect that the fact that Persian is written in Arabic script is why some people assume Persians are Arabs. 209.93.196.131 (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That plus Islam. A lot of people think all Muslims are Arab. (The most-populous majority-Muslim country is Indonesia.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-World War I politicians (from anywhere in the world) who were able to survive getting shot?[edit]
Which pre-World War I politicians (from anywhere in the world) were actually able to survive getting shot? So far, I can think of James A. Garfield (he survived the shooting itself only to die 2.5 months later of the infections that his doctors introduced into his body by probing his body and bullet wound with their unwashed and dirty hands) and Teddy Roosevelt (who survived an attempted assassination attempt in 1912). However, which additional examples of this have there actually been for pre-World War I politicians? Futurist110 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are others on the list for which their Wikipedia article does not give details about the attempt, but this most likely means that it was foiled before the person could have been injured. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Jackson springs to mind, as he was famously shot in the chest during a duel in 1806 and lived with the bullet inside him for 39 years. Also Lachlan McIntosh, Charles Lucas, and probably quite a few others from back when dueling was de rigueur. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why the "(!)"? You expected more, fewer, an even number? Anyway, we were asked only about politicians. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
! = 257 articles is a lot of work to check to pick out the politicians who were in a duel with pistols instead of swords who were shot in said duel and who survived. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't argue with that, but I would have found a different way to express it. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Otto von Bismark was shot five times by Ferdinand Cohen-Blind; all five bullets made contact in some way, three "grazing" him and two striking his ribs. He was well enough to travel home under his own power, where a doctor examined him and declared his injuries minor. --Jayron32 21:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jefferson Davis was wounded in the Mexican-American war. George Washington somehow managed to escape being wounded, despite having several horses shot out from under him, and ending up with bullet holes in his hat and clothing. This is sometimes considered near-miraculous.[1]2601:648:8202:96B0:386A:A40C:EBB1:ACC0 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but William H. Seward was not shot. Coincidentally, Seward had been seriously injured in a carriage accident a week earlier and had a heavy metal brace around his face due to a broken jaw. He was attacked in bed as part of the same conspiracy that led to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Plotter Lewis Powell invaded his home and pistol whipped Seward's son, causing the weapon to misfire. Powell then ran upstairs and slashed and stabbed Seward five times in the face and neck. If not for the protection provided by the metal jaw brace, he probably would have died. But he was not shot. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible for US states to close their interstate borders and restrict access from another state especially during the current pandemic? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.14.47 (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One example was the California "blockade" of 1936 (of very doubtful legality). However it has been quite common in some areas for states to have inspection stations on the border where they ask travellers if they have any fruits or vegetables (which could be hosting insects harmful to agriculture)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, within states some regions are being closed off to non-residents. Dare County, North Carolina (basically the Outer Banks) has been sealed off, allowing access only to residents, property owners, and workers. Not sure of the legality of this, but it has been done, and there may other places as well. See [2]. The article doesn't say, but presumably delivery vehicles bringing supplies are also probably allowed. The county is extremely isolated, with basically only three roads (US 64, US 264, US 158) and a few ferries controlling access meaning that it can be easily sealed off from the outside world. Not sure about the practicality of other, less isolated areas being able to use similar methods. --Jayron32 20:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This may be of interest [3]. It mentions the case of Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1 (1900) [4] which we seem to lack an article on although we do have an article on Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health which dealt with restrictions in a limited way. That first link also mentions the case of Zemel v. Rusk but that didn't deal with the interstate issues. It also mentions one ACLU view, but that didn't really seem to deal with restrictions impose by a state without Congressional approval. Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What was the human life-span during the Han dynasty? Yellow Sunstreaker (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean average human life-span (i.e. life expectancy), or average life-span of humans who died in comparatively old age (i.e. ignoring children and women who died in childbed), or something else? Nyttend backup (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the typical human life-span, ignoring childhood deaths. Yellow Sunstreaker (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on the artist Dorothy Hepworth has next to nothing about her family background, only that her father was wealthy and lost his money in the Crash of '29. Can anyone supply any more information? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't found his name, sorry, but here is a source for the info as you stated it, if you wish to add to the article: [5]70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
