Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 April 6

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.

April 6

9999-year lease

Has any ever heard of a 9,999-year lease that's not a recent stunt? This edit claims that an English nobleman made such a lease in 1597; neither it, nor anything else in the current version of this article, has a source. 99-year lease notes that this is generally the longest possible lease term under common law, although we have examples of 999-year leases. Not sure if this is a typo, vandalism, or just a really really long lease. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That would have been William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby. [1] mentions the 9,999 year lease and gives a citation for the deed, which I have no idea where to look up. No idea whether the rule against perpetuities would have been in conflict with such a thing. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me of a story about the poorly-funded World Football League. It was said that they had offered a player a million-dollar contract: A dollar a year for a million years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

In the Scientology Sea Org, they sign billion-year contracts... AnonMoos (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The Victoria County Histories are pretty reliable, so you can trust their citation of the lease, although I can't find it online either. It looks like it's in the National Archives, and there are other deeds from Bicester that show up online, but I can't find that one specifically. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The question would be whether the terms of the lease are still in force, or whether they were vacated by a court or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"Arthur Guinness signed a lease for the facilities for the St. James Brewery, an unused set of commercial buildings in Dublin, Ireland. The lease was to run for up to 9,000 years for an annual rent of £45. The Guinness Brewery has sold a great deal of beer but paid a total of £11,250 in rent in 250 years since the lease was signed, or about $17,100". Real Estate Law by Marianne M. Jennings (p. 213). Here is a photo of the document which the caption wrongly claims is for 9,999 years. Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I saw that one (it was the reason I added the "recent stunts" part), but I didn't click the link to Mr Guinness, so I didn't realise that he was not exactly a recent figure. I wonder if the company has to pay rent in sterling, or if they pay in Euros now. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

According to this this forum thread, apparently by a member of the family of the original lessor, Mark Rainsford; "In 1963 or thereabouts the Guinness empire went and found a relation of Rainsford in Australia and got him to sign over all rights to the factory and land. The following year or so Guinness became a public company". Alansplodge (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Imperial yellow

Where did the dye for the imperial yellow robes of Chinese emperors come from? What natural substance was used to create it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7CF0:3070:7065:E3C9:FDE3:DEC7 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

A good candidate is Reseda luteola. Native to Eurasia and in use since BC. 196.213.35.147 (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

While not specifically dealing with imperial robes this source mentions that as being very popular in Western Europe [2]. It doesn't mention so for China or really anywhere in Asia. It does mention a dye used for imperial robes in some cases from Maclura tricuspidata, as well as in China in general. Although it's also possible Maclura cochinchinensis was used. Other dyes are mention relating to China although it's not clear to me how much evidence there is these were used for textiles in most cases. Nil Einne (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

[3] has some info from the 17 and 18th century. pagoda bud (I presume from Styphnolobium japonicum). Alum was another important component. There is a bunch more research e.g. [4] [5] especially from Jing Han which likely deal with this at least for parts of the Ming and Qing dynasties. (Also explanations of their research e.g. [6].) Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

More information about the pagoda tree is here. Alansplodge (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

See also Waifa, "A yellow-green dye developed from the flower buds of the Japanese pagoda tree, Sophora japonica, native to Japan, China and India". Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Title edit - added link. 41.13.196.155 (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

essay on the film adaptation

Is there a website that shows an example of argumentative essay of the film Adaptation by Charlie Kaufman with the following elements: binary oppositions, the context-author's argument and one that would make the author's argument different, anomalies, habitual thinking, assumptions, subjectivity, how did he use logos, ethos, and pathos (modes of persuasion), the thesis, dialectic, the language and style, and the 10 on 1 strategy? Please and thank you. Donmust90 (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Please tell us you're not looking for an essay mill. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"10 on 1 strategy" sounds like another name for "foot fetish". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It's explained here [7]. The italicised phrase (above the diagram) should read it is better to make ten observations or points about a single representative issue or example than to make the same basic point about ten related issues or examples. For some reason the last six words have been omitted. 92.19.170.76 (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

American race formation

I notice many “White Americans” identify as “White” or “American”. “Blacks” identify as “Black”. But then, you get to the other races, and they start identifying by national origin or ancestry. So, whites and blacks identify by color, while everyone else identify by national origin, ancestry, or ethnicity. On forms, there may be White and Black checkboxes, but the other boxes for other races aren’t really based on color. How come? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

First, the easy part: "Blacks" don't typically identify by national origin, ancestry, or ethnicity because many don't know it. Most blacks in the United States are descended from slaves, so they have absolutely no idea of their ancestry beyond "Africa or maybe the Caribbean" or genetic testing. And Whites have been entrenched here so long that they feel much less kinship with their ancestral homeland; they'll typically have a bunch of ancestors from multiple countries. They haven't needed to deliminate themselves, as "White" is sufficient in America to get ahead. Like, I know my ancestry is generally Irish, Scottish, and German - so I'm "white". I'm not Irish-Scots-German.

As for Asians: They're all much more recent arrivals than whites and blacks, so there's more tie to the ancestral homeland; and we can't forget the inherent racism many people have of asking Asians "where are you from?" because hey, they obviously aren't "from here," and even if born in the U.S., that's not what they mean by the question, the question really is "what part of Asia are your genetics from". Even those who have been here for generations, I recall a bit from a comedy asking an Asian-looking doctor, "Where are you from?" "Denver." "Right, but where are your parents from?" "Denver." White is considered the default, so anyone else - other than blacks, who have been here nearly as long as whites - is considered a foreigner by default.

But there's also the fact that "color" descriptions of other races is considered stupid and racist. First, "yellow" has negative connotations here, thanks to racism against Chinese in the past. But also, because Asia - surprisingly - is a really damn big place, with people ranging from Russians to Arabs to Japanese to Indians to Javanese to Caucasians to Filipinos. It's a vastly more diverse continent than Africa and Europe if you're counting purely by "what obsolete delimination of color do you look like," as Africa can be typically divided into "black and Arab", and Europe is simply "white".

And of course, the fact that "red" is poor form should be obvious to anyone familiar with sports team naming.

So, short version: Whites and blacks identify by color because their old world ancestry is either cryptic or too distant; others are not identified by color because of racism in the past, and/or because to many they're too recent arrivals to count as American. --Golbez (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There is more genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world combined. It is self-identity that is being reported, nothing to do with race. Which is I guess what is important for decisions - not where they actually came from or are descended from. Dmcq (talk)

Oh, I know there's genetic diversity there, but if you ask Americans "what races come from there" they'll have two answers, because the American concept of race is pretty dysfunctional. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

How do you figure? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

How do I figure that Americans have a dysfunctional concept of "race"? Well, the fact that we can lump all white people together, despite ranging from Argentina to France to Egypt to Siberia, and all black people together, despite ranging from Cuba to Nigeria to Kenya to the Philippines, but Asians are an Other and therefore can only be described as their most recent foreign genetic country of origin? That seems pretty dysfunctional. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Golbez (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

So you're using "dysfunctional" as a synonym for "something you don't agree with." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm disagreeing with something that's dysfunctional. --Golbez (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"as Africa can be typically divided into "black and Arab", "

The Berbers would disagree, as they are neither particularly dark-skinned, nor fully Arabized.

"and Europe is simply "white"."

Have you visited Europe lately? African emigrants to Italy, Afro-Belgians, Afro-Dutch, Afro-Germans, Afro-Portuguese, Afro-Romanians, Afro-Russians, Afro-Spaniards, Afro Turks, Afro-Ukrainians, Black British, Black people in Ireland, an Blacks in France are all visible minorities. Most countries in Europe currently have minorities originating in Africa and Asia. Dimadick (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Reading is fundamental. I didn't say those were the realities; I said that's what your typical American who thinks only of, wait, let me find my own quote from slightly earlier in the sentence you're quoting from ... "what obsolete delimination of color do you look like", yeah, what those people think of Africa and Europe. Quick, go ask a random American about the Berbers or what a European looks like. I'll wait here. --Golbez (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

And nobody has mentioned Hispanic, or Latino, which seem to be racial(?) labels based on language spoken. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The racial lines for Hispanic/Latino baseball players, before the color line was lifted, allowed Dolph Luque to play in the majors, but would not have allowed someone such as Minnie Miñoso. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

See Hispanic#Definitions in the United States. The definition of hispanic, especially those used by parts of the federal government generally does not count it as a race. Instead it's considered an ethnicity or something else. Someone may be hispanic and white the same as they are hispanic and female or white and female i.e. as separate categories; rather than being both or mixed of the same category, the way someone may be Asian and white. (Of course, Asian could also be something other than a race.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

So confusing. I'm glad I live in a country where the only common labelling that occurs for most of us is one's self-declared ancestry. No race. No ethnicity. HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Australian aborigines have always been treated as equals, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No. And even now there's a slight difference. It's common on government forms in Australia to see the question "Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders ancestry?" It's a self declaration at that point, and can give the person saying "Yes" some advantage. HiLo48 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Self-declared ancestry

HiLo’s comment above has me wondering... In the US, We tend to hyphenate our identity (either specifically: Korean-American, German-American, Irish-American... or generally: Afro-American, Asian-American, Euro-American)... no matter how many generations pass, you never really get to the point where you are simply considered “American”. (This may be because everyone’s ancestors were at some point immigrants ... even Native-Americans, if you go back far enough... so where the family emigrated FROM continues to be considered important.) My question is... How does this work in other parts of the world? How many generations of a family have to live in France, Australia, China (or whatever) before you are considered simply French, or Australian, or Chinese (or whatever)? Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

On the Australian census, there is no question about race, or ethnicity. There is one that asks your ancestry. One option is Australian. Over 30% choose that option, including me. Aboriginal people make up less than 3% of the population, so it's obvious people of many different backgrounds choose that option. HiLo48 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Blueboar -- some people do answer "American" to relevant census questions, and you can even see maps which graph such replies (they seem to be concentrated in the upper south). In France, it's very noticeable that Muslims of North African ancestry are not considered "Français de souche" even after three generations, but perceptions may sometimes be a little less strict with respect to children and grandchildren of European migrants to France. In China, there's a distinction between Han Chinese and "minorities" -- the "minorities" can be fully Chinese citizens legally, but are not ethnically Chinese in the sense of being Han. AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Greek census no longer counts Greece's "ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities", and includes no relevant questions since 1951. It counts which of the current Greek population are foreign-born or hold foreign citizenship.

In practice, much of Greece's population have recent ancestry from immigrants and refugees. Greece managed to annex several new areas due to the Balkan Wars, World War I, and World War II, and part of the populations annexed were not ethnic Greeks. The Population exchange between Greece and Turkey (1923) considered as "Greek" practically the entire Greek Orthodox population of Anatolia (several of which did not actually speak the Greek language and were of disputed ethnicity), and as "Turks" practically the entire Muslim population of Greece (several of which did speak Greek as a native language.) Large populations were expelled from Greece, and large populations were forcefully displaced to Greece. Several Greeks still consider themselves Anatolians and have formed various heritage organizations.

Immigration to Greece increased with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. People from several European and Central Asian states either simply arrived in Greece seeking jobs, or claimed Greek ethnicity (an easy way towards citizenship) based on (sometimes remote) Greek ancestry. Several of the "Greek citizens" in the census are the recent arrivals from the Soviet Union, and continue to privately use the Russian language or various ethnic languages. Several of them are recent arrivals from Albania, Bulgaria, Moldavia, and Romania. Add various people who don't hold Greek citizenship, but are permanent residents.

Greece is no longer particularly homogeneous in population (something not fully reflected in the official census) and this has led to an increase of xenophobia and a number of political disputes over the last decades. I often find it darkly amusing that grandchildren and great-grandchildren of immigrants are now the ones shouting for the expulsion of the ones who arrived during the European migrant crisis. Dimadick (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Japanese orphans in China, international adoptions, citizenship

So, a person gets Japanese citizenship by having a Japanese father. If a foreigner comes to Japan and marries a Japanese woman and has kids born in Japan, then are the kids Japanese? Or does the foreigner have to get Japanese citizenship to be Japanese so his kids will be treated like Japanese citizens? Since Japanese war orphans were adopted by Chinese families, were they international adoptees? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Japanese nationality law says that if either parent is a Japanese national at the time of birth. So the foreigner would not need Japanese citizenship if the spouse was Japanese. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The law changed in 1950 - at the end of the war, Japanese nationality only came through a Japanese father. See History of Japanese nationality Wymspen (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)