Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 February 12

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.

February 12

Mitt Romney

President Obama’s father was from Kenya and his mother was a white American. Even though Obama is mulatto, he is considered to be the America’s first black president, which is truly historical in the U.S. I’ve heard Mitt Romney, who seems at the moment to be the most likely to become the Republican nominee; say in several several times his father is from Mexico. I didn't know this before. So, if Obama is considered to be America’s first black president even though he’s of mixed race, would it be right to say that if Romney were to become president (for the sake of the question), he would be America’s first Hispanic or Latino president even though he is of mixed race as well (half white, half Hispanic or Latino)? If so, would that be very historical too? If so, why isn’t anyone talking about the historical aspects and implications of this? Is it a non-issue and if so, why? Everyone was talking about the historical aspects and implications of Obama becoming the first African American president in American history, and rightly so. FYI, I'm Hispanic. Willminator (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some points...

From our article on Mulatto, "modern implications of the term are derogatory", so let's just drop that.

Being honest about this, race is a very vague and imprecise subject. Most people just see Obama as black, and the nice, politically correct term for that at present is African-American. It's also what he self-identifies as. So that gets Obama out of the way.

As a non-American I can't see what the difference is between Hispanic and Latino, and have sometimes wondered if they all just become White when they have kids with "normal" American accents.

Anything we write about Romney has to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for the biographies of living persons. This means following what (very) reliable sources say to guide what we say. Race being such a sensitive issue for Americans, it's really necessary that we use what Romney says about himself. Self-identification is critical here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, which by the way had no need of identifying yourself as a non-American, the distinction between Hispanic and Latino is primarily a political argument within that community itself. I don't understand all the nuances, but one of the issues seems to be that Hispanic is an English word and some activists prefer a Spanish one, and another issue is that, in the eyes of some, Hispanic is overly connected to Spain as opposed to Latin America. Then the term Latin America brings up its own briar patch — does it include Portuguese-speaking Brazil? Usually yes, but what about French-speaking parts of the Caribbean?

Anyway, in California, Latino seems to be the safer term, whereas in Texas, the usual word is Hispanic — that's just my personal observation; I don't claim to understand the logic, if any, behind it. --Trovatore (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There's not necessarily anything inherently wrong with mulatto as a word,[1] but it's considered to smack of old-style racial stereotyping, so it's not used. It's as obsolete, or maybe even more so, as "Negro" is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Romney's white grandfather fled with his wives to Mexico to avoid the prohibition on polygamy. (just answer the question without all the drama) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Obama would be traditionally considered black under the "one-drop rule". Romney's ancestors in Mexico were an American-Mormon-English-speaking enclave, and it would be rather problematic for Romney to claim "Hispanic" heritage... AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I just watched [this video] and read [this CNN opinion piece]. When I first heard Mitt Romney say that his father was born in Mexico, I assumed that meant that his father was Latino. Now, I learned that my assumption was wrong. I'm always willing to learn new things. However, based on these links, the question about whether or not Mitt Romney would be America's first Hispanic American president if he were to succeed in becoming so is apparently on the table and still valid. Willminator (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't valid unless he personally self-identifies as "Hispanic". I've not heard any statements to the effect that he does. --Jayron32 04:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In the United States, Latino and Hispanic are basically synonymous. The terms refer to people with deep roots, typically going back several generations if not centuries, in Spanish-speaking Latin America (some might extend the terms to cover Brazilians as well). Romney does not qualify as Latino or Hispanic because his ancestors were all English-speaking people of generally British descent who spent a generation or two in an English-speaking enclave of Mexico for political/religious reasons. Calling Romney Hispanic would be like calling Rudyard Kipling Desi or South Asian. Marco polo (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that Michigan has now had a Mexican governor (George W. Romney) and a Canadian governor (Jennifer Granholm). We really take this free trade stuff seriously. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Although George Romney was born outside the USA, he is considered a "natural born" American citizen, because his parents were American. If he were not, he would have been ineligible to run for the Presidency, as he did back in the 60s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nitpick: He would have been ineligible to be elected president. Anyone can run, but eligibility issues only come into play once the election is held. He wasn't elected anyway, so the issue was never tested. It might be a more perfect system to confirm the elgibility of all candidates before the election is held, to avoid the issue of someone getting elected and then having their election overturned on the grounds of ineligibility. Obama has gone to the trouble of producing his birth certificate after his election, to shut up the birthers. How much argy-bargy might have been avoided had he done so before the election. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Obama's citizenship wasn't an issue during the campaign. In fact, he was born in a US State while McCain was born in a then-territory of the US, the canal zone. Some extreme right-wingers started broaching the subject as election day approached, but the somewhat-broader conspiracy theory didn't really take hold until later. Back to George Romney, if his citizenship were in serious question, the Republican party would not have allowed him to run in their primaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I went looking for this on Google,[2] and there have been fringe candidates such as Roger Calero who ran for President despite not being an American citizen. He did not appear on some state ballots because of laws within those states keeping him off the ballot. You would think there would be some uniformity there, but no. In any case, a major party would not allow a non-citizen to run for President, since that non-citizen would never be allowed to hold the office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's easy enough to prove one's citizenship, and if one is clearly not a citizen, they'd be justifed in shutting the door on any candidate who had no hope of being validly elected. But one must be not only a citizen, but a "natural-born" citizen. Where there's any doubt about this more stringent requirement, political parties don't get to determine who does or does not satisfy it. In the case of the Romneys, the Goldwaters and the McCains of the world, the balance of opinion seems to be in their favour, but ultimately it's only opinion. The only body, as I understand it, that can definitively state exactly what it means to be a "natural-born citizen" for the purposes of presidential eligibility is the Supreme Court, and they've never been asked. Who knows, maybe they'll repeal this discriminatory part of the Constitution before the SC ever gets into the act at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be in favor of that, but it's not going to happen in the forseeable future. Remember that you need 3/4 of the several states, which means it takes only 13 states to block such an amendment. There are easily 13 states where this is a non-starter.

As regards the supreme court, it's not clear they're competent to judge the matter at all. They might find it to be non-justiciable. The constitution, if I remember correctly, says exactly nothing explicit about who is to enforce the natural-born requirement, but the procedure for challenging a candidate's qualifications in general appears to be limited to the tallying of electoral votes in Congress. If a president were found not to have been a natural-born citizen after that procedure is finished, I don't know whether there's any remedy. --Trovatore (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Political parties don't get to decide who's a citizen, but they do get to decide who their candidates are. Supposing for a moment that Roger Calero's politics were sufficiently aligned with one of the major parties to be considered as a potential candidate otherwise, he would not have been allowed to run under the party banner, because he was clearly not a natural-born citizen of the USA. The Socialist Workers were free to run him because they knew there was no chance of his getting elected, so his entry was merely as a political statement of some kind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, he claims that the Hawaiian authorities wouldn't cooperate, because there is no established procedure for releasing the "long form" certificate and they were reluctant to invent such a procedure just for this. That may be true. Another possibility that occurs to me is that Obama had a deliberate strategy of making this particular group of opponents stick their necks out as far as possible, so they would look as foolish as possible when he dropped the axe. Who knows. Doesn't matter much now. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

African American and Latino Muslim women marriage

Is there a study where African American Muslim women (meaning new Muslims) and Latino Muslim women (meaning new Muslims) marrying Muslim men from Muslim-majority nations like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Arab World, Africa, Turkic World and Malaysia and Indonesia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.4 (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Studying what ? StuRat (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The OP means to ask whether there is there a study of how many African American or Latina Muslim women marry men from the Muslim-majority nations. I doubt if there are many good studies of that topic. You would do better to ask in a mosque or an Islamic association. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Help me find an Indian story

I remember reading this great short story in a Reddit comment a long time ago but I can't find it now. The story is about a man in India who falls in love with a girl in his class. Since the girl is much richer than him, he does not have much chance of marrying her. One day, he bribes the person that drives her to school to reveal her address. He goes to her house, chains himself to a gate, and starts screaming for her hand in marriage. Many people from the girl's household come outside to tell him to shut up and stop making a scene but he refuses to give up. He continues his screaming. Finally, the girl comes outside and agrees to marry him if he will be quiet. He looks up and sees that it's the wrong girl. The driver gave him the wrong address. The man marries her anyway and does not reveal to anyone except strangers on trains that his wife is not who he wanted to marry.

I remember that this story was written by an Indian author. I would like to reread this story. I have searched but I have not been able to find the story. If someone could find it for me, it would be greatly appreciated. -- Metroman (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Harpsichord sustain pedal.

Does the harpsichord have a sustain pedal, like hte one on the right side of the piano?186.31.47.119 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, a harpsichord has no pedals. Lindert (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

the jack; note the damper at the top

(ec)At least not on a conventional harpsichord, no (there's all kinds of weird harpsichord-like things that I don't know much about). The damping on a harpsichord comes from a little damper that's on the top of the jack - when you release the key, the jack falls and the damper damps the string. One can think about how one would implement a sustain pedal (how one would prevent the damper from falling when the key is released). The naive way would be to have the sustain pedal jam the jack in the top position. But this would hold the plectrum part of the jack too (because they're just all on the one sliver of wood). So with a sustain like that, you couldn't play the same key twice (without dropping the sustain pedal to release the captive jacks). A more complex mechanism would be to break the rigid link between the plectrum and the damper; a conventional harpsichord doesn't, but the damping mechanism of a piano (where the damper and the hammer are separately articulated) does. It wouldn't be especially hard for an instrument maker to replace the hammer mechanism of a piano with a plectrum mechanism, thus producing something that sounded a bit like a harpsichord but with a sustain pedal. There are modern harpsichords with pedals, but these switch which sets of strings sound. There are also harpsichords with pedal keyboards (though I imagine one has to drink lots of coffee to be able to play that very effectively). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You see, the problem is I'm composing something for this instrument, but I had fooled myself into believing that it had a sustain pedal. Would you know how to write the piece in a way that the performer would understand that he has to hold down the notes (by holding the finger until the chord changes, since it is mostly arpeggiated)?186.31.47.119 (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're trying to sustain a note - press it once and it sounds until it's released - I think you're out of luck. As a harpsichord's strings are plucked rather than struck (as piano strings are), the sound cannot be sustained merely by holding down the key. Maybe rewrite for a different instrument. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Harpsichords sustain just fine by holding down the key. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Moonlight sonata is, at least in theory, written for piano or harpsichord, with the sustaining part written for the left hand (I don't know how well that really turns out in practice). But compared with a piano, it's a rather inflexible and inexpressive instrument, and it's hard to not sound like a plinky-plunky Bach knock-off. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by your opening sentence, Finlay? I've never heard of the Moonlight being played on or even composed for the harpsichord. To my knowledge, Beethoven wrote not a single note for the harpsichord. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Beethoven and the harpsichord - Nunh-huh 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, the things you learn. Thanks for that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I must take issue here. Surly the plinky-plunky you're referring to is that of the clavichord Youtube. It was louder than the harpsichord and don't get me wrong , the piano (hence its name) was louder still and a superior instrument, enough to deafen Beethoven ( OK, I jest but you get my point about progression). The harpsichord however, when played in the intimate confines of the parlour was a wondrous sound and barely one mortal step away from angelic harps of the heavens... youtube (Please ignore the smug expression on the ivory-ticklers face -it his rendition that's important) Nothing plinky-plonky about that -is there?--Aspro (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I must take issue with your taking issue. The harpsichord is unquestionably louder than the clavichord. A clavichord produces about 50 dB at a 2meter distance, making it of necessity a chamber instrument, whereas a harpsichord can fill a concert hall and compete with an orchestra. You'll find many harpsichord concertos, but damn few if any clavichord concertos! I also very much think the "plinky-plunky" refers to the harpsichord (an instrument where the player cannot vary the volume of individual notes, because they are plucked) and not the clavichord (where the strings are struck by metal tangents directly embedded in the keys, and where variation is exquisitely possible, though over a narrow dynamic range). I'm with you on preferring the harpsichord, next to which the clavichord sounds like rubber-bands strung across a cigar box. - Nunh-huh 03:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this page has some links where the information you require can be found. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

...how to write the piece in a way that the performer would understand that he has to hold down the notes". Bach's Goldberg Variations, for harpsichord, is written out with note lengths carefully indicated. That is, he clearly indicates when one should press a key as well as when one should release it. The piece is full of notes being held over other changing notes, creating various harmonies. The same is true of other harpsichord or clavier music Bach wrote, like the French Suites and Partitas for keyboard. Our article on the Goldberg Variations has many examples of the music notation. Pfly (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)