Humanities desk
< September 27	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 28[edit]

Uncontacted peoples[edit]

Are there any Uncontacted peoples tribes in Africa?==

See Dogon people, West Africa. Also see Himba people herders, Namibia. Bayaka, Central African Republic. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way could these possibly be described as "uncontacted"? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "The past century has seen significant changes in the social organisation, material culture and beliefs of the Dogon, partly because Dogon country is one of Mali's major tourist attractions.". Hardly uncontacted.... Our convenient article on uncontacted peoples does not mention any in Africa. Fgf10 (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted your question into Google and got (first result): How many uncontacted tribes are left in the world? by Bob Holmes from the New Scientist in 2013. I quote: "There are thought to be around 15 uncontacted tribes in Peru, a handful in other Amazonian countries, a few dozen in the Indonesian part of the island of New Guinea and two tribes in the Andaman Islands off the coast of India. There may also be some in Malaysia and central Africa".

I'm reminded of the old Tom Lehrer song: "These are the only ones of which the news has come to Harvard, / And there may be many others but they haven't been discovered". [1] Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more Googling finds Health and Disease in Tribal Societies edited by Katherine Elliott, Julie Whelan (p. 47): "...in the Bangwela swamps in Zambia, for example, there probably are some uncontacted people". Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative support for marijuana legalization[edit]

Has marijuana legalization ever received any conservative support? Uncle dan is home (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define "conservative". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., libertarians often are pro-legalization. (In the U.S. libertarians aren't exactly conservatives, but they're much closer to conservative than to liberal or moderate. Basically they're conservatives who depart from conservative orthodoxy on some matters of personal choice but are more extreme on some other issues. Well, sort of. It's complicated.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the Conservative Party (UK) (probably quite liberal by US standards), they're offially against legalisation, but see May's letter will reignite cannabis debate, says Lord Monson, qwhich says that it's subject to a policy review. Alansplodge (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, Scott Reid is the cool one. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservative" is not a political party. It is a type of political orientation. Anything can be "conservative" as long as there is someone even more liberal than said party. It's really relative. If you're talking about the USA, then there are the Republicans and Democrats, of which the Republicans will probably be more conservative and diametrically opposed to any ideas suggested by the other party. Therefore, this question is not answerable. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a (U.S.) national Conservative Party. However, it's so meaningless politically that when people talk about what "conservatives" think they are generally talking about conservative members of some other party... mostly the Republican party. - Nunh-huh 14:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the History of Cannabis reaches back all the way to the Classical Greeks and Romans, which is infact the center foundation of western conservatism, it is some surprise this has become such a major issue for conservatives. Also the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 reveals how much this was part of western culture all the time. It was Richard Nixon with his fanatic War on Drugs however that pushed policy far over the edge in comparing Cannabis with Heroin, Cocain, Crack and alike real "hard drugs".

What followed is the odd mechanics of political Legacy in democratic politics. Politicans only rise to power from inbetween the party rows and thus they bond with the political Legacy, making it near impossible or even political suicide to change the Legacy or question the Legacy of famous Leaders. Had it only been Richard Nixon, this fanatic war on drugs had long be revised but it was most prominently Ronald Reagan too, who continued this "holy" war on drugs. So the political Legacy oddly prevents western conservatives to treat cannabis as the Cultural heritage it factual is and has been for centuries in western culture. --Kharon (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conventional conservatives are not known for supporting "vices" such as drug use and prostitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not politically, but some are known for directly paying for sex. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to Democrats who ran gay brothels out of their houses or flew to the DR for sex tourism yet didn't fight to legalize prostitution? Political cherrypicking is discourse at the lowest level. Politicians are hypocrites. William F. Buckley ran as the Conservative Party of New York candidate for Mayor of NYC, yet also bragged in print that he had smoked and enjoyed marijuana--yet he never fought for drug legalization. In fact, dying from the habit, he called for the illegalization of tobacco on his death bed. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buckley never "fought for" drug legalization; that's probably true. But I had it in my memory that he was at least "in favor of" cannabis legalization, though he may not have put any particular effort into it. Am I mistaken? --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the word fought on purpose. Googling gets you "Buckley on Cannabis". This may have been around the time Wilhelm was advocating tattooing the HIV positive. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was on March 18, 1986 that Buckley advocated that any "AIDS carrier" be identified as such with two (2) tattoos: one on the upper arm, and one on the buttock. An "AIDS test" would be required before a marriage licence would be issued, and if it was positive, the marriage could be permitted only if the female was sterilized. (Odd position for someone supposedly a staunch Catholic.) Buckley required that all people, not only those getting married, should be tested. (Which is also a somewhat strange position for someone supposedly a staunch Conservative. But homophobia, scientific illiteracy and fear make for strange positions.)- Nunh-huh 11:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't picking on Republicans, I just figured we were talking about them. Historically, Democrats are the more commonly scandalous. Fred Richmond seems to be the only one who had weed on him, and the only one sent to the loony bin; coincidence? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs. Conservatives dont support drugs? Go into politics, become a major. Then propose a local tax on beer and watch who will hunt you! Let me give you a hint. It will not be the progressives! --Kharon (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxes on legal products like alcohol and tobacco (also known as "sin-taxes") are a long-established sources of revenue. Legalizing illegal sbstances and putting a tax on them have long been talked about, but little has been done except maybe in a few states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, I attended a party in the early 90's where about half the guests were Republican lawyers, none of them defense attorneys that I recall. They spent the hour before dinner discussing how being a lawyer was the best way to do drugs (of all sorts) and get away with it, since there was no drug testing, professional courtesy, and everyone had the dirt on the judges. The attitude was "I got mine, Jack", and petty drug "offenders" were laughed at. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a crook, specifically, not a drug dealer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Well, just keep your hands off my stash.... μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of money could ever convince me to soil my hands with your "stash", your "clunge", or any other of your body parts. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Uhmm. Interesting question. So I looked it up on Wikipedia. The answer is unequivocally yes. List of United States politicians who have acknowledged cannabis use. Still, that is just what Wikipedia says and what politician is going to believe wikipedians that haven't been elected? As μηδείς has observed, hypocrisy when it occurs, occurs by the bucket load. One law for them (the hoi polloi) and a different one for us -the law makers. Bush is reported to have spent hours on the phone to his lawyer tying to remember whether or not he had ever snorted cocaine so that he could issue a press statement. Then there is JFK's reliance on mediation that gave him so much stamina during his term in office. Aspro (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism in the United States we are talking about the US, right? Somehow I feel we are is not a single philosophy, but rather a coalition of groups that oppose certain types of change, often for very disparate reasons. Only a few of these groups have any coherent reason to oppose legal cannabis, but I speculate that the others often do so just to keep peace in the coalition.

Even then it's far from unanimous, and we're not just talking about people who could without torturing the language be described as "libertarian". The example of Buckley has already been given. During the last primary season, Ted Cruz said it should be a decision for the states, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement of legalization but is also not what you would expect from someone who thought it was an existential threat.

See https://qz.com/889367/republicans-marijuana-legalization/, http://time.com/3724131/conservatives-marijuana-buckley/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/cpac-2015-pot-republicans/index.html, --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another interesting case: Former Texas state legislator David Simpson, who is a Christian conservative. He says "I don’t believe that when God made marijuana he made a mistake that government needs to fix". See https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/03/the-republican-argument-to-end-marijuana-prohibition/?utm_term=.92bdf1253258. --Trovatore (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I researched him a little more, and I may have been wrong to call him "Christian right". He's Christian and on the right, but that's not the same thing. A lot of his positions seem more libertarian-conservative, despite his umbrage at Obergefell v. Hodges. --Trovatore (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspro: Awesome find this wikipedia article List of United States politicians who have acknowledged cannabis use#List of politicians who farmed hemp. So in today's terms almost all of the key Founding Fathers of the United States where factual Drug Lords - producing, distributing and selling industrial amounts of Hemp aka Cannabis sativa. --Kharon (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you carefully omit the fact that the industrial hemp they grew was used for making rope, paper and course cloth from the stem fibres, rather than extracting drugs from the leaves and flower buds, which in the cultivars they grew would have had low THC levels. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.210.199 (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of which (including most of what Kharon has said in this thread) is beside the point. The question was whether there is conservative support for cannabis legalization (in the US, I'm assuming, though it has not been explicitly stated). The answer is, yes, there is modest and quiet but non-negligible support from the right side of the American political spectrum. For another example, see Dana Rohrabacher. --Trovatore (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First amendment[edit]

Writing in yesterday's City A.M., Elena Shalneva claims that Americans do not understand the First Amendment and the fact that it protected "hate speech".

Is this true, or is it on the same level as the claim that the Constitution gives every citizen the right to walk around carrying guns (e.g. at the school Nativity play on Christmas Eve). 92.8.220.234 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution is a relatively old text to the extent that some of the things in the text are disputed because of changing times. How literally should one read the US Constitution? How much "wiggle room" does it allow? Different people have different interpretations, often matching up with their own political orientation. It is often difficult to know what the founding fathers actually had in mind, because back in 1700s, there was not much diversity. People didn't really see people who engaged in homosexual relations as gay people, people who just had a darker shade of skin color as black and brown people, etc. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question perhaps should have been, "Does the U.S. Supreme Court currently interpret the First Amendment as protecting "hate speech?", since that matters more than the plain meaning of the text. - Nunh-huh 14:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer is: Yes, the First Amendment does indeed protect "hate speech". Longer answer: It's complicated, because there are some important limitations on all speech (for example, one can not cry "fire" in a crowded movie theater), and those limitations apply to hate speech as well. There is a fine line between saying "all Xs should be shot" (an opinion, even if a repugnant one), and saying "Go, get a shotgun and kill all Xs" (an incitement to riot and murder). Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, basically speech in furtherance of a crime or tort is not protected: false advertising, fraud, assault, conspiracy, espionage, incitement and causing a riot are not protected speech. These all further actual acts which are illegal in themselves. μηδείς (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I think so far unmentioned are instnaces where the speech itself is the only crime: libel and slander - Nunh-huh 04:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing "incitement", the key case to understand is Brandenburg v. Ohio. You are allowed to advocate pretty much anything, including illegal and violent acts, at the level of abstract theory. If you get down to cases and call for specific illegal acts to happen proximately, then you lose your protection, at least if your listeners are actually likely to do it (see imminent lawless action).

The bottom line for the OP is, as you say, yes, the First Amendment protects "hate speech". --Trovatore (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references about hate speech and the First Amendment if you are feeling like reading from the Washington Post, the LA Times, and a couple from Popehat, one of my favorite law blogs. There is a specific article here that is a good read. uhhlive (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was a big deal when I was about 30. The Supreme Court upheld the right of American nazi groups to hold gatherings and promote hate in 1977. In 1978, the Blues Brothers made reference to this by having a sub-story about nazis. See National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. Note, "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist" - another thing that modern socialists conveniently forget. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Socialism was as similar to Socialism as the German Democratic Republic was to Democracy. Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. This is why American Nazis are always pushing for more government programs such as health care for all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are equivocating. People called Nazis now are not advocating the conquest of Slavic europe, alliance with Japan (as honorary Aryans), eugenics, and nationalization of Ford. They are simply uneducated white-supremacists who think Nazi memorabilia is cool. Godwin's law all over again. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of neo-Nazis is on target. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shantou[edit]

Can someone help find some good detailed travel description of the city of Shantou (Swatow) and the surrounding Chaozhou region from the 19th century which describes its culture and dialect?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Swatow to Canton by Herbert Allen Giles, published 1877. A proclamation from 1860 and a letter from 1858 about one specific aspect of life: the risk of being kidnapped by gangs and sold to foreign ships. A Handbook of the Swatow Vernacular by Hsiung-ch?êng Lin, published 1886. with a wordlist for foods. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]