Humanities desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 3 >

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 2

Sweet breakfasts

I look at American breakfasts. They are typically sweet. Pancakes are sweet. Waffles are sweet. Bagels may include sweet, fruity berries and a sweet cream cheese. Smoothies are sweet. Oatmeal porridge is thick and sweet, and oatmeal is eaten for breakfast. Tea is sweet. Coffee is sweet. If it's not sweet, it's meaty, like bacon, sausages, eggs, and hash browns. By lunch and dinner, food becomes more savory - soups, sandwiches, noodles. And that's when the vegetables come in. What's up with the sweetness for breakfast? Why do some cultures have rice porridge with visible vegetables and meat for breakfast (savory) or spicy noodles (savory) for breakfast while American breakfasts (at home and in restaurants) are typically sweet? What were American breakfasts like in the past? Were they always sweet? I once watched a documentary called Soul Food Junkies (2012), and the narrator reported how Black-Americans would cook for white families, which also influenced American cuisine, like macaroni and cheese. In The Search for General Tso (2014), non-Chinese Americans had a preference for sweetness, which caused American-Chinese restaurants to cater to their palates, like making sweeter foods. Maybe it's because of the location and the fact that there are a lot of maple trees for producing maple syrup? Maybe it's the affluence and power to buy spices, like sugar, and eating a lot of sugar in the morning is a display of wealth? I wonder if anybody has written about how these sweet breakfasts were formed or why American breakfasts are essentially sweet in the first place. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cereals, such as Kellogg's Sugar Frosted Flakes, were thought to provide quick energy. Lots of cereals used to brag about being sugary. Nowadays, they don't. But if you want to start your day off right, instead have a breakfast of rutabagas and liver. (That way, odds are good nothing worse will happen to you that day.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time frame? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Around 5 to 9 a.m. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant when people believed that sugar could provide quick energy in regards to the cereal brand. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That part isn't a myth. Unfortunately it can also lead to a sugar crash later, and may cause weight gain and eventually diabetes. StuRat (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50.4.236.254 -- most of the time, I dislike food with syrup in the morning (something about the heavy sweetness on an empty stomach), but I've been known to occasionally eat ice cream for breakfast...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's syrup?
Sleigh (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some part of syrup that was tricky for you? Matt Deres (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a sticky topic. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, we have an article called full breakfast that somewhat discusses this. According to it, North American breakfasts are derived from various UK influences. While you seem to think there's something unique about Americans eating sweets, that's far from the case. Oatmeal is so closely identified with Scotland that it's practically a national stereotype. Sweet jams, jellies, pastries, etc. are all common in UK breakfasts (and elsewhere). I am curious about your use of 'savory' above. I've seen it used to include "meat flavour" and umami and it sounds weird (to me) to ascribe it to sandwiches. Matt Deres (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So, North American breakfasts have UK influences. Makes sense, in a way. So, it's not just an American thing. It's an American and Western European thing. In the OP, my reference point was East Asian morning meals. And I thought "savory" meant "containing table salt". There is salt in sandwiches. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But Matt Deres, oatmeal (known as "porridge" over here) is traditionally eaten with salt in Scotland - "Scottish traditionalists insist that porridge should contain nothing more than oats, water and salt". Jam is for tea-time but marmalade is for breakfast, otherwise all the traditional British breakfasts are savoury ("salty and/or spicy, but not sweet"), for example, full English breakfast, bacon and eggs, bacon buttie, sausage sarnie, boiled eggs and soldiers, kippers and (very traditionally) kedgeree or devilled kidneys. Pastries for breakfast are a recent innovation in the UK and I suspect that few people eat them at home in the morning; I was 13 or 14 when I first saw a Danish pastry. Alansplodge (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So eat cereal for breakfast as it doesn't have syrup.
Sleigh (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fried eggs, omelettes, bacon, breakfast sausage, grits, mush, farina, wheatena, oatmeal, rice pudding, huevos rancheros - there are many non-sweet American breakfast foods (although some of these may be sweetened to taste). Rmhermen (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think sleep "resets" the mind. I think we want to fully exploit the "new" mind when we wake up. Sugar gives us that "spike" in alertness, as does caffeine, another common breakfast component. Bus stop (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Savory doesn't need to mean salty. It means umami. As for many of those "sweet foods": Pancakes, waffles, bagels, oatmeal, tea, and coffee need not be very sweet. The first 4 are good with just butter, and maybe a few berries. I have herbal tea with no sweetener. Many have coffee black. I also like a veggie omelette for breakfast, which gives me my veggies. StuRat (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many references for verifiably answering OP's question are cited in the Wikipedia article History of breakfast. See also the expertly curated Food Timeline site, esp., Breakfast: American, British, continental breakfast, second breakfast & brunch. The Food Timeline hosts a few pages (pp. 36-39) from Heather Arndt Anderson's Breakfast: A History (AltaMira Press, 2013) specific to the early history and post-WWII sweetening of Breakfast Cereal. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Savoury", like most words, has a variety of meanings. They include "tasty" and "umami". The relevant one here is "not (intented to be) sweet". --ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's that old Bedouin proverb: "The sweetest meat is outside the tent". :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Spanish sources on reburial of Riro Kāinga

Can someone help find some detailed news coverage for the reburial of Easter Island's last king Riro Kāinga. From the brief mentions in this secondary source I've used, I think it occurred around 2006 under Chilean president Michelle Bachelet. I presume a Chilean news source might have a more detail coverage of the event which I can google translate. Also some news coverage about the bust's unveiling mentioned here Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this [1] any use? Itsmejudith (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No that is about his grandson and his claim in 2011. The reburial event occurred in 2006 and possibly involved the Chilean president. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't tell if this is a news source or not but it does include details, such as a naval gun salute and the simultaneous return of a moai with the remains of the king. [2]. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Word for the belief that all religions are the "same"

Is there a word for a person who believes that you can believe in literally any religion and they are all literally "correct", because all of them are representations of the "same" religion, they talk about the "same" God?

As opposed to saying: you can only believe in religion X, because all the other religions are wrong.

(Personally, I'm an atheist and don't believe in any gods.)

Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Universalism or Omnism. Perennialism is related but a touch narrower ("all religions drawing on ancient sources are valid" instead of "any religion is valid"). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These descriptors tease out features which are common to different religions. Nobody goes so far as to say that all religions worship the same god because manifestly they don't. 149.254.56.172 (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are people who say that all religions worship the same god... that different religions simply worship different aspects (or avatars) of god. Unfortunately I don't know if there is a term for this belief. Blueboar (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson -- in traditional terminology, Universalism meant the belief that all souls could ultimately be saved. In the 19th century there were a significant number of Christian universalists who believed that Christianity was the one true religion, but that it was possible that all souls could ultimately be saved.

As for the original question, there's a stream of Hindu philosophy going through Adi Shankara and Vijnanabhiksu which can reconcile the most diverse deity names and forms of worship as all being part of an ultimate monism... AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that religions should understand and talk to each other is called Ecumenism. Although not believing that they are "the same", it does require the acceptance of some common ground. Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pantheism believes that everything in the universe is part of God, even kids being forced to beat their parents to death. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some religions which hold themselves some commonality to all other religions, i.e. Bahá'í Faith, Unitarian Universalism, Meivazhi etc. --Jayron 32 01:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Thomson's suggestions Omnism etc seem the best, panentheism is also worth a look. A famous quote on the topic - from when the author entered prison: "I was much cheered, on my arrival, by the warder at the gate, who had to take particulars about me. He asked my religion and I replied ‘agnostic’. He asked how to spell it, and remarked with a sigh: ‘Well, there are many religions, but I suppose they all worship the same God.’ This remark kept me cheerful for about a week." Bertrand Russell, Autobiography, Routledge 2009 edition, p. 243.John Z (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original question confuses two separate concepts: "they are all literally correct" and "they are the same religion/they talk about the same God". The question assumes that all religions are creedal, but some are not. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are young people less likely to be religious worldwide?

Are young people less likely to be religious worldwide? Or are they more likely to follow a different religious tradition or ethical ideology? I'm not sure whether young people worldwide are becoming less religious in the sense that they are converting to irreligiousity or in the sense that they are converting to a different religion, especially against the religion or ideology of their parents. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In sociological matters likeliness can be very difficult to determine. Say we admit any reasonable opinion of where ideology stands in our present for an introduction. Bonnie Raitt about young people: "You can make a record with a laptop in the morning and have it up on YouTube in the afternoon and be a star overnight. The talent on YouTube is incredible, and it can spread like wildfire. The downside is that it's very hard to convince the younger generation that they should pay for music" ([3]). And about religion: "Religion is for people who are scared to go to hell. Spirituality is for people who have already been there." At first sight the answer to your first question would be "yes", YouTube wildfires can't be so frightening, but maybe follow-ups would show there is a wider pattern and that it's cyclical. --Askedonty (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Growth of religion#Future growth shows that recently atheism and agnosticism haven't been growing as fast as various religions. As someone who thinks it is all hooey I just shake my head in amazement at what people do. Dmcq (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant and not directly addressing the question. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Believing that it's all hooey is just as rigid a position as believing it's all true. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

No, that's self-evidently wrong. Atheism requires no belief in anything, as it does not posit the existence of anything that violates the laws of physics. It's not a position, it's reality. Fgf10 (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I believe that Jack of Oz meant to imply that "strong" atheism takes a definite position on the existence of the supernatural, though it's not clear that there's valid scientific evidence either for or against the existence of the supernatural. In that sense it's kind of intruding into the metaphysical realm. On the other hand, if you just say that God is an "unnecessary hypothesis" (as Laplace would say), without strongly denying existence, then that criticism would not apply... AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well he did say "believing that it's all hooey". I don't have to believe, I have reality on my side. God is indeed an "unnecessary hypothesis", mythology dreamed up by people who lived in a world they did not understand, and perpetuated by those whose minds are to weak to deal with the fact their existence is essentially meaningless. Fgf10 (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen at least one other person take this approach to the word "belief". Makes no sense to me. A "belief" is just any proposition that you consider to be true, or most likely true. Do you think it's most likely true that water is wet? Then that's one of your beliefs. There's nothing more mysterious about it than that. --Trovatore (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belief is what you think is true, fact is what is proven to be true. People often falsely use the word beliefs when they are actually talking about facts. It is a fact that water is wet (though that is a poor example, as that is per definition), not a belief. I don't have to believe water freezer at 0C, that's a fact. Fgf10 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A belief is anything you think is true. Period. Even if you've proven it true, it remains a belief. --Trovatore (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define "reality". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The laws of physics. Fgf10 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know all the laws of physics? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This, This, and this all seem relevant to the OP question. --Jayron 32 01:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean specifically in the West, I don't know. In China, there are many Buddhists and Christians, typically around the age of Gen-X, the parents (typically) of the youth today. They chose these religions as the society began to free up, rather than inheriting them from their parents. None of the youth in my experience had any interest in religion, and seemed generally totally indifferent to the whole thing.

You might also be interested in this. It includes information about what makes people gravitate towards religion, and then what gets them to stay. On gravitating: "...people are structurally more or less available during the course of their lives." and: "People who are in that condition of freedom [i.e. structurally more available] often find it much easier to shift who they are and what they are going to be when they grow up." Regarding actually staying: "what we discovered watching conversion is that if people had more and closer ties to the group than they had ties to people outside the group trying to pull them back, they joined, but if the equation worked out the other way, they didn’t join. The marvelous thing is how unimportant frequently religion was in this whole process."

The direct relevance here, is that my experience of China suggested that the youth had almost nothing to make them gravitate in the first place. They were content at that time with the economy, with their lives, and with the world at large. They identified heavily with Obama, so world politics was also in a good state - it might be very different now ;) IBE (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE: There are no atheists in foxholes. 81.129.14.0 (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the article first. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here's an almost opposite quote from David Attenborough: 'In moments of great grief, that's where you look and immerse yourself. You realise you are not immortal, you are not a god, you are part of the natural world and you come to accept that.' Dmcq (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malaya

Is this another name for Malaysia or is it a different country? Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 23:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malaya is a term used in various ways to refer to those parts of the SE Asia populated by the Malay people, particularly the Malay Peninsula. The name Malaysia was coined when the the British protectorates on the peninsula were united with Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak. Singapore was expelled from the union two years later. Rojomoke (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Federation of Malaya which existed from 1948 to 1963 was a country which consisted of what is now known as Western, or Mainland, Malaysia. It was a British colony until 1957, then an independent country, until it united with Sarawak and North Borneo (Sabah) to form Malaysia. Wymspen (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Singapore was excluded from Malaya after the second world war. 81.129.14.0 (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsular Malaysia is probably the most common name. Or West Malaysia. Western or Mainland Malaysia are less common. In case it's unclear, it's not generally considered correct to refer to Malaysia or Peninsular Malaysia as Malaya in modern contexts. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]