Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 27

= August 27 =

Malvinas Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean - Territorial platform of Argentina
I was wondering where do you get your information about how the Islands came to be 're-possessed' by England. Since the islands are part of the continental platform and belonged - with the rest of the southern cone to Spain first, then to the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata since 1916, how come England claims to have any jurisdiction (that far from his own territory?) and/or authority? England never had any right over the islands other than by force of its pirates roaming the south Atlantic. And that's how they got the islands in 1933. If you listen to the British, they could own the whole world too. I wish Wikipedia, which I have respected until now, to search and include the other side of the story too. As you present the information, it appears that England has rightfully taken possession of the islands, when even in 1815 they were expelled from Buenos Aires by the locals with boiling water and rocks. They simply took advantage of a peaceful and new country to forcefully steal that what was not theirs. Since they have done that for ages - see the Rock of Gibraltar, Belize, etc. etc. - they probably believe it's their right to continue doing so. But it has been a long time that pirates have been outlawed in this planet and they should recognize it's time for them to go home. Thanks for listening. Please, research more and be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.41.189 (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You should probably read Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. If there is inaccurate information or missing information, please let us know on the talk page of that article. You appear to be labouring under the illusion that everyone should share your opinion. They do not. Please get used to it. You might also look at Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands, and compare that to the history of Argentina. Clearly claims were being made of ownership of the islands at much the same time that South America was first colonised by Europeans; and that is long before the modern South American states were established. Like it or not, possession is & always has been 9/10ths of the law, and those with the earliest claims are Spain and Britain. Clearly Britain has an interest in maintaining ownership - a perhaps ambivalent interest, I guess. One of the main guiding principles it appears to work under, with respect to its overseas territories, is to listen to what the people of the territories want. And I think it is more than clear that the people of the Falkland islands do not want Argentinian sovereignty and do wish for British sovereignty. Is democracy dead in your part of the world? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to ask the OP if he/she thinks that the people who live on the Malvinas/Falklands should be forcibly removed so that the islands can be re-settled from Argentina, or should they be forced to be ruled by a country they don't want ruling them? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds rather familiar. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, at cost of £2.778 billion, 255 men, 34 aircraft + 1 Type 42 destroyer from the Uk and 649 men, the downfall of the then government from Argentina, things are still pretty much more or less the same. That is one hefty price tag for defending the pride of a slightly used empire, and a hefty price to pay for national pride (?) and/or surrounding marine resources (?). Wow. Royor (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Materially true, though the strategic value of continued control in the area may be thought to be not inconsiderable, and the value of testing one's military capabilities in real conflict from time to time should not be underestimated. But in any case some people, and peoples, also place high values on maintaining principles like justice, freedom and democracy, on maintaining their obligation of mutual defense to their fellow citizens, and on refusing to allow naked aggression to gain sway in the world unopposed. As for the downfall of the then-ruling Argentinian military junta, I was given to understand that many Argentinians (relatives of "the disappeared" for example) were themselves not unpleased by it. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, this has clearly passed into the realm of debate. Nothing to see here. Move along. 'aven't you got no forums to go to? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oldest active law
What is the oldest piece of legislation still in force? L ANTZY T ALK 08:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Law of Gravity. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that stop working if your airplane runs out of gas?
 * Otherwise, given the vagueness of the question, I would have to say that laws against basic moral violations, such as murder and theft, would be the oldest. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What constitutes legislation? Is it only law if it's codified?  In which case, much of British common law doesn't count as we don't have a written constitution!  And further, does the existence of a written document yet to be officially annulled count as an enforced law?  Given cases  like this I'm not sure that the question can be given a straight answer. --Leon (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is far more to law than just constitutions. (And the UK does have a written constitution, just not a single document. See Constitution of the United Kingdom. Some parts are unwritten, I think, but certainly not all of it.) --Tango (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Theft is illegal in the UK under (as far as I know) the Theft Act 1968, so although the principle is very old, the law isn't. I'd guess that the earliest still applicable legislation might be found in the canon law of the Coptic or Roman Catholic churches, or possibly the Republic of San Marino. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Law claims, "The Old Testament is likely the oldest surviving body of law still relevant to modern legal systems. It dates back to 1280 BC, and takes the form of moral imperatives as recommendations for a good society." Other than that, Classical Islamic law around the 7th and 8th centuries included the development of principles such as Hawala which are still applied today, and influenced the development of European common law.
 * Admittedly these don't seem to me (a layman) so much pieces of legislation as legal concepts. The Magna Carta (a charter) of 1297 is still on the statute books in England and Wales, but I make no claim to this being the oldest. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts and guesses:

The common law of England is curious in that it is of indeterminate age: as I understand it, in theory it's just the traditional law of England as received from generations past. (Even though judges make the actual case law by deciding cases.) The common law also contains many things that might be pretty ancient.

The Catholic Church, and of course the Orthodox Church, have some old laws, too. And aside from religious codes, there could be something in some country that's existed continuously as a state for a very long time. Japan, or maybe Ethiopia?

And of course there's China, which has, for example, the hukou system that dates back several millennia, although apparently not on the basis of a particular law or statute. There may well be better examples from China, I'm no expert.

And consider Roman law, which was taken as authoritative across Europe until the 19th century. There might be some law in force somewhere that's lifted straight from Roman law.--Rallette (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The oldest piece of legislation still in force in the UK seems to be the Statute of Marlborough, from 1267. See . Hut 8.5 11:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Darn, just before the edit conflict, I was going to nominate the Statute of Westminster of 1275, if only for its thoroughness: it fixed a date for the end of "time immemorial" (September 3, 1189, to be precise). It also established the concept of bail.  --- OtherDave (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want something you might get prosecuted under, there was some speculation a few years ago that terrorist suspects could be tried under the Treason Act 1351. Hut 8.5 14:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Guinness Book of Records 1973 gave Ine's Law (897) as the oldest law on the books in England.--TammyMoet (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ine's Law is (currently) a redlink - closest I could find was Ine of Wessex, though that gives a date of ca. 695. -- 128.104.112.102 (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right - have now had chance to check it, was typing from memory before. I didn't think there'd be a link to it. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it reasonable to consider it as remaining in force; i.e., if the authorities discovered that someone had violated it and no other law, would the someone get in trouble? During the early part of the First World War, there was a plot by some Irish rebels to get weapons from the Germans and start a revolt; they were caught before they could start revolting, and they were charged under a law that, if I remember rightly, dated from the twelfth century.  I've failed to find this in a Google search; can someone find a link about this or provide their names?  Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Be ye tinking of Roger Casement? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For some possibly useful info on the general subject, see List of ancient legal codes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The oldest law I know of is "never draw to an inside straight." DOR (HK) (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised Bugs has not come up with "never make the first or third out at third base".-- Jayron  32  04:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Ine's Law, a code of laws collected by King Ine and selectively recodified by Alfred the Great, is still in force. I'm doubtful that there are any English laws older than the Statute of Marlborough.  Of course, there could be older statutes from other countries.  John M Baker (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

US Civil War
I know this might seem like a ridiculous question, but if the Union (North) had the military might and technology of today's US military and the Confederate (South) did not, how long do you think the war would have lasted? I am debating this with a friend right now --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean, what would happen if the north had F-22s, aircraft carriers, M1A2 tanks, A-10s and ICBMs vs the south with their muskets and cannons, and wooden sailing ships? Certainly no more then 1 day (assuming that the current infrastructure exists, tanks don't work well without fuel).  Less if the north does not mind using nuclear weapons.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to read about the opposite (South having modern weapons and rolling the North), I would suggest Guns of the South by Harry Turtledove. Livewireo (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The situation in Afghanistan or the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians shows that overwhelming power doesn't necessarily give a quick victory. But yes I'd guess in that situation with a civil war it wouldn't take very long at all. Dmcq (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In October the First is Too Late by Fred Hoyle, a 1960's Britain juxtaposed to the continent under Napoleon ends the war pretty quickly with a few threats, as I seem to remember... AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not to say that it's impossible for the South to mount some sort of guerrilla resistance, with hit and fade style attacks. I just don't see it happening. There was no existing racial hatred, and already the desire for secession and war was far from unanimous. It's difficult to imagine the South continuing to fight against an overwhelming force, especially after their government was knocked out almost immediately. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "there was no existing racial hatred"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume 72 means between north and south. --Tango (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. North and south were both largely white (except for the slaves, of course). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. No racial hatred between the two groups...Because they were mostly the same race. Didn't think I needed to spell that out. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't quite work. There were and are decidedly different cultural attitudes between north and south. Maybe not "racial" but something similar. Maybe you've heard the one about the southerner who was in his 20s before he learned that "damn" and "yankee" were two separate words. There's also the saying about Washington, DC, that I've heard attributed to JFK and might be much older, that "Washington is a city of northern charm and southern efficiency." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Even guerilla warfare is questionable, I mean the South in this scenario doesn't even have small and powerful explosives or cheap machine guns. But yeah, the war would be over within days, or hours if the South was reasonable and surrendered. The North would advance on all fronts with effectively invincible tanks, while planes would destroy anything they wanted in the South, it would be clear immediately to all involved the North had overwhelming, unstoppable and fast moving power. Prokhorovka (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe if Grant or Sherman was leading it. If McClellan were running it, the south could last a long time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Even McClellan could probably pull off a win with an armored division vs 20,000 guys with muzzle loaders and comparably primitive artillery. The south would have to get creative to destroy a single tank, let alone more then 100 of the puppies. And how would they stop a single B-52 from carpetboming Richmond into dust? (We still use those right? ) Googlemeister (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * McClellan would have been telling Lincoln that the South had many more B-52s than the north did. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The North could have bombed the southern capitol city and army headquarters into oblivion with "shock and awe" in tens of hours, with 2000 pound bombs raining down from B52s, along with cruise missiles from ships (because in the US each branch has to score points) followed by amphibious Marine landings and paratroop landings, with Abrams tanks rolling into Richmond on day 4(delayed because of no bridge in the country being able to bear their weight). Nathan Forrest would probably have used a ruse to seize a battleship or squadron of attack helicopters, and captured a headquarters, and guerrillas would have fought on for years in the boondocks, but organized resistance would have ended in days, with the surrender of the government and army commands. Edison (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, guerillas did fight on for years. They were called the Ku Klux Klan. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And the south was doomed to defeat eventually. The north had all the resources on their side, except for poor leadership among its generals. Once the north found generals like Grant and Sherman, the game was up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The very strong odds are that under the OP scenario, there wouldn’t have been an outbreak of hostilities at all. After all, the southern generals weren’t stupid. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That was GREAT! thanks guys! I wonder if the same thing would happen in WWII when the US joined the allies...--Reticuli88 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This scenario kind of breaks down if you think about it...would the north have magically developed this technology after the South seceded? Otherwise, it was all one country, so why wouldn't the south have the same technology? When would they have acquired this technology? Would they have used it in other wars? Wouldn't they have conquered the rest of the continent already, Canada, Mexico, further south? The rest of the world? I know I am applying too much logic to a fanciful question, but really, if they had that technology, they probably would have had the technology to make slavery obsolete and maybe the circumstances for a civil war wouldn't have occurred at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Miracle, magic fantasy or science fiction could achieve the scenario. In the novel and series of books 1632 (novel) it was a vaguely described accident by an advanced alien species which sent a West Virginia town from 1998 back to Germany in 1632.      A detailed computer wargaming simulation could set up the situation. The modern North is juxtaposed on a day in 1861 after the war started with the Southern shelling of Fort Sumter and before the Northern invasion of the South. One would have to decide whether the border states were uptime or downtime. Does the North get the airborne troops at Fort Campbell  and the armor at Fort Knox in Kentucky? It is also likely that the U.S forces would refrain from mass slaughter of the people in the South, on the grounds that it is not necessary and that they are all Americans. Washington DC would include congressmen and cabinet members from the present south who would object strenuously against mass slaughter of downtime southerners, their effective ancestors. Would a pilot from Richmond bomb Richmond? A visit under a flag of truce by a U.S. delegation who arrange for a few Southern civil and military leaders to get a helicopter flight to a Northern military base would result in a cessation of hostilities. But bringing slavery to an end would be an interesting application of constitutional law: does the uptime Constitution apply to the downtime South? Edison (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Turtles and Elephants
In Hinduism, Samudra manthan (Devanagari: समुद्र मंथन) or The churning of the ocean of milk is one of the most famous episodes in the Puranas and is celebrated in a major way every twelve years in the festival known as Kumbha Mela. The story appears in the Srimad Bhagavatam, the Mahabharata and the Vishnu Purana I'm sure I was once taught about a religion which once had the theory that Earth was resting on an elephants back and the elephant was on a turtles back, think there was a snake involved too somewhere, but I can't seem to find anything about it, anybody got any idea what I'm talking about?--217.39.11.37 (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Turtles all the way down is good starting / ending point. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect Discworld may be apropos. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * thats the one, cheers Tagishsimon, and thank you for the interesting article to read ZooM. No idea where I got the idea that it was religious from, never even read a discworld book--217.39.11.37 (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm Hindu cosmology Hindu mythology would probably predate those - see Chukwa
 * I'm not sure about a serpent, there is a Midgard serpent in norse mythology though.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh there is a serpent see Ocean of milk (usually called sea of milk as well) - the serpent was used to stir the sea of milk, I have no idea what that is all about. The serpent is called Vasuki.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the story as I remembered it, maybe incorrectly, was that the Earth was resting on the back of four giant elephants, who in turn were stood upon the back of a giant turtle, which had a snake wrapped around its legs.--217.39.11.37 (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * and I did have a feeling it was Hinduism--217.39.11.37 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This page has a good image http://www.turtlefan.com/Symbol-tortoises/index.php snake, tortoise, 4 elephants (says the chinese have the same idea via india). Wikipedia seems to say there is only 1 elephant - but I'm not expert enough to know if that needs correcting.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure the snake is a rope in tug of war contest between two factions of gods, or gods and demons or somesuch. Googlemeister (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * RTFA Ocean of milk and Samudra manthan. User:A.Hitler(talk)
 * One of the Discworld books mentions a snake which encircles the Disc and is eating its own tail. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the Disc, is it, it's an entirely different discworld that Tethis the sea troll saw one time? Algebraist 11:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouroboros... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jörmungandr goes in for that too. Algebraist 11:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 83.100.250.79 has it, that's the image as I remembered it (the op was me by the way). Thanks all of you, such a large response to such a odd question is really impressive, you lot really know your stuff-- Jac 16888 Talk 14:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Stirring the sea of milk, there is a huge (50 feet long?) representation in the Bangkok international airport (air side). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

tort law(english)
suggest about the law of full reparation in case of loss or damage to the property.this topic belogs to the area of tortious liablity. in context of india the tort law is not codified.indian courts mainly refer to english law in case of tortious liablity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.220.2 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What is your question? --Tango (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 103 Question
What would happen if the criminal, mass murderer, does not die in 3 months like they said?... will he be imprisoned again? --190.50.118.217 (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. It would be highly unlikely for the Libyan government to hand him back again so that he can go back to prison in the UK, and it is unlikely that he would be sent to prison in Libya. --  role player 20:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would note I'm not sure the Libya part definitely comes into it because even if he were still in Scotland the fact he happened to live a few more months longer then expected doesn't mean he's had his chance and now has to die in prison. I'm pretty sure in most cases the person would still be allowed to die out of prison as that's part of what a compassionate release is about. He'll still very likely be terminal after all, even if he doesn't die within 3 months. Now if the person condition was re-evaluated and found to be not as bad as first thought e.g. ) or was found to have misrepresented his condition to the examining doctors (or otherwise fraud was involved) there may be a difference, but both of these are generally unlikely (in all cases I mean). Obviously his being in Libya makes it impossible to determine what his condition is like so it is possible he would have been sent back to jail if his condition was determined to be not as bad as thought, but that would likely be the result of a medical examination rather then just him not dying. There are also I believe often conditions set down as part of a compasionate release and if the person doesn't obey them then they may be required to go back to prison and according to reports, the conditions set down in this case were breached so that being the case, if he were in the UK he may have been sent back to prison. (And no, I think it's unlikely a condition will ever be set that they have to die in a certain amount of time.) But not because he didn't die soon enough. While I don't have specific knowledge of Scottish law this is my understanding of how compasionate releases in general tend to work worldwide. Nil Einne (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Weird date in a contemporary document
Today I was sat in the Buckinghamshire county record office reading a parish register from the 17th century. One of the dates mentioned in the register is 29th February 1649. According to Wikipedia's article on February 29 the occasion of a leap year taking place every four years was put into English law in 1256. So how could there have been a 29th February in 1649? It was a genuine original document from 1649 that I was reading. --  role player 20:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You should check and see if there are any other documents with that date. It could be one of those 9's is really an 8. It could also be that whoever wrote it made a mistake. Mistakes happen. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if it makes a different (and I am not really up to doing the maths) but could it have something to do with the Julian calendar? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the only problem with the Julian calendar is that it had leap years too often, i.e. in every year divisible by 4, which resulted in slowly getting "ahead of" the solar year, which is why the compensated by dropping 10 days from the calendar under the orders of Pope Gregory. The Gregorian calendar compensates better by not having a leap year in years ending in double-0 unless they are also divisible by 400. But 1649 is not divisible by 4. I still suspect it was either a mistake or a carelessly written 8, either for the date or for the year. That's why it's important to see if that's an isolated case or not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Google gets a few hits ( (+1 more for "29th" instead of "29")), but they could also be explained as mistakes. --Tango (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There were cases when a date would appear as, e.g. "17 January 1636/37", because the civil year and the religious year started on different dates (or something like that). It might really have been referring to what we call 1648.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're referring to the time when March 25th was considered the first day of the year. Under such a circumstance, what year/year+1 combination would have been the leap year? 1647/1648, or 1648/1649? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea, though it won't explain this unfortunately. 1648/49 would refer to 1st January to 24th March 1648 in ecclesiastic documents (and a parish register is an example of an ecclesiastic document), and in the document in question February 1649 would be in the year 1649/50.  I already checked that, as the differences between the Julian and Gregorian calendars are often a source of confusion for genealogists. --  role player 22:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The leap year would have been 1647/48 anyway. The shift in 1751 to starting the year on January 1 for all purposes did not change the cycle of leap years, nor did the switch in 1752 from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar (though of course it later did, i.e. starting with 1800). --Anonymous, 22:52 UTC, August 27, 2009, N.S.
 * Pepys's diary contains an entry labeled Feb 29 1659/1660, which should be expected as 1660 was a leap year. A 29 Feb 1649/1650 sounds like a scribal error.  Weepy.Moyer (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Errors like this happen rather more frequently than you might expect; less than one hour's walk from my house is a graveyard that has a stone for someone who supposedly died on 30th February in the 1880s. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * February 30! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Having gone back and checked the document today, it does look like an error on behalf of the curchwarden who wrote it - there doesn't appear to be any other explanation. --  role player 12:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Black people's birth rate & big households?
Why do black people including western-born blacks have higher birth rate than the whites and the asians in developed countries such as United States, Canada and western european countries? Why do black families have bigger households in the West? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who says they do? That's a rather broad generalization to be making without any evidence. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 23:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it is higher birthrate, but in the U.S., blacks do have a higher household size: see based on data from the 2000 U.S. Census; nationally blacks have a household size of 2.73 compared to a national average of 2.59.  This may not be due to birthrate, however, it could be due to any number of factors, including older family members (grandparents, etc.) living more with kids, or children not moving out until an older age.  There can be any number of explanations, and it is likely a melange of reason.  According to this data, blacks do have a higher birthrate than the national average, 17.1 births/1000 population vs. 14.6/1000 in 1998.  Absolutly no clue as to the explanation as to why.  -- Jayron  32  02:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a memory of a study that was based on a study from Norway that was supposedly based on a study from China that made the claim that lack of education and poverty lead to having more children. There are many attempts in the United States to draw a correlation between being black and having less education and higher poverty.  If that is accepted, then the study I'm faintly remembering implies a correlation with higher birth rates.  The point: Being black doesn't cause more births.  Lack of education and poverty are the better correlation. --  k a i n a w &trade; 03:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeh, like the well-known black and poorly educated Kennedys, who went to Harvard and had three different men in the U.S. Senate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Are you trying to suggest that one data-point not following a trend invalidates the entire trend? If so, that is complete nonsense. (Do the Kennedys even have lots of kids? JFK had four, which isn't all that many.) --Tango (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe he is trying to mix the education/poverty correlation with the Irish Roman Catholic correlation to form a super-correlation on the level of the Catholic family in The Meaning of Life. -- k a i n a w &trade; 03:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * God, who knows what they were trying to mean. But yes, the Kennedys did have lots of kids (RFK did, anyway). But this is because they were Catholic, which is a special exception to the socio-economic argument (as would any religious institution that had a prohibition against birth control that was actually adhered to by its members). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I suspect any correlation between race and fertility rates is primarily caused by correlations between race and wealth/education and wealth/eduction and fertility rates. Both those correlations are pretty well known. --Tango (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone could study the correlation between being an IP address and WRITING IN ALL CAPS. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone writing in all caps... --Tango (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you don't. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, the header was in all caps - sorry. That's nowhere near as bad as the main text being in all caps. --Tango (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * YES, THAT WOULD BE... bad. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As hinted above there is also likely a correlation between religion and fertility rates. While Catholics are a common archetype of this given the Church's stance on birth control, many conservative followers of Abrahamic religions tend to have large families with their common believe it is their duty to populate the earth and such. There must be some correlation between race and religion, although it may be because of the correlation between wealth/education and religion. Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This link fertility rates should clarify most of the above issues. 68.245.148.194 (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That video is funny. I understand the correlation between poverty and fertity rate. If black people are poor, how can they afford to have many children? You need to provide clothings and foods for them. It's a lot of stresses to take care of many children. How do they do it? And also, African Americans still have money to donate to charities for Africa. Are blacks really poor in the West? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. Only 10% of white people in the U.S. live in poverty; that figure is 25% for blacks.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States.  --99.237.234.104 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * birth rates
 * Hispanic 2.9
 * Black 2.0
 * White 1.8
 * Asian 1.9
 * Native 1.7
 * Looks like blacks are being very sensible an maintaining their population at a steady state.83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually as mentioned in our fertility rate and Sub-replacement fertility article, you'd likely need a rate of around 2.1 or so to maintain the population. Also, although the fertility rate articles gives the replacement rates for the US as ~2.1, I would expect it to be higher for blacks in the US then the US in general as the mortality rate is likely higher Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And infant mortality varies a LOT with socio-economic groups. African-Americans have 230% the infant morality of whites. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)