Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 February 28

= February 28 =

carrier
Do you have any job in pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdsr md (talk • contribs) 05:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. We are a reference desk, staffed by volunteers all over the world, and we don't have any inside information on jobs in Pakistan, sorry.  To look for jobs in Pakistan on the Internet, I would use a search engine.  This link claims to list Pakistan-specific search engines, where you can type things like jobs Karachi and it'll come up with web pages about this.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is based in the USA. It employs a small number of people at its headquarters, and current job vacancies are listed here.  The Foundation has no base in Pakistan.  There is the possibility of remote working in some limited cases, apparently.   Ka renjc 11:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I do not have any job in Pakistan. More's the pity. Edison (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, I don't have a job in Paksitan!DOR (HK) (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

New police in Spain
I've recently noticed a new type of police officer walking around the cities of Spain, wearing all black and quite a heavy, authoritative appearance. Their job, as far as I can tell, is to go around picking out anyone who looks remotely foreign and demand papers and documents to prove legality. What has spurred these new officers and how long are they expected to stay around? Because they are certainly out of the norm and I'd like to get as much information as possible. Thanks for any help 87.111.102.76 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly the Cuerpo Nacional de Policía (Spain). Maybe just a new uniform like this? Alansplodge (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your reply. It's definitely not your ordinary Policia Nacional, the uniforms are different and their sole purpose seems to be to check the legality of visas and papers for foreigners. It's a very heavy and persistent new force and they've been around since the start of the new year. 87.111.102.76 (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

NAACP/NAAWP
Has there ever been a group that was like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People but for whites? I'm not talking about an organization built on white supremacy or segregation. Just something that tries to give scholarships and whatever else to whites. Basically nothing hateful. I thought it might be the NAAWP but that seems to have taught segregation and such. Dismas |(talk) 13:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of one in North America. It seems to me that the most likely not-quite answer would come in the form of a more specific ethnic or nationality. For example, here in Canada there are German clubs and Newfoundland clubs (and Portuguese clubs, etc.) that are completely non-racist, but they're really not the same thing. The NAACP functions as a political organization and I don't think there's terribly much call or need for advancing white people politically. The people interested in whites having more political clout are probably looking for a "final solution" kind of thing, which would obviously be pretty heavily steeped in various kinds of race hatred. It's kind of like how you can get t-shirts that say "Gay Pride" or "Black Pride" or even "Irish Pride", but the "White Pride" ones only come free with the purchase of a hood. Matt Deres (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree when you say that "I don't think there's terribly much call or need for advancing white people politically". Reverse racism does exist, also.  There was a recent high-profile US Supreme Court case (Ricci v. DeStefano) where several employees were denied promotions simply because they were white (i.e., not minorities).  As such, I disgree with your statement ... at least, the part that I quoted.  Thanks.   (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC))


 * If a promotion is denied on account of race, that's against the law. Hence it was struck down. Reverse racism exists here and there, anecdotally. Not enough to justify an entire organization devoted to fighting specifically about discrimination against whites. In a country that's dominated by another race, and if whites were a small minority, I could see it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * All people (yes, whites included) have interests (political and otherwise) that need to be protected. Being white or being a majority does not negate that.  You state that reverse racism occurs only anecdotally, "here and there".  (Really?)  I would argue that it is much more systemic than a mere blip on the radar screen.  Indeed, the Supreme Court needed to intervene on this very issue!  You claim that "[there is] not enough [reverse racism] to justify an entire organization devoted to fighting specifically about discrimination against whites".  Yet there is "enough" to require Supreme Court intervention?  That seems odd.  Also, when is "enough" enough?  In today's climate, it is very "PC" to hire / promote minorities over whites, despite qualifications (the very definition of reverse racism and the foundation of affirmative action).  So, the Supreme Court had to intervene to say that what is politically correct (PC) is in fact illegal.  Why can't a private organization promote similarly?  Just as racism against Blacks is illegal (and countered by the NAACP), racism against a majority is no different.  Just my opinion.  Well ... and the opinion of the US Supreme Court, too.  Thanks.   (64.252.68.102 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Wow, we have a dubious article angry white male. Why do we have that? Anyway, you might want to look at this section, although the article could do with improving White_privilege. White privilege is not your fault, but it is pervasive and part of privilege is being able to know nothing about it. Just like men can be completely blind to male privilege, because it doesn't seem to affect their lives: they think their experience is 'normal'. Not the fault of anyone living, but something everyone needs to be consciously aware of, to an extent. If you read nothing else, read this article, although page 3 onwards of this one from the '80s is what completely changed how I thought. 86.177.121.239 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, white males were used to getting everything their way, and when that default advantage began to be eroded, "white pride" stuff started to turn up. White males were spoiled, and you know how spoiled kids are: they always want things their way. Sharing is not in their vocabulary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So, the answer is to discriminate against white males? The very act that minorities (purportedly) find offensive to begin with (i.e., the discrimination).  So, two wrongs make a right?  Or the minorities only find discrimination to be offensive when they are on the receiving end of it?  If they are on the giving end, it's now somehow OK?  An interesting double standard.  Come now.   (64.252.68.102 (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC))


 * No, the answer is for whites not to presume that they are a privileged race that should get everything their way all the time nowadays, the way they once did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a ridiculous comment which does not merit a response ... and which completely avoids / sidesteps all of the meritorious issued raised above.  (64.252.68.102 (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC))


 * "White Pride" is basically code for "White Supremacy". My pals Sven and Ole wear T-shirts that read "White Pride". The problem is, the lettering is also in white, so it's invisible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If I were to channel someone from the NAACP, my response to the question would be that "any scholarship program" in the United States already favors whites because of their already-dominant place in the culture. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They may well say that. It doesn't make any sense, though. --Tango (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain in what way it doesn't make sense, or would that be soapboxing? 86.177.121.239 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a rather warped definition of "favour" if more whites getting scholarships simply because there are more whites counted as favouring whites. (Assuming that is what is meant by "dominant" - any other meaning would need to be backed up. Even the president is black (well, mixed-race) now!) --Tango (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see how if that was what it was saying, it would make no sense. But dominant culture is not the same as majority of people. It is not that there should not be more white people at university if there are more white people in the general population, it's that the proportion of white people at university should be proportional to the proportion in the general population. And, given that white people in many cultures (including the US, the UK, etc) have White Privilege, they are going to end up being disproportionately represented at university, in good jobs, in leadership positions, unless people do things to actively counteract that privilege. One way of doing that might be by targeting a scholarship programme at an ethnic group who are disproportionately under-represented at university, to try to correct for the various nudges that keep them down.


 * Incidentally, you might want to read the studies linked in this article. I remember reading them at the time: Obama being president leads many white people to make more racist decisions, on the same principle as McDonald's listing salads made people eat more burgers: people see the 'progress', and that lets them off the hook. 86.177.121.239 (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest you get in touch for counsel in the most recent case and for Bakkee v. U.C., Davis. My field is civil rights law. Some people were so interested in litigating the issue that they parted with funds to subsidize the suits. Frankly, my perception was antiBakkee until I read all the amicus briefs in the case for a U.S. Senator. There were no answers then and I doubt they exist now.75Janice (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)75Janice


 * 75Janice is referring to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I guess the answer to my original question is "no". Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 03:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Over a period of 40 years (1967-2007), the ratio of black university students as a share of all blacks aged 18-24 rose from 18% to 31.7%. Among whites, the ratio rose from 27.1% to 40.9% during the same period. Hence, the share of age appropriate blacks vis-à-vis whites increased from 66.4% to 77.5%. In other words, the period under which affirmative action was the norm reduced the under-representation of black students in (US) universities from one-third to one-quarter. Source: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/xls/tabn204.xls. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There was the Delaware-based National Association for the Advancement of White People, an incorporated organization whose charter was revoked by the state of Delaware. As our article on this group notes, David Duke tried to revive the name in the 1980s.  He no longer uses the term on his web site.  On WhiteCivilRights.com, he's the head of EURO: "the European-American Unity and Rights Organization. It defends White interests and rights in the same fashion that the NAACP works for the advancement of Colored People'.'"  The apparent scare quotes are bolstered in the next paragraph, in which he says that the NAACP promotes racial discrimination while EURO "seeks equal opportunity for all, with preference for the hardest working, most talented, and best qualified." --- OtherDave (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sand art
My question is about the sand art work that is shown in the following You Tube video:. I watched the video and it was beautiful. But, the video and background sounds (music / lyrics) are not in the English language. As a result, the story or plot line went completely over my head. (Though, I think that I did get some small bits and pieces here and there.) Can someone explain the general story / plot line of what the woman is drawing pictures of? Also, what is the English translation for the few words that she inscribes in the sand at the very end of the video? And, by the way, in what language is this done? Thank you. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC))
 * The language sounds like Russian. But sorry, I don't understand. Oda Mari (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From a friend:
 * it's the history of ukraine, specifically WW2, and from the perspective of a woman, gets married, her soldier goes off to fight, she has a baby, and possibly never sees him again (but possibly does)
 * Vimescarrot (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's Ukrainian. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  17:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According to our article it's about the Ukrainian Great Patriotic War. Matt Deres (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Another friend:
 * Words at the end loosely translate to "You're always nearby"
 * Vimescarrot (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The language is Russian, not Ukrainian. The performance may have taken place in Ukraine, but most, if not all, Ukrainians understand Russian, and many of them are native Russian speakers. Besides, the the story of the Great Patriotic War – which is what the Soviets called the part of World War II when they were no longer allied with Germany – is probably more appealing to Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians, especially in Western Ukraine, are more likely to support Ukrainian nationalists who opposed the Soviets during WW2 and even sided with the Germans as long as it helped them get rid of Soviets, Jews and Poles. — Kpalion(talk) 23:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh and WHAAOE: Kseniya Simonova. — Kpalion(talk) 00:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. Just noticed that Matt had already provided a link, albeit in an Easter egg fashion. Still, "Ukrainian Great Patriotic War" bewilders me. There was one GPW for the whole Soviet Union, althogh it's true that the Ukrainian and Byelorussian SSRs bore the brunt of it. — Kpalion(talk) 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This is the OP.  I now somewhat "get" the plot about "a woman, [who] gets married, her soldier goes off to fight, she has a baby, and possibly never sees him again (but possibly does)" as explained in a posting above.  But what then exactly is happening in that last scene?  It almost appears as if the woman and the baby are looking at the man through a window or touching through a glass?  I am still confused.  Is that the woman merely having a dream?  Thanks.   (64.252.68.102 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
 * It being art, the interpretation is up to you. — Kpalion(talk) 08:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much to all for the input ... it was very helpful. Thanks! (64.252.68.102 (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Achievement seen as insubordination
I am very interested in Ludwig2's comment from above: "...from a SD viewpoint, 'achievement' looks like 'insubordination' and suggests competition for status or position." Does anyone know where I could read more about this particular aspect of bullying? I have heard this idea before. What particularly interests me is the bully seeing working hard and taking the initiative as a kind of cheating, and being disloyal. Thanks 89.242.47.252 (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just discovered Social dominance orientation and Social Dominance Theory which are relevant. Perhaps it would also explain criminality and people prone to jealousy. 89.242.47.252 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama and Palin dancing photo
A few hours back, I just came across a photo in flickr which shows Obama and Palin dancing together. I want to know if the image real or fake? --Toutuolog (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a fake, very obviously. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 17:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? You can't tell if that is fake. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks fake to me ... it seems like the heads (of Obama and Palin) are pasted onto bodies of other people. Just my opinion.   (64.252.68.102 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Completely fake. The above IP is right, it being their heads on others' bodies. It's done pretty well, but the lighting is still wrong, and Palin looks rather muscular, all things considered. Besides, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I'm yet to see it. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like that extraordinary a claim. They are both politicians, I wouldn't be surprised if they have been to the same social events numerous times. Just because you are in different parties doesn't mean you can't share a dance. Politicians often get along very well with their opponents personally even if professionally they are always arguing. (Of course, that doesn't change the fact that this particular photo is fake.) --Tango (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a PR disaster, no doubt (unless they could do it well). I don't think I need to remind you of the baseball cap incident, and many others. Prime ministers and Presidents generally go down better if they stick to what they're best at. Appearing in Strictly Come Dancing, or its American counterpart, is pretty unusual in my book. You'd expect it to make the news both sides of the Atlantic, i.e. we'd know about it. (I know the phrase I used is more theological than that really.)- Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 21:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I hadn't actually followed the link - dancing on stage like that would be unusual. I was thinking more of social dancing. --Tango (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fake. It even says it's fake.  There's a link on the photo's flickr page that takes you to an iphonesavior site, which explains the fakery thus:
 * "The original "Dancing With The Stars" photo was skillfully remixed by a Tampa Bay graphic designer named Martin Rice. Rice sent over his Photoshop image to three friends featuring Obama dancing with Palin. Days later the photo has traveled electronically around the globe and back." Ka renjc 18:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * All other considerations aside, you'd never wear glasses like that on Dancing with the Stars, duh. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a pity that you cannot be president and a dancer if you want to - convention forces you to choose one or the other. 89.242.47.252 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's been an [ex-]actor, why not a dancer? There's nothing stopping them. More dancers to stand, methinks.- Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * George Murphy, earlier best known as a song-and-dance man, served as a US Senator from California from 1965 to 1971. Not quite president, but pretty good for a man of his talents. PhGustaf (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, George Murphy... a Tom Lehrer song is echoing in my head now (there's nothing to stop it). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty good for a man of his talents - what does that mean? Are actors and dancers somehow inherently less equipped to be politicians than lawyers, used car salesmen, astronauts, evangelists, wrestlers and serial adulterers? --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he meant getting to be a Senator was pretty good for a song-and-dance man. Although it does remind me of this one: In Israel there's a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. A Jewish tourist visits it, and on it says the man's name as plain as day. He asks the guard, "What's this about?" The guard says, "Ah, as a tailor, he was known. As a soldier? Mneh!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But what does that mean - "getting to be a Senator was pretty good for a song-and-dance man"? --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There aren't that many entertainers who become public officials. Most of the major ones seem to be lawyers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone who saw Obama attempting to dance on the night of his inauguration would know that this photo is a fake. The question is, whose bodies did they paste the head-shots onto? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the source photo of the dancers, which I found on Google images by entering ["dancing with the stars"]. I don't watch the show, so I don't know who they are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mario (entertainer) and Karina Smirnoff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another photo from that set. It was in Season 6: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)