Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 May 17

= May 17 =

Plague crosses
We don't have an article on plague crosses. But, these stone crosses were widespread across England (and maybe elsewhere) in past centuries, and some apparently still exist. My problem is that I have tracked down very few online sources to explain precisely what they were, or when and why they were built. Some (not very reliable) sources suggest that they were set up to commemorate victims of past plagues, and others (like this) that they were to mark out areas where plague victims, or those at risk of contagion, could trade. Can anyone help with providing reliable sourced information for an article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In short, no. But we have an image of one ready to go, and a description of the cross in the Ross-on-Wye article.  I had been led to believe as I was growing up that in a lot of villages the plague cross that had fallen into disrepair had been used as the war memorial following the Great War.  Unfortunately I can't reference that either. --  role player 07:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. Since we're presumably talking 14th century, I suspect their installation and purpose was somewhat random and inconsistent, but I've really no idea. You might try asking over at WikiProject European history.--Shantavira|feed me 07:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The crosses may be slightly later - the one at York (mentioned in the article to which I linked above) apparently dated from a plague in 1604. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much this relates to what you're looking for, and it's not reliable, sourced information either, but take a look at the Derby plague of 1665 article, where there's a description of a 'headless cross' or 'vinegar stone' - so called as it was used to facilitate the hygienic exchange of money by leaving coins in trough of vinegar. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Well, when you look through google books you can find references to both your definitions plus two more: red crosses painted on a door and a y-shaped crucifix on which the Christ figure has plague symptoms. Your article might have to cover them all. Here are the first few I saw. (There is also actually an Encylopedia of the Black Death and an Encyclopedia of Plague and Pestilence.) 184.147.132.77 (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) Red crosses painted on a door
 * * A Dictionary of Medical Science, 1876. "Plague Cross. A cross formerly affixed by the authorities to the door of a house in which there was plague."


 * * Samuel Pepys in his diary: "This day, much against my will, I did in Drury Lane see two or three houses marked with a red cross upon the doors, and "Lord have mercy upon us" writ there; which was a sad sight to me, being the first of the kind that, to my remembrance, I ever saw."


 * * Daniel Defoe in Journal of the Plague Year: "That every house visited be marked with a red cross of a foot long in the middle of the door, evident to be seen, and with these usual printed words, that is to say, "Lord, have mercy upon us," to be set close over the same cross, there to continue until lawful opening of the same house."


 * (2a) Stone crosses set up in a public place - commemoration


 * * The Rough Guide to Britain, 2004. "In front of the church, at the foot of the graveyard, is a plain but rare Plague Cross, commemorating the three hundred or so townsfolk who were buried here by night without coffins during a savage outbreak of the plague in 1637."


 * (2b) Stone crosses set up in a public place - disease-free trading


 * * Remains, Historical & Literary, Connected with the Palatine, 1876. "Macclesfield was visited by plague in 1603 and 1646, and on each of these occasions Greenway cross was used as a “plague cross,” to which country people came to sell their provisions to the dwellers in the town."


 * (3) Crucifixes with a characteristic Y-shape


 * * The medieval world: Volume 10, 2001. "... and because his cross lacked a crossbeam, the Conyhope Cross was therefore of a type known in German as a GaMkma, or fork-cross, otherwise a pall or plague-cross, of a type quite common by the 1300s in Italy and Germany."


 * * Plague writing in early modern England, 2009. "He is shown leading processions, confirming adults during plague, adoring the plague cross, visiting a plague encampment to baptize an infant, and interceding to save the city of Milan. These plague saints..."


 * * http://deaconapprentice.blogspot.ca/2011/08/plague-cross-in-cologne.html (blog, but images show the plague marks on the crucifixes) and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabelkreuz (German wikipedia article on these fork crosses with one of the same pics as the blog - it says the term "plague cross" is misleading because these crucifixes showing intense suffering began to be made about 50 years before the Black Death).

The German wikipedia got an article on them (de:Pestkreuz), including some more images (but only of German examples). It states that their aim is/was to "commemorate the victims of the big medieval and modern era plague epidemics". --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very helpful comments, thank you. The next problem is finding the time to write an article..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell me about it. --  role player 21:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Arabs and Afro-Francophones in French cities
Which cities has Arabs and Afro-Francophones mostly live together, regardless of their religion? When I mean Afro-Francophones, I mean Mali, Niger, Chad, Mauritania, Algeria, Tunisia, Comoros, Morocco, Djibouti, Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Cameroon, Benin, Togo, Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Haiti, and Madagascar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.30 (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All French cities have residents of Arab origin, and all have people originating from Africa. How many people from the different African countries you mention depends on the size of the city. People from French-speaking African countries may also identify as Arab. All these residents live alongside each other, and alongside people of European and Asian origins. Recent migrants tend to be somewhat clustered in the poorer areas of cities and in social housing, but that is not always the case. If you want to know whether you will find Muslims and Christians of Arab and/or African origin living alongside each other in French cities, then yes, you will, in all French cities of any size, such as Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux, Toulouse etc., and even in medium-sized towns. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian Muslims in the Netherlands
Which cities do Indonesian Muslims mostly live in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.30 (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to nl:Religie in Nederland, an article in the Dutch Wikipedia on religion in the Netherlands, Muslims of Indonesian origin are a very small group in the Netherlands, numbering only 7,000. Most people of Indonesian origin in the Netherlands are not Muslim.  I cannot find any detailed statistics on where members of this small minority live, but there are probably small numbers in most of the major cities of the Netherlands.  Marco polo (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Many of the "Indonesians" in the Netherlands are actually Moluccans, and might not consider themselves to be "Indonesian" at all... AnonMoos (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think an even larger number are Indo, including one of the parents of Geert Wilders. Marco polo (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

African emigrants in Spain major cities
Which cities do African emigrants, mostly from Equatorial Guinea, mostly live in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.30 (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This academic paper says Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The marriage moment
First, consider this comment left by a reader at Thinkinganglicans.com, speaking about the Church of England: ''The promises (vows) declarations are the point of contract in a civil (and religious) contract. The signing of the document is a secondary formula, if one of the couple were to die immediately after the declarations the marriage is still valid as the registrar and witnesses could testify.''

Is that true? I've not been able to find an authorititative Church of England document online that specifically defines the moment during the wedding service at which the marriage is effectuated (not consummated; that's later, of course). Can anyone point me to such a document? For comparison, it would be helpful to have a similar Roman Catholic source as well.

Note: I already know that in traditional Christian theology, the couple marries each other, and the priest/minister is merely there to witness and bless the marriage on behalf of the whole church. Also, please note that I'm not asking for personal opinions on the value of marriage in general, or a comparison of civil and religious marriage. Textorus (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignoring all problems except the legal one, according to many legal systems, Oral contracts are as valid as written ones; that is the parties to a marriage are considered married insofar as they have agreed orally to be married, via the contract of the wedding ceremony itself. The signing of the document doesn't make them any more married.  The importance of the witness is that, in case it ever had to be a point of legal contention whether or not the couple were married, the witness could verify that the oral contract had occurred (i.e. the two had undergone the ceremony in good faith, which should satisfy the requirements of a legal oral contact.).  IANAL of course. -- Jayron  32  18:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Roman Catholic Catechism deals with marriage in Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 7 (article 7.III specifically, for matrimonial consent). But it doesn't seem to say anything more than what you have said about the couple technically marrying each other... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The marriage in such a circumstance is voidable. It is not already void, but you can apply to have it annulled. (As an aside, I studied family law as part of my social studies degree, and a case was mentioned thus: A and B took part in a marriage ceremony. On leaving the ceremony B was run over by the wedding car and became comatose (persistent vegetative state). Some years later, A wished to remarry. Having never consummated the marriage, A applied for annulment and was granted.) --TammyMoet (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers so far, y'all. Just to be clear, let me rephrase the question: In the eyes of the church, there's a point in the wedding service at which the two are from that moment on married, and before that moment were not married. I think it must probably come some time before the very end when the priest says "I now pronounce you . . ." As we've all seen in movies (not a reliable guide to reality, I realize), before a certain point in the service, the bride (or groom, I suppose) can throw up her/his hands and run screaming back up the aisle, or into the arms of his/her true love - and nobody would consider they had "gone through with it." But the door closes once the knot is tied - where is that moment? When the second partner says "I will/I do"? or before or later? Textorus (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's earlier. The last moment that someone other than the couple can try to stop the marriage (short of, say, a revelation that the union is bigamous and thus void) is just after the celebrant says words to the effect of "If any of you know any cause or just impediment why these two persons may not be joined together in holy matrimony, you are to declare it; speak now or forever hold your peace." If the marriage is by banns, the question will have been put on three earlier occasions. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, that only covers objections. To continue...) I'm not perfectly sure, but I think the contract is closed when the second spouse says "I do". The giving of the ring, with its accompanying words, is a formality; contrary to popular belief, rings are not essential. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But surely just because nobody objects, the couple are not therefore at that moment yet married? Textorus (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * From a contract-law perspective, it's the second "I do": at this point, both parties have agreed to the marriage. --Carnildo (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That would make sense, given that the celebrant's "I now pronounce you husband and wife" does not "make" the two people married. That merely confirms publicly that a marriage between them has now taken place.  He could just as well say "These two people are now married".  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  05:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Roman Catholic position can be deduced from Canon 1116, which states that the parties to a marriage "can contract it validly and licitly" in the absence of a priest in an emergency. Although I don't know of any specific case, the Court of Arches generally follows (Catholic) Canon Law, so would presumably follow a similar approach.  So the critical word is "contract", and, regarding the marriage as a contract, it's complete at the second "I do", as stated above. Tevildo (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"Zucker-" prefix in German/Jewish surnames
Where does the "Zucker" prefix on such names as Zuckerberg and Zuckermann come from? Was there sugar being grown in Germany, or did it derive from sugar merchants? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary says (but doesn't source) that Zuckermann is derived from 'a confectioner'. A brief search has found little further information on this, and no etymology for Zuckerberg, but I'd hazard a guess that your sugar merchants derivation is more likely. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sugar cane did not grow in Europe, so in earlier times sugar in any kind of refined form had to be imported (though there were fruits, honey, carrots, etc.). Much later came the rise of sugar beets (apparently not commercially significant until the 19th century). AnonMoos (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for German surnames, but German elements in Jewish surnames are usually arbitrary. Gold/Silber/Kupfer/Roth/Grun-stein/berg/mann/blatt etc. Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A literal translation for "Zuckerberg" calls to mind Rock Candy Mountain... [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Fiji, Ireland, South Africa
There may be more to list. All three 'regions' are governed by democracy, (I think). What they have in common is the present governing majority. Fiji has indigenous people that are not the majority, as does South Africa. Ireland is split and governed by both. I am assuming a fact that I can't confirm that SA was basically empty when Europeans first settled and 'claimed' it, and none of the indigenous population exists to any great extent there. Should there be an international policy on which people should actually have majority, or is it just assumed that the one with the highest numbers rules?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confusing terminology, at least about South Africa. I have also heard the claim that the country was essentially unpopulated before the Europeans arrived.  I don't know how true that is (it seems unlikely, I have to say), but if it is true, wouldn't that mean the Europeans are the indigenous people of South Africa?  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See Demographics of Fiji. The indigenous Fijian population may have once not been the majority but they likely are now. Also many would question the claim the current Fijian government is a democratic government. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean about Ireland. Ireland is not "governed by" anybody: it is two separate countries. --ColinFine (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * South Africa certainly wasn't empty before the Europeans got there: read History of South Africa. But some countries, such as virtually all of the Americas and Australia, are governed by immigrants who arrived in the past 500 years and "displaced" older indigenous populations.  You could have a look at Indigenous rights. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fiji is a military dictatorship. Sleigh (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked over the articles. It seems the SA history one needs a little reference work. I was referring to Ireland as the entire island that I think was one nation at one time. I am assuming that many there would like to see it united again, but that will probably not happen anytime soon. I noticed a key word in the indigenous rights article shows in the image of all the organizations in the 'struggle'. My dad lived in Fiji for a while. He was one the east west side and luckily missed all the troubles they have had there. I am just going to assume that most of them are going to continue to struggle, and some may even win eventually. --Canoe1967 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In the island of Ireland, a majority of people in the Republic would like to see an all-Ireland government; however a majority of people in Northern Ireland prefer to leave things as they are, and see this as their right under the principle of self-determination. Unless the demographics of Ireland changes, I can't see the Ulster Protestants agreeing to be become a permanant minority in a united Ireland. In Northern Ireland, government is shared between the communities (to prevent the previous set-up where one community is permenantly excluded from government); an arrangement known as power sharing. This isn't strictly democratic, but is seen by both parties as a way of giving everyone representation. Alansplodge (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

cost of living in the USA
can I do a quick check here, a friend of mine says his family is really poor and struggling, to the point they they're having to sell his stuff for food, and he can't leave even to go to university, because he's getting SSI money that helps pay bills and stuff.

So, it seems his dad is working at the moment, and both my friend and his brother get this SSI money, which adds up to $15000 between them, add in whatever their dad makes, that probably nearly doubles, right? I don't know, I know what my dad earnt when he was working, and supposedly the family of six is barely managing to eat off that money, even though it works out substantially more than what my parents were earning back when we had the mercades and two exotic holidays a year and all the other luxuries, with a family the same size.

I know his parents, though, they see him just as a source of money, have no real interest in him at all, and have taught him his whole life that he is pretty much worthless for anything else, I wouldn't put it past them to convince him they needed his money to survive just so they could grab everything they could...

So, I am wondering, anyone here do a quick calculation and see whether this does work, I know they have all health insurance and everything to pay for, and it's quite a big house they've got, so that'll cost a bit in bills and whatever, right? but even so, this just doesn't add up for me, families with a lot less than this manage ok over there, right?

Kitutal (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you restate your specific question? What is their combined total income, and is that before or after taxes and social security witholding?  Actually, there are so many variables of expenses, it would be hard for anyone to give an accurate answer.  For one thing, living costs in the South are usually lower than in the North, and lower in rural areas or small cities than in big metropolitan areas.  How much do they pay for housing?  For car payments?  Weekly gasoline?  Electricity, water, sewer, etc.?  Food?  And on and on and on.  But just so you have some basis of comparison, our article on poverty in the United States says the poverty line for a family of 6 is about $29,000.  And the poverty line calculations by our government are always lower than what you might think real poverty is.  At least IMO.  Textorus (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

that seems a lot of money, considering that's several times more than my own family lives quite comfortably on. I'm just trying to work out whether it's true that they would actually not be able to survive on less than that, considering plenty of people seem to manage. guess they were telling the truth after all. Kitutal (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * $29,000 is not a lot of money in the United States, not as an annual income even for a single person, and especially for a family of 6. I can well believe they are truly struggling.  Where do you live?  Textorus (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

in England. my family of the same size was living in some luxury on £15,000 a year until recently. Don't you guys get free food out there and such like, if you need it? Kitutal (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * People below the poverty line might be eligible for food stamps, financed by the federal government and administered by the states (who have their own bureaucracy and eligibility requirements; it's not easy to get food stamps, you can't just walk in and ask for them) which would defray grocery expenses to some extent, and they might also be eligible for "commodities," which are free giveaways of a few very basic things like rice, cheese, and peanut butter (good luck making a delicious meal out of that). But those programs are very small benefits are relatively small and don't give you three yummy meals a day for free, no.  By my calculations, L15,000 is about $24,000 today, and that would be ridiculous for a family of 6 (how many in your family?) - it would be just scraping by for a single person living alone, without a family home to live in, or a roommate to split expenses with.


 * In the Dallas, Texas, area, for example, you might be able to find a small 1-bedroom apartment for $500-600 a month. Add to that utilities, $200/mo.  Phone/cable TV/internet, $100.  Car payment, maybe $300 for a very small new car.  Car insurance, $100.  Food and toiletries, $200/mo. with very little eating out.  Miscellaneous stuff like haircuts, a new shirt or new trainers (cheap), books/magazines, lunch money, the occasional movie ticket, etc., $100.  Health insurance, for a single man through your employer (unless you are lucky enough to have a job where it's all covered by the employer), maybe another $200-300/mo.  So right there, you're looking at $20,000 a year minimum, with no vacations or big-ticket purchases like plasma TV's, etc.  For a single person, expect to have 15% or more withheld from each paycheck for income tax and social security/medicare, so that's a gross annual income of $24,000 or thereabouts.  Which means you have to earn at least $12/hour, which is well above the minimum wage in any state.


 * Of course, lots of single people do live on $24,000 a year IF they have a roommate, a supportive family, own their own dwelling (no rent/mortgage payments) or have no car/gasoline expenses (only in big cities, where there is lots of public transport - but then rents are higher in those places). As I said, there are many variables but I hope this gives you a picture of the cost of living over here.


 * Also, even if you do have health insurance here, you generally have to pay for every doctor visit until you hit the annual limit of $500-$1000, when the insurance coverage kicks in. If you come down with a bad cold, let's say, or a really bad scrape on your arm, one doctor visit will cost you at least $50-60 or more, and most prescriptions will run $15-30 apiece.  So if you are living on a small salary, you need to keep healthy and away from those expenses.  No NHS here.  And an emergency room visit would be $500-$1000 or more before insurance kicked in.  Get the picture?  Textorus (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * PS - I left out the cost of gasoline, which at the moment in TX is hovering around $3.50 a gallon. Figure most cars might get 20-25 miles per gallon in city traffic - multiply by the number of miles you drive in a month to work and back, etc. - it adds up.  Of course, not everyone buys a new car, so car payments might be lower than I stipulated; young, healthy, active people who don't live too very far from work sometimes ride bicycles, or have motorcycles, which of course lower their transport costs.  Lots of variables, as I said.  Textorus (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

it is a very expensive country. that £15,000 was the most my parents earnt between them in a year, and let them and four children live in some luxury at the time, shows just how different things are over here.
 * When I visited the UK, things did not seem unexpectedly inexpensive. Did your parents perhaps already own a house?  Even if they did, supporting four kids on that income sounds less than luxurious, unless "recently" means 1980 or something. --Trovatore (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, follow up question, I think my friend ought to move out, his parents are physically and mentally abusive towards him, are very much not helping his depression and lack of self confidence and all the rest, I worry about him suffering there. I'm wondering, if he moved out, all his expenses gone, no food, clothes, insurance, college fees, his therapist and anti-depressants and all the rest, books, games, phone bill... but at the same time they lose the $7500 or so in benefits, would they be better or worse off? obviously it would be hard to work out exactly, but as a rough estimate, anyone think they can manage that? Kitutal (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's none of our business. Mingmingla (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * They would definitely be worse off - maybe catastrophically so, but again it all depends on what their housing, transport, utilty, healthcare, etc., expenses are. Your friend will likewise be in a very bad financial situation unless he gets a job - but if he gets a job, that may disqualify him from getting the $7500.  Sounds like may have some disability, which is why he is getting benefits - if so, then the agency that pays him should be able to put him in touch with a job counselor of some kind who might help his transition.  If he's actually being physically abused at home, well that's not good at all, obviously - but he needs to check out his options carefully before just walking out the door, you don't want him ending up having to sleep on the streets.


 * Most places here, not counting government housing (hard to get into, long waiting lists) require the first month's rent in advance PLUS an equal amount as a security deposit - you get the latter back whenever you move out IF you didn't damage or permanently soil anything. And to get electricity, natural gas, telephone, internet, etc., etc., you also usually have to pay a security deposit up front.  So just to move into a cheap apartment, without the aid of a roommate or a family member, is in most places going to cost $1000-1500 at least, cash money.  I'd advise your friend to proceed cautiously and not jump from the frying pan into the fire until he is sure he can manage on his own.  Yes, it's an expensive country to live in, especially if you are poor.  Textorus (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

yea, it's not a good situation he's in there, and he can't get any sort of help without social services splitting the rest of the family up. I offered to lend him the money he needed, even to pay for him to move in with me, but I can't support his family as well. I worry so much what's going to happen to him if he has to stay there much longer, though. Kitutal (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if he's in fear for his life, or if there are weapons/drugs/threats of violence in the home, he should call local law enforcement for immediate help. If it's not as bad as that, he certainly should talk to the social service agency that manages his benefits and I'm sure they would be able to hook him up with some counseling to help him decide the best way to go from here.  I don't want to give the impression I'm an expert on benefits and SSI; there might be programs in this day and time beyond what I've described, such as job training schemes, etc., that he could take advantage of to become self-supporting.  But all that typically varies from state to state, and from city to city, so he would just have to be persistent in looking for help and answers.


 * As to his coming to live with you in England, well, first there's the cost of getting him there, and then from what I've read in the news lately, doesn't seem like your government is very keen on letting new immigrants in to stay right now. So you'd need to check with the rules and regs on your end about all that.  Plus, it might be that he would lose all his SSI benefits if he leaves his state/country, and I sort of doubt he would qualify for any UK benefits just because he is there and wanting them, you know?  But one last thought - how do you know this guy is telling you the whole truth about his situation?  Or just looking for an easy handout via the internet from some kind soul such as yourself?  You need to proceed with caution too, I think.


 * Being a friend is good, but there's a limit even to friendship. Much better if he figures out a way to take care of his own needs.  You don't want to be stuck supporting someone you don't really know and can't really stand, young fella. Textorus (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

yea, I know, I'm being careful, I'm not going to do anything until I'm certain. trouble is, if social services get involved, they take his brothers away into care as well, and they never see each other again, apparently. He has a therapist, who isn't doing a very good job in my opinion, and a job training scheme that seems to be going ok, but still I think he needs to move out, even if he does set up on his own somewhere else there, but as soon as he's not living with his parents any more, they lose the money and things get difficult, he can't leave, he can't stay and he can't get professional help. And yes, he would lose his benefit money coming here, but I can afford to support him at university until he can get a job, I have some savings and don't really spend money on myself, but not enough to pay for his university fees and support the rest of his family in america too, that's not going to happen. His way of taking care of his own needs, though, is to play computer games to forget everything else and at other times huddle in the corner of the room crying and talking to me on his phone.

I just need to find some way of proving that his family can survive without him, because I'm not sure how long he can survive with them. Well, guess it's up to me, then, thank you all for your help, a shame it wasn't quite the information I wanted, but we'll manage somehow. Kitutal (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * People are very resourceful and they will come up with a way to survive somehow. Never underestimate the strength of the human spirit. And don't think it's up to you either: at the end of the day it's up to them and can only be up to them. Whether your friend moves is up to him. All you can do is be there for your friend if they need you. That's all. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your friend really needs to aim for employment, any employment. Even in this recession, some jobs are not so hard to get for people who are clean, literate, and show up on time dependably.  Examples include working at supermarkets and fast-food restaurants. Even at the legal minimum wage for the United States, if your friend works full time, he can double his income to around $15,000.  It's hard to live on that but not impossible in most parts of the United States. The way to do it is to to move in as a roommate into a shared flat/apartment with other young people and then to live very frugally.  Even then, he might need to come up with a share of the security deposit and last month's rent to pay off a departing roommate.  Is there no kindly relative who could lend him $1,000 to $2,000 to get him on his feet once he finds a job? (You should not consider doing this yourself, by the way.) If not, I suppose your friend could start out living in a homeless shelter until he can save up what he needs to move into a shared place.  It's not pretty, but maybe it would be better than living with an abusive parent. As to living frugally, that means buying cheap but nutritious ingredients at the supermarket (like oatmeal for porridge, dried beans, cheap vegetables such as carrots and onions, the occasional chicken thigh or eggs) and then cooking them himself for every meal and bringing store-bought and/or home-cooked food to work to eat for lunch.  It means keeping a strict budget, making sure to save a set amount ($50 to $100) every month for emergencies and not spending money on fun stuff (like eating out, going to movies, and so on) until that target is met and money for next month's rent is put aside. If your friend is too disabled to work, then he should talk to his social worker about getting into a group home for young adults.  The group home, which is subsidized, would take his disability check and provide him with food, shelter, maybe other needs, and a small allowance. Marco polo (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)