Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 July 11

= July 11 =

Bill Ragsdale
I've been researching a figure by the name of William P. Ragsdale or Bill Ragsdale. He was a interpreter in the Hawaiian legislature who later contracted leprosy and went to Kalaupapa where he served as the governor of the colony and was called King of the Lepers in the newspapers in the states when he died. Mark Twain was really interested in him and planned on writing a novel about him, although he later didn't but it may have inspired A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. My question is...From when to when did he serve as interpreter in the Hawaiian legislature? The Hawaii States Archives doesn't hold any office records on him since he wasn't an official legislator. It must be sometimes before 1866 and after 1866 but before 1873, but I can't find a source which talks about his time in that position.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * From the sources I have found the answer seems to be that he held the position of interpreter for a short time around 1865. Read the last link in particular.
 * Gavan Daws, Holy Man: Father Damien of Molokai (1973), p. 88 says William P. Ragsdale was "at one time in the 1860s the official interpreter of the kingdom's bilingual legislature" and that he was later a lawyer at Hilo.
 * Hawaiian National Bibliography, Vol 3: 1851-1880 (1998) at p. 441 mentions "the well-known part-Hawaiian lawyer, William P. Ragsdale" signing a volume of Hawaian court reports about 1865.
 * Ralph Simpson Kuykendall, The Hawaiian Kingdom: 1854-1874, twenty critical years (1953), p. 258
 * ‎Henry Nash Smith, ed., Mark Twain-Howells letters: the correspondence of Samuel L. Clemens and William D. Howells, 1872-1910 (1960), p. 461 quotes Twain as describing Ragsdale as "interpreter to the Parliament in my time — a half-white", and that refers to 1865.
 * Gavan Daws, Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands (1968), at p. 186 "Poor Ragsdale did not hold his job for long."
 * From his Wikipedia page it seems that Gavan Daws is still alive, you may be able to contact him through the University of Hawaii at Manoa and find out what his sources were. Moonraker (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

19th century travel accounts
Are there any 19th century travel accounts written by half-whites? Please list some.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr. Gray was an expert on tripping. He wrote a compelling tale of what he saw in Charles Guiteau's head, and kept a log called the American Journal of Insanity. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL. I like it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Narrative of Robert Adams by Robert Adams (sailor) may fulfil your criteria. 184.147.140.76 (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * William Wells Brown is interesting. Also Mary Seacole. ----jpgordon:==( o ) 18:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

unfair workplace practices
how can i compell my employer to pay me on time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyflewiki (talk • contribs) 06:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This most certainly isn't a request for legal advice. You, or your union (official or unofficial) can morally or industrially coerce. You can attempt moral suasion ("begging"). Or you can go directly to direct action including industrial sabotage. The terrain of struggle will be dictated in part by the legal circumstances, but primarily by the militance of the workplace and the presence of yellow dog unions company unions or the militance or absence of independent unions. Industrial compulsion generally relies on density (number of active militants) and activity (quality of militance). You're likely to be in a low density low activity workplace, so the best that is normally expected in this circumstance is for you to be paid out but lose your job. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Conversion narratives about people who convert from a nonreligious, non-theistic background to a traditional Christian background?
I am looking for conversion narratives about people who convert from nonreligious, non-theistic backgrounds to a traditional Christian background (excluding non-Trinitarian Christianity)? 140.254.45.33 (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Googling "atheist to christian conversion stories" pulled up plenty of results for me. I gather Google results tend to be a bit tailored, but since most of my Google searches are for grimoires, anime, Snopes, and left-wing politics, if that search only got me the sort of results you're looking for, it should work for you as well.  If you're looking for physical books, you'll probably want to try Christian book stores in your area (again, Google is your friend, just search "Christian book store columbus ohio").  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I meant a sociological analysis of Christian converstion narratives about ~. 140.254.136.178 (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What questions would such an analysis attempt to answer? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It would give a detailed explanation of the religious conversion process(es). 140.254.136.178 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

In what ways is the Baha'i religion similar to Unitarian Universalism and different from Christianity?
I was reading an academic journal article in the sociology of religion that somehow separated the Baha'i religion, Unitarian Universalism, and Christianity into separate categories. As a matter of fact, the author examined conversion narratives of Christian converts, Muslim converts, Baha'i converts, Unitarian Universalism converts, and a few others, I think. The wording made Christianity and Islam comparable to each other and Unitarian Universalist and Baha'i comparable to each other, because conversion experiences in traditional religions (i.e. Catholicism and Judaism) involved external stresses (i.e. rape or abuse), while conversion experiences in "non-traditional religions" such as Unitarian Universalist and Baha'i religion involved internal stresses (i.e. personality issues). I don't know much about the Baha'i religion, so can anyone tell me the rudiments of this religion? In what way is the Baha'i religion similar to Unitarian Universalist and different from Christianity? 140.254.136.178 (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Bahá'í Faith may have the answers you seek. The article, I mean. "Beliefs" and "Social practices" seem the relevant sections. See also Christianity and Unitarian Universalism. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That only tells me general information. It does not compare Baha'i and Unitarian Universalist. 140.254.136.178 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You asked a very general question. I figured it best for you to do the comparing yourself, in whatever aspect you were specifically after. Religions encompass many things. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * [ec]See Bahá'í Faith for our article. The main difference between Baha'i and (mainstream) Christianity is that it does not assert the divinity of Jesus, regarding him instead as a prophet.  It differs from Islam in that it does not regard Muhammad as the last prophet, and recognizes other individuals outside the Abrahamic faiths as prophets. Tevildo (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the original author made Baha'i and Unitarian Universalism comparable to each other, because they are considered non-traditional, newer religions, whereas older religions such as Catholicism or Judaism are older and more collectivist. Perhaps, this may explain the differing religious conversion experience patterns that the author observed. 140.254.136.178 (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fair to say that Baha'i:Islam::UU:Christianity. The main difference between Baha'i and UU is its adherence to a positive moral code of prayer, fasting, abstention from alcohol, and traditional sexual norms. Tevildo (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From the point of view of some Muslims (especially in Iran), Babism was an "extreme" form of Islam, while Bahaiism is a further distorted version of Babism, hence an Islamic heresy. I think that both Christians and UUs agree that UUism is not Christian (though it partially developed from a form of Christianity)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding Tevildo's point, it is potentially misleading to say Baha'is do not assert the divinity of Jesus, since the "station" of a prophet is nonetheless immeasurably high. See Manifestation of God for our article. The simplest summary is that they are much more than perfect humans. In a sense, they are definitely divine, but they are not God himself, since they are not incarnations of his actual being. The main difference between the Baha'i faith and Christianity is that we do assert that our prophet is a manifestation of God, and Christians regard this as a serious error. Evangelicals regard it in the strongest terms, and it is hard to discuss any religious notion with them. We are not like Unitarian Universalists, because we have a central governing authority, the Universal House of Justice, whose decisions are binding upon us. We resemble them in their key principle, "free and responsible search for truth and meaning", but I don't know much else about it (I have never heard of it until now). For us, this principle is called "independent investigation of truth" (in the article I linked, it is listed 9th, after "harmony of religion and science". IBE (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, while not wishing to defend the actions of certain Roman Catholic priests, scoutmasters, and 1970's TV personalities, I might be tempted to take issue with the author's seeming equation of Christian conversion experiences with rape... Tevildo (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) On the contrary, you should not take issue, and I think you should read the article in question. Ines W. Jindra. "How Religious Content Matters in Conversion Narratives to Various Religious Groups". Sociology of Religion. 2011. Analyzing conversions to both traditional religions (Judaism and Catholicism) and non-traditional religions such as Baha’i and Hare Krishna, Ullman (1988) found that both types of converts had personal problems prior to their conversion, but converts to traditional religions reported a crisis because of external stress factors (such as rape or a serious illness), whereas converts to non-traditional religious groups experienced chronic personality problems prior to the conversion experience. I hope that this information can help you understand the statement about Catholic converts. 140.254.136.178 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, that sounds more reasonable. "Involved" can cover (as it were) a multitude of meanings, I didn't interpret it correctly. Tevildo (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I used the word "involved" in a specific context, but then, at the time, I couldn't find the verb that I wanted, so I used "involved", because it made sense to me in that specific context. Without the context, obviously, my sentence does not make any sense. In other words, it's just me and my malapropism. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While we're talking incidentally and small, I somewhat take issue with "traditional sex norms". In the tradition before the other traditions, rape was likely the norm. They didn't call it that, of course, just like we don't call cat, rooster or chimp rape that. But without it, we'd have probably gone extinct long ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * InedibleHulk, what you are referring to is the sociobiological theories of rape, which is highly controversial by itself. We can't say definitively that rape is justified because without it our species would collapse or become extinct. As a matter of fact, my previous sentence is one common objection to these rape theories. 140.254.136.178 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't think rape is justified by that, at this stage of the population game. Just was. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies, "traditional sexual norms" was intended as shorthand for "condemnation of homosexuality and extra-marital sexual relations". Staying with the incidental, see Mallard for an example of the - inappropriate? - use of "rape" in a technical context.  Shall we hat this bit, edifying though it may be? Tevildo (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No real offense taken. Just try to remember that worldwide religions cover the world, and traditions vary from place to place. Hat away! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking as someone who self-identifies as a UU, and who has looked at the Bahai faith with interest, I'd say the two are very different. Some of the concepts are reasonably similar - tolerance of other religions in the main - but UU comes from a Christian perspective, and Bahai from an Islamic perspective. They don't meet in the middle. As for conversion narratives, Christian conversion (in the sense of personal salvation, or being "saved") is purely an internal experience. I can't think of any religion that believes that raping or abusing people is the way to get them to believe in your god. Christian conversion is summed up in the Bible verse "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved", and because of the Great Commission is actively sought - although there are sects of Christianity that would differ from that. I can't speak for Islamic conversion, though I do know it exists as I know a woman who converted to Islam because she wanted to marry a Muslim. I would think it has more in common with Judaistic conversion - it is something you are born with and conversion is not actively sought. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That's actually VERY not true regarding Islam. Islam is a missionary religion as Christianity is.  Islam is definitely a missionary religion that holds that people must actively choose to follow Islam to be considered a Muslim, and which actively proselytizes too and seeks non-believers to join up.  See Dawah, Islamic missionary activity, etc.  -- Jayron  32  18:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Sanguine personality - a good thing? When?
According to the ancient concept of Four temperaments, people with an imbalance of the humours would be classified as choleric, melancholy, phlegmatic, or sanguine. In modern terms, however, my impression is that sanguine personalities seem to be widely approved, while the other three are widely regarded as at best loserly, very possibly in need of psychiatric treatment.

So: in ancient times when this system was regarded seriously, did people approve of the sanguine more than the other personalities? (If so, why were they always bloodletting?) If not, did the definition change to become somehow less annoying or scatterbrained, more friendly? Or did people in those less crowded cultures generally view social interaction less favorably, so that people who were "playful, lively, sociable, carefree, talkative, and pleasure-seeking" were badly regarded then? Wnt (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The question comes from quite a modern perspective. In antiquity, people with any imbalance of the humours were seen as suffering from dyscrasia, which Greek physicians thought was at the root of all illness, and the meaning of the English words "choleric", "melancholy", "phlegmatic", and "sanguine" is quite different from what the Greeks and Romans meant by the temperaments they associated with an excess of yellow bile, black bile, phlegm, or blood. All excesses were to be shunned, and noble Romans, like the Greek philosophers, favoured "the middle way": in Cicero's words, "sicut in plerisque rebus mediocritas optima est" (as in so many things the middle way is best). See also golden mean. Moonraker (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do the Four temperaments need to be re-translated? It seems to me that not only are we looking at an ancient concept, we're looking at an out of date translation. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not a direct answer, but just to give you one more recent criticism (though not "in modern terms" :-), in his famous On Human Relations, Knigge wrote that purely sanguine people are insecure weaklings, without strength and firmness ("Bloß Sanguinische sind unsichre Weichlinge, ohne Kraft und Festigkeit"). ---Sluzzelin talk  23:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * this I can work with - I've added that to the section in Four temperaments.  can you provide some sources, or better yet add the information to the article?  I still don't actually have an answer to the question, with all three explanations being agreed with here by someone or other, but I do believe in throwing data at a problem until it figures itself out. Wnt (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And... now it's reverted.  I guess we'll stick to whatever pop astrology model the current blurb sticks with, because that's reliable. Wnt (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it was reverted because the website seems closely connected with the author. If you do a Cite Book instead, I think it'll stick. In theory, that doesn't make a lot of sense. The book is even more a primary source. But people are strange. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection, you were simply being contrary to the prevailing theme. I've re-added it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wnt -- In the first few centuries A.D., the Stoic philosophy was favored by many among the educated classes of the Roman Empire, and this would appear to be most compatible with the phlegmatic temperament... AnonMoos (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)