Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 March 30

= March 30 =

Ethnic attrition rates among second and third generation Salvadoran Americans
I was looking over at the charts on page 36-38 of this Rand study & found some interesting things that brought several questions to mind. 

According to the charts on page 36-38, 2nd and 3rd generation Salvadoran Americans are less likely to identify with the country of their parents & with the term Hispanic/Latino to describe themselves than any other 2nd generation Latinos. The ethnic attrition rate for that group is a whopping 77.6% overall. Contrast that with 2nd generation Mexican Americans where the ethnic attrition rate for that group is just 5.4%. On the other hand, the ethnic attrition rate for first generation Salvadoran immigrants to the U.S is 3.1%, which is average.

According to the charts on page 37, for 2nd generation Salvadoran Americans where both of the parents come from El Salvador, the ethnic attrition rate is 23.6%, higher than all other 2nd generation Latinos whose biological parents came from only one Latin American country. However, if the mother came from El Salvador, but not the father, the ethnic attrition rate for that group of 2nd generation Salvadoran Americans is a whopping 83.8%, but if the father comes from El Salvador, but not the mother, the ethnic attrition rate for the son or daughter is an incredible 88.1%. These numbers are much, much higher than all 2nd generation Latino groups. According to the chart on page 38, the ethnic attrition rate for third 3rd generation Salvadoran Americans where both sides has Salvadoran is 25.7%, still significantly higher than other Latino groups, but for third generation Salvadoran Americans where one side of the family is Salvadoran, the attrition rate is at 96.7%, virtually everyone. In contrast, the ethnic attrition rate for third generation Mexican Americans whose both sides of the family are Mexican is at 1.8% and in which one side of the family is Mexican, the ethnic attrition rate is 44.8%.

So, why is ethnic attrition much greater among 2nd & 3rd generation Salvadoran Americans? What is it about El Salvador that a substantial amount of them seem to not care or like where their parents came from unlike other Hispanic American groups? Why do they assimilate with the U.S today so well? Willminator (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Villages in pre-modern Ireland
Comments in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland confuse me, but as it's a behavioural question there, my question would be thoroughly out of place and unhelpful if asked there. User:Aymatth2 says:"I have the feeling that for long periods the parish was the main unit, not the village. Cottages were scattered, each with their own plot of land. Tinkers and peddlers would come by, there would be a fair every few months and the town was only a couple of hours walk away. But most parishes did not have a central village with shops, smithy, pubs and offices. The focus was the church or chapel, not the village. Many parishes that were once densely populated, now deserted, never had a village at their center."I always assumed that in mediæval through early modern Ireland, along with the rest of temperate farm country in western Europe (e.g. not Alps, not places near Hammerfest, not the Schwarzwald), would have been inhabited by people generally living in villages and going out each day to farm the surrounding countryside, since they'd have a small amount of society and still be living close to the fields, whether strips or enclosed fields or something else. Why would people live in scattered cottages instead of in little villages? Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Lets turn the question around. Why live in villages. A: For mutual protection, commerce, and industry.  Without any one of those three there is no advantage.  If you have ever tended a vegetable plot you will have discovered that rabbits and deer are hungry 24/7. Wondering too far away from your crops for any length of time was  never an option. Hawthorn hedges do not keep hungry critters out of any  field for long – even worse in areas with no hedges. As far as I know, large  neolithic settlements on hills, were  inhabited by primarily herders and on lakes by  fishermen who were less dependant on agriculture but I would have to look that up to check to for exceptions.--Aspro (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) I don't know, but in rural parts of Ireland people still do. If you drive around rural Ireland, you'll see plenty of isolated houses, and very few clusters smaller than a town.


 * According to J H Andrews, "The geographical element in Irish history", in A New History of Ireland Vol 1: Prehistoric and Early Ireland, edited by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, the lack of villages is the result of the higher social status of stock raisers than arable farmers. Livestock requires a lot of pastureland, which makes living close together difficult. The social focus is not the weekly market but the less frequent livestock fair. Where there were clusters of farmsteads, they seem to have been ephemeral, not lasting long enough to build a church or an inn and gain some kind of permanence. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The importance of pastoralism is certainly a key factor in the lack of nucleated settlements, or villages, in premodern Ireland, or more accurately, in pre-Norman Ireland, since in areas of Ireland ruled by the Normans, according to this source, villages did develop in the later middle ages in areas of eastern Ireland dominated by Normans. Another important explanatory factor, briefly mentioned at the beginning of the same source, is that Ireland never underwent the imposition of the Roman villa system or, until the arrival of the Normans, the subsequent development of manorialism. In most of western Europe, nucleated settlements were associated with manorial estates. The lord of the manor set aside a part of the manor for the residences of the the manor's serfs.  The manor house, parish church, and often a mill were nearby.  Many western European villages owe their existence to medieval manorial estates. Again turning the question around, why would people live in villages next to nosy, difficult, or loud neighbors when they could have their own little private farmsteads?  Marco polo (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For the same reason as for the archetypal village nowadays which according to the joke provides two pubs and a post office. Though actually a pub would normally run the post office and a small shop too. Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dispersed settlement patterns are not only characteristic of Ireland, but, historically, of parts of "Celtic" Britain as well - particularly much of Scotland and Wales. See this map, for example.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and of the later Norse settlements in areas less suitable for arable farming.   D b f i r s   06:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Chinese depiction of Garuda - Who is the artist?
Can someone please find out who drew the modern depiction of Garuda on this page? I've tried a Tineye reverse image search to see if the whole thing is available, but haven't had any luck. Thanks.

http://tupian.baike.com/a2_52_66_01200000194472136324667684583_jpg.html

--Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is an image with more of the drawing, including the artist's seal. I can't really read Chinese but maybe someone else can take a look. The picture is not credited at that site.--Cam (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that is from a set of illustrations from Creation of the Gods by Xu Zhonglin. There were two illustrators credited in a contemporary edition: Dai Dunbang, and Dai Hongjie; looking at their work, it looks like it could be Dai Dunbang (戴敦邦) but I'm not positive. --Canley (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)