Humanities desk
< May 25	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 26[edit]

Living in poverty vs living self-sufficiently but away from large society[edit]

There are poor and disadvantaged people within a society. Then, there are people living in nomadic hunter-gatherer groups. Both groups of people may experience high child mortality and parasitic/viral/bacterial infections. Are they both living in poverty? Or, are only the social outcasts of either group the ones in poverty? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First you have to define poverty - and particularly whether you are talking about relative poverty (the poorer in an affluent society) or absolute poverty (being unable to obtain the absolute necessities of life). Being a social outcast is irrelevant - the outcasts may actually be richer than the rest of the society. Wymspen (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But what if a person has excellent survival skills and know how to obtain food by gathering food in trash cans and in parks and hunting for tiny edible insects? Would that person still be living in absolute poverty if he knows how to obtain resources, even if it means disobeying the law and stealing food from a grocery store? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Wymspen said, whether such edge cases are included depends entirely on how you define "poverty". Under some definitions, yes, for other definitions no.

Is there context to this question? ApLundell (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.70.33 -- I'm sure that you're well-meaning in your own way, but you don't seem to understand that hunter-gatherers have been squeezed into a few rather marginal areas in today's world (see my answer to the previous question above), and few of them (outside of inhabitants of some of the Andaman islands) are unaffected by contacts with more organized societies... AnonMoos (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to wear caps?[edit]

I was doing some research into my former home town of Leyton and came across an account of the ancient manorial court. One of the cases mentioned in the Victoria County History is "A solitary instance of presentment for failure to wear caps according to the statute is found in 1595". Why on earth would there be a law making people wear a cap, and how long was it in force? Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've observed that American schoolchildren are discouraged from wearing hats indoors, but hats outside are acceptable. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some people were required to wear hats to indicate their status, students, soldiers, guild members etc.

But if it went to the courts, I'll bet it was a jew who wasn't wearing the required clothing identifying himself as such. That was common enough during that time period. This is the fastest reference I could find. It just goes to Quora, which isn't the best source, but books about the time period will also mention it. [1]

ApLundell (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds logical, but the Edict of Expulsion in 1290 expelled all Jewish people from England until the Resettlement of the Jews in England in the second half of the 17th century. See History of the Jews in England. Alansplodge (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sumptuary laws is our article on the subject. Specifically about caps: "A 1571 Act of Parliament to stimulate domestic wool consumption and general trade decreed that on Sundays and holidays all males over six years of age, except for the nobility and persons of degree, were to wear woollen caps on pain of a fine of three farthings (¾ penny) per day. This law instituted the flat cap as part of English wear. The Bill was repealed in 1597". Rmhermen (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid, many thanks. An early form of economic interventionism. Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource:Acts of the Parliament of England/Elizabeth I ~ 1571 shows it as the "Caps Act 1571" (what else would you call it?). It also gets a mention at Monmouth cap. Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

LGBT in Europe[edit]

Why is Western Europe generally much more advanced than Eastern Europe in terms of LGBT rights? (I mean, it's been over 25 years - a whole generation - since the fall of the Iron Curtain, if that's part of the reason - other countries that were once virtually theocracies (Ireland) or dictatorships (Spain, Portugal) have been totally tolerant for years.) --ZygonLieutenant (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the concept of "gay" is a Western concept. In non-Western countries, homosexuality is a punishable behavior, because it is thought that anybody can engage in it voluntarily. The notion of "gay" assumes that the person does not choose this behavior and thus should be removed from censure. Instead, the person should accept himself as gay and allow homosexual behavior to be the outward sign of being gay. Same goes for fat people. Some people blame fat people as if fatness is their fault, and that they deserve to be punished for sloth and gluttony. Other people take a more sympathetic view and say that there are many factors that affect a person's weight, some of which are out of a person's control. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Chance is a book by Dr Lustig on obesity and excessive sugar consumption. The introduction goes in depth about how obesity is beyond the individual's control, but treatment is within the individual's control if the individual had the money to buy low-sugar food and time to cook. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are not robots. Sexual orientation might not be chosen, but behavior IS chosen. And it happens that western Europe has a more enlightened view about the right to chose one's lifestyle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question here isn't who's right but why the other side is wrong. :P (The poster formerly known as Tamfang) —Tamfang (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cans of worms! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From "thought that anybody can engage in it voluntarily" you can't jump to "a punishable behavior". Defining homosexual behavior as voluntary or homosexuality as a choice does not change the fact that there's little reason to punish them.Hofhof (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All Eastern European countries are integral parts of the western world. Non-western concepts aren't applicable here.--213.233.147.143 (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]