|
Zesty posted:
Indigenous Alone is also a very politically-loaded category for a number of reasons. In the Southeastern US in particular, intermarriage between Black and Indigenous people was historically quite common, particularly during the period of enslavement, because native communities often served as refuges for those seeking to escape from their captors. Places like the Great Dismal Swamp in North Carolina and Virginia sheltered members of both communities as safe harbors, and exchanges of people and assistance were frequent. This was later used by racist pieces of poo poo as an excuse to deny the inconvenient identities of Indigenous people, reducing them to the category of "colored" due to the presence of literally any Black ancestry. Certainly, forced removals like the Trail of Tears are one reason there are fewer Indigenous people in the eastern US, but there are still plenty here! They just had to adapt and assimilate in different ways, ways which were then weaponized to further marginalize and erase them.
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:I want to see a poll on how many men think that they could defeat Mulan in a swordfight. I'd just smirk at them, like "oh, Hun"
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 02:55
|
|
|
Air Skwirl posted:No, Nala married a king, a lot of "princesses" aren't actually a princess but do have some official royal title. Mulan is 100% not any sort of royalty, but given how good she is with a sword I'm not going to tell her "well, actually."
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 04:33
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Nala is the daughter of a king. Like, a different king than Mufasa? I watched some of the dtv stuff but that was decades ago and literally remember nothing of them.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 04:42
|
|
|
Air Skwirl posted:No, Nala married a king, a lot of "princesses" aren't actually a princess but do have some official royal title. Mulan is 100% not any sort of royalty, but given how good she is with a sword I'm not going to tell her "well, actually." Unless they changed things up in the sequel and the new movie that her thing was more general competence and quick thinking.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 05:04
|
|
|
Air Skwirl posted:No, Nala married a king, a lot of "princesses" aren't actually a princess but do have some official royal title. Mulan is 100% not any sort of royalty, but given how good she is with a sword I'm not going to tell her "well, actually." I'm not sure I buy that being competent makes you effectively royalty. Actually I think it counts against you.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 06:16
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Nala is the daughter of a king. Having preposterously looked it up, canonically she is not; her parents were Sarafina (a random female lion as far as the movie tells us) and an unnamed male lion born around the same time as Mufasa and Scar, but not suggested to be a king at all.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 07:29
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
BonHair posted:I'm not sure I buy that being competent makes you effectively royalty. Actually I think it counts against you. I'm just saying, I'm not going to argue with Mulan if she wants to hang out with Snow White and Jasmine.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 07:30
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Having preposterously looked it up, canonically she is not; her parents were Sarafina (a random female lion as far as the movie tells us) and an unnamed male lion born around the same time as Mufasa and Scar, but not suggested to be a king at all.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 12:24
|
|
|
Disney princess chat is not where I expected this thread to ever go
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 13:55
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Disney princess chat is not where I expected this thread to ever go After 2300-odd pages I'm not sure there was anywhere else left.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:31
|
|
|
There comes a point when the well about HRE princes goes dry..
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:35
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Disney princess chat is not where I expected this thread to ever go 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:41
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Indigenous Alone is also a very politically-loaded category for a number of reasons. In the Southeastern US in particular, intermarriage between Black and Indigenous people was historically quite common, particularly during the period of enslavement, because native communities often served as refuges for those seeking to escape from their captors. Places like the Great Dismal Swamp in North Carolina and Virginia sheltered members of both communities as safe harbors, and exchanges of people and assistance were frequent. This was later used by racist pieces of poo poo as an excuse to deny the inconvenient identities of Indigenous people, reducing them to the category of "colored" due to the presence of literally any Black ancestry. Certainly, forced removals like the Trail of Tears are one reason there are fewer Indigenous people in the eastern US, but there are still plenty here! They just had to adapt and assimilate in different ways, ways which were then weaponized to further marginalize and erase them. The problem there is that a lot of Americans (both white and black) claim partial native ancestry, when often they only have very tenuous links (genetically and/or culturally) to any indigenous community, or none at all. Usually this is not borne out of any malicious intent to misrepresent themselves or appropriate an identity that doesn't belong to them, but because it's a story that's been passed down in their family for generations, and they have no reason to doubt it. If you included all these people, the map would be a lot less useful. This is also why many Native American tribes continue to use blood quantum, of their own volition. It's not my place to judge, but it does make logical sense if you want to keep your identity from being watered down completely, even if it's a difficult decision. The other side of the coin, of course, is that with any sort of blood quantum, the 'one drop rule' being the most extreme example, it artificially limits your numbers and downplays your overall contribution. That's always the trade-off. When I read that the number of white people in the US had dropped (or stagnated, I don't remember exactly) for the first time in history between 2010 and 2020, my first thought was that it made sense, given the rise of interracial relationships, sub-replacement fertility for decades, and very low immigration rates. Then for unrelated reasons a while later, I happened to be going over the Demographics section of a number of small Midwestern towns, and noticed something. The population in most of them had stayed about the same between 2010 and 2020, and the non-white population usually close to non-existent during both censuses, except for one category that nearly always showed strong growth - people from two or more races. The only logical explanation is that a significant number of people who formerly identified as white alone, are now identifying as mixed-race. Once I noticed this, I kept seeing it for nearly every overwhelmingly-white town. I won't speculate on the causes, and whether it's good or bad, but it seems common enough for it to have a statistically significant effect. The reason it's interesting to me is that even a small percentage of people choosing to self-identify differently can have a big impact on the overall narrative concerning your group. To tie it back to Native Americans, blood quantum rules can help preserve what's left of your culture and identity, but by the same token they do indeed contribute to the idea that there are 'no natives left' in most of the United States.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 15:32
|
|
|
Also going by percentages means that you're likely to totally erase the native populations in more generally densely areas, so you'll mostly see the reservations.  Although I can't seem to find any state by state real numbers or estimates of real numbers, and I don't want to do the math to figure out everything. For one example though, New York City on the census has a 19,000 Native population, whereas one of the darker areas on the map is Sioux county, North Dakota, which has a total human population of around 4,000, only 84% of which is native. I do also wonder whether some hispanics might decide to identify as Native American which would create weirder statistics. The US census tracks "hispanic" as separately from race (whereas most american hispanic nations tend to self-identify their primary demographic as mixed between native and european), so I wonder if that'd lead to some hispanics ending up identifying on the census as native american but not specifying biracial.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Once I noticed this, I kept seeing it for nearly every overwhelmingly-white town. I won't speculate on the causes, and whether it's good or bad, but it seems common enough for it to have a statistically significant effect. The reason it's interesting to me is that even a small percentage of people choosing to self-identify differently can have a big impact on the overall narrative concerning your group. To tie it back to Native Americans, blood quantum rules can help preserve what's left of your culture and identity, but by the same token they do indeed contribute to the idea that there are 'no natives left' in most of the United States. OTOH maybe it doesn’t necessarily matter. Turkish people living in Turkey today have also a small minority of Turkic ethnicity (~20% on average, certainly far lower for Istanbul and the wealthy west and south coasts) but they’re about as jingoistic about their ethnic heritage as you could possibly be even if you were Japanese and 99%+ of your ancestors for the past 1500 years were also born and raised in Japan. On the opposite spectrum, you have all of Latin America north of Chile where the people are ethnically majority of native descent, but the pre-1520 culture and language has been obliterated except in Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, and a few pockets here and there in Central America and Mexico.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 22:10
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:and meerkats Pshaw, everyone knows meerkats come from Russia. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 22:41
|
|
|
7b ftw
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 06:44
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I do also wonder whether some hispanics might decide to identify as Native American which would create weirder statistics. The US census tracks "hispanic" as separately from race (whereas most american hispanic nations tend to self-identify their primary demographic as mixed between native and european), so I wonder if that'd lead to some hispanics ending up identifying on the census as native american but not specifying biracial. With the exception of maybe some Afro-Latinos, the vast majority of Hispanics in the US seem to identify on the census as either Other or White, partly dependent on their appearance and/or actual amount of European ancestry, but also many other factors that end up making the distinction not very meaningful. I've read that quite often, people within the same family identify differently. Very few will categorize themselves as either Native American or mixed race (in census terms). As for Native American specifically, I don't know if this is intended currently, but the perception still exists that this term exists specifically for people native to the area of the modern United States. It's another difficult one, because an Aymara from Bolivia, or a Mexican mestizo that leans heavily to the indigenous side, could reasonably claim to be Native American, but US natives and/or policy makers might not always appreciate the term being broadened in this way. That's just what I would assume, I'm not sure what the actual consensus on the matter is. This leads to the, uh, interesting situation where there are huge stretches of the United States where the majority of the population identifies as Other. Policy and map makers usually deal with this by treating Hispanic as a 'race', and this works well enough since those who identify as Other are overwhelmingly Hispanic. In general, the arrival of tens of millions of Latin Americans has had the effect of putting serious pressure on the usefulness and coherence of the U.S. census. The problem is that the vast majority of them come pre-mixed, and usually identify with their nationality first and foremost. Even introducing categories such as mestizo or mulatto would be a serious oversimplification. While it's true that the majority of Mexicans are mestizo, nearly all of these mestizos have a small amount of black ancestry as well, sometimes 5-10% or more. Similarly, it is treated as a given that people from the Hispanic Caribbean are mixed black and white, but DNA studies have shown that they usually have a significant chunk of indigenous ancestry, sometimes more than 20% (which leads to the question of whether or not the Taíno truly went extinct, but that's a different matter). I'm reminded of the situation in Latin America under the Spanish colonial authorities, where they would introduce an ever-increasing amount of racial categories for their caste system, until they were finally forced to give up because it became impossible to keep track. It makes me wonder if we'll see a similar breakdown in the United States, and I think it will happen eventually, but it'll be a while still, since racial categorization still seems to be very important within US American society, for various understandable reasons. I tried to find a map showing the % of Other by county but wasn't able to, probably because this is quite reasonably not seen as a very useful category. I did find this, related to what I was talking about earlier, a huge, nearly continuous area stretching across the Northeast and Midwest where mixed-race people are supposedly the second largest race/ethnicity:  However, thinking about it some more, perhaps my earlier, somewhat cynical take isn't necessarily the only factor at play. If you are a non-white person living in an area that is 97% white, then it is statistically likely that your partner (if any) will be white, unless you go out of your way to avoid that. And then, of course, your offspring (if any) will be mixed-race. This also would contribute to the mixed-race population being larger than that of any one non-white category in hundreds of counties across the United States.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 15:26
|
|
|
Carthag Tuek posted:7b ftw wät
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 15:33
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:In general, the arrival of tens of millions of Latin Americans has had the effect of putting serious pressure on the usefulness and coherence of the U.S. census. ... I'm reminded of the situation in Latin America under the Spanish colonial authorities, where they would introduce an ever-increasing amount of racial categories for their caste system, until they were finally forced to give up because it became impossible to keep track. TinTower posted:I regret to tell you ET_Californian is at it again:
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 15:54
|
|
|
I don't think this has been posted here. Found it while scrolling around on Twitter/X: Ethnic stereotypes among students at the University of Paris c.1200 AD From the link: quote:[University of Pennsylvania T and R Introduction] The testimony is unanimous as to the evil life of a large proportion of the students. It was inevitable that young men-in many cases, mere boys living under practically no restraint and not subject to the full penalties of the law, should have been boisterous and obstreperous. Many of the so-called students resorted to the universities simply for enjoyment and with no idea of study. Conflicts between the' different nations were every day occurrences. Town and gown rows were frequent. But the citizens as a whole seem to have been favorably disposed toward the students.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 00:38
|
|
|
Enters “American” for ethnicity. Refuses to elaborate. Leaves.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 01:34
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Enters “American” for ethnicity. It's a natural result of the stupid way they write up the census. If you're white and refuse to identify with a European country then that's where you get lumped. They want people to identify a European ancestry but the vast majority of Americans are no longer descended from a single European country. I'm not really Cherokee but I'm just as Cherokee as I am German, and that's my largest European ancestry. Ask stupid questions, get stupid answers. Realistically it makes as much sense to call me American as it does to call anyone Mexican.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 03:51
|
|
|
I think it's important to recognize that after 1808 there were mostly not that many slaves imported into the USA, so most black people you see are descendants from pre-1808 slaves or their various white oppressors. Before the huge influxes of Irish people and before the huge influx of Italian people, pre-1808 black people were here. They have way more of a claim on America than do any other immigrants who came after them. Yet those immigrants and their children and their children's family children constantly push forward a narrative where Africans are not part of the American story. And yet, and yet! they were here way before any Gallucios or Kellys
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 04:36
|
|
|
Here in Philadelphia this Italian festival is going on right now in South Philly. South Philly is very much considered an Italian area, one of the most in the whole USA. South Philly Italians, just like Rocky! But there were significant populations of black people in South Philly way before there were a lot of Italians there. Black people have way more of a claim on South Philly than do the Italians. Yet the one cultural idea persists because we don't see black people as equal partners in the American story
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 04:40
|
|
|
Yeah Philly is evil and I recommend everybody stay away.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 04:45
|
|
|
they made an actual place based on always sunny? like a theme park?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 05:42
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Also why any kind of demographic analysis of that nature on a global scale rapidly descends into farce, either of trying to make some kind of phylogenetic 'tree of life' out of everyone's historic classification systems, or using the culturally dominant US system as a Procrustean bed until you end up with nonsense like Sounds like something a salta atrás would say  lol even the name itself is hosed up
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 13:00
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Enters “American” for ethnicity. If you don't fill out the form in certain situations in the USA the person giving it to you is meant to make a guess based on your appearance
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 15:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 21:51
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/japan-sato-only-name-by-2531-marriage-law Diqnol posted:Idk what you’re talking about, a large population of Americans know Spanish??? 100% in argentina, cuba and many american countries Tei fucked around with this message at 08:00 on May 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 07:57
|
|
|
Tei posted:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/japan-sato-only-name-by-2531-marriage-law and plenty of Americans, in addition!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 12:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 14:02
|
|
|
Why does it separate some states by age and then others by year? Weird any state would care before you set up a casino though.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 14:13
|
|
|
Notable people Using data from Morgane Laouenan et al., the map is showing birthplaces of the most "notable people" around the world. Data has been processed to show only one person for each unique geographic location with the highest notability rank. https://tjukanovt.github.io/notable-people It gets extremely granular in some parts of the world, apparently going down to the village level in some areas. In the US multiple small towns within counties are included. In others its a single name for the entire county. "A new strand of literature aims at building the most comprehensive and accurate database of notable individuals. We collect a massive amount of data from various editions of Wikipedia and Wikidata. Using deduplication techniques over these partially overlapping sources, we cross-verify each retrieved information. For some variables, Wikipedia adds 15% more information when missing in Wikidata. We find very few errors in the part of the database that contains the most documented individuals but nontrivial error rates in the bottom of the notability distribution, due to sparse information and classification errors or ambiguity. Our strategy results in a cross-verified database of 2.29 million individuals (an elite of 1/43,000 of human being having ever lived), including a third who are not present in the English edition of Wikipedia. Data collection is driven by specific social science questions on gender, economic growth, urban and cultural development. We document an Anglo-Saxon bias present in the English edition of Wikipedia, and document when it matters and when not."
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 14:27
|
|
|
taters posted:Notable people
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 17:40
|
|
|
I checked on one of the people shown as being born in Antarctica. Wikidata puts him in Pomerania. Not sure how that mistake was made.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 18:34
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:Why does it separate some states by age and then others by year? Weird any state would care before you set up a casino though. It just depends on the law of the state. It's also confusing because the Wikipedia page that uses this graphic also has a table, but the table doesn't match the graphic. Some states, like Pennsylvania, require that the machine be at least 25 years old (an "antique"). Some set the machine age threshold based on date of manufacture - Washington, DC requires the machine be manufactured before 1952. You're right, though, that a machine being legal to own doesn't allow offering it as a gambling device.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
taters posted:Notable people This is interesting but mostly because of who gets overrepresented as “notable” based on typical Wikipedia obsessions like convicted murderers (e.g. where I currently reside has a white supremacist who apparently murdered someone), random Olympians, actors, musicians, etc. Also lol at my hometown being represented by someone who wasn’t born there and where even the supposed data source has them listed correctly.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 19:48
|
|
