Wealth

Wealth From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2008) For the business meaning, see Wealth (economics). "Prosperity" redirects here. For other uses, see Prosperity (disambiguation). "Affluent" redirects here. For type of river/stream, see Tributary. Wealth derives from the old English word "weal". The term was originally an adjective to describe the possession of great qualities.

Contents [hide]

• • • •

1 Definition 2 Anthropological views o 2.1 The interpersonal concept o 2.2 Accumulation of non-necessities o 2.3 Control of arable land o 2.4 The capitalist notion 3 Sociological view o 3.1 The upper class o 3.2 The middle class o 3.3 The working class o 3.4 The welfare class 4 Other concepts o 4.1 Global wealth o 4.2 Not a zero-sum game o 4.3 The non-normative concept o 4.4 Non-financial o 4.5 Sustainable wealth as a measure of well-being o 4.6 Sustainable wealth o 4.7 Buckminster Fuller's Notion of Wealth o 4.8 The limits to wealth creation o 4.9 The difference between income and wealth o 4.10 Wealth as measured by time 5 Distribution 6 Wealth in the form of land 7 See also 8 External links

•

9 References

• •

•

•

[edit] Definition

Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society". This "produce" is, at its simplest, that which satisfies human needs and wants of utility. In popular usage, wealth can be described as an abundance of items of economic value, or the state of controlling or possessing such items, usually in the form of money, real estate and personal property. An individual who is considered wealthy, affluent, or rich is someone who has accumulated substantial wealth relative to others in their society or reference group. In economics, net wealth refers to the value of assets owned minus the value of liabilities owed at a point in time.[citation needed] Wealth can be categorized into three principal categories: personal property, including homes or automobiles; monetary savings, such as the accumulation of past income; and the capital wealth of income producing assets, including real estate, stocks, and bonds.[citation needed] All these delineations make wealth an especially important part of social stratification. Wealth provides a type of safety net of protection against an unforeseen decline in one’s living standard in the event of job loss or other emergency and can be transformed into home ownership, business ownership, or even a college education. [1][not in citation given] 'Wealth' refers to some accumulation of resources, whether abundant or not. 'Richness' refers to an abundance of such resources. A wealthy (or rich) individual, community, or nation thus has more resources than a poor one. Richness can also refer at least basic needs being met with abundance widely shared. The opposite of wealth is destitution. The opposite of richness is poverty. The term implies a social contract on establishing and maintaining ownership in relation to such items which can be invoked with little or no effort and expense on the part of the owner (see means of protection). The concept of wealth is relative and not only varies between societies, but will often vary between different sections or regions in the same society. A personal net worth of US $10,000 in most parts of the United States would certainly not place a person among the wealthiest citizens of that locale. However, such an amount would constitute an extraordinary amount of wealth in impoverished developing countries. Concepts of wealth also vary across time. Modern labor-saving inventions and the development of the sciences have enabled the poorest sectors of today's society to enjoy a standard of living equivalent if not superior to the wealthy of the not-too-distant past. This comparative wealth across time is also applicable to the future; given this trend of human advancement, it is likely that the standard of living that the wealthiest today enjoy will be considered rude poverty by future generations. Some of the wealthiest countries in the world are the United States, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Norway, Japan, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, South Korea, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Israel, Taiwan, Australia, Singapore, Philippines, Canada, Finland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Italy, Denmark, New Zealand, Iceland, Monaco, Luxembourg, Liechenstein and Switzerland, the larger of which are in the G8. All of the above countries, except United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, are considered developed countries.

[edit] Anthropological views Anthropology characterizes societies, in part, based on a society's concept of wealth, and the institutional structures and power used to protect this wealth.[citation needed] Several types are defined below. They can be viewed as an evolutionary progression. Many young adolescents have become wealthy from the inheritance of their families.

[edit] The interpersonal concept

Early hominids seem to have started with incipient ideas of wealth[citation needed], similar to that of the great apes. But as tools, clothing, and other mobile infrastructural capital became important to survival (especially in hostile biomes), ideas such as the inheritance of wealth, political positions, leadership, and ability to control group movements (to perhaps reinforce such power) emerged. Neandertal societies had pooled funerary rites and cave painting which implies at least a notion of shared assets that could be spent for social purposes, or preserved for social purposes. Wealth may have been collective.

[edit] Accumulation of non-necessities Humans back to and including the Cro-Magnons seem to have had clearly defined rulers and status hierarchies. Digs in Russia have revealed elaborate funeral clothing on a pair of children buried there over 35,000 years ago.[citation needed] This indicates a considerable accumulation of wealth by some individuals or families. The high artisan skill also suggest the capacity to direct specialized labor to tasks that are not of any obvious utility to the group's survival.

[edit] Control of arable land The rise of irrigation and urbanization, especially in ancient Sumer and later Egypt, unified the ideas of wealth and control of land and agriculture.[citation needed] To feed a large stable population, it was possible and necessary to achieve universal cultivation and city-state protection. The notion of the state and the notion of war are said to have emerged at this time. Tribal cultures were formalized into what we would call feudal systems, and many rights and obligations were assumed by the monarchy and related aristocracy. Protection of infrastructural capital built up over generations became critical: city walls, irrigation systems, sewage systems, aqueducts, buildings, all impossible to replace within a single generation, and thus a matter of social survival to maintain. The social capital of entire societies was often defined in terms of its relation to infrastructural capital (e.g. castles or forts or an allied monastery, cathedral or temple), and natural capital, (i.e. the land that supplied locally grown food). Agricultural economics continues these traditions in the analyses of modern agricultural policy and related ideas of wealth, e.g. the ark of taste model of agricultural wealth.

[edit] The capitalist notion

Banknotes from all around the world donated by visitors to the British Museum, London. Industrialization emphasized the role of technology. Many jobs were automated. Machines replaced some workers while other workers became more specialized. Labour specialization became critical to economic success. However, physical capital, as it came to be known, consisting of both the natural capital (raw materials from nature) and the infrastructural capital (facilitating technology), became the focus of the analysis of wealth. Adam Smith saw wealth creation as the combination of materials, labour, land, and technology in such a way as to capture a profit (excess above the cost of production).[2] The theories of

David Ricardo, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and later, Karl Marx, in the 18th century and 19th century built on these views of wealth that we now call classical economics and Marxian economics (see labor theory of value). Marx distinguishes in the Grundrisse between material wealth and human wealth, defining human wealth as "wealth in human relations"; land and labour were the source of all material wealth.

[edit] Sociological view “Wealth provides an important mechanism of the intergenerational transmission of inequality.”[3] Approximately half of the wealthiest people in America inherited family fortunes. But the effect of inherited wealth can be seen on a more modest level as well. For example, a couple that buys a house with the financial help from their parents or a student that has his or her college education paid for, are benefiting directly from the accumulated wealth of previous generations. [4] As a result of different conditions of life, members of different social classes view the world in many different ways. This allows them to develop different “conceptions of social reality, different aspirations and hopes and fears, different conceptions of the desirable.” [5] The way different classes in society view wealth vary and these diverse characteristics are a fundamental dividing line among the classes. Today there is an extremely skewed concentration of wealth in America, more so than even income. [6] In 1996 the Fed survey reported that the net worth of the top 1 percent was approximately equal to that of the bottom 90 percent. [7]

[edit] The upper class Inheritance establishes different starting lines. The majority of those in the upper class have inherited their wealth and place a greater emphasis on wealth than on income. Upper class children are taught about investments and accumulation. They are trained and conditioned, technically and philosophically, to handle the wealth that they will inherit and how to earn more later in life. Wealth and being a member of the upper class requires significant prior preparation and familiarization. If not trained correctly children may easily squander immense wealth, though this rarely happens. They use the power and freedom that comes with wealth to leverage opportunities. This allows them more flexibility in their lives and as a result have fewer worries.[8] The accumulation of wealth fosters a growth of power, which in turn creates privileges conducive to more wealth. Children of the upper class are socialized on how to manage this power and channel this privilege in many different forms such as gaining access to others' capital and to critical information. It is by accessing various edifices of information, associates, procedures and auspicious rules that the upper class are able to maintain their wealth and pass it along, and not necessarily because of an extreme work ethic. [9]

[edit] The middle class There is a distinct difference in views about wealth among the middle class compared to those of the upper class. Where the upper class beliefs focus on wealth, the middle class places a greater emphasis on income. The middle class views wealth as something for emergencies and it is seen as more of a cushion. This class is comprised of people that were raised with families that typically owned their own home, planned ahead and stressed the importance of education and achievement. They earn a significant amount of income and also have significant amounts of consumption. However there is very limited savings (deferred consumption) or investments, besides retirement pensions and homeownership. They have been socialized to accumulate wealth through structured, institutionalized arrangements. Without this set structure, asset accumulation would likely not occur. [10]

[edit] The working class The working class has fewer options for advancement and wealth accumulation than the upper and middle classes. This can be characterized as having limited income, unstable employment and an insignificant retirement pension account. Access to structured asset accumulation programs, such as retirement pensions, are not readily available to those in this class and as a result little of their earnings are actually saved or invested. Consequently, there is a limited financial cushion available in times of hardship such as a divorce or major illness. Just as their parents, children who lack assets are less likely to plan for the future. [11]

[edit] The welfare class Those with the least amount of wealth are the welfare poor. Wealth accumulation for this class is to some extent prohibited. People that receive AFDC transfers cannot own more than a trivial amount of assets, in order to be eligible and remain qualified for income transfers. Most of the institutions that the welfare poor encounter discourage any accumulation of assets. [12]

[edit] Other concepts [edit] Global wealth Michel Foucault commented that the concept of Man as an aggregate did not exist before the 18th century. The shift from the analysis of an individual's wealth to the concept of an aggregation of all men is implied in the concepts of political economy and then economics. This transition took place as a result of a cultural bias inherent in the Enlightenment. Wealth was seen as an objective fact of living as a human being in a society.

[edit] Not a zero-sum game Regardless of whether one defines wealth as the sum total of all currency, the M1 money supply, or a broader measure which includes money, securities, and property, the supply of wealth, while limited, is not fixed. Thus, there is room for people to gain wealth without taking from others, and wealth is not necessarily a zero-sum game, though short-term effects and some economic situations may make it appear to be so. Many things can affect the creation and destruction of wealth including size of the work force, production efficiency, available resource endowments, inventions, innovations, and availability of capital. However, at any given point in time, there is a limited amount of wealth which exists. That is to say, it is fixed in the short term. People who study short term issues see wealth as a zero-sum game and concentrate on the distribution of wealth, whereas people who study long-term issues see wealth as a nonzero sum game and concentrate on wealth creation. Other people put equal emphasis on both the creation and the distribution of wealth. It has been theorized, for example, by Robert Wright, among others, that society becomes increasingly non-zero-sum as it becomes more complex, specialized, and interdependent. One's attitude towards this issue affects the design of the social or economic system that one prefers.

[edit] The non-normative concept Neoclassical economics tries to be non-normative for the most part, to be objective and free of value statements. If it is successful, then wealth would be defined in such a way that it would not be

preconceived to be either positive or negative. This objective has not always been the case. In prior eras wealth was assumed to be a set of means of persuasion. It was often seen as self-interested arguments by the powerful explaining why they should remain in power. In The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli had commented in that earlier era on the prudent use of wealth, and the need to tolerate some cruelty and vice in the use of it, in order to maintain appearances of strength and power. Jane Jacobs in the 1960s and 70s offered the observation that there were two different moral syndromes that were common attitudes to wealth and power, and that the one more associated with guardianship did in fact require a degree of ostentatious conspicuous consumption if only to impress others. This logic is almost entirely absent from neoclassical economics, which in its extreme form argues for the abolition of any political economy apart from the service markets wherein favours may be bought and sold at will, including political ones - the so-called political choice theory popular in the U.S.A.. While it is entirely likely that such assumptions apply in the subcultures that dominate modern discourse on technical economics and especially macroeconomics, the less technical notions of wealth and power that are implied in the older theories of economics and ideas of wealth, still continue as daily facts of life.

[edit] Non-financial The 21st century view is that many definitions of wealth can exist and continue to co-exist. Some people talk about measuring the more general concept of well-being.[who?] This is a difficult process but many believe it possible - human development theory being devoted to this. Furthermore, Manoj Sharma [1], the head of DifferWorld's [2]faculty makes a very strong case of the importance of factoring in both financial wealth and non-financial wealth as a measure of True Wealth. Manoj Sharma's definition of True Wealth being a combination of financial, mental, emotional, physical and spiritual wealth; and how it is channeled towards the general good of humanity. Although these alternative measures of wealth exist, they tend to be overshadowed and influenced by the dominant money supply and banking system. For more on the modern notions of wealth and their interaction see the article on political economy.

[edit] Sustainable wealth as a measure of well-being Sustainable wealth is defined by the author of Creating Sustainable Wealth, Elizabeth M Parker, as meeting the individual’s personal, social and environmental needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This definition of sustainable wealth comes from the marriage of sustainability as defined by the Brundtland Commission and wealth defined as a measure of well-being, not only from marriage but it also can be earned by working hard.

[edit] Sustainable wealth According to the author of Wealth Odyssey, Larry R. Frank Sr, wealth is what sustains you when you are not working. It is net worth, not income, which is important when you retire or are unable to work (premature loss of income due to injury or illness is actually a risk management issue). The key question is how long would a certain wealth last? Ongoing withdrawal research has sustainable withdrawal rates anywhere between approximately 3 percent and 8 percent, depending on the research’s assumptions. Time, how long wealth might last, then becomes a function of how many times does the percentage withdrawal rate go into all the assets. Example: withdrawing 3 percent a year into 100 percent equals 33.3 years; 4 percent equals 25 years; 8 percent equals 12.5 years, etc. This ignores any growth, which presumably would be used to offset the effects of inflation. Growth greater than the withdrawal rate would extend the time assets may last, while negative growth would reduce the time assets may last.

Clearly a lower withdrawal rate is more conservative. Knowing this helps you determine how much wealth you need also. Example: you know you will need $40,000 a year and use a 4 percent withdrawal rate, then you need to use 5 percent and therefore need $800,000, etc. This simple “wealth rule” helps you estimate both the time and the amount.

[edit] Buckminster Fuller's Notion of Wealth In section 1075.25 of Synergetics, Buckminster Fuller defined wealth as "the measurable degree of established operative advantage." In Critical Path[13] Fuller described his notion as that which "realistically protected, nurtured, and accommodated X numbers of human lives for Y number of forward days." Philosophically, Fuller viewed "real wealth" as human know-how and know-what which he pointed out is always increasing.

[edit] The limits to wealth creation There is a debate in economic literature, usually referred to as the limits to growth debate in which the ecological impact of growth and wealth creation is considered. Many of the wealth creating activities mentioned above (cutting down trees, hunting, farming) have an impact on the environment around us. Sometimes the impact is positive (for example, hunting when herd populations are high) and sometimes the impact is negative (for example, hunting when herd populations are low). Most researchers feel that sustained environmental impacts can have an effect on the whole ecosystem. They claim that the accumulated impacts on the ecosystem put a theoretical limit on the amount of wealth that can be created. They draw on archeology to cite examples of cultures that they claim have disappeared because they grew beyond the ability of their ecosystems to support them. Others are more optimistic (or, as the first group might claim, more naïve). They claim that although unrestrained wealth-creating activities may have localized environmental impact, large scale ecological effects are either minor or non-existent; or that even if global scale ecological effects exist, human ingenuity will always find ways of adapting to them, so that there is no ecological limit to the amount of growth or wealth that this planet will sustain[citation needed]. More fundamentally, the limited surface of Earth places limits on the space, population and natural resources available to the human race, at least until such time as large-scale space travel is a realistic proposition.

[edit] The difference between income and wealth Wealth is a stock that can be represented in an accounting balance sheet, meaning that it is a total accumulation over time, that can be seen in a snapshot. Income is a flow, meaning it is a rate of change, as represented in an Income/Expense or Cashflow Statement. Income represents the increase in wealth (as can be quantified on a Cashflow statement), expenses the decrease in wealth. If you limit wealth to net worth, then mathematically net income (income minus expenses) can be thought of as the first derivative of wealth, representing the change in wealth over a period of time.

[edit] Wealth as measured by time Wealth has also been defined as "the amount of time an individual can maintain his current lifestyle for, without any new income." For example if a person has $1000, and their lifestyle dictates $1000 per week of expenses, then their wealth is measured as 1 week. Under this definition, a person with $10,000 of

savings and expenses of $1000 per week (10 weeks of wealth) would be considered wealthier than a person with $20,000 of savings and expenses of $5000 per week (4 weeks of wealth).

[edit] Distribution Main article: Distribution of wealth Capitalism asserts that all wealth is earned, not distributed. It can only be distributed after it is forcibly seized from the earners (usually in the form of tax). Wealth acquired this way is then distributed. Thus this section is concerned with the anti-capitalist conception of wealth, namely that all wealth is collective and distributed among individuals. Different societies have different opinions about wealth distribution and about the obligations related to wealth, but from the era of the tribal society to the modern era, there have been means of moderating the acquisition and use of wealth. In ecologically rich areas such as those inhabited by the Haida in the Cascadia ecoregion, traditions like potlatch kept wealth relatively evenly distributed, requiring leaders to buy continued status and respect with giveaways of wealth to the poorer members of society. Such traditions make what are today often seen as government responsibilities into matters of personal honour. In modern societies, the tradition of philanthropy exists. Large donations from funds created by wealthy individuals are highly visible, although small contributions by many people also offer a wide variety of support within a society. The continued existence of organizations which survive on donations indicate that modern Western society has at least some level of philanthropy. Furthermore, in today's societies, much wealth distribution and redistribution is the result of government policies and programs. Government policies like the progressivity or regressivity of the tax system can redistribute wealth to the poor or the rich respectively. Government programs like “disaster relief” transfer wealth to people that have suffered loss due to a natural disaster. Social security transfers wealth from the young to the old. Fighting a war transfers wealth to certain sectors of society. Public education transfers wealth to families with children in public schools. Public road construction transfers wealth from people that do not use the roads to those people that do (and to those that build the roads). Certain people resent having to contribute to some or all of these programs, and disparagingly label them social engineering. Like all human activities, wealth redistribution cannot achieve 100% efficiency. The act of redistribution itself has certain costs associated with it, due to the necessary maintenance of the infrastructure that is required to collect the wealth in question and then redistribute it. Different people on different sides of the political spectrum have different views on this issue. Some see it as unacceptable waste, while others see it as a natural fact of life, which is inevitable in all kinds of inter-human relations. Proponents of the supply-side theory of "trickle-down" economics claim that it is a form of time-deferred philanthropy. The theory is that newly created wealth eventually "trickles down" to all strata of society. The argument goes that although wealth is created primarily by the wealthy, they will tend to reinvest their wealth, and this process will create even more wealth. As the economy grows, it is said that more and more people will share in the newly created wealth. A similar argument can be made in the case of Keynesian economics. According to this theory, government redistributions and expenditures have a multiplier effect that stimulates the economy and creates wealth. Supply-siders claim that wealth is created primarily by investment (supply), whereas Keynesians claim that wealth is driven by expenditure (demand). Today most economists agree that growth can be stimulated by either the supply or demand

side, and some of them argue that these are really two sides of the same coin, in the sense that you seldom get one without the other. Nevertheless, the dispute between supply-side and Keynesian economics is of continuing interest. Stresses within social distribution systems can be understood within a broad theory of political economy, where tradeoffs between means of protection, persuasion and production, and valuations of different styles of capital, are described. Simply put, if the rich do not at least once in a while give away, of their own free will, at least a small part of their wealth to the poor, then the poor are much more likely to rebel against the rich.

[edit] Wealth in the form of land Many indigenous cultures, being either nomadic or communitarian in nature, rejected the notion of the private ownership of land wealth. In the western tradition, the concepts of owning land and accumulating wealth in the form of land were engendered in the rise of the first states, for a primary service and power of government was, and is to this day, the awarding and adjudication of land use rights. Land ownership was also justified according to John Locke. He claimed that because we admix our labour with the land, we thereby deserve the right to control the use of the land and benefit from the product of that land (but subject to his Lockean proviso of "at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others."). Additionally, in our post-agricultural society this argument has many critics (including those influenced by Georgist and geolibertarian ideas) who argue that since land, by definition, is not a product of human labor, any claim of private property in it is a form of theft; as David Lloyd George observed, "to prove a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who stole it." Many older ideas have resurfaced in the modern notions of ecological stewardship, bioregionalism, natural capital, and ecological economics.

[edit] See also Look up wealth in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Affluence in the United States Capital accumulation Distribution of wealth Household income in the United States Income in the United Kingdom Lists of billionaires Personal income in the United States Poverty Private banking Surplus product Value added Wealth (economics) Wealth condensation Wealth and religion

[edit] External links

Property From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search This article is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (July 2007)

This article is about the legal or moral ownership rights. For other uses, see Property (disambiguation).

Property law Part of the common law series

Acquisition Gift · Adverse possession · Deed Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property Treasure trove Alienation · Bailment · License

Estates in land Allodial title · Fee simple · Fee tail Life estate · Defeasible estate Future interest · Concurrent estate Leasehold estate · Condominiums

Conveyancing Bona fide purchaser Torrens title · Strata title Estoppel by deed · Quitclaim deed Mortgage · Equitable conversion Action to quiet title

Future use control Restraint on alienation

Rule against perpetuities Rule in Shelley's Case Doctrine of worthier title

Nonpossessory interest Easement · Profit Covenant running with the land Equitable servitude

Related topics Fixtures · Waste · Partition Riparian water rights Lateral and subjacent support Assignment · Nemo dat

Other common law areas Contract law · Tort law Wills, trusts and estates Criminal law · Evidence

v•d•e

Property is any physical or virtual entity that is owned by an individual. An owner of property has the right to consume, sell, mortgage, transfer and exchange his or her property.[1][2][3] Important types of property include real property (land), personal property (other physical possessions), and arguably intellectual property (rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.). A title, or a right of ownership, is associated with property that establishes the relation between the goods/services and other individuals or groups, assuring the owner the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees fit. Some philosophers assert that property rights arise from social convention. Others find origins for them in morality or natural law (e.g. Saint Irenaeus).

Contents [hide] • • • •

1 Use of the term 2 General characteristics 3 Theories of property 4 Property in philosophy o 4.1 Ancient philosophy

• • • •

4.2 Pre-industrial English philosophy  4.2.1 Thomas Hobbes (1600s)  4.2.2 James Harrington (1600s)  4.2.3 Robert Filmer (1600s)  4.2.4 John Locke (1600s)  4.2.5 William Blackstone (1700s)  4.2.6 David Hume (1700s) o 4.3 Critique and response  4.3.1 Charles Comte - legitimate origin of property  4.3.2 Pierre Proudhon - property is theft  4.3.3 Frédéric Bastiat - property is value o 4.4 Contemporary views 5 Types of property 6 What can be property? o 6.1 Rights of use as property 7 Who can be an owner? 8 References 9 See also 10 References

•

11 External links and references

o

• •

[edit] Use of the term Various scholarly communities (e.g., law, economics, anthropology, sociology) may treat the concept more systematically, but definitions vary within and between fields. Scholars in the social sciences frequently conceive of property as a bundle of rights. They stress that property is not a relationship between people and things, but a relationship between people with regard to things. Public property is any property that is controlled by a state or by a whole community. Private property is any property that is not public property. Private property may be under the control of a single individual or by a group of individuals collectively.[4] Some philosophers like Karl Marx use it to describe a social relationship between those who sell their labor power and those who buy it.

[edit] General characteristics Modern property rights conceive of ownership and possession as belonging to legal individuals, even if the legal individual is not a real person. Corporations, for example, have legal rights similar to American citizens, including many of their constitutional rights. Therefore, the corporation is a juristic person or artificial legal entity, which some refer to as "corporate personhood". Property rights are protected in the current laws of states usually found in the form of a Constitution or a Bill of Rights. The fifth and the fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, for example, provide explicitly for the protection of private property: The Fifth Amendment states: Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Fourteenth Amendment states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Protection is also found in the United Nations's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17, and in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Article XVII, and in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Protocol 1. Property is usually thought of in terms of a bundle of rights as defined and protected by the local sovereignty. Ownership, however, does not necessarily equate with sovereignty. If ownership gave supreme authority it would be sovereignty, not ownership. These are two different concepts. Traditional principles of property rights includes: 1. 2. 3. 4.

control of the use of the property the right to any benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent) a right to transfer or sell the property a right to exclude others from the property.

Traditional property rights do not include: 1. uses that unreasonably interfere with the property rights of another private party (the right of quiet enjoyment). [See Nuisance] 2. uses that unreasonably interfere with public property rights, including uses that interfere with public health, safety, peace or convenience. [See Public Nuisance, Police Power] Legal systems have evolved to cover the transactions and disputes which arise over the possession, use, transfer and disposal of property, most particularly involving contracts. Positive law defines such rights, and a judiciary is used to adjudicate and to enforce. In his classic text, "The Common Law", Oliver Wendell Holmes describes property as having two fundamental aspects. The first is possession, which can be defined as control over a resource based on the practical inability of another to contradict the ends of the possessor. The second is title, which is the expectation that others will recognize rights to control resource, even when it is not in possession. He elaborates the differences between these two concepts, and proposes a history of how they came to be attached to individuals, as opposed to families or entities such as the church. According to Adam Smith, the expectation of profit from "improving one's stock of capital" rests on private property rights. It is a belief central to capitalism that property rights encourage the property holders to develop the property, generate wealth, and efficiently allocate resources based on the operation of the market. From this evolved the modern conception of property as a right which is enforced by positive law, in the expectation that this would produce more wealth and better standards of living. •

Classical liberals, Objectivists, and related traditions "Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property." (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged)

Most thinkers from these traditions subscribe to the labor theory of property. They hold that you own your own life, and it follows that you must own the products of that life, and that those products can be traded in free exchange with others. "Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself." (John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government) "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." (Frédéric Bastiat, The Law) "The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." (John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government) •

Socialism's fundamental principles are centered on a critique of this concept, stating, among other things, that the cost of defending property is higher than the returns from private property ownership, and that even when property rights encourage the property-holder to develop his property, generate wealth, etc., he will only do so for his own benefit, which may not coincide with the benefit of other people or society at large.

•

Libertarian socialism generally accepts property rights, but with a short abandonment time period. In other words, a person must make (more or less) continuous use of the item or else he loses ownership rights. This is usually referred to as "possession property" or "usufruct." Thus, in this usufruct system, absentee ownership is illegitimate, and workers own the machines they work with.

•

Communism argues that only collective ownership of the means of production through a polity (though not necessarily a state) will assure the minimization of unequal or unjust outcomes and the maximization of benefits, and that therefore private property (which in communist theory is limited to capital) should be abolished.

Both communism and some kinds of socialism have also upheld the notion that private property is inherently illegitimate. This argument is centered mainly on the idea that the creation of private property will always benefit one class over another, giving way to domination through the use of this private property. Communists are naturally not opposed to personal property which is "Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned" (Communist Manifesto), by members of the proletariat. Not every person, or entity, with an interest in a given piece of property may be able to exercise all of the rights mentioned a few paragraphs above. For example, as a lessee of a particular piece of property, you may not sell the property, because the tenant is only in possession, and does not have title to transfer. Similarly, while you are a lessee, the owner cannot use his or her right to exclude to keep you from the property. (Or, if he or she does, you may perhaps be entitled to stop paying rent or perhaps sue to regain access.) Further, property may be held in a number of forms, e.g. joint ownership, community property, sole ownership, lease, etc. These different types of ownership may complicate an owner's ability to exercise his or her rights unilaterally. For example if two people own a single piece of land as joint tenants, then depending on the law in the jurisdiction, each may have limited recourse for the actions of the other. For example, one of the owners might sell his or her interest in the property to a stranger that the other owner does not particularly like.

[edit] Theories of property

There exist many theories. Perhaps one of the most popular was the natural rights definition of property rights as advanced by John Locke. Locke advanced the theory that when one mixes one’s labor with nature, one gains ownership of that part of nature with which the labor is mixed, subject to the limitation that there should be "enough, and as good, left in common for others" [1]. From the RERUM NOVARUM, Pope Leo XIII wrote "It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own." Anthropology studies the diverse systems of ownership, rights of use and transfer, and possession[5] under the term "theories of property". Western legal theory is based, as mentioned, on the owner of property being a legal individual. However, not all property systems are founded on this basis. In every culture studied ownership and possession are the subject of custom and regulation, and "law" where the term can meaningfully be applied. Many tribal cultures balance individual ownership with the laws of collective groups: tribes, families, associations and nations. For example the 1839 Cherokee Constitution frames the issue in these terms: Sec. 2. The lands of the Cherokee Nation shall remain common property; but the improvements made thereon, and in the possession of the citizens respectively who made, or may rightfully be in possession of them: Provided, that the citizens of the Nation possessing exclusive and indefeasible right to their improvements, as expressed in this article, shall possess no right or power to dispose of their improvements, in any manner whatever, to the United States, individual States, or to individual citizens thereof; and that, whenever any citizen shall remove with his effects out of the limits of this Nation, and become a citizen of any other government, all his rights and privileges as a citizen of this Nation shall cease: Provided, nevertheless, That the National Council shall have power to re-admit, by law, to all the rights of citizenship, any such person or persons who may, at any time, desire to return to the Nation, on memorializing the National Council for such readmission. Communal property systems describe ownership as belonging to the entire social and political unit, while corporate systems describe ownership as being attached to an identifiable group with an identifiable responsible individual. The Roman property law was based on such a corporate system. Different societies may have different theories of property for differing types of ownership. Pauline Peters argued that property systems are not isolable from the social fabric, and notions of property may not be stated as such, but instead may be framed in negative terms: for example the taboo system among Polynesian peoples. [2]

[edit] Property in philosophy This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (July 2007)

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

In medieval and Renaissance Europe the term "property" essentially referred to land. Much rethinking was necessary in order for land to come to be regarded as only a special case of the property genus. This rethinking was inspired by at least three broad features of early modern Europe: the surge of commerce,

the breakdown of efforts to prohibit interest (then called "usury"), and the development of centralized national monarchies.

[edit] Ancient philosophy Urukagina, the king of the Sumerian city-state Lagash, established the first laws that forbade compelling the sale of property. The Cyrus cylinder of Cyrus the Great, founder of the Achaemenid Persian Empire, documents the protection of property rights.[6] The Ten Commandments shown in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 stated that the Israelites were not to steal. These texts, written in approximately 1300 B.C., were a blanket early protection of private property. Aristotle, in Politics, advocates "private property." In one of the first known expositions of tragedy of the commons he says, "that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual." In addition he says that when property is common, there are natural problems that arise due to differences in labor: "If they do not share equally enjoyments and toils, those who labor much and get little will necessarily complain of those who labor little and receive or consume much. But indeed there is always a difficulty in men living together and having all human relations in common, but especially in their having common property." (Politics, 1261b34)

[edit] Pre-industrial English philosophy [edit] Thomas Hobbes (1600s) The principal writings of Thomas Hobbes appeared between 1640 and 1651—during and immediately following the war between forces loyal to King Charles I and those loyal to Parliament. In his own words, Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of Cicero. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? In that unsettled time and place it perhaps was natural that he would conclude: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such. [edit] James Harrington (1600s) A contemporary of Hobbes, James Harrington, reacted differently to the same tumult; he considered property natural but not inevitable. The author of Oceana, he may have been the first political theorist to postulate that political power is a consequence, not the cause, of the distribution of property. He said that the worst possible situation is one in which the commoners have half a nation's property, with crown and nobility holding the other half—a circumstance fraught with instability and violence. A much better situation (a stable republic) will exist once the commoners own most property, he suggested. In later years, the ranks of Harrington's admirers would include American revolutionary and founder John Adams. [edit] Robert Filmer (1600s) Another member of the Hobbes/Harrington generation, Sir Robert Filmer, reached conclusions much like Hobbes', but through Biblical exegesis. Filmer said that the institution of kingship is analogous to that of fatherhood, that subjects are but children, whether obedient or unruly, and that property rights are akin to

the household goods that a father may dole out among his children—his to take back and dispose of according to his pleasure. [edit] John Locke (1600s) In the following generation, John Locke sought to answer Filmer, creating a rationale for a balanced constitution in which the monarch would have a part to play, but not an overwhelming part. Since Filmer's views essentially require that the Stuart family be uniquely descended from the patriarchs of the Bible, and since even in the late seventeenth century that was a difficult view to uphold, Locke attacked Filmer's views in his First Treatise on Government, freeing him to set out his own views in the Second Treatise on Civil Government. Therein, Locke imagined a pre-social world, the unhappy residents of which create a social contract. They would, he allowed, create a monarchy, but its task would be to execute the will of an elected legislature. "To this end" he wrote, meaning the end of their own long life and peace, "it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of nature." Even when it keeps to proper legislative form, though, Locke held that there are limits to what a government established by such a contract might rightly do. "It cannot be supposed that [the hypothetical contractors] they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases..."

Note that both "persons and estates" are to be protected from the arbitrary power of any magistrate, inclusive of the "power and will of a legislator." In Lockean terms, depredations against an estate are just as plausible a justification for resistance and revolution as are those against persons. In neither case are subjects required to allow themselves to become prey. To explain the ownership of property Locke advanced a labor theory of property. [edit] William Blackstone (1700s) In the 1760s, William Blackstone sought to codify the English common law. In his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England he wrote that "every wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject, whether produced by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly is a degree of tyranny." How should such tyranny be prevented or resisted? Through property rights, Blackstone thought, which is why he emphasized that indemnification must be awarded a non-consenting owner whose property is taken by eminent domain, and that a property owner is protected against physical invasion of his property by the laws of trespass and nuisance. Indeed, he wrote that a landowner is free to kill any stranger on his property between dusk and dawn, even an agent of the King, since it isn't reasonable to expect him to recognize the King's agents in the dark.[citation needed] [edit] David Hume (1700s)

In contrast to the figures discussed in this section thus far, David Hume lived a relatively quiet life that had settled down to a relatively stable social and political structure. He lived the life of a solitary writer until 1763 when, at 52 years of age, he went off to Paris to work at the British embassy. In contrast, one might think, to his outrage-generating works on religion and his skeptical views in epistemology, Hume's views on law and property were quite conservative. He did not believe in hypothetical contracts, or in the love of mankind in general, and sought to ground politics upon actual human beings as one knows them. "In general," he wrote, "it may be affirmed that there is no such passion in human mind, as the love of mankind, merely as such, independent of personal qualities, or services, or of relation to ourselves." Existing customs should not lightly be disregarded, because they have come to be what they are as a result of human nature. With this endorsement of custom comes an endorsement of existing governments, because he conceived of the two as complementary: "A regard for liberty, though a laudable passion, ought commonly to be subordinate to a reverence for established government." These views led to a view on property rights that might today be described as legal positivism. There are property rights because of and to the extent that the existing law, supported by social customs, secure them. He offered some practical home-spun advice on the general subject, though, as when he referred to avarice as "the spur of industry," and expressed concern about excessive levels of taxation, which "destroy industry, by engendering despair."

[edit] Critique and response By the mid 19th century, the industrial revolution had transformed England and had begun in France. The established conception of what constitutes property expanded beyond land to encompass scarce goods in general. In France, the revolution of the 1790s had led to large-scale confiscation of land formerly owned by church and king. The restoration of the monarchy led to claims by those dispossessed to have their former lands returned. Furthermore, the labor theory of value popularized by classical economists such as Adam Smith[citation needed] and David Ricardo were utilized by a new ideology called socialism to critique the relations of property to other economic issues, such as profit, rent, interest, and wage-labor. Thus, property was no longer an esoteric philosophical question, but a political issue of substantial concern. [edit] Charles Comte - legitimate origin of property Charles Comte, in Traité de la propriété (1834), attempted to justify the legitimacy of private property in response to the Bourbon Restoration. According to David Hart, Comte had three main points: "firstly, that interference by the state over the centuries in property ownership has had dire consequences for justice as well as for economic productivity; secondly, that property is legitimate when it emerges in such a way as not to harm anyone; and thirdly, that historically some, but by no means all, property which has evolved has done so legitimately, with the implication that the present distribution of property is a complex mixture of legitimately and illegitimately held titles." (The Radical Liberalism of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer Comte, as Proudhon would later do, rejected Roman legal tradition with its toleration of slavery. He posited a communal "national" property consisting of non-scarce goods, such as land in ancient huntergatherer societies. Since agriculture was so much more efficient than hunting and gathering, private property appropriated by someone for farming left remaining hunter-gatherers with more land per person, and hence did not harm them. Thus this type of land appropriation did not violate the Lockean proviso there was "still enough, and as good left." Comte's analysis would be used by later theorists in response to the socialist critique on property.

[edit] Pierre Proudhon - property is theft Main articles: What is Property? and Property is theft! In his 1849 treatise What is Property?, Pierre Proudhon answers with "Property is theft!" In natural resources, he sees two types of property, de jure property (legal title) and de facto property (physical possession), and argues that the former is illegitimate. Proudhon's conclusion is that "property, to be just and possible, must necessarily have equality for its condition." His analysis of the product of labor upon natural resources as property (usufruct) is more nuanced. He asserts that land itself cannot be property, yet it should be held by individual possessors as stewards of mankind with the product of labor being the property of the producer. Proudhon reasoned that any wealth gained without labor was stolen from those who labored to create that wealth. Even a voluntary contract to surrender the product of labor to an employer was theft, according to Proudhon, since the controller of natural resources had no moral right to charge others for the use of that which he did not labor to create and therefore did not own. Proudhon's theory of property greatly influenced the budding socialist movement, inspiring anarchist theorists such as Mikhail Bakunin who modified Proudhon's ideas, as well as antagonizing theorists like Karl Marx. [edit] Frédéric Bastiat - property is value Frédéric Bastiat's main treatise on property can be found in chapter 8 of his book Economic Harmonies (1850). [3] In a radical departure from traditional property theory, he defines property not as a physical object, but rather as a relationship between people with respect to an object. Thus, saying one owns a glass of water is merely verbal shorthand for I may justly gift or trade this water to another person. In essence, what one owns is not the object but the value of the object. By "value," Bastiat apparently means market value; he emphasizes that this is quite different from utility. "In our relations with one another, we are not owners of the utility of things, but of their value, and value is the appraisal made of reciprocal services." Strongly disputing Proudhon's equality-based argument, Bastiat theorizes that, as a result of technological progress and the division of labor, the stock of communal wealth increases over time; that the hours of work an unskilled laborer expends to buy e.g. 100 liters of wheat decreases over time, thus amounting to "gratis" satisfaction. Thus, private property continually destroys itself, becoming transformed into communal wealth. The increasing proportion of communal wealth to private property results in a tendency toward equality of mankind. "Since the human race started from the point of greatest poverty, that is, from the point where there were the most obstacles to be overcome, it is clear that all that has been gained from one era to the next has been due to the spirit of property." This transformation of private property into the communal domain, Bastiat points out, does not imply that private property will ever totally disappear. This is because man, as he progresses, continually invents new and more sophisticated needs and desires.

[edit] Contemporary views Among contemporary political thinkers who believe that human individuals enjoy rights to own property and to enter into contracts, there are two views about John Locke. On the one hand there are ardent Locke admirers, such as W.H. Hutt (1956), who praised Locke for laying down the "quintessence of individualism." On the other hand, there are those such as Richard Pipes who think that Locke's

arguments are weak, and that undue reliance thereon has weakened the cause of individualism in recent times. Pipes has written that Locke's work "marked a regression because it rested on the concept of Natural Law" rather than upon Harrington's sociological framework. Hernando de Soto has argued that an important characteristic of capitalist market economy is the functioning state protection of property rights in a formal property system where ownership and transactions are clearly recorded. These property rights and the whole formal system of property make possible: • • • • • • • •

•

Greater independence for individuals from local community arrangements to protect their assets; Clear, provable, and protectable ownership; The standardization and integration of property rules and property information in the country as a whole; Increased trust arising from a greater certainty of punishment for cheating in economic transactions; More formal and complex written statements of ownership that permit the easier assumption of shared risk and ownership in companies, and insurance against risk; Greater availability of loans for new projects, since more things could be used as collateral for the loans; Easier access to and more reliable information regarding such things as credit history and the worth of assets; Increased fungibility, standardization and transferability of statements documenting the ownership of property, which paves the way for structures such as national markets for companies and the easy transportation of property through complex networks of individuals and other entities; Greater protection of biodiversity due to minimizing of shifting agriculture practices.

All of the above enhance economic growth. [4]

[edit] Types of property

This sign declaring a parking lot to be "private property" illustrates one method of identifying and protecting property. Note the citations to legal statutes.

Most legal systems distinguish different types (immovable property, estate in land, real estate, real property) of property, especially between land and all other forms of property - goods and chattels, movable property or personal property. They often distinguish tangible and intangible property (see below). One categorization scheme specifies three species of property: land, improvements (immovable man made things) and personal property (movable man made things) In common law, real property (immovable property) is the combination of interests in land and improvements thereto and personal property is interest in movable property. 'Real property' rights are rights relating to the land. These rights include ownership and usage. Owners can grant rights to persons and entities in the form of leases, licenses and easements. Later, with the development of more complex forms of non-tangible property, personal property was divided into tangible property (such as cars, clothing, animals) and intangible or abstract property (e.g. financial instruments such as stocks and bonds, etc.), which includes intellectual property (patents, copyrights, and trademarks).

[edit] What can be property? The two major justifications given for original property, or homesteading, are effort and scarcity. John Locke emphasized effort, "mixing your labor" with an object, or clearing and cultivating virgin land. Benjamin Tucker preferred to look at the telos of property, i.e. What is the purpose of property? His answer: to solve the scarcity problem. Only when items are relatively scarce with respect to people's desires do they become property.[5] For example, hunter-gatherers did not consider land to be property, since there was no shortage of land. Agrarian societies later made arable land property, as it was scarce. For something to be economically scarce, it must necessarily have the exclusivity property - that use by one person excludes others from using it. These two justifications lead to different conclusions on what can be property. Intellectual property - non-corporeal things like ideas, plans, orderings and arrangements (musical compositions, novels, computer programs) - are generally considered valid property to those who support an effort justification, but invalid to those who support a scarcity justification (since they don't have the exclusivity property.) Thus even ardent propertarians may disagree about IP.[6] By either standard, one's body is one's property. From some anarchist points of view, the validity of property depends on whether the "property right" requires enforcement by the state. Different forms of "property" require different amounts of enforcement: intellectual property requires a great deal of state intervention to enforce, ownership of distant physical property requires quite a lot, ownership of carried objects requires very little, while ownership of one's own body requires absolutely no state intervention. Many things have existed that did not have an owner, sometimes called the commons. The term "commons," however, is also often used to mean something quite different: "general collective ownership" - i.e. common ownership. Also, the same term is sometimes used by statists to mean government-owned property that the general public is allowed to access. Law in all societies has tended to develop towards reducing the number of things not having clear owners. Supporters of property rights argue that this enables better protection of scarce resources, due to the tragedy of the commons, while critics argue that it leads to the exploitation of those resources for personal gain and that it hinders taking advantage of potential network effects. These arguments have differing validity for different types of "property" -- things which are not scarce are, for instance, not subject to the tragedy of the commons. Some apparent critics actually are advocating general collective ownership rather than ownerlessness.

Things today which do not have owners include: ideas (except for intellectual property), seawater (which is, however, protected by anti-pollution laws), parts of the seafloor (see the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for restrictions), gasses in Earth's atmosphere, animals in the wild (though there may be restrictions on hunting etc. -- and in some legal systems, such as that of New York, they are actually treated as government property), celestial bodies and outer space, and land in Antarctica. The nature of children under the age of majority is another contested issue here. In ancient societies children were generally considered the property of their parents. Children in most modern societies theoretically own their own bodies -- but they are considered incompetent to exercise their rights, and their parents or guardians are given most of the actual rights of control over them. Questions regarding the nature of ownership of the body also come up in the issue of abortion and drugs. In many ancient legal systems (e.g. early Roman law), religious sites (e.g. temples) were considered property of the God or gods they were devoted to. However, religious pluralism makes it more convenient to have religious sites owned by the religious body that runs them. Intellectual property and air (airspace, no-fly zone, pollution laws, which can include tradeable emissions rights) can be property in some senses of the word.

[edit] Rights of use as property Ownership of land can be held separately from the ownership of rights over that land, including sporting rights[7], mineral rights, development rights, air rights, and such other rights as may be worth segregating from simple land ownership.

[edit] Who can be an owner? Ownership laws may vary widely among countries depending on the nature of the property of interest (e.g. firearms, real property, personal property, animals). In some societies only adult men may own property.[citation needed] In many societies legal entities, such as corporations, trusts, and nations (or governments) own property.[citation needed] In the Inca empire, the dead emperors, who were considered gods, still controlled property after death.[7].

[edit] References 1. ^ "property definition". 2. ^ "property", American Heritage Dictionary, http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch? FILTER=col61&query=property&x=0&y=0

3. ^ "property", WordNet, http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn? s=property&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=

4. ^ Understanding Principles of Politics and the State, by John Schrems, PageFree Publishing (2004), page 234 5. ^ Hann, Chris A new double movement? Anthropological perspectives on property in the age of neoliberalism Socio-Economic Review, Volume 5, Number 2, April 2007, pp. 287-318(32) 6. ^ Arthur Henry Robertson, John Graham Merrills (1996). Human Rights in the World: An Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human Rights. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719049237. 7. ^ Mckay, John P. , 2004, "A History of World Societes". Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company

[edit] See also • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Allemansrätten Property giving (legal) Anarchism Buying agent • Charity Capitalism • Essenes Communism • Gift Homestead principle • Kibbutz Immovable Property • Monasticism Inclusive Democracy • Tithe, Zakat (modern Libertarian sense) Lien Ownership society Property taking (legal) Patrimony Personal property • Confiscation Propertarian • Eminent domain Property is theft • Fine Property law • Regulatory fees and costs Property rights • Search and seizure (economics) • Tariffs Labor theory of property • Tax Socialism • Turf and twig (historical) Sovereignty • Tithe, Zakat (historical sense) • Zoning restrictions • RS 2477

[edit] References

Property taking (illegal) • •

Theft Kleptocracy

Property of either digital or virtual form •

Emerging Virtual Institutions

Property economists • •

Armen Alchian Ronald Coase

•

Hernando de Soto

Poverty From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search Look up poverty in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Poverty is the deprivation of common necessities such as food, clothing, shelter and safe drinking water, all of which determine our quality of life. It may also include the lack of access to opportunities such as education and employment which aid the escape from poverty and/or allow one to enjoy the respect of fellow citizens. According to Mollie Orshansky who developed the poverty measurements used by the U.S. government, "to be poor is to be deprived of those goods and services and pleasures which others around us take for granted."[1] Ongoing debates over causes, effects and best ways to measure poverty, directly influence the design and implementation of poverty-reduction programs and are therefore relevant to the fields of public administration and international development. Although poverty is mainly considered to be undesirable due to the pain and suffering it may cause, in certain spiritual contexts "voluntary poverty," involving the renunciation of material goods, is seen by some as virtuous.

Poverty may affect individuals or groups, and is not confined to the developing nations. Poverty in developed countries is manifest in a set of social problems including homelessness and the persistence of "ghetto" housing clusters.[2]

Contents [hide]

• •

1 Etymology 2 Measuring poverty o 2.1 Other aspects 3 Causes of poverty o 3.1 Economics o 3.2 Governance o 3.3 Demographics and Social Factors o 3.4 Health Care o 3.5 Environmental Factors 4 Effects of poverty 5 Poverty reduction o 5.1 Economic growth o 5.2 Free market o 5.3 Fair trade o 5.4 Direct aid o 5.5 Development aid o 5.6 Improving the environment and access of the poor o 5.7 Millennium Development Goals o 5.8 Other approaches 6 Voluntary poverty 7 See also o 7.1 Organizations and campaigns 8 References 9 Further reading

•

10 External links

• • •

• •

• •

[edit] Etymology The words "poverty" and "poor" came from Latin pauper = "poor", which originally came from pau- and the root of pario, i.e. "giving birth to not much" and referred to unproductive farmland or livestock.

[edit] Measuring poverty World map showing percentage of population suffering from hunger, World Food Programme, 2006 World map showing percentage of population living on less than 1 dollar per day. UN estimates 19902005.

CIA world map showing percentage of population living below their national poverty line. World map showing life expectancy. World map showing the Human Development Index. World map showing the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality. The percentage of the world's population living on less than $1 per day has halved in twenty years. Most of this improvement has occurred in East and South Asia. The graph shows the 1981-2001 period. Life expectancy has been increasing and converging for most of the world. Sub-Saharan Africa has recently seen a decline, partly related to the AIDS epidemic. Graph shows the years 1950-2005. About 1/2 of the human population suffers from poverty. Poverty can be measured in terms of absolute or relative poverty. Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and between countries. An example of an absolute measurement would be the percentage of the population eating less food than is required to sustain the human body (approximately 2000-2500 calories per day for an adult male). The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than US$ (PPP) 1 per day, and moderate poverty as less than $2 a day, estimating that "in 2001, 1.1 billion people had consumption levels below $1 a day and 2.7 billion lived on less than $2 a day."[3] The proportion of the developing world's population living in extreme economic poverty fell from 28 percent in 1990 to 21 percent in 2001.[3] Looking at the period 1981-2001, the percentage of the world's population living on less than $1 per day has halved. (Note, this does not mean that the value of >$ per day has not decreased over the last 27 years!) Most of this improvement has occurred in East and South Asia.[4] In East Asia the World Bank reported that "The poverty headcount rate at the $2-a-day level is estimated to have fallen to about 27 percent [in 2007], down from 29.5 percent in 2006 and 69 percent in 1990."[5] In Sub-Saharan Africa extreme poverty rose from 41 percent in 1981 to 46 percent in 2001, which combined with growing population increased the number of people living in poverty from 231 million to 318 million.[6] Other regions have seen little change. In the early 1990s the transition economies of Eastern Europe and Central Asia experienced a sharp drop in income. Poverty rates rose to 6 percent at the end of the decade before beginning to recede.[7] World Bank data shows that the percentage of the population living in households with consumption or income per person below the poverty line has decreased in each region of the world since 1990:[8][9] Region

1990

2002

2004

East Asia and Pacific

15.40% 12.33% 9.07%

Europe and Central Asia

3.60% 1.28% 0.95%

Latin America and the Caribbean 9.62% 9.08% 8.64% Middle East and North Africa

2.08% 1.69% 1.47%

South Asia

35.04% 33.44% 30.84%

Sub-Saharan Africa

46.07% 42.63% 41.09%

There are various criticisms of these measurements.[10] Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion note that although "a clear trend decline in the percentage of people who are absolutely poor is evident, although with uneven progress across regions...the developing world outside China and India has seen little or no sustained progress in reducing the number of poor". Since the world's population is increasing, a constant number living in poverty would be associated with a diminshing proportion. Looking at the percentage living on less than $1/day, and if excluding China and India, then this percentage has decreased from 31.35% to 20.70% between 1981 and 2004.[11] Other human development indicators are also improving. Life expectancy has greatly increased in the developing world since WWII and is starting to close the gap to the developed world where the improvement has been smaller. Even in Sub-Saharan Africa, where most Least Developed Countries are to be found, life expectancy increased from 30 years before World War II to a peak of about 50 years, before the HIV pandemic and other diseases started to force it down to the current level of 47 years. Child mortality has decreased in every developing region of the world[12]. The proportion of the world's population living in countries where per-capita food supplies are less than 2,200 calories (9,200 kilojoules) per day decreased from 56% in the mid-1960s to below 10% by the 1990s. Between 1950 and 1999, global literacy increased from 52% to 81% of the world. Women made up much of the gap: Female literacy as a percentage of male literacy has increased from 59% in 1970 to 80% in 2000. The percentage of children not in the labor force has also risen to over 90% in 2000 from 76% in 1960. There are similar trends for electric power, cars, radios, and telephones per capita, as well as the proportion of the population with access to clean water.[13] The book The Improving State of the World finds that many other indicators have also improved. Relative poverty views poverty as socially defined and dependent on social context. Income inequality is a relative measure of poverty. A relative measurement would be to compare the total wealth of the poorest one-third of the population with the total wealth of richest 1% of the population. There are several different income inequality metrics. One example is the Gini coefficient.

Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing. A 2002 study by Xavier Sala-i-Martin finds that this is driven mainly, but not fully, by the extraordinary growth rate of the incomes of the 1.2 billion Chinese citizens. China, India, the OECD and the rest of middle-income and rich countries are likely to increase their advantage relative to Africa unless it too achieves economic growth; global inequality may rise. [14][15] The 2007 World Bank report "Global Economic Prospects" predicts that in 2030 the number living on less than the equivalent of $1 a day will fall by half, to about 550 million. An average resident of what we used to call the Third World will live about as well as do residents of the Czech or Slovak republics today. Much of Africa will have difficulty keeping pace with the rest of the developing world and even if conditions there improve in absolute terms, the report warns, Africa in 2030 will be home to a larger proportion of the world's poorest people than it is today.[16] In many developed countries the official definition of poverty used for statistical purposes is based on relative income. As such many critics argue that poverty statistics measure inequality rather than material deprivation or hardship. For instance, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of those in "poverty" in the U.S. own their own home (with the average poor person's home having three bedrooms, with one and a half baths, and a garage).[17] Furthermore, the measurements are usually based on a person's yearly income and frequently take no account of total wealth. The main poverty line used in the OECD and the European Union is based on "economic distance", a level of income set at 50% of the median household income. The US poverty line is more arbitrary. It was created in 1963-64 and was based on the dollar costs of the United States Department of Agriculture's "economy food plan" multiplied by a factor of three. The multiplier was based on research showing that food costs then accounted for about one third of the total money income. This one-time calculation has since been annually updated for inflation.[18] Others, such as economist Ellen Frank, argue that the poverty measure is too low as families spend much less of their total budget on food than they did when the measure was established. Further, federal poverty statistics do not account for the widely varying regional differences in non-food costs such as housing, transport, and utilities. [19]

[edit] Other aspects The point is, economic aspects of poverty may focus on material needs, typically including the necessities of daily living, such as food, clothing, shelter, or safe drinking water. Poverty in this sense may be understood as a condition in which a person or community is lacking in the basic needs for a minimum standard of well-being and life, particularly as a result of a persistent lack of income. Analysis of social aspects of poverty links conditions of scarcity to aspects of the distribution of resources and power in a society and recognizes that poverty may be a function of the diminished "capability" of people to live the kinds of lives they value.[20] The social aspects of poverty may include lack of access to information, education, health care, or political power.[21][22] Poverty may also be understood as an aspect of unequal social status and inequitable social relationships, experienced as social exclusion, dependency, and diminished capacity to participate, or to develop meaningful connections with other people in society. [23][24][25]

The World Bank's "Voices of the Poor," based on research with over 20,000 poor people in 23 countries, identifies a range of factors which poor people identify as part of poverty.[26] These include: • • • •

precarious livelihoods excluded locations physical limitations gender relationships

• • • • • •

problems in social relationships lack of security abuse by those in power dis-empowering institutions limited capabilities, and weak community organizations.

David Moore, in his book The World Bank, argues that some analyses of poverty reflect pejorative, sometimes racial, stereotypes of impoverished people as powerless victims and passive recipients of aid programs.[27]

[edit] Causes of poverty

A starving female child during the Nigerian-Biafran war of the late 1960s. The abdomen is paradoxically swollen due to Kwashiorkor or severe protein malnutrition.

Urban poverty is common in developing countries. Shown here is Mumbai, India. Many different factors have been cited to explain why poverty occurs; no single explanation has gained universal acceptance. Possible factors include:

[edit] Economics

•

•

• • • •

•

•

Unemployment. Some countries' governments are believed to purposefully maintain a 2-10% unemployed populace to act as a 'replacement threat' to unskilled private sector workers, by way of maintaining an existing thriving service economy. As of late 2007, increased farming for use in biofuels,[28] along with world oil prices at nearly $130 a barrel,[29] has pushed up the price of grain.[30] Food riots have recently taken place in many countries across the world.[31][32][33] Capital flight by which the wealthy in a society shift their assets to off-shore tax havens deprives nations of revenue needed to break the vicious cycle of poverty. [34] Weakly entrenched formal systems of title to private property are seen by writers such as Hernando de Soto as a limit to economic growth and therefore a cause of poverty. [35] Communists see the institution of property rights itself as a cause of poverty.[36] Unfair terms of trade, in particular, the very high subsidies to and protective tariffs for agriculture in the developed world. This drains the taxed money and increases the prices for the consumers in developed world; decreases competition and efficiency; prevents exports by more competitive agricultural and other sectors in the developed world due to retaliatory trade barriers; and undermines the very type of industry in which the developing countries do have comparative advantages.[37] Tax havens which tax their own citizens and companies but not those from other nations and refuse to disclose information necessary for foreign taxation. This enables large scale political corruption, tax evasion, and organized crime in the foreign nations.[34] Unequal distribution of land. [38] Land reform is one solution.

[edit] Governance •

• • • • • •

Lacking democracy in poor countries: "The records when we look at social dimensions of development—access to drinking water, girls' literacy, health care—are even more starkly divergent. For example, in terms of life expectancy, rich democracies typically enjoy life expectancies that are nine years longer than poor autocracies. Opportunities of finishing secondary school are 40 percent higher. Infant mortality rates are 25 percent lower. Agricultural yields are about 25 percent higher, on average, in poor democracies than in poor autocracies—an important fact, given that 70 percent of the population in poor countries is often rural-based.""poor democracies don't spend any more on their health and education sectors as a percentage of GDP than do poor autocracies, nor do they get higher levels of foreign assistance. They don't run up higher levels of budget deficits. They simply manage the resources that they have more effectively." [10] The governance effectiveness of governments has a major impact on the delivery of socioeconomic outcomes for poor populations[39] Weak rule of law can discourage investment and thus perpetuate poverty.[40] Poor management of resource revenues can mean that rather than lifting countries out of poverty, revenues from such activities as oil production or gold mining actually leads to a resource curse. Failure by governments to provide essential infrastructure worsens poverty.[41][42]. Poor access to affordable education traps individuals and countries in cycles of poverty.[41] High levels of corruption undermine efforts to make a sustainable impact on poverty. In Nigeria, for example, more than $400 billion was stolen from the treasury by Nigeria's leaders between 1960 and 1999.[43][44]

Poverty in a developed nation, as seen in Harlem, New York, USA.

Again in a developed nation council houses in Seacroft, Leeds, UK have been deserted due to poverty and high crime. •

Welfare states have an effect on poverty reduction. Currently modern, expansive welfare states that ensure economic opportunity, independence and security in a near universal manner are still the exclusive domain of the developed nations,[45] commonly constituting at least 20% of GDP, with the largest Scandinavian welfare states constituting over 40% of GDP.[46] These modern welfare states, which largely arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, seeing their greatest expansion in the mid 20th century, and have proven themselves highly effective in reducing relative as well as absolute poverty in all analyzed high-income OECD countries.[47][48][49]

Country

Absolute poverty rate (threshold set at 40% of U.S. median household income)

Pre-transfer Sweden 23.7 Norway 9.2 Netherlands 22.1 Finland 11.9 Denmark 26.4 Germany 15.2 Switzerland 12.5 Canada 22.5 France 36.1 Belgium 26.8 Australia 23.3 United Kingdom 16.8 United States 21.0 Italy 30.7

[47]

Post-transfer 5.8 1.7 7.3 3.7 5.9 4.3 3.8 6.5 9.8 6.0 11.9 8.7 11.7 14.3

[edit] Demographics and Social Factors

Relative poverty rate[48] Pre-transfer 14.8 12.4 18.5 12.4 17.4 9.7 10.9 17.1 21.8 19.5 16.2 16.4 17.2 19.7

Post-transfer 4.8 4.0 11.5 3.1 4.8 5.1 9.1 11.9 6.1 4.1 9.2 8.2 15.1 9.1

• • •

Overpopulation and lack of access to birth control methods.[50][51] Note that population growth slows or even become negative as poverty is reduced due to the demographic transition.[52] Crime, both white-collar crime and blue-collar crime, including violent gangs and drug cartels.[53] [54][55]

Historical factors, for example imperialism, colonialism[56][57][58] and Post-Communism (at least 50 million children in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union lived in poverty).[59][60]

Dalits in Jaipur, India.[61] • •

•

• • •

Brain drain Matthew effect: the phenomenon, widely observed across advanced welfare states, that the middle classes tend to be the main beneficiaries of social benefits and services, even if these are primarily targeted at the poor. Cultural causes, which attribute poverty to common patterns of life, learned or shared within a community. For example, Max Weber argued that the Protestant work ethic contributed to economic growth during the industrial revolution. War, including civil war, genocide, and democide.[62] Discrimination of various kinds, such as age discrimination, stereotyping,[63] gender discrimination, racial discrimination, caste discrimination.[64] Individual beliefs, actions and choices.[65] For example, research by Isabell Sawhill, a respected researcher from the Brookings Institute indicates that, in the United States, if any individual follows three rules, their chance of being in poverty shrinks to a statistically insignificant level: (1) Stay in school, don't drop out. (2) Postpone bringing children into the world until marriage. (3) Work, don't quit, keep working, no matter how humble the job. Thus, her research indicates that most poverty is associated statistically with individuals who choose (a) to drop out of school, and /or (b) to have children outside of marriage, and/ or (c) who do not hold a job for long. In short, her research suggests that most poverty is statistically associated with poor or unwise life choices.

[edit] Health Care

Hardwood surgical tables are commonplace in rural Nigerian clinics.

•

Poor access to affordable health care makes individuals less resilient to economic hardship and more vulnerable to poverty.[41]

•

Inadequate nutrition in childhood, itself an effect of poverty, undermines the ability of individuals to develop their full human capabilities and thus makes them more vulnerable to poverty. Lack of essential minerals such as iodine and iron can impair brain development. It is estimated that 2 billion people (one-third of the total global population) are affected by iodine deficiency, including 285 million 6- to 12-year-old children. In developing countries, it is estimated that 40% of children aged 4 and under suffer from anemia because of insufficient iron in their diets. See also Health and intelligence.[66] Disease, specifically diseases of poverty: AIDS,[67] malaria[68] and tuberculosis and others overwhelmingly afflict developing nations, which perpetuate poverty by diverting individual, community, and national health and economic resources from investment and productivity.[69] Further, many tropical nations are affected by parasites like malaria, schistosomiasis, and trypanosomiasis that are not present in temperate climates. The Tsetse fly makes it very difficult to use many animals in agriculture in afflicted regions. Clinical depression undermines the resilience of individuals and when not properly treated makes them vulnerable to poverty. [70] Similarly substance abuse, including for example alcoholism and drug abuse when not properly treated undermines resilience and can consign people to vicious poverty cycles.[71]

•

• •

[edit] Environmental Factors • •

• • •

•

•

Erosion. Intensive farming often leads to a vicious cycle of exhaustion of soil fertility and decline of agricultural yields and hence, increased poverty.[72] Desertification and overgrazing.[73] Approximately 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded.[74] In Africa, if current trends of soil degradation continue, the continent might be able to feed just 25% of its population by 2025, according to UNU's Ghana-based Institute for Natural Resources in Africa.[75] Deforestation as exemplified by the widespread rural poverty in China that began in the early 20th century and is attributed to non-sustainable tree harvesting.[76] Natural factors such as climate change.[77] or environment[78] Lower income families suffer the most from climate change; yet on a per capita basis, they contribute the least to climate change [79] Geographic factors, for example access to fertile land, fresh water, minerals, energy, and other natural resources, presence or absence of natural features helping or limiting communication, such as mountains, deserts, navigable rivers, or coastline. Historically, geography has prevented or slowed the spread of new technology to areas such as the Americas and Sub-Saharan Africa. The climate also limits what crops and farm animals may be used on similarly fertile lands.[80] On the other hand, research on the resource curse has found that countries with an abundance of natural resources creating quick wealth from exports tend to have less long-term prosperity than countries with less of these natural resources. Drought and water crisis.[81][82][83]

[edit] Effects of poverty The effects of poverty may also be causes, as listed above, thus creating a "poverty cycle" operating across multiple levels, individual, local, national and global. Those living in poverty and lacking access to essential health services, suffering hunger or even starvation,[84] experience mental and physical health problems which make it harder for them to improve their situation.[85] One third of deaths - some 18 million people a year or 50,000 per day - are due to

poverty-related causes: in total 270 million people, most of them women and children, have died as a result of poverty since 1990.[86] Those living in poverty suffer lower life expectancy. Every year nearly 11 million children living in poverty die before their fifth birthday. Those living in poverty often suffer from hunger.[87] 800 million people go to bed hungry every night.[88] Poverty increases the risk of homelessness. [89] There are over 100 million street children worldwide.[90] Increased risk of drug abuse may also be associated with poverty.[91] Diseases of poverty reflect the dynamic relationship between poverty and poor health; while such infectious diseases result directly from poverty, they also perpetuate and deepen impoverishment by sapping personal and national health and financial resources. For example, malaria decreases GDP growth by up to 1.3% in some developing nations, and by killing tens of millions in sub-Saharan Africa, AIDS alone threatens “the economies, social structures, and political stability of entire societies”.[92][93] Those living in poverty in the developed world may suffer social isolation. Rates of suicide may increase in conditions of poverty. Death of a breadwinner may decrease a household's resilience to poverty conditions and cause a dramatic worsening in their situation. Low income levels and poor employment opportunities for adults in turn create the conditions where households can depend on the income of child members. An estimated 218 million children aged 5 to 17 are in child labor worldwide, excluding child domestic labor.[94] Lacking viable employment opportunities those living in poverty may also engage in the informal economy, or in criminal activity, both of which may on a larger scale discourage investment in the economy, further perpetuating conditions of poverty. Unfortunately, there is a high risk of educational underachievement for children who are from lowincome housing circumstances. This often is a process that begins in primary school for some less fortunate children. These children are at a higher risk than other children for retention in their grade, special placements during the school’s hours and even not completing their high school education. [95] There are indeed many explanations for why students tend to drop out of school. For children with low resources, the risk factors are similar to excuses such as juvenile delinquency rates, higher levels of teenage pregnancy, and the economic dependency upon their low income parent or parents. [95] Intellectual competence is key to the educational attainment. Brighter people, whether old or young, tend to have more economic power, go further in their education, and often lead much healthier, much more prestigious lives. So children with high abilities and low income must be supported and research should identify methods for discovering and reaching these young students. [95] Early childhood education and assisted learning in the home are highly considered as methods that are supported by plenty of careful study, observation and research. [95] In 1972, came the Carolina Abecedarian Project at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center of the University of North Carolina. The program was started to identify multiple intervention methods “to enhance the intellectual competence and academic achievement of children from socioeconomically disadvantaged families”. [95] Initially there would be a combination of early childhood education, pediatric care and family support services. [95] Secondly there would be children entering the school system as kindergarteners and remain there for three years and finally an observational and analytical study of the children at the end of the three years around eight years old was to be carried out. [95] Families and society who submit low levels of investment in the education and development of less fortunate children end up with less favorable results for the children who see a life of parental employment reduction and low wages. Higher rates of early childbearing with all the connected risks to family, health and well-being are majorly important issues to address since education from preschool to high school are both identifiably meaningful in a life. [95]

The racial and ethnic diversity in the United States is wide and has increased over the last two decades. Hispanics and African Americans are the largest two ethnic groups living in poverty in the United States. Unfortunately, minority groups as a whole form the highest percentage of the poor. Hispanics, however, are about seventy percent more likely to actually be poor. [96] Additionally, children living in single-parent homes in the case that their mother is the sole caregiver are about fifty percent more likely to be poor than children of two-parent homes. [97] Though racial and ethnic diversity have both increased, changes in poverty rate have also changed. From 1993 to the year 2000, poverty rates as a whole decreased from twenty-two percent to sixteen percent. [96] Sadly, the number of children in the homes of poverty has drastically increased, leaving about one in five children in these circumstances. [96] Poverty often drastically affects children’s success in school. A child’s “home activities, preferences, mannerisms” must align with the world and in the cases that they do not these students are at a disadvantage in the school and most importantly the classroom. [96] Therefore, it is safe to state that children who live at or below the poverty level will have far less success educationally than children who live above the poverty line. Poor children have a great deal less healthcare and this ultimately results in many absences from the academic year. Additionally, poor children are much more likely to suffer from hunger, fatigue, irritability, headaches, ear infections, and colds. [96] These illnesses could potentially restrict a child or student’s focus and concentration. Unfortunately, the levels of parental education in low socioeconomic households have a strong correlation the educational level of success of the children in the home. In households where there are around four or more children, the affects are tremendously greater for each child. [97] However, in families where the child’s first language is not English, children have a higher chance at low levels of educational attainment. [97]

Undeniably, children are affected by poverty across the board when it comes to education; however, literacy is an alarming issue. Some children are fortunate enough to have people in the home who can read and write being that they are literate and other children are not as fortunate and never see the opportunity for learning assistance at home or in school and communication with teachers. [96] Regardless of the support, many of these children are still disadvantaged simply because of their home life. A child’s method of interacting, responding, and communicating will help them with how to deal with their peers and their adults. [96] It is through literacy that unknown places, people and things are open to many children. [96] Children are able to explore their thoughts and understanding and navigate new materials and ways of thinking and understanding. Literacy is very important to current and future leaders in that they most certainly need to be able to communicate with people verbally and through print. Though there are different level of it, all children regardless of lower-, mid-, or high- income home come into the schoolhouse with some level of literacy. [96] Just as there are different levels of literacy in each schooled child, there are also different types of strengths and weaknesses that each child will bring as well. When there is a concrete foundation for speaking there is a better chance for effective writing skills to be improved or even began. [96] Some may initially believe that children from disadvantaged homes do not have the ability to converse with others. It is actually the differences in the casualness of the language and the richness and quality of the communication. [97] Also for these children knowing when to speak one way versus another is important. For instance, using a relaxed language at home would be very different from using formal language in school and out of the home. Though formal language in the aspect of word choice and conversation is praised, it is important to acknowledge that children from disadvantaged homes are more skilled in nonverbal cues such as hand movement, facial expressions and body language. [97] Effective

teachers might attempt to build on the oral communication strengths of each and every student regardless of their current ability. A child’s knowledge of print depends variably on their socioeconomic status much of the time. All children have some knowledge of print but the lack or overflow of print knowledge depends most certainly on the social, cultural and economic status of their home life. [96] It is important to note that though there may be a great amount of print in the home it is not nearly as common for their to be much writing to accompany the print sources. [96] Though they are aware of certain print images, words and signs they are still not able to begin formulating much of any type of meaning. [96] Many children even see the need for writing but many also do not have a full and clear understanding of the power in the meaning of what is written or the change of circumstance they could ultimate merit because of writing. Low income and wealth levels undermine the ability of governments to levy taxes for public service provision, adding to the 'vicious circle' connecting the causes and effects of poverty. Lack of essential infrastructure, poor education and health services, and poor sanitation contribute to the perpetuation of poverty.[98] Poor access to affordable public education can lead to low levels of literacy, further entrenching poverty. Weak public service provision and high levels of poverty can increase states' vulnerability to natural disasters and make states more vulnerable to shocks in the international economy, such as those associated with rising fuel prices, or declining commodity prices.[99][100] Areas strongly affected by poverty tend to be more violent. In one survey, 67% of children from disadvantaged inner cities said they had witnessed a serious assault, and 33% reported witnessing a homicide.[101] 51% of fifth graders from New Orleans (median income for a household: $27,133) have been found to be victims of violence, compared to 32% in Washington, DC (mean income for a household: $40,127).[102] The capacity of the state is further undermined by the problem that people living in poverty may be more vulnerable to extremist political persuasion, and may feel less loyalty to a state unable to deliver basic services. For these reasons conditions of poverty may increase the risk of political violence, terrorism, war and genocide, and may make those living in poverty vulnerable to human trafficking, internal displacement and exile as refugees. Countries suffering widespread poverty may experience loss of population, particularly in high-skilled professions, through emigration, which may further undermine their ability to improve their situation.

[edit] Poverty reduction Main article: Poverty reduction In politics, the fight against poverty is usually regarded as a social goal and many governments have institutions or departments dedicated to tackling poverty. One of the main debates in the field of poverty reduction is around the question of how actively the state should manage the economy and provide public services to tackle the problem of poverty. In the nineties, international development policies focused on a package of measures known and criticized as the "Washington Consensus" which involved reducing the scope of state activities, and reducing state intervention in the economy, reducing trade barriers and opening economies to foreign investment. Vigorous debate over these issues continues, and most poverty reduction programs attempt to increase both the competitiveness of the economy and the viability of the state.

[edit] Economic growth

World GDP per capita rapidly increased beginning with the Industrial Revolution. The anti-poverty strategy of the World Bank depends heavily on reducing poverty through the promotion of economic growth.[103]. The World Bank argues that an overview of many studies shows that: • • • •

Growth is fundamental for poverty reduction, and in principle growth as such does not affect inequality. Growth accompanied by progressive distributional change is better than growth alone. High initial income inequality is a brake on poverty reduction. Poverty itself is also likely to be a barrier for poverty reduction; and wealth inequality seems to predict lower future growth rates.[104]

[edit] Free market Although the term 'free market' is essentially a misnomer, since all markets (regardless of whether they are national or domestic) function only via shared public infrastructure and are, accordingly, regulated by governments in a wide variety of ways, the rhetoric of 'free markets' and 'free enterprise' has won out in the public media over time. What are frequently described as free market reforms represent one strategy for reducing poverty, though not a strategy without its problems. For example, while the 20th century has seen noted reductions of poverty in India and China, both of those countries have also been sites of some of the century's most horrific corporate-sponsored human rights abuses. So, while hundreds of millions of people in the two countries 'grew out' of poverty (depending on how one measures poverty), mostly as a result of the abandonment of collective farming in China and the cutting of government red tape in India, [105] tragedies like the Bhopal disaster[106] and massive deforestation throughout much of India[107] have more than tarnished such successes. Additionally, in China, the end of collective farming could not, properly speaking, be described as a move toward a 'free market,' since land ownership remained a question of state districting and management.[108] So, while shifts in market structure and values have definitely played a role in fostering economic growth in India and China, that growth has often come with serious, even shocking human and environmental costs. Developing countries face a range of obstacles to trading competitively on international markets. Almost half of the budget of the European Union, for example, is directed to agricultural subsidies, which primarily benefit large multinational agribusinesses who form a powerful lobby.[109] Japan gave 47 billion dollars in 2005 in subsidies to its agricultural sector,[110] nearly four times the amount it gave in total foreign aid.[111] The US gives 3.9 billion dollars each year in subsidies to its cotton sector, including 25,000 growers, three times more in subsidies than the entire USAID budget for Africa, although America contributes a sum far larger than the 3.9 billion dollars through other agencies.[112] Critics argue that agricultural subsidies in the developed world drain taxation revenue, increase the end-prices paid by consumers, and discourage efficiency improvements, while retaliatory trade barriers unfairly undermine the competitiveness of agricultural and other exports in those industries in which developing countries would otherwise have a significant comparative advantages.[37] Bringing the market to remote, rural areas can bring farmers the information to produce more profitably. For example, mobile phones could be used to do this, helping people in remote areas of the developing world. Farmers receive market information sent directly to their phones.[113] In Ethiopia, for example, remote farmers produce crops that may not bring the best profits. When they sell their products to a local trader, who then sells to another trader, and another, the cost of the food rises before it finally reaches the consumer in large cities. Economist Gabre-Madhin proposes warehouses where farmers could have constant updates of the latest market prices, making the farmer think nationally, not locally. Each warehouse would have an independent neutral party that would test and grade the farmer's harvest,

allowing traders in Addis Ababa, and potentially outside Ethiopia, to place bids on food, even if it is unseen. Thus, if the farmer gets five cents in one place he would get three times the price by selling it in another part of the country where there may be a drought.[114] Such schemes, while attractive, again give the lie to the term 'free market.' Gabre-Madhin's plan, for instance, is likely to require government support of some sort, since independent neutral parties can be as hard to come by in Africa as anywhere else in the world. Ultimately, as philosopher Noam Chomsky has argued, the idea of the 'free market' is something of a fantasy, since markets tend to either depend on massive government subsidies of everything from raw materials to transportation[115] or to consist largely of single corporations selling products to their own overseas branches, without those products (or the jobs associated with making them, ever going to citizens of poverty-stricken areas. In effect, this means that the word 'free market' acts as a sort of trick, used to convince people to support government spending that mostly benefits the very wealthy and that they would never otherwise support. It is for this reason that Chomsky has described free market capitalism as "socialism for the rich."[115] The Global Competitiveness Report, the Ease of Doing Business Index, and the Index of Economic Freedom are annual reports, often used in academic research, ranking the worlds nations on factors argued to increase economic growth and reduce poverty. Again, though, factors that may increase economic growth should neither be confused with factors that increase the freedom of markets nor simply assumed to benefit those living in poverty. This becomes clear with a glance at one of the world's strongest expressions of the 'free market': the United States health-care system, which functions with almost no government oversight, and under which 45 million of the country's 301 million citizens are uninsured.[116] Perhaps not surprisingly, the U.S., long one of the world's greatest proponents of 'free markets' in povertystricken countries, itself has one of the worst records on domestic poverty among the industrialized nations, with nearly 16 million of its citizens living in what is termed 'deep poverty': earning half or less of the federal poverty line figure per year.[116] One theory for reducing poverty suggests that raising tariffs and import substitution leads to greater wealth by protecting the country from the deeper inequalities of what is called free trade. This theory was practiced highly between the 1950s and 1970s, when it appeared to fail to develop wealth. The theory assumes a lack of trade barriers on incoming (often highly subsidized) goods from wealthier countries, considered by some economists a driver of poverty[citation needed]. Most countries have some history of import substitution and direct government protection of and investment in local industries, however, although that history is often troubled and difficulty-ridden. The theory claims that reducing tariff receipts can lower a major source of government revenue & spending, while raising tariffs may improve the terms of trade for the poor.[117] In contrast, a WTO study has shown that in practice often high tariffs lead to a stagnation of economic growth and development and the costs of the tariffs are borne most heavily on the poor.[118] The search for acceptable and appropriate market solutions to the problem of poverty continues, but one thing at least is certain: there are no markets that can be truly described as 'free,' and many of the markets described in this way leave untouched or actually worsen the conditions of poverty. At the very least, many analysts agree, blind faith in the 'free market' must be called into question, prompting reexamination of certain basic values.[119]]

[edit] Fair trade Further information: Fair trade Another approach to alleviating poverty is to implement Fair Trade which advocates the payment of a fair price as well as social and environmental standards in areas related to the production of goods.

[edit] Direct aid

•

•

The government can directly help those in need through cash transfers as a short term expedient. This has been applied with mixed results in most Western societies during the 20th century in what became known as the welfare state. Especially for those most at risk, such as the elderly and people with disabilities. Private charity. Systems to encourage direct transfers to the poor by citizens organized into voluntary or not-for-profit groupings are often encouraged by the state through charitable trusts and tax deduction arrangements. International Remittances sent by migrant workers to their families in developing countries provide an important source of income. This form of direct aid is around twice the size of official aid related inflows.

[edit] Development aid Most developed nations give development aid to developing countries. The UN target for development aid is 0.7% of GDP; currently only a few nations achieve this. Some think tanks and NGOs have argued that Western monetary aid often only serves to increase poverty and social inequality, either because it is conditioned with the implementation of harmful economic policies in the recipient countries [120], or because it's tied with the importing of products from the donor country over cheaper alternatives,[121] or because foreign aid is seen to be serving the interests of the donor more than the recipient.[122] Critics also argue that some of the foreign aid is stolen by corrupt governments and officials, and that higher aid levels erode the quality of governance. Policy becomes much more oriented toward what will get more aid money than it does towards meeting the needs of the people.[123] Victor Bout, one of the worlds most notorious arms dealers, told the New York Times how he saw firsthand in Angola, Congo and elsewhere "how Western donations to impoverished countries lead to the destruction of social and ecological balance, mutual resentment and eventually war."[124] "Once countries give money, they control you." he says. Supporters argue that these problems may be solved with better auditing of how the aid is used.[123] Aid from non-governmental organizations may be more effective than governmental aid; this may be because it is better at reaching the poor and better controlled at the grassroots level.[125] As a point of comparison, the annual world military spending is over $1 trillion.[126]

[edit] Improving the environment and access of the poor Numerous methods have been adduced to upgrade the situation of those in poverty, some contradictory to each other. Some of these mechanisms are: • • • • • • • • • • •

Subsidized housing development. Education, especially that directed at assisting the poor to produce food in underdeveloped countries. Family planning to limit the numbers born into poverty and allow family incomes to better cover the existing family. Subsidized health care. Assistance in finding employment. Subsidized employment (see also Workfare). Encouragement of political participation and community organizing. Implementation of fair property rights laws. Reduction of regulatory burden and bureaucratic oversight. Reduction of taxation on income and capital. Reduction of government spending, including a reduction in borrowing and printing money.

[edit] Millennium Development Goals

Eradication of extreme poverty and hunger is the first Millennium Development Goal. One of the targets within this goal is the halving of the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. In addition to broader approaches, the Sachs Report (for the UN Millennium Project) [127] proposes a series of "quick wins", approaches identified by development experts which would cost relatively little but could have a major constructive effect on world poverty. The quick wins are: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Directly assisting local entrepreneurs to grow their businesses and create jobs. Access to information on sexual and reproductive health. Action against domestic violence. Appointing government scientific advisors in every country. Deworming school children in affected areas. Drugs for AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Eliminating school fees. Ending user fees for basic health care in developing countries. Free school meals for schoolchildren. Legislation for women’s rights, including rights to property. Planting trees. Providing soil nutrients to farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Providing mosquito nets. Access to electricity, water and sanitation. Supporting breast-feeding. Training programs for community health in rural areas. Upgrading slums, and providing land for public housing.

[edit] Other approaches The Copenhagen Consensus was an attempt to rank global welfare improvement programs in terms of their urgency and cost-effectiveness; Direct Aid to combat HIV infection was determined to be the top priority. Some argue for a radical change of the economic system. There are several proposals for a fundamental restructuring of existing economic relations, and many of their supporters argue that their ideas would reduce or even eliminate poverty entirely if they were implemented. Such proposals have been put forward by both left-wing and right-wing groups: socialism, communism, anarchism, libertarianism, binary economics and participatory economics, among others. Proponents of such taxes argue that absolute or relative poverty can be reduced by progressive taxation, a wealth tax, and an inheritance tax. The IMF and member countries have produced Poverty Reduction Strategy papers or PRSPs.[128] In his book The End of Poverty (ISBN 1594200459),[129] a prominent economist named Jeffrey Sachs laid out a plan to eradicate global poverty by the year 2025. Following his recommendations, international organizations are working to help eradicate poverty worldwide with intervention in the areas of housing, food, education, basic health, agricultural inputs, safe drinking water, transportation and communications. [130]

[edit] Voluntary poverty See also: Simple living

St. Francis of Assisi renounces his worldly goods in a painting attributed to Giotto di Bondone. 'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free, 'tis the gift to come down where you ought to be, And when we find ourselves in the place just right, It will be in the valley of love and delight. —Shaker song.[131]

Among some individuals, such as ascetics, poverty is considered a necessary or desirable condition, which must be embraced in order to reach certain spiritual, moral, or intellectual states. Poverty is often understood to be an essential element of renunciation in religions such as Buddhism and Jainism, whilst in Roman Catholicism it is one of the evangelical counsels. Certain religious orders also take a vow of extreme poverty. For example, the Franciscan orders have traditionally forgone all individual and corporate forms of ownership. While individual ownership of goods and wealth is forbidden for Benedictines, following the Rule of St. Benedict, the monastery itself may possess both goods and money, and throughout history some monasteries have become very rich indeed.[citation needed] In this context of religious vows, poverty may be understood as a means of self-denial in order to place oneself at the service of others; Pope Honorius III wrote in 1217 that the Dominicans "lived a life of voluntary poverty, exposing themselves to innumerable dangers and sufferings, for the salvation of others". Following Jesus' warning that riches can be like thorns that choke up the good seed of the word (Matthew 13:22), voluntary poverty is often understood by Christians as of benefit to the individual - a form of self-discipline by which one distances oneself from distractions from God.[citation needed]

[edit] See also •

• • • • •

List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty Countries by fertility rate List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita Cycle of poverty Diseases of poverty Distribution of wealth

• • • • • • • •

Sustainable development portal Hunger • Poverty threshold Impoverishment • Poverty trap Income disparity • Rural ghetto International inequality • Social exclusion International Development • Subsidized housing IQ and Global Inequality • Street children IQ and the Wealth of • Ten Threats identified by Nations the United Nations Least Developed Countries

•

Deprivation index

• • • • • •

Economic inequality Feminization of poverty Food security Food vs fuel Fuel poverty Global justice

•

Green Revolution

• • • • •

Life expectancy Literacy Minimum wage Pauperism Population growth

• • • • •

Welfare Working poor Make Poverty History The Hunger Site List of famines

•

Poor Law

•

2007–2008 world food price crisis

[edit] Organizations and campaigns • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

Abahlali baseMjondolo - South African Shack dwellers' organisation Brooks World Poverty Institute Catholic Charities USA[132] Center for Global Development Child Poverty Action Group Compassion Canada Five Talents - Gives poverty stricken people another chance Free the Children Grameen Bank A micro lending bank for the poor. Micah Challenge halving golbal poverty by 2015. Microgiving Direct charitable giving Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP)

• • • • • • • • •

International Food Policy Research Institute International Fund for Agricultural Development Southern Poverty Law Center The Make Poverty History campaign Mississippi Teacher Corps United Nations Millennium Campaign [133][134] World Bank World Food Day The Red Letters Campaign [135] Global Poverty Minimization [136] Eurodad

•

ONE campaign [137]

• •

17 October: UN International Day for the Eradication of Poverty (White Band Day 4)

[edit] References

Management From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (November 2008)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2008) For other uses, see Management (disambiguation).

Management in business and human organization activity is simply the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals. Management comprises planning, organizing, staffing, leading or directing, and controlling an organization (a group of one or more people or entities) or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. Resourcing encompasses the deployment and manipulation of human resources, financial resources, technological resources, and natural resources. Management can also refer to the person or people who perform the act(s) of management.

Contents [hide]

• • •

1 Etymology 2 Overview o 2.1 Theoretical scope o 2.2 Nature of managerial work 3 Historical development o 3.1 Early writing  3.1.1 Sun Tzu's The Art of War  3.1.2 Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince  3.1.3 Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations o 3.2 19th century o 3.3 20th century o 3.4 21st century 4 Management topics o 4.1 Basic functions of management o 4.2 Formation of the business policy  4.2.1 How to implement policies and strategies  4.2.2 The development of policies and strategies  4.2.3 Where policies and strategies fit into the planning process o 4.3 Managerial levels and hierarchy 5 Areas and categories and implementations of management 6 See also 7 References

•

8 External links

• •

•

•

[edit] Etymology The verb manage comes from the Italian maneggiare (to handle — especially a horse), which in turn derives from the Latin manus (hand). The French word mesnagement (later ménagement) influenced the development in meaning of the English word management in the 17th and 18th centuries.[1]

[edit] Overview [edit] Theoretical scope Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933), who wrote on the topic in the early twentieth century, defined management as "the art of getting things done through people".[2] One can also think of management functionally, as the action of measuring a quantity on a regular basis and of adjusting some initial plan; or

as the actions taken to reach one's intended goal. This applies even in situations where planning does not take place. From this perspective, Frenchman Henri Fayol[3] considers management to consist of seven functions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

planning organizing leading co-ordinating controlling staffing motivating

Some people, however, find this definition, while useful, far too narrow. The phrase "management is what managers do" occurs widely, suggesting the difficulty of defining management, the shifting nature of definitions, and the connection of managerial practices with the existence of a managerial cadre or class. One habit of thought regards management as equivalent to "business administration" and thus excludes management in places outside commerce, as for example in charities and in the public sector. More realistically, however, every organization must manage its work, people, processes, technology, etc. in order to maximize its effectiveness. Nonetheless, many people refer to university departments which teach management as "business schools." Some institutions (such as the Harvard Business School) use that name while others (such as the Yale School of Management) employ the more inclusive term "management." English speakers may also use the term "management" or "the management" as a collective word describing the managers of an organization, for example of a corporation. Historically this use of the term was often contrasted with the term "Labor" referring to those being managed.

[edit] Nature of managerial work Editors are currently in dispute concerning points of view expressed in this section. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message. (December 2007) In for-profit work, management has as its primary function the satisfaction of a range of stakeholders. This typically involves making a profit (for the shareholders), creating valued products at a reasonable cost (for customers), and providing rewarding employment opportunities (for employees). In nonprofit management, add the importance of keeping the faith of donors. In most models of management/governance, shareholders vote for the board of directors, and the board then hires senior management. Some organizations have experimented with other methods (such as employee-voting models) of selecting or reviewing managers; but this occurs only very rarely. In the public sector of countries constituted as representative democracies, voters elect politicians to public office. Such politicians hire many managers and administrators, and in some countries like the United States political appointees lose their jobs on the election of a new president/governor/mayor. Public, private, and voluntary sectors place different demands on managers, but all must retain the faith of those who select them (if they wish to retain their jobs), retain the faith of those people that fund the organization, and retain the faith of those who work for the organization. If they fail to convince employees of the advantages of staying rather than leaving, they may tip the organization into a downward spiral of hiring, training, firing, and recruiting. Management also has the task of innovating and of improving the functioning of organizations.

[edit] Historical development Difficulties arise in tracing the history of management. Some see it (by definition) as a late modern (in the sense of late modernity) conceptualization. On those terms it cannot have a pre-modern history, only harbingers (such as stewards). Others, however, detect management-like -thought back to Sumerian traders and to the builders of the pyramids of ancient Egypt. Slave-owners through the centuries faced the problems of exploiting/motivating a dependent but sometimes unenthusiastic or recalcitrant workforce, but many pre-industrial enterprises, given their small scale, did not feel compelled to face the issues of management systematically. However, innovations such as the spread of Arabic numerals (5th to 15th centuries) and the codification of double-entry book-keeping (1494) provided tools for management assessment, planning and control. Given the scale of most commercial operations and the lack of mechanized record-keeping and recording before the industrial revolution, it made sense for most owners of enterprises in those times to carry out management functions by and for themselves. But with growing size and complexity of organizations, the split between owners (individuals, industrial dynasties or groups of shareholders) and day-to-day managers (independent specialists in planning and control) gradually became more common.

[edit] Early writing While management has been present for millennia, several writers have created a background of works that assisted in modern management theories.[4] [edit] Sun Tzu's The Art of War Written by Chinese general Sun Tzu in the 6th century BC, The Art of War is a military strategy book that, for managerial purposes, recommends being aware of and acting on strengths and weaknesses of both a manager's organization and a foe's.[4] [edit] Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince Believing that people were motivated by self-interest, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513 as advice for the leadership of Florence, Italy.[5] Machiavelli recommended that leaders use fear—but not hatred—to maintain control. [edit] Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations Written in 1776 by Adam Smith, a Scottish moral philosopher, The Wealth of Nations aims for efficient organization of work through Specialization of labor.[5] Smith described how changes in processes could boost productivity in the manufacture of pins. While individuals could produce 200 pins per day, Smith analyzed the steps involved in manufacture and, with 10 specialists, enabled production of 48,000 pins per day.[5]

[edit] 19th century Classical economists such as Adam Smith (1723 - 1790) and John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) provided a theoretical background to resource-allocation, production, and pricing issues. About the same time, innovators like Eli Whitney (1765 - 1825), James Watt (1736 - 1819), and Matthew Boulton (1728 1809) developed elements of technical production such as standardization, quality-control procedures, cost-accounting, interchangeability of parts, and work-planning. Many of these aspects of management

existed in the pre-1861 slave-based sector of the US economy. That environment saw 4 million people, as the contemporary usages had it, "managed" in profitable quasi-mass production. By the late 19th century, marginal economists Alfred Marshall (1842 - 1924), Léon Walras (1834 - 1910), and others introduced a new layer of complexity to the theoretical underpinnings of management. Joseph Wharton offered the first tertiary-level course in management in 1881.

[edit] 20th century By about 1900 one finds managers trying to place their theories on what they regarded as a thoroughly scientific basis (see scientism for perceived limitations of this belief). Examples include Henry R. Towne's Science of management in the 1890s, Frederick Winslow Taylor's The Principles of Scientific Management (1911), Frank and Lillian Gilbreth's Applied motion study (1917), and Henry L. Gantt's charts (1910s). J. Duncan wrote the first college management textbook in 1911. In 1912 Yoichi Ueno introduced Taylorism to Japan and became first management consultant of the "Japanese-management style". His son Ichiro Ueno pioneered Japanese quality-assurance. The first comprehensive theories of management appeared around 1920. The Harvard Business School invented the Master of Business Administration degree (MBA) in 1921. People like Henri Fayol (1841 1925) and Alexander Church described the various branches of management and their inter-relationships. In the early 20th century, people like Ordway Tead (1891 - 1973), Walter Scott and J. Mooney applied the principles of psychology to management, while other writers, such as Elton Mayo (1880 - 1949), Mary Parker Follett (1868 - 1933), Chester Barnard (1886 - 1961), Max Weber (1864 - 1920), Rensis Likert (1903 - 1981), and Chris Argyris (1923 - ) approached the phenomenon of management from a sociological perspective. Peter Drucker (1909 – 2005) wrote one of the earliest books on applied management: Concept of the Corporation (published in 1946). It resulted from Alfred Sloan (chairman of General Motors until 1956) commissioning a study of the organisation. Drucker went on to write 39 books, many in the same vein. H. Dodge, Ronald Fisher (1890 - 1962), and Thornton C. Fry introduced statistical techniques into management-studies. In the 1940s, Patrick Blackett combined these statistical theories with microeconomic theory and gave birth to the science of operations research. Operations research, sometimes known as "management science" (but distinct from Taylor's scientific management), attempts to take a scientific approach to solving management problems, particularly in the areas of logistics and operations. Some of the more recent developments include the Theory of Constraints, management by objectives, reengineering, Six Sigma and various information-technology-driven theories such as agile software development, as well as group management theories such as Cog's Ladder. As the general recognition of managers as a class solidified during the 20th century and gave perceived practitioners of the art/science of management a certain amount of prestige, so the way opened for popularised systems of management ideas to peddle their wares. In this context many management fads may have had more to do with pop psychology than with scientific theories of management. Towards the end of the 20th century, business management came to consist of six separate branches, namely: • •

Human resource management Operations management or production management

• • • •

Strategic management Marketing management Financial management Information technology management responsible for management information systems

[edit] 21st century In the 21st century observers find it increasingly difficult to subdivide management into functional categories in this way. More and more processes simultaneously involve several categories. Instead, one tends to think in terms of the various processes, tasks, and objects subject to management. Branches of management theory also exist relating to nonprofits and to government: such as public administration, public management, and educational management. Further, management programs related to civil-society organizations have also spawned programs in nonprofit management and social entrepreneurship. Note that many of the assumptions made by management have come under attack from business ethics viewpoints, critical management studies, and anti-corporate activism. As one consequence, workplace democracy has become both more common, and more advocated, in some places distributing all management functions among the workers, each of whom takes on a portion of the work. However, these models predate any current political issue, and may occur more naturally than does a command hierarchy. All management to some degree embraces democratic principles in that in the long term workers must give majority support to management; otherwise they leave to find other work, or go on strike. Hence management has started to become less based on the conceptualisation of classical military command-and-control, and more about facilitation and support of collaborative activity, utilizing principles such as those of human interaction management to deal with the complexities of human interaction. Indeed, the concept of Ubiquitous command-and-control posits such a transformation for 21st century military management.

[edit] Management topics [edit] Basic functions of management Management operates through various functions, often classified as planning, organizing, leading/motivating, and controlling. • • • •

• •

Planning: Deciding what needs to happen in the future (today, next week, next month, next year, over the next 5 years, etc.) and generating plans for action. Organizing: (Implementation) making optimum use of the resources required to enable the successful carrying out of plans. Staffing: Job Analyzing, recruitment, and hiring individuals for appropriate jobs. Leading/Motivating: Exhibiting leadership and motivational skills in order to encourage others to play an effective part in achieving plans and ensure willing participation in the organization on the parts of workers. Controlling: Monitoring, checking progress against plans, which may need modification based on feedback. Motivating: the process of stimulating an individual to take action that will accomplish a desired goal.

[edit] Formation of the business policy

• • • •

•

The mission of the business is its most obvious purpose -- which may be, for example, to make soap. The vision of the business reflects its aspirations and specifies its intended direction or future destination. The objectives of the business refers to the ends or activity at which a certain task is aimed. The business's policy is a guide that stipulates rules, regulations and objectives, and may be used in the managers' decision-making. It must be flexible and easily interpreted and understood by all employees. The business's strategy refers to the coordinated plan of action that it is going to take, as well as the resources that it will use, to realize its vision and long-term objectives. It is a guideline to managers, stipulating how they ought to allocate and utilize the factors of production to the business's advantage. Initially, it could help the managers decide on what type of business they want to form.

[edit] How to implement policies and strategies • • • • • • •

All policies and strategies must be discussed with all managerial personnel and staff. Managers must understand where and how they can implement their policies and strategies. A plan of action must be devised for each department. Policies and strategies must be reviewed regularly. Contingency plans must be devised in case the environment changes. Assessments of progress ought to be carried out regularly by top-level managers. A good environment is required within the business.

[edit] The development of policies and strategies • • • •

The missions, objectives, strengths and weaknesses of each department must be analysed to determine their roles in achieving the business's mission. The forecasting method develops a reliable picture of the business's future environment. A planning unit must be created to ensure that all plans are consistent and that policies and strategies are aimed at achieving the same mission and objectives. Contingency plans must be developed, just in case.

All policies must be discussed with all managerial personnel and staff that is required in the execution of any departmental policy. [edit] Where policies and strategies fit into the planning process • • •

They give mid- and lower-level managers a good idea of the future plans for each department. A framework is created whereby plans and decisions are made. Mid- and lower-level management may add their own plans to the business's strategic ones.

[edit] Managerial levels and hierarchy The management of a large organization may have three levels: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Senior management (or "top management" or "upper management") Middle management Low-level management, such as supervisors or team-leaders Foreman Rank and File

Top-level management • • • • • • •

Require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills. They have to be very aware of external factors such as markets. Their decisions are generally of a long-term nature Their decisions are made using analytic, directive, conceptual and/or behavioral/participative processes They are responsible for strategic decisions. They have to chalk out the plan and see that plan may be effective in the future. They are executive in nature.

Middle management • •

Mid-level managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks. They are responsible for carrying out the decisions made by top-level management.

Lower management • •

This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans taken by the other two are carried out. Lower-level managers' decisions are generally short-term ones

Foreman / lead hand •

They are people who have direct supervision over the working force in office factory, sales field or other workgroup or areas of activity.

Rank and File •

The responsibilities of the persons belonging to this group are even more restricted and more specific than those of the foreman.

[edit] Areas and categories and implementations of management • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Accounting management Agile management Association management Capability Management Change management Commercial operations management Communication management Constraint management Cost management Crisis management Critical management studies Customer relationship management Decision making styles

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Human resources management Hospital management Information technology management Innovation management Interim management Inventory management Knowledge management Land management Leadership management Logistics management Lifecycle management Management on demand Marketing management Materials management Office management Operations management

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Performance management Product management Public administration Public management Quality management Records management Research management Resource management Risk management Skills management Social entrepreneurship Spend management Spiritual management Strategic management Stress management Supply chain

• •

Design management Disaster management Earned value management Educational management Environmental management Facility management Financial management

•

Forecasting

• • • • •

• • • • •

Organization development Perception management Practice management Program management Project management

•

Process management

• • •

management Systems management Talent management Time management

•

Visual management

[edit] See also Articles • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

Adhocracy Administration Certified Business Manager Collaboration Collaborative method Corporate governance Design management Engineering management Evidence-based management Forecasting Futures studies Knowledge visualization Leadership Management consulting Management control Management cybernetics Management development Management fad Management science Management styles

[edit] References

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Management system Lists Managerialism Micromanagement • Macromanagement Middle management • Music management • Organizational Behavior • Management Organizational studies • Predictive analytics • Project management • Public administration • Risk Risk management • Team building • Scientific management • Senior management Social entrepreneurship Virtual management • Peter Drucker's management by • objectives • Eliyahu M. Goldratt's Theory of Constraints • Pointy Haired Boss — a negative stereotype of managers

List of basic management topics List of management topics List of marketing topics List of human resource management topics List of economics topics List of finance topics List of accounting topics List of information technology management topics List of production topics List of business law topics List of business ethics, political economy, and philosophy of business topics List of business theorists List of economists List of corporate leaders Timeline of management techniques

History From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the social science. For a general history of Mankind, see History of the world. For other uses, see History (disambiguation).

Historia (Allegory of History). By Nikolaos Gysis (1892). History portal

History is the study of the past, particularly using written records. New technology, such as photography, and computer text files now sometimes complement traditional archival sources. History is a field of research producing a continuous narrative and a systematic analysis of past events of importance to the human race.[1] Those who study history as a profession are called historians.

Contents [hide] • • • • •

1 Etymology 2 Description 3 History and prehistory 4 Historiography 5 Philosophy of history

• •

• •

•

6 Historical methods 7 Areas of study o 7.1 Periods o 7.2 Geographical locations  7.2.1 World  7.2.2 Regions o 7.3 Military history o 7.4 Social history o 7.5 Cultural History o 7.6 Diplomatic history o 7.7 People's history o 7.8 Gender history 8 Pseudohistory 9 See also o 9.1 Lists o 9.2 Methods and tools o 9.3 Related disciplines o 9.4 Other 10 References o 10.1 Notes o 10.2 Bibliography o

10.3 External links

[edit] Etymology Look up history in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. The word history comes from Greek ἱστορία (historia), from the Proto-Indo-European *wid-tor-, from the root *weid-, "to know, to see".[2] This root is also present in the English words wit, wise, wisdom, vision, and idea, in the Sanskrit word veda,[3] and in the Slavic word videti and vedati, as well as others.[4] (The asterisk before a word indicates that it is a hypothetical construction, not an attested form.) The Ancient Greek word ἱστορία, historía, means "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation". It was in that sense that Aristotle used the word in his Περί Τά Ζωα Ιστορία, Peri Ta Zoa Istória or, in Latinized form, Historia Animalium.[5] The term is derived from ἵστωρ, hístōr meaning wise man, witness, or judge. We can see early attestations of ἵστωρ in Homeric Hymns, Heraclitus, the Athenian ephebes' oath, and in Boiotic inscriptions (in a legal sense, either "judge" or "witness," or similar). The spirant is problematic, and not present in cognate Greek eídomai ("to appear"). The form historeîn, "to inquire", is an Ionic derivation, which spread first in Classical Greece and ultimately over all of Hellenistic civilization. It was still in the Greek sense that Francis Bacon used the term in the late 16th century, when he wrote about "Natural History". For him, historia was "the knowledge of objects determined by space and time", that sort of knowledge provided by memory (while science was provided by reason, and poetry was provided by fantasy). The word entered the English language in 1390 with the meaning of "relation of incidents, story". In Middle English, the meaning was "story" in general. The restriction to the meaning "record of past events" arises in the late 15th century. In German, French, and most Germanic and Romance languages,

the same word is still used to mean both "history" and "story". The adjective historical is attested from 1661, and historic from 1669.[6] Historian in the sense of a "researcher of history" is attested from 1531. In all European languages, the substantive "history" is still used to mean both "what happened with men", and "the scholarly study of the happened", the latter sense sometimes distinguished with a capital letter, "History", or the word historiography.[5]

[edit] Description The title page to The Historians' History of the World. Since historians are simultaneously observers and participants, the historical works they produce are written from the perspective of their own time and sometimes with due concern for possible lessons for their own future. In the words of Benedetto Croce, "All history is contemporary history". History is facilitated by the formation of a 'true discourse of past' through the production of narrative and analysis of past events relating to the human race.[6] The modern discipline of history is dedicated to the institutional production of this discourse. All events that are remembered and preserved in some authentic form constitute the historical record.[1] The task of historical discourse is to identify the sources which can most usefully contribute to the production of accurate accounts of past. Therefore, the constitution of the historian's archive is a result of circumscribing a more general archive by invalidating the usage of certain texts and documents (by falsifying their claims to represent the 'true past'). The study of history has sometimes been classified as part of the humanities and other times as part of the social sciences[7] It can also be seen as a bridge between those two broad areas, incorporating methodologies from both. Some individual historians strongly support one or the other classification.[8] In modern academia, history is increasingly classified as a social science. In the 20th century, French historian Fernand Braudel revolutionized the study of history, by using such outside disciplines as economics, anthropology, and geography in the study of global history. Traditionally, historians have recorded events of the past, either in writing or by passing on an oral tradition, and have attempted to answer historical questions through the study of written documents and oral accounts. For the beginning, historians have also used such sources as monuments, inscriptions, and pictures. In general, the sources of historical knowledge can be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is physically preserved, and historians often consult all three.[9] But writing is the marker that separates history from what comes before. Archaeology is a discipline that is especially helpful in dealing with buried sites and objects, which, once unearthed, contribute to the study of history. But archaeology rarely stands alone. It uses narrative sources to complement its discoveries. However, archaeology is constituted by a range of methodologies and approaches which are independent from history; that is to say, archaeology does not "fill the gaps" within textual sources. Indeed, Historical Archaeology is a specific branch of archaeology, often contrasting its conclusions against those of contemporary textual sources. Mark Leone, the excavator and interpreter of historical Annapolis in America (an 18th century town on east coast), has sought to understand the contradiction between textual documents and the material record, demonstrating the possession of slaves and the inequalities of wealth apparent via the study of the total historical environment, despite the ideology of "liberty" inherant in written documents at this time.

There are varieties of ways in which history can be organized, including chronologically, culturally, territorially, and thematically. These divisions are not mutually exclusive, and significant overlaps are often present, as in "The International Women's Movement in an Age of Transition, 1800–1945." It is possible for historians to concern themselves with both the very specific and the very general, although the modern trend has been toward specialization. The area called Big History resists this specialization, and searches for universal patterns or trends. History has often been studied with some practical or theoretical aim, but also may be studied out of simple intellectual curiosity.[10]

[edit] History and prehistory Human history This box: view • talk • edit

↑ before Homo (Pliocene) Human prehistory

•

Human evolution >> Recent African origin of modern humans • Multiregional hypothesis

•

Archaic Homo sapiens Three-age system

•

Stone Age >> Paleolithic • Mesolithic • Neolithic

•

Bronze Age >> Near East | India • Europe • China • Korea

•

Iron Age >> Bronze Age collapse • Ancient Near East • India • Europe • China • Japan • Korea • Nigeria History

• • • •

Cradle of civilization Antiquity Middle Ages Early Modern period

•

Modern period

see also: Modernity, Futurology ↓Future

Further information: Protohistory

The history of the world is the memory of the past experience of Homo sapiens around the world, as that experience has been preserved, largely in written records. By "prehistory", historians mean the recovery of knowledge of the past in an area where no written records exist, or where the writing of a culture is not understood. Human history is marked both by a gradual accretion of discoveries and inventions, as well as by quantum leaps — paradigm shifts, revolutions — that comprise epochs in the material and spiritual evolution of humankind. By studying painting, drawings, carvings, and other artifacts, some information can be recovered even in the absence of a written record. Since the 20th century, the study of prehistory is considered essential to avoid history's implicit exclusion of certain civilizations, such as those of SubSaharan Africa and pre-Columbian America. Historians in the West have been criticized for focusing disproportionately on the Western world.[11] In 1961, British historian E. H. Carr wrote: The line of demarcation between prehistoric and historical times is crossed when people cease to live only in the present, and become consciously interested both in their past and in their future. History begins with the handing down of tradition; and tradition means the carrying of the habits and lessons of the past into the future. Records of the past begin to be kept for the benefit of future generations.[12] Such a definition would include within the scope of history peoples such as Australian Aboriginals and New Zealand Maori who, before contact with Europeans, already possessed a strong interest in the past and maintained oral records transmitted to succeeding generations.

[edit] Historiography Main article: Historiography Historiography has a number of related meanings. Firstly, it can refer to how history has been produced: the story of the development of methodology and practices (for example, the move from short-term biographical narrative towards long-term thematic analysis). Secondly, it can refer to what has been produced: a specific body of historical writing (for example, "medieval historiography during the 1960s" means "Works of medieval history written during the 1960s"). Thirdly, it may refer to why history is produced: the Philosophy of history. As a meta-level analysis of descriptions of the past, this third conception can relate to the first two in that the analysis usually focuses on the narratives, interpretations, worldview, use of evidence, or method of presentation of other historians. Professional historians also debate the question of whether history can be taught as a single coherent narrative or a series of competing narratives.

[edit] Philosophy of history History's philosophical questions •

What is the proper unit for the study of the human past — the individual? The polis? The civilization? The culture? Or the nation state?

•

Are there broad patterns and progress? Are there cycles? Is human history

random and devoid of any meaning?

Main article: Philosophy of history Philosophy of history is an area of philosophy concerning the eventual significance, if any, of human history. Furthermore, it speculates as to a possible teleological end to its development—that is, it asks if there is a design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the processes of human history. Philosophy of history should not be confused with historiography, which is the study of history as an academic discipline, and thus concerns its methods and practices, and its development as a discipline over time. Nor should philosophy of history be confused with the history of philosophy, which is the study of the development of philosophical ideas through time. Professional historians debate the question of whether history is a science or a liberal art. The distinction is artificial, as many view the field from more than one perspective.[13] Recent argument in support for the transformation of history into science have been made by Peter Turchin in an article titled "Arise Cliodynamics" in the journal "Nature".[14][15]

[edit] Historical methods Further information: Historical method

A depiction of the ancient Library of Alexandria. Historical method basics The following questions are used by historians in modern work.

1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)? 2. Where was it produced (localization)? 3. By whom was it produced

(authorship)? 4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)? 5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)? 6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)? The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and, together, external criticism. The sixth and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism.

The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write history. Herodotus of Halicarnassus (484 BC – ca.425 BC)[16] has generally been acclaimed as the "father of history". However, his contemporary Thucydides (ca. 460 BC – ca. 400 BC) is credited with having begun the scientific approach to history in his work the History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides, unlike Herodotus and other religious historians, regarded history as being the product of the choices and actions of human beings, and looked at cause and effect, rather than as the result of divine intervention.[16] In his historical method, Thucydides emphasized chronology, a neutral point of view, and that the human world was the result of the actions of human beings. Greek historians also viewed history as cyclical, with events regularly recurring.[17] There were historical traditions and sophisticated use of historical method in ancient and medieval China. The groundwork for professional historiography in East Asia was established by the Han Dynasty court historian known as Sima Qian (145–90 BC), author of the Shiji (Records of the Grand Historian). For the quality of his timeless written work, Sima Qian is posthumously known as the Father of Chinese Historiography. Chinese historians of subsequent dynastic periods in China used his Shiji as the official format for historical texts, as well as for biographical literature. Saint Augustine was influential in Christian and Western thought at the beginning of the medieval period. Through the Medieval and Renaissance periods, history was often studied through a sacred or religious perspective. Around 1800, German philosopher and historian Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel brought philosophy and a more secular approach in historical study.[10] In the preface to his book, the Muqaddimah (1377), the Arab historian and early sociologist, Ibn Khaldun, warned of seven mistakes that he thought that historians regularly committed. In this criticism, he approached the past as strange and in need of interpretation. The originality of Ibn Khaldun was to claim that the cultural difference of another age must govern the evaluation of relevant historical material, to distinguish the principles according to which it might be possible to attempt the evaluation, and lastly, to feel the need for experience, in addition to rational principles, in order to assess a culture of the past. Ibn Khaldun often criticized "idle superstition and uncritical acceptance of historical data." As a result, he introduced a scientific method to the study of history, which was considered something "new to his age", and he often referred to it as his "new science", now associated with historiography.[18] His historical method also laid the groundwork for the observation of the role of state, communication, propaganda and

systematic bias in history,[19] and he is thus considered to be the "father of historiography"[20][21] or the "father of the philosophy of history".[22] Other historians of note who have advanced the historical methods of study include Leopold von Ranke, Sir Lewis Bernstein Namier, Pieter Geyl, G. M. Trevelyan, Sir Geoffrey Elton, and A. J. P. Taylor. In the 20th century, historians focused less on epic nationalistic narratives, which often tended to glorify the nation or individuals, to more objective analyses. A major trend of historical methodology in the 20th century was a tendency to treat history more as a social science rather than as an art, which traditionally had been the case. Some of the leading advocates of history as a social science were a diverse collection of scholars which included Fernand Braudel, E. H. Carr, Fritz Fischer, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, HansUlrich Wehler, Bruce Trigger, Marc Bloch, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Peter Gay, Robert Fogel, Lucien Febvre and Lawrence Stone. Many of the advocates of history as a social science were or are noted for their multi-disciplinary approach. Braudel combined history with geography, Bracher history with political science, Fogel history with economics, Gay history with psychology, Trigger history with archeology while Wehler, Bloch, Fischer, Stone, Febvre and Le Roy Ladurie have in varying and differing ways amalgamated history with sociology, geography, anthropology, and economics. More recently, the field of digital history has begun to address ways of using computer technology to pose new questions to historical data and generate digital scholarship. In opposition to the claims of history as a social science, historians such as Hugh Trevor-Roper, John Lukacs, Donald Creighton, Gertrude Himmelfarb and Gerhard Ritter argued that the key to the historians’ work was the power of the imagination, and hence contended that history should be understood as an art. French historians associated with the Annales School introduced quantitative history, using raw data to track the lives of typical individuals, and were prominent in the establishment of cultural history (cf. histoire des mentalités). Intellectual historians such as Herbert Butterfield, Ernst Nolte and George Mosse have argued for the significance of ideas in history. American historians, motivated by the civil rights era, focused on formerly overlooked ethnic, racial, and socio-economic groups. Another genre of social history to emerge in the post-WWII era was Alltagsgeschichte (History of Everyday Life). Scholars such as Martin Broszat, Ian Kershaw and Detlev Peukert sought to examine what everyday life was like for ordinary people in 20th century Germany, especially in the Nazi period. Marxist historians such as Eric Hobsbawm, E. P. Thompson, Rodney Hilton, Georges Lefebvre, Eugene D. Genovese, Isaac Deutscher, C. L. R. James, Timothy Mason, Herbert Aptheker, Arno J. Mayer and Christopher Hill have sought to validate Karl Marx's theories by analyzing history from a Marxist perspective. In response to the Marxist interpretation of history, historians such as François Furet, Richard Pipes, J. C. D. Clark, Roland Mousnier, Henry Ashby Turner and Robert Conquest have offered antiMarxist interpretations of history. Feminist historians such as Joan Wallach Scott, Claudia Koonz, Natalie Zemon Davis, Sheila Rowbotham, Gisela Bock, Gerda Lerner, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, and Lynn Hunt have argued for the importance of studying the experience of women in the past. In recent years, postmodernists have challenged the validity and need for the study of history on the basis that all history is based on the personal interpretation of sources. In his 1997 book In Defence of History, Richard J. Evans, a professor of modern history at Cambridge University, defended the worth of history. Another defence of history from post-modernist criticism was the Australian historian Keith Windschuttle's 1994 book, The Killing of History.

[edit] Areas of study Particular studies and fields These are approaches to history; not listed are histories of other

fields, such as history of science, history of mathematics and history of philosophy. •

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

Ancient history : the study from the beginning of human history until the Early Middle Ages. Art History: the study of changes in and social context of art. Big History: study of history on a large scale across long time frames and epochs through a multi-disciplinary approach. Chronology: science of localizing historical events in time. Contemporary history: the study of historical events that are immediately relevant to the present time. Counterfactual history: the study of historical events as they might have happened in different causal circumstances. Cultural history: the study of culture in the past. Digital History: the use of computing technologies to produce digital scholarship. Economic History: the study of economies in the past. Futurology: study of the future: researches the medium to long-term future of societies and of the physical world. Intellectual history: the study of ideas in the context of the cultures that produced them and their development over time. Maritime history: the study of maritime transport and all the connected subjects.

•

•

•

• •

• •

•

•

•

•

•

Modern history : the study of the Modern Times, the era after the Middle Ages. Military History: the study of warfare and wars in history and what is sometimes considered to be a sub-branch of military history, Naval History. Natural history: the study of the development of the cosmos, the Earth, biology and interactions thereof. Paleography: study of ancient texts. People's history: historical work from the perspective of common people. Political history: the study of politics in the past. Psychohistory: study of the psychological motivations of historical events. Pseudohistory: study about the past that falls outside the domain of mainstream history (sometimes it is an equivalent of pseudoscience). Social History: the study of the process of social change throughout history. Universal history: basic to the Western tradition of historiography. Women's history: the history of female human beings. Gender history is related and covers the perspective of gender. World History: the study of history from a global perspective.

[edit] Periods Main article: Periodisation

Historical study often focuses on events and developments that occur in particular blocks of time. Historians give these periods of time names in order to allow "organising ideas and classificatory generalisations" to be used by historians.[23] The names given to a period can vary with geographical location, as can the dates of the start and end of a particular period. Centuries and decades are commonly used periods and the time they represent depends on the dating system used. Most periods are constructed retrospectively and so reflect value judgments made about the past. The way periods are constructed and the names given to them can affect the way they are viewed and studied.[24]

[edit] Geographical locations Particular geographical locations can form the basis of historical study, for example, continents, countries and cities. [edit] World Main article: History of the World World history is the study of major civilizations over the last 3000 years or so. It has led to highly controversial interpretations by Oswald Spengler and Arnold J. Toynbee, among others. World history is especially important as a teaching field. It has increasingly entered the university curriculum in the U.S., in many cases replacing courses in Western Civilization, that had a focus on Europe and the U.S. World history adds extensive new material on Asia, Africa and Latin America. [edit] Regions •

•

• • • • •

History of Africa begins with the first emergence of modern human beings on the continent, continuing into its modern present as a patchwork of diverse and politically developing nation states. History of the Americas is the collective history of North and South America, including Central America and the Caribbean. o History of North America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's northern and western hemisphere. o History of Central America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's western hemisphere. o History of the Caribbean begins with the oldest evidence where 7,000-year-old remains have been found. o History of South America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's southern and western hemisphere. History of Antarctica emerges from early Western theories of a vast continent, known as Terra Australis, believed to exist in the far south of the globe. History of Australia start with the documentation of the Makassar trading with Indigenous Australians on Australia's north coast. History of New Zealand dates back at least 700 years to when it was discovered and settled by Polynesians, who developed a distinct Māori culture centred on kinship links and land. History of the Pacific Islands covers the history of the islands in the Pacific Ocean. History of Eurasia is the collective history of several distinct peripheral coastal regions: the Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Europe, linked by the interior mass of the Eurasian steppe of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. o History of Europe describes the passage of time from humans inhabiting the European continent to the present day.

History of Frisia is the study of the rich history and folklore of the Frisians and their languages, battles, culture, cuisine, and so forth. History of Asia can be seen as the collective history of several distinct peripheral coastal regions, East Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East linked by the interior mass of the Eurasian steppe.  History of East Asia is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation in East Asia.  History of the Middle East begins with the earliest civilizations in the region now known as the Middle East that were established around 3000 BC, in Mesopotamia (Iraq).  History of South Asia is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation in the Sub-Himalayan region.  History of Southeast Asia has been characterized as interaction between regional players and foreign powers. 

o

[edit] Military history Main article: Military history Military history studies conflicts within human society usually concentrating on historical wars and warfare including battles, military strategies and weaponry.[25] However, the subject may range from a melee between two tribes to conflicts between proper militaries to a world war affecting the majority of the human population. Military historians record the events of military history.

[edit] Social history Main article: Social history Social history is the study of how societies adapt and change over periods of time. Social history is an area of historical study considered by some to be a social science that attempts to view historical evidence from the point of view of developing social trends. In this view, it may include areas of economic history, legal history and the analysis of other aspects of civil society that show the evolution of social norms, behaviors and more.

[edit] Cultural History Main article: Cultural history Cultural history, as a discipline, at least in its common definition since the 1970s, often combines the approaches of anthropology and history to look at popular cultural traditions and cultural interpretations of historical experience. It examines the records and narrative descriptions of past knowledge, customs, and arts of a group of people.

[edit] Diplomatic history Main article: Diplomatic history Diplomatic history, sometimes referred to as "Rankian History"[26] in honor of Leopold von Ranke, focuses on politics, politicians and other high rulers and views them as being the driving force of continuity and change in history. This type of political history is the study of the conduct of international

relations between states or across state boundaries over time. This is the most common form of history and is often the classical and popular belief of what history should be.

[edit] People's history Main article: People's history A people's history is a type of historical work which attempts to account for historical events from the perspective of common people. A people's history is the history of the world that is the story of mass movements and of the outsiders. Individuals not included in the past in other type of writing about history are part of this theory's primary focus, which includes the disenfranchised, the oppressed, the poor, the nonconformists, and the otherwise forgotten people. This theory also usually focuses on events occurring in the fullness of time, or when an overwhelming wave of smaller events cause certain developments to occur.

[edit] Gender history Main article: Gender history Gender history is a sub-field of History and Gender studies, which looks at the past from the perspective of gender. It is in many ways, an outgrowth of women's history. Despite its relatively short life, Gender History (and its forerunner Women's History) has had a rather significant effect on the general study of history. Since the 1960s, when the initially small field first achieved a measure of acceptance, it has gone through a number of different phases, each with its own challenges and outcomes. Although some of the changes to the study of history have been quite obvious, such as increased numbers of books on famous women or simply the admission of greater numbers of women into the historical profession, other influences are more subtle.

[edit] Pseudohistory Main article: Pseudohistory Pseudohistory is a term applied to texts which purport to be historical in nature but which depart from standard historiographical conventions in a way which undermines their conclusions. Works which draw controversial conclusions from new, speculative or disputed historical evidence, particularly in the fields of national, political, military and religious affairs, are often rejected as pseudohistory. In many countries, such as Japan, Russia, and the United States, the subject taught in the primary and secondary schools under the name "history" has at times been censored for political reasons. To give just a few of many examples: in Japan, mention of the Nanking Massacre has been removed from textbooks; in Russia under Stalin, history was rewritten to conform with communist party doctrine; and in the United States the history of the American Civil War had been censored to avoid giving offense to white Southerners.[27][28][29] This practice goes back to the earliest recorded times. In Book Three of The Republic, Plato recommends that citizens be taught lies in order to instill patriotism.[30] For more details on this topic, see political historical revisionism.

[edit] See also

• H i s t o r y

Current events portal

WikiProject History

p o r t a l

•

Historian, a person who studies and writes history

[edit] Related disciplines •

[edit] Lists • • • • • • •

List of centuries List of decades List of historians List of historians by area of study List of history journals List of history topics List of timelines (Timeline)

[edit] Methods and tools •

Contemporaneous corroboration: A method historians use to establish facts beyond their limited lifespan.

•

Prosopography: A methodological tool for the collection of all known information about individuals within a given period.

•

[edit] Other •

•

•

[edit] References

Archaeology: the systematic study of our human past, based on the investigation of material culture and context, together forming the archaeological record. Archontology: study of historical offices and important positions in state, international, political, religious and other organizations and societies.

Changelog: log or record of changes made to a project, such as a website or software project. Historical drama film: The portrayal of history on film. Social change: changes in the nature, the social institutions, the social behavior, or the social relations of a society or community of people.

Race (classification of human beings) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search This article may be too long to comfortably read and navigate. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject. A series of articles on

Race Main topics Race Race and genetics Human genetic variation Historical definitions Race and health Race and intelligence Social Social interpretations of race Racism Racial segregation Anti-miscegenation laws

Racialism Racial profiling Race in the United States Race in Brazil Related Ethnic group Human evolution Genetics Racism topics Category: Race This box: view • talk • edit

For other uses, see Race. The term race or racial group usually refers to the concept of categorizing humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics.[1] The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and selfidentification.[1][2] Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not races are natural types or socially constructed, and the degree to which perceived differences in ability and achievement, categorized on the basis of race, are a product of inherited (i.e. genetic) traits or environmental, social and cultural factors. Some argue that although race is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.[3] Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[4] Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Many contend that while racial categorizations may be marked by phenotypic or genotypic traits, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into races or racial groups, are social constructs.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Contents [hide] •

•

1 History o 1.1 In ancient civilizations o 1.2 Age of Discovery o 1.3 Scientific concepts o 1.4 17th and 18th century o 1.5 19th century 2 Modern debates o 2.1 Models of human evolution o 2.2 Race as subspecies  2.2.1 Morphological subspecies  2.2.2 Subspecies genetically differentiated populations o 2.3 Population genetics: population and cline  2.3.1 Clines

 2.3.2 Populations 2.4 Molecular genetics: lineages and clusters  2.4.1 Molecular lineages, Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA  2.4.2 How much are genes shared? Clustering analyses and what they tell us o 2.5 Summary of different biological definitions of race o 2.6 Current views across disciplines o 2.7 Races as social constructions  2.7.1 In the United States  2.7.2 In Brazil  2.7.3 Marketing of race: genetic lineages as social lineages 3 Political and practical uses o 3.1 Racism o 3.2 Race and intelligence o 3.3 In biomedicine o 3.4 In law enforcement 4 See also 5 Footnotes 6 Bibliography 7 External links o 7.1 Official statements and standards o 7.2 Popular press o

•

• • • •

o

7.3 Others

[edit] History See also: Historical definitions of race

[edit] In ancient civilizations See also: Ancient Egypt and race

Blue-eyed Central Asian (Tocharian?) and East-Asian Buddhist monks, Bezeklik, Eastern Tarim Basin, 9th-10th century.[13][14] Given visually complex social relationships, humans presumably have always observed and speculated about the physical differences among individuals and groups. But different societies have attributed markedly different meanings to these distinctions. For example, the Ancient Egyptian sacred text called Book of Gates identifies four categories that are now conventionally labeled "Egyptians", "Asiatics", "Libyans", and "Nubians", but such distinctions tended to conflate differences as defined by physical

features such as skin tone, with tribal and national identity. Classical civilizations from Rome to China tended to invest much more importance in familial or tribal affiliation than with one's physical appearance (Dikötter 1992; Goldenberg 2003). Ancient Greek and Roman authors also attempted to explain and categorize visible biological differences among peoples known to them. Such categories often also included fantastical human-like beings that were supposed to exist in far-away lands. Some Roman writers adhered to an environmental determinism in which climate could affect the appearance and character of groups (Isaac 2004). In many ancient civilizations, individuals with widely varying physical appearances became full members of a society by growing up within that society or by adopting that society's cultural norms (Snowden 1983; Lewis 1990). Julian the Apostate was an early observer of the differences in humans, based upon ethnic, cultural, and geographic traits, but as the ideology of "race" had not yet been constructed, he believed that they were the result of "Providence": Come, tell me why it is that the Celts and the Germans are fierce, while the Hellenes and Romans are, generally speaking, inclined to political life and humane, though at the same time unyielding and warlike? Why the Egyptians are more intelligent and more given to crafts, and the Syrians unwarlike and effeminate, but at the same time intelligent, hot-tempered, vain and quick to learn? For if there is anyone who does not discern a reason for these differences among the nations, but rather declaims that all this so befell spontaneously, how, I ask, can he still believe that the universe is administered by a providence? — Julian, the Apostate.[15]

Medieval models of "race" mixed Classical ideas with the notion that humanity as a whole was descended from Shem, Ham and Japheth, the three sons of Noah, producing distinct Semitic (Asiatic), Hamitic (African), and Japhetic (Indo-European) peoples. This theory dates back to the Judeo-Christian tradition, as described in the Babylonian Talmud, which states that "the descendants of Ham are cursed by being black, and [it] depicts Ham as a sinful man and his progeny as degenerates." In the 14th century, the Islamic sociologist Ibn Khaldun, an adherent of environmental determinism, dispelled this theory as a myth. He wrote that black skin was due to the hot climate of sub-Saharan Africa and not due to the descendants of Ham being cursed.[16] In the 9th century, Al-Jahiz, an Afro-Arab biologist and Islamic philosopher of East African descent, was an early adherent of environmental determinism and explained how the environment can determine the physical characteristics of the inhabitants of a certain community. He used his theories on the struggle for existence and environmental determinism to explain the origins of different human skin colors, particularly black skin, which he believed to be the result of the environment. He cited a stony region of black basalt in the northern Najd as evidence for his theory:[17] "[It] is so unusual that its gazelles and ostriches, its insects and flies, its foxes, sheep and asses, its horses and its birds are all black. Blackness and whiteness are in fact caused by the properties of the region, as well as by the God-given nature of water and soil and by the proximity or remoteness of the sun and the intensity or mildness of its heat."

[edit] Age of Discovery The word "race", along with many of the ideas now associated with the term, were products of European imperialism and colonization during the age of exploration. (Smedley 1999) As Europeans encountered people from different parts of the world, they speculated about the physical, social, and cultural differences among various human groups. The rise of the Atlantic slave trade, which gradually displaced an earlier trade in slaves from throughout the world, created a further incentive to categorize human groups in order to justify the subordination of African slaves. (Meltzer 1993) Drawing on Classical sources and upon their own internal interactions — for example, the hostility between the English and Irish was a powerful influence on early thinking about the differences between people (Takaki 1993) —

Europeans began to sort themselves and others into groups associated with physical appearance and with deeply ingrained behaviors and capacities. A set of folk beliefs took hold that linked inherited physical differences between groups to inherited intellectual, behavioral, and moral qualities. (Banton 1977) Although similar ideas can be found in other cultures (Lewis 1990; Dikötter 1992), they appear not to have had as much influence upon their social structures as was found in Europe and the parts of the world colonized by Europeans. However, often brutal conflicts between ethnic groups have existed throughout history and across the world.

[edit] Scientific concepts Further information: Race (historical definitions), Scientific racism, Craniofacial anthropometry The first scientific attempts to classify humans by categories of race date from the 17th century, along with the development of European imperialism and colonization around the world. The first postClassical published classification of humans into distinct races seems to be François Bernier's Nouvelle division de la terre par les différents espèces ou races qui l'habitent ("New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it"), published in 1684.

[edit] 17th and 18th century According to philosopher Michel Foucault, theories of both racial and class conflict can be traced to 17th century political debates about innate differences among ethnicities. In England radicals such as John Lilburne emphasised conflicts between Saxon and Norman peoples. In France Henri de Boulainvilliers argued that the Germanic Franks possessed a natural right to leadership, in contrast to descendants of the Gauls. In the 18th century, the differences among human groups became a focus of scientific investigation (Todorov 1993). Initially, scholars focused on cataloguing and describing "The Natural Varieties of Mankind," as Johann Friedrich Blumenbach entitled his 1775 text (which established the five major divisions of humans still reflected in some racial classifications, i.e., the Caucasoid race, Mongoloid race, Ethiopian race (later termed the Negroid race), American Indian race, and Malayan race). From the 17th through the 19th centuries, the merging of folk beliefs about group differences with scientific explanations of those differences produced what one scholar has called an "ideology of race" (Smedley 1999). According to this ideology, races are primordial, natural, enduring and distinct. It was further argued that some groups may be the result of mixture between formerly distinct populations, but that careful study could distinguish the ancestral races that had combined to produce admixed groups.

[edit] 19th century The 19th century saw attempts to change race from a taxonomic to a biological concept. In the 19th century a number of natural scientists wrote on race: Georges Cuvier, Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, Francis Galton, James Cowles Pritchard, Louis Agassiz, Charles Pickering, and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. As the science of anthropology took shape in the 19th century, European and American scientists increasingly sought explanations for the behavioral and cultural differences they attributed to groups (Stanton 1960). For example, using anthropometrics, invented by Francis Galton and Alphonse Bertillon, they measured the shapes and sizes of skulls and related the results to group differences in intelligence or other attributes (Lieberman 2001). These scientists made three claims about race: first, that races are objective, naturally occurring divisions of humanity; second, that there is a strong relationship between biological races and other human phenomena (such as forms of activity and interpersonal relations and culture, and by extension the relative material success of cultures), thus biologizing the notion of "race", as Foucault demonstrated in his historical analysis; third, that race is therefore a valid scientific category that can be used to explain and

predict individual and group behavior. Races were distinguished by skin color, facial type, cranial profile and size, texture and color of hair. Moreover, races were almost universally considered to reflect group differences in moral character and intelligence. The eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, inspired by Arthur Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races (1853–1855) and Vacher de Lapouge's "anthroposociology", asserted as self-evident the biological inferiority of particular groups (Kevles 1985). In many parts of the world, the idea of race became a way of rigidly dividing groups by culture as well as by physical appearances (Hannaford 1996). Campaigns of oppression and genocide were often motivated by supposed racial differences (Horowitz 2001). In Charles Darwin's most controversial book, The Descent of Man, he made strong suggestions of racial differences and European superiority. In Darwin's view, stronger tribes of humans always replaced weaker tribes. As savage tribes came in conflict with civilized nations, such as England, the less advanced people were destroyed.[18] Nevertheless, he also noted the great difficulty naturalists had in trying to decide how many "races" there actually were (Darwin was himself a monogenist on the question of race, believing that all humans were of the same species and finding "race" to be a somewhat arbitrary distinction among some groups): Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.[19]

[edit] Modern debates [edit] Models of human evolution See also: Multiregional hypothesis See also: Recent single origin hypothesis In a recent article, Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Jackson have suggested that any new support for a biological concept of race will likely come from another source, namely, the study of human evolution. They therefore ask what, if any, implications current models of human evolution may have for any biological conception of race.[20] Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens and sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens. However, this is not the first species of hominids: the first species of genus Homo, Homo habilis, evolved in East Africa at least 2 million years ago, and members of this species populated different parts of Africa in a relatively short time. Homo erectus evolved more than 1.8 million years ago, and by 1.5 million years ago had spread throughout Europe and Asia. Virtually all physical anthropologists agree that Homo sapiens evolved out of Homo erectus. Anthropologists have been divided as to whether Homo sapiens evolved as one interconnected species from H. erectus (called the Multiregional Model, or the Regional Continuity Model), or evolved only in East Africa, and then migrated out of Africa and replaced H. erectus populations throughout Europe and Asia (called the Out of Africa Model or the Complete Replacement Model). Anthropologists continue to debate both possibilities, and the evidence is technically ambiguous as to which model is correct, although most anthropologists currently favor the Out of Africa model.

Lieberman and Jackson have argued that while advocates of both the Multiregional Model and the Out of Africa Model use the word race and make racial assumptions, none define the term.[21] They conclude that "Each model has implications that both magnify and minimize the differences between races. Yet each model seems to take race and races as a conceptual reality. The net result is that those anthropologists who prefer to view races as a reality are encouraged to do so" and conclude that students of human evolution would be better off avoiding the word race, and instead describe genetic differences in terms of populations and clinal gradations.[22]

[edit] Race as subspecies Further information: Race (biology), Species, Subspecies, Systematics, Phylogenetics, Cladistics. With the advent of the modern synthesis in the early 20th century, many biologists sought to use evolutionary models and populations genetics in an attempt to formalise taxonomy. The Biological Species Concept (BSC) is the most widely used system for describing species, this concept defines a species as a group of organisms that interbreed in their natural environment and produce viable offspring. In practice species are not classified according to the BSC but according to typology by the use of a holotype, due to the difficulty of determining whether all members of a group of organisms do or can in practice potentially interbreed.[23] BSC species are routinely classified on a subspecific level, though this classification is conducted differently for different taxons, for mammals the normal taxonomic unit below the species level is usually the subspecies.[24] More recently the Phylogenetic Species Concept (PSC) has gained a substantial following. The PSC is based on the idea of a least-inclusive taxonomic unit (LITU), in phylogenetic classification no subspecies can exist because they would automatically constitute a LITU (any monophyletic group). Technically species cease to exist as do all hierarchical taxa, a LITU is effectively defined as any monophyletic taxon, phylogenetics is strongly influenced by cladistics which classifies organisms based on evolution rather than similarities between groups of organisms.[23] In biology the term "race" is very rarely used because it is ambiguous, "'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'".[25] Generally when it is used it is synonymous with subspecies.[26][25][27] One of the main obstacles to identifying subspecies is that, while it is a recognised taxonomic term, it has no precise definition.[26] Species of organisms that are monotypic (i.e. form a single subspecies) display at least one of these properties: • •

•

All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant subcategories. The individuals vary considerably but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned (many plant species fit into this category, which is why horticulturists interested in preserving, say, a particular flower color avoid propagation from seed, and instead use vegetative methods like propagation from cuttings). The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation displays a lack of allopatric partition between groups (i.e. a clearly defined boundary demarcating the subspecies), which is usually required before they are recognised as subspecies.[28]

A polytypic species has two or more subspecies. These are separate populations that are more genetically different from one another and that are more reproductively isolated, gene flow between these populations is much reduced leading to genetic differentiation.

[edit] Morphological subspecies Traditionally subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations.[26] Or to put it another way "the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence"[25] One objection to this idea is that it does not identify any degree of differentiation, therefore any population that is somewhat biologically different could be considered a subspecies, even to the level of a local population. As a result it is necessary to impose a threshold on the level of difference that is required for a population to be designated a subspecies.[26] This effectively means that populations of organisms must have reached a certain measurable level of difference in order to be recognised as subspecies. Dean Amadon proposed in 1949 that subspecies would be defined according to the seventy-five percent rule which means that 75% of a population must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining morphological character or a set of characters. The 75 percent rule still has defenders but other scholars argue that it should be replaced with 90 or 95 percent rule.[29][30][31] In 1978, Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered to be of different subspecies by the usual criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection. It does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair in spite of so much variability within each of these groups that every individual can easily be distinguished from every other. However, it is customary to use the term race rather than subspecies for the major subdivisions of the human species as well as for minor ones.[32] On the other hand in practice subspecies are often defined by easily observable physical appearance, but there is not necessarily any evolutionary significance to these observed differences, so this form of classification has become less acceptable to evolutionary biologists.[26][25] Likewise this typological approach to "race" is generally regarded as discredited by biologists and anthropologists. Because of the difficulty in classifying subspecies morphologically, many biologists reject the concept altogether, citing problems such as:[25] • • • •

Visible physical differences do not correlate with one another, leading to the possibility of different classifications for the same individual organisms.[25] Parallel evolution can lead to the existence of the appearance of similarities between groups of organisms that are not part of the same species.[25] The existence of isolated populations within previously designated subspecies.[25] That the criteria for classification are arbitrary.[25]

[edit] Subspecies genetically differentiated populations Another way to look at differences between populations is to measure genetic differences rather than physical differences, these should be less biased. Genetic differences between populations of organisms can be measured using the fixation index of Sewall Wright, which is often abbreviated to FST. This statistic is used to compare differences between any two given populations and can be used to measure genetic differences between populations for individual genes, or for many genes simultaneously.[33] For example it is often stated that the fixation index for humans is about 0.15. This means that about 85% of the variation measured in the human population is within any population, and about 15% of the variation occurs between populations, or that any two individuals from different populations are almost as likely to be more similar to each other than either is to a member of their own group.[26][25] It is often stated that human genetic variation is low compared to other mammalian species, and it has been claimed that this should be taken as evidence that there is no natural subdivision of the human population.[34][35][36][37][38] Write himself believed that a value of 0.25 represented great genetic variation and that an FST of 0.15-0.25

represented moderate variation. It should however be noted that about 5% of human variation occurs between populations within continents, and therefor the FST between continental groups of humans (or races) is as low as 0.1 (or possibly lower).[33] In their 2003 paper "Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races"[39] Jeffrey Long and Rick Kittles give a long critique of the application of FST to human populations. They find that the figure of 85% is misleading because it implies that all human populations contain on average 85% of all genetic diversity. This does not correctly reflect human population history, they claim, because it treats all human groups as independent. A more realistic portrayal of the way human groups are related is to understand that some human groups are parental to other groups and that these groups represent paraphyletic groups to their descent groups. For example under the recent African origin theory the human population in Africa is paraphyletic to all other human groups because it represents the ancestral group from which all non-African populations derive, but more than that, non-African groups only derive from a small non-representative sample of this African population. This means that all non-African groups are more closely related to each other and to some African groups (probably east Africans) than they are to others, and further that the migration out of Africa represented a genetic bottleneck, with a great deal of the diversity that existed in Africa not being carried out of Africa by the emigrating groups. This view produces a version of human population movements that do not result in all human populations being independent, but rather produces a series of dilutions of diversity the further from Africa any population lives, each founding event representing a genetic subset of it's parental population. Long and Kittles find that rather than 85% of human genetic diversity existing in all human populations, about 100% of human diversity exists in a single African population, whereas only about 70% of human genetic diversity exists in a population derived from New Guinea. Long and Kittles make the observation that this still produces a global human population that is genetically homogeneous compared to other mammalian populations. Wright's F statistics are not used to determine whether a group can be described as a subspecies or not, though the statistic is used to measure the degree of differentiation between populations, the degree of genetic differentiation is not a marker of subspecies status.[33] Generally taxonomists prefer to use phylogenetic analysis to determine whether a population can be considered a subspecies. Phylogenetic analysis relies on the concept of derived characteristics that are not shared between groups, this means that these populations are usually allopatric and therefore discretely bounded, this makes subspecies, evolutionarily speaking, monophyletic groups.[26] The clinality of human genetic variation in general rules out any idea that human population groups can be considered monophyletic as there appears to always have been a great deal of gene flow between human populations.[26]

[edit] Population genetics: population and cline At the beginning of the 20th century, anthropologists questioned, and eventually abandoned, the claim that biologically distinct races are isomorphic with distinct linguistic, cultural, and social groups. Shortly thereafter, the rise of population genetics provided scientists with a new understanding of the sources of phenotypic variation. This new science has led many mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as a scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon. Those who came to reject the validity of the concept of race did so for four reasons: empirical, definitional, the availability of alternative concepts, and ethical (Lieberman and Byrne 1993). The first to challenge the concept of race on empirical grounds were anthropologists Franz Boas, who demonstrated phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors (Boas 1912), and Ashley Montagu (1941, 1942), who relied on evidence from genetics. Zoologists Edward O. Wilson and W. Brown then challenged the concept from the perspective of general animal systematics, and further rejected the claim that "races" were equivalent to "subspecies" (Wilson and Brown 1953).

[edit] Clines One of the crucial innovations in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations or clines (Brace 1964). This point called attention to a problem common to phenotype-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and differences (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion that, since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279). In a response to Livingston, Theodore Dobzhansky argued that when talking about "race" one must be attentive to how the term is being used: "I agree with Dr. Livingston that if races have to be 'discrete units,' then there are no races, and if 'race' is used as an 'explanation' of the human variability, rather than vice versa, then the explanation is invalid." He further argued that one could use the term race if one distinguished between "race differences" and "the race concept." The former refers to any distinction in gene frequencies between populations; the latter is "a matter of judgment." He further observed that even when there is clinal variation, "Race differences are objectively ascertainable biological phenomena .... but it does not follow that racially distinct populations must be given racial (or subspecific) labels."[40] In short, Livingston and Dobzhansky agree that there are genetic differences among human beings; they also agree that the use of the race concept to classify people, and how the race concept is used, is a matter of social convention. They differ on whether the race concept remains a meaningful and useful social convention. In 1964, biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly—for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa (Ehrlich and Holm 1964). As anthropologists Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda Jackson observe, "Discordant patterns of heterogeneity falsify any description of a population as if it were genotypically or even phenotypically homogeneous" (Lieverman and Jackson 1995). Patterns such as those seen in human physical and genetic variation as described above, have led to the consequence that the number and geographic location of any described races is highly dependent on the importance attributed to, and quantity of, the traits considered. For example if only skin colour and a "two race" system of classification were used, then one might classify Indigenous Australians in the same "race" as Black people, and Caucasians in the same "race" as East Asian people, but biologists and anthropologists would dispute that these classifications have any scientific validity. On the other hand the greater the number of traits (or alleles) considered, the more subdivisions of humanity are detected, due to the fact that traits and gene frequencies do not always correspond to the same geographical location, or as Ossario and Duster (2005) put it: Anthropologists long ago discovered that humans' physical traits vary gradually, with groups that are close geographic neighbors being more similar than groups that are geographically separated. This pattern of variation, known as clinal variation, is also observed for many alleles that vary from one human group to another. Another observation is that traits or alleles that vary from one group to another do not vary at the same rate. This pattern is referred to as nonconcordant variation. Because the variation of physical traits is clinal and nonconcordant, anthropologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries discovered that the more traits and the more human groups they measured, the fewer discrete differences they observed among races and the more categories they had to create to classify human beings. The number of races observed expanded to the 30s and 50s, and eventually anthropologists concluded that there were no discrete races (Marks, 2002). Twentieth and 21st century biomedical researchers have discovered this same feature when evaluating human variation at the level of alleles and allele frequencies. Nature has not created four or five distinct, nonoverlapping genetic groups of people.[41]

[edit] Populations Population geneticists have debated as to whether the concept of population can provide a basis for a new conception of race. In order to do this a working definition of population must be found. Surprisingly there is no generally accepted concept of population that biologists use. It has been pointed out that the concept of population is central to ecology, evolutionary biology and conservation biology, but also that most definitions of population rely on qualitative descriptions such as "a group of organisms of the same species occupying a particular space at a particular time"[42] Waples and Gaggiotti identify two broad types of definitions for populations, those that fall into an ecological paradigm and those that fall into an evolutionary paradigm. Examples such definitions are: • •

Ecological paradigm: A group of individuals of the same species that co-occur in space and time and have an opportunity to interact with each other. Evolutionary paradigm: A group of individuals of the same species living in close enough proximity that any member of the group can potentially mate with any other member.[42]

Richard Lewontin, claiming that 85 percent of human variation occurs within populations, and not among populations, argued that neither "race" nor "subspecies" were appropriate or useful ways to describe populations (Lewontin 1973). Nevertheless, barriers—which may be cultural or physical— between populations can limit gene flow and increase genetic differences. Recent work by population geneticists conducting research in Europe suggests that ethnic identity can be a barrier to gene flow.[43][44][45][46] Others, such as Ernst Mayr, have argued for a notion of "geographic race" [4]. Some researchers report the variation between racial groups (measured by Sewall Wright's population structure statistic FST) accounts for as little as 5% of human genetic variation². Sewall Wright himself commented that if differences this large were seen in another species, they would be called subspecies.[47] In 2003 A. W. F. Edwards argued that cluster analysis supersedes Lewontin's arguments (see below). These empirical challenges to the concept of race forced evolutionary sciences to reconsider their definition of race. Mid-century, anthropologist William Boyd defined race as: A population which differs significantly from other populations in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses. It is an arbitrary matter which, and how many, gene loci we choose to consider as a significant "constellation" (Boyd 1950). Lieberman and Jackson (1994) have pointed out that "the weakness of this statement is that if one gene can distinguish races then the number of races is as numerous as the number of human couples reproducing." Moreover, anthropologist Stephen Molnar has suggested that the discordance of clines inevitably results in a multiplication of races that renders the concept itself useless (Molnar 1992). The distribution of many physical traits resembles the distribution of genetic variation within and between human populations (American Association of Physical Anthropologists 1996; Keita and Kittles 1997). For example, ~90% of the variation in human head shapes occurs within every human group, and ~10% separates groups, with a greater variability of head shape among individuals with recent African ancestors (Relethford 2002).

[edit] Molecular genetics: lineages and clusters With the recent availability of large amounts of human genetic data from many geographically distant human groups scientists have again started to investigate the relationships between people from various parts of the world. One method is to investigate DNA molecules that are passed down from mother to

child (mtDNA) or from father to son (Y chromosomes), these form molecular lineages and can be informative regarding prehistoric population migrations. Alternatively autosomal alleles are investigated in an attempt to understand how much genetic material groups of people share. This work has led to a debate amongst geneticists, molecular anthropologists and medical doctors as to the validity of conceps such as "race". Some researchers insist that classifying people into groups based on ancestry may be important from medical and social policy points of view, and claim to be able to do so accurately. Others claim that individuals from different groups share far too much of their genetic material for group membership to have any medical implications. This has reignited the scientific debate over the validity of human classification and concepts of "race". [edit] Molecular lineages, Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA Further information: Human genetic variation Mitochondria are intracellular organelles that contain DNA, this mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is passed in a direct female line of descent from mother to child. Human Y chromosomes are male specific sex chromosomes, any human that possesses a Y chromosome will be morphologically male. Y chromosomes are therefore passed from father to son. When a mutation arises in mtDNA or Y chromosome it is passed down a specific maternal or paternal line and because mutations accumulate on these molecules they can be used to identify specific molecular lineages. These mutations are derived from copying mistakes, when the DNA is copied it is possible that a single mistake occurs in the DNA sequence, these single mistakes are called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

Molecular lineages. [show] Ancestral Haplogroup

Haplogroup A (Hg A)

Haplogroup B (Hg B)

Mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome research has produced three reproducible observations relevant to race and human evolution. [48] Firstly all mtDNA and Y chromosome lineages derive from a common ancestral molecule. For mtDNA this ancestor is estimated to have lived about 140,000-290,000 years ago (Mitochondrial Eve), while for Y chromosomes the ancestor is estimated to have lived about 70,000 years ago (Y chromosome Adam). These observations are robust, and the individuals that originally carried these ancestral molecules are the direct female and male line most recent common ancestors of all extant anatomically modern humans. The observation that these are the direct female line and male line ancestors of all living humans should not be interpreted as meaning that either was the first anatomically modern human. Nor should we assume that there were no other modern humans living concurrently with mitochondrial Eve or Y chromosome Adam. A more reasonable explanation is that other humans who lived at the same time did indeed reproduce and pass their genes down to extant humans, but that their mitochondrial and Y chromosomal lineages have been lost over time, probably due to random events (e.g. producing only male or female children). It is impossible to know to what extent these non-extant lineages have been lost, or how much they differed from the mtDNA or Y chromosome of our maternal and paternal lineage MRCA. The difference in dates between Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve is usually attributed to a higher extinction rate for Y chromosomes. This is probably because a few very successful men produce a great many children, while a larger number of less successful men will produce far fewer children. Secondly mtDNA and Y chromosome work supports a recent African origin for anatomically modern humans, with the ancestors of all extant modern humans leaving Africa somewhere between 100,000 50,000 years ago.[48][49][50][51]

Thirdly studies show that specific types (haplogroups) of mtDNA or Y chromosomes do not always cluster by geography, ethnicity or race, implying multiple lineages are involved in founding modern human populations, with many closely related lineages spread over large geographic areas, and many populations containing distantly related lineages.[48] Keita et al. (2004) say, with reference to Y chromosome and mtDNA studies and their relevance to concepts of "race": Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA genealogies are especially interesting because they demonstrate the lack of concordance of lineages with morphology and facilitate a phylogenetic analysis. Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type'). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of 'race' (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) [see haplogroup E3b and Haplogroup E3a] shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse21. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them.[52]

[edit] How much are genes shared? Clustering analyses and what they tell us Further information: Human genetic variation Human genetic variation is not distributed uniformly throughout the global Infobox population, the global range of human habitation means that there are great Multi Locus Allele Clusters distance between some human populations (e.g. between South America and Southern [show] Africa) and this will reduce gene flow between these populations. On the other hand environmental selection is also likely to play a role in differences between human populations. Conversely it is now believed that the majority of genetic differences between populations is selectively neutral. The existence of differences between peoples from different regions of the world is relevant to discussions about the concept of "race", some biologists believe that the language of "race" is relevant in describing human genetic variation. It is now possible to reasonably estimate the continents of origin of an individual's ancestors based on genetic data[53] Richard Lewontin has claimed that "race" is a meaningless classification because the majority of human variation is found within groups (~85%), and therefore two individuals from different "races" are almost as likely to be as similar to each other as either is to someone from their own "race". In 2003 A. W. F. Edwards rebuked this argument, claiming that Lewontin's conclusion ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors (see Infobox: Multi Locus Allele Clusters). Edwards concludes that "It is not true that 'racial classification is ... of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance' or that 'you can't predict someone’s race by their genes'."[54] Researchers such as Neil Risch and Noah Rosenberg have argued that a person's biological and cultural background may have important implications for medical treatment decisions, both for genetic and non-genetic reasons.[55][56][57] The results obtained by clustering analyses are dependent on several criteria:

•

•

•

The clusters produced are relative clusters and not absolute clusters, each cluster is the product of comparisons between sets of data derived for the study, results are therefore highly influenced by sampling strategies. (Edwards, 2003) The geographic distribution of the populations sampled, because human genetic diversity is marked by isolation by distance, populations from geographically distant regions will form much more discrete clusters than those from geographically close regions. (Kittles and Weiss, 2003) The number of genes used. The more genes used in a study the greater the resolution produced and therefore the greater number of clusters that will be identified. (Tang, 2005)

If a landmass is considered with variation distributed in one dimension (west-east). Top: Distribution of genetic variation if a small island model is considered, there are two "populations" with a narrow region of hybridisation where migration occurs, this pattern is clustered. Bottom: Distribution of genetic variation if isolation by distance is considered, all variation is gradual over the extent of the landmass, this pattern is clinal. Rosenberg et al.'s (2002) paper "Genetic Structure of Human Populations." especially was taken up by Nicholas Wade in the New York Times as evidence that genetics studies supported the "popular conception" of race.[58] On the other hand Rosenberg's work used samples from the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP), a project that has collected samples from individuals from 52 ethnic groups from various locations around the world. The HGDP has itself been criticised for collecting samples on an "ethnic group" basis, on the grounds that ethnic groups represent constructed categories rather than categories which are solely natural or biological. Scientists such as the molecular anthropologist Jonathan Marks, the geneticists David Serre, Svante Pääbo, Mary-Claire King and medical doctor Arno G. Motulsky argue that this is a biased sampling strategy, and that human samples should have been collected geographically, i.e. that samples should be collected from points on a grid overlaying a map of the world, and maintain that human genetic variation is not partitioned into discrete racial groups (clustered), but is spread in a clinal manner (isolation by distance) that is masked by this biased sampling strategy.[59][60][61] The existence of allelic clines and the observation that the bulk of human variation is continuously distributed, has led scientists such as Kittles and Weiss (2003) to conclude that any categorization schema attempting to partition that variation meaningfully will necessarily create artificial truncations.[62] It is for this reason, Reanne Frank argues, that attempts to allocate individuals into ancestry groupings based on genetic information have yielded varying results that are highly dependent on methodological design.[63] In a follow up paper "Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure" in 2005, Rosenberg et al. maintain that their clustering analysis is robust. But they also agree that there is evidence for clinality (isolation by distance). Thirdly they distance themselves from the language of race, and do not use the term "race" in any of their publications: "The arguments about the existence or nonexistence of 'biological races' in the absence of a specific context are largely orthogonal to the question of scientific utility, and they should not obscure the fact that, ultimately, the primary goals for studies of genetic variation in humans are to make inferences about human evolutionary history, human biology, and the genetic causes of disease."[64] One of the underlying questions regarding the distribution of human genetic diversity is related to the degree to which genes are shared between the observed clusters, and therefore the extent that membership of a cluster can accurately predict an individuals genetic makeup or susceptibility to disease. This is at the core of Lewontin's argument. Lewontin used Sewall Wright's Fixation index (FST), to estimate that on average 85% of human genetic diversity is contained within groups. Are members of the same cluster always more genetically similar to each other than they are to members of a different cluster? Lewontin's argument is that within group differences are almost as high as between group differences, and therefore

two individuals from different groups are almost as likely to be more similar to each other than they are to members of their own group. Can clusters correct for this finding? In 2004 Bamshad et al. used the data from Rosenberg et al. (2002) to investigate the extent of genetic differences between individuals within continental groups relative to genetic differences between individuals between continental groups. They found that though these individuals could be classified very accurately to continental clusters, there was a significant degree of genetic overlap on the individual level.[65] Percentage similarity between two individuals from different clusters when 377 microsatellite markers are considered.[65] x

Africans

Europeans

Asians

Europeans

36.5

—

—

Asians

35.5

38.3

—

Indigenous Americans

26.1

33.4

35

This question was addressed in more detail in a 2007 paper by Witherspoon et al. entitled "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations".[66] Where they make the following observations: • • •

Genetic differences between human continental populations account for only a small fraction of the differences between people. Multilocus clusters provide accurate and reproducible results for dividing people into the correct populations. Two individuals from different populations are often more genetically alike to each other than they are to individuals from their own population.

The paper states that "All three of the claims listed above appear in disputes over the significance of human population variation and 'race'" and asks "If multilocus statistics are so powerful, then how are we to understand this [last] finding?" Witherspoon et al. (2007) attempt to reconcile these apparently contradictory findings, and show that the observed clustering of human populations into relatively discrete groups is a product of using what they call "population trait values". This means that each individual is compared to the "typical" trait for several populations, and assigned to a population based on the individual's overall similarity to one of the populations as a whole. They therefore claim that clustering analyses cannot necessarily be used to make inferences regarding the similarity or dissimilarity of individuals between or within clusters, but only for similarities or dissimilarities of individuals to the "trait values" of any given cluster. The paper measures the rate of misclassification using these "trait values" and calls this the "population trait value misclassification rate" (CT). The paper investigates the similarities between individuals by use of what they term the "dissimilarity fraction" (ω): "the probability that a pair of individuals randomly chosen from different populations is genetically more similar than an independent pair chosen from any single population." Witherspoon et al. show that two individuals can be more genetically similar to each other than to the typical genetic type of their own respective populations, and yet be correctly assigned to their

respective populations. An important observation is that the likelihood that two individuals from different populations will be more similar to each other genetically than two individuals from the same population depends on several criteria, most importantly the number of genes studied and the distinctiveness of the populations under investigation. For example when 10 loci are used to compare three geographically disparate populations (sub-Saharan African, East Asian and European) then individuals are more similar to members of a different group about 30% of the time. If the number of loci is increased to 100 individuals are more genetically similar to members of a different population ~20% of the time, and even using 1000 loci, ω ~ 10%. They do state that for these very geographically separated populations it is possible to reduce this statistic to 0% when tens of thousands of loci are used. That means that individuals will always be more similar to members of their own population. But the paper notes that humans are not distributed into geographically separated populations, omitting intermediate regions may produce a false distinctiveness for human diversity. The paper supports the observation that "highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible". Furthermore the results indicate that clustering analyses and self reported ethnicity may not be good estimates for genetic susceptibility to disease risk. Witherspoon et al. conclude that: given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.

[edit] Summary of different biological definitions of race Biological definitions of race (Long & Kittles, 2003) et al. Concept

Essentialist

Reference

Hooton (1926)

Definition "A great division of mankind, characterized as a group by the sharing of a certain combination of features, which have been derived from their common descent, and constitute a vague physical background, usually more or less obscured by individual variations, and realized best in a composite picture."

"An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a Taxonomic Mayr (1969) geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."

Dobzhansky Population (1970)

Lineage

Templeton (1998)

"Races are genetically distinct Mendelian populations. They are neither individuals nor particular genotypes, they consist of individuals who differ genetically among themselves." "A subspecies (race) is a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. This definition requires that a subspecies be genetically differentiated due to barriers to genetic exchange that have persisted for long periods of time; that is, the subspecies must have historical continuity in addition to current genetic

differentiation."

[edit] Current views across disciplines One result of debates over the meaning and validity of the concept "race" is that the current literature across different disciplines regarding human variation lacks consensus, though within some fields, such as biology, there is strong consensus. Some studies use the word race in its early essentialist taxonomic sense. Many others still use the term race, but use it to mean a population, clade, or haplogroup. Others eschew the concept of race altogether, and use the concept of population as a less problematical unit of analysis. Since 1932, some college textbooks introducing physical anthropology have increasingly come to reject race as a valid concept: from 1932 to 1976, only seven out of thirty-two rejected race; from 1975 to 1984, thirteen out of thirty-three rejected race; from 1985 to 1993, thirteen out of nineteen rejected race. According to one academic journal entry, where 78 percent of the articles in the 1931 Journal of Physical Anthropology employed these or nearly synonymous terms reflecting a bio-race paradigm, only 36 percent did so in 1965, and just 28 percent did in 1996.[67] The American Anthropological Association, drawing on biological research, currently holds that "The concept of race is a social and cultural construction... . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically," and that, "It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of 'race' has no validity ... in the human species".[8] In an ongoing debate, some geneticists argue that race is neither a meaningful concept nor a useful heuristic device,[68] and even that genetic differences among groups are biologically meaningless,[69] on the grounds that more genetic variation exists within such races than among them, and that racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries.[70] Other geneticists, in contrast, argue that categories of selfidentified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful,[71] that these categories correspond with clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data,[72] and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.[73] In February, 2001, the editors of the medical journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine asked authors to no longer use "race" as an explanatory variable and not to use obsolescent terms. Some other peer-reviewed journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Journal of Public Health, have made similar endeavours.[74] Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health recently issued a program announcement for grant applications through February 1, 2006, specifically seeking researchers who can investigate and publicize among primary care physicians the detrimental effects on the nation's health of the practice of medical racial profiling using such terms. The program announcement quoted the editors of one journal as saying that, "analysis by race and ethnicity has become an analytical knee-jerk reflex."[75] A survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 American anthropologists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were: • •

physical anthropologists 41% cultural anthropologists 53%[76]

The figure for physical anthropologists at PhD granting departments was slightly higher, rising from 41% to 42%, with 50% agreeing. This survey, however, did not specify any particular definition of race

(although it did clearly specify biological race within the species Homo Sapiens); it is difficult to say whether those who supported the statement thought of race in taxonomic or population terms. The same survey, taken in 1999,[77] showed the following changing results for anthropologists: • •

physical anthropologists 69% cultural anthropologists 80%

In Poland the race concept was rejected by only 25 percent of anthropologists in 2001, although: "Unlike the U.S. anthropologists, Polish anthropologists tend to regard race as a term without taxonomic value, often as a substitute for population."[78] In the face of these issues, some evolutionary scientists have simply abandoned the concept of race in favor of "population." What distinguishes population from previous groupings of humans by race is that it refers to a breeding population (essential to genetic calculations) and not to a biological taxon. Other evolutionary scientists have abandoned the concept of race in favor of cline (meaning, how the frequency of a trait changes along a geographic gradient). (The concepts of population and cline are not, however, mutually exclusive and both are used by many evolutionary scientists.) According to Jonathan Marks, By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic - that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal - that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left - the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal - was very small. A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it - as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools - did not exist.[79] In the face of this rejection of race by evolutionary scientists, many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word "ethnicity" to refer to self-identifying groups based on beliefs concerning shared culture, ancestry and history. Alongside empirical and conceptual problems with "race," following the Second World War, evolutionary and social scientists were acutely aware of how beliefs about race had been used to justify discrimination, apartheid, slavery, and genocide. This questioning gained momentum in the 1960s during the U.S. civil rights movement and the emergence of numerous anti-colonial movements worldwide. They thus came to understood that these justifications, even when expressed in language that sought to appear objective, were social constructs.[7]

[edit] Races as social constructions Main articles: Social interpretations of race and Racialism Even as the idea of "race" was becoming a powerful organizing principle in many societies, the shortcomings of the concept were apparent. In Europe, the gradual transition in appearances from one group to adjacent groups emphasized that "one variety of mankind does so sensibly pass into the other, that you cannot mark out the limits between them," as Blumenbach observed in his writings on human variation (Marks 1995, p. 54). As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term population to talk about genetic differences, Historians, anthropologists and social scientists have re-conceptualized the term "race" as a cultural category or social construct, in other words, as a particular way that some people have of talking about themselves and

others. As Stephan Palmie has recently summarized, race "is not a thing but a social relation";[9] or, in the words of Katya Gibel Mevorach, "a metonym," "a human invention whose criteria for differentiation are neither universal nor fixed but have always been used to manage difference."[10] As such it cannot be a useful analytical concept; rather, the use of the term "race" itself must be analyzed. Moreover, they argue that biology will not explain why or how people use the idea of race: history and social relationships will. For example, the fact that to some in the United States, categories such as "Hispanic or Latino" are viewed to constitute a race (instead of an ethnic group) reflect this new idea of "race as a social construct". However, it may be in the interest of dominant groups to cluster Spanish speakers into a single, isolated population, rather than classifying them according to Race, as they in fact are. [edit] In the United States Main article: Race in the United States see also Admixture in the United States The immigrants to the Americas came ultimately from every region of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Throughout America the immigrants mixed among themselves and with the indigenous inhabitants of the continent. In the United States, for example, most people who self-identify as African American have some European ancestors — in one analysis of genetic markers that have differing frequencies between continents, European ancestry ranged from an estimated 7% for a sample of Jamaicans to ∼23% for a sample of African Americans from New Orleans (Parra et al. 1998). Similarly, many people who identify as European American have some African or Native American ancestors, either through openly interracial marriages or through the gradual inclusion of people with mixed ancestry into the majority population. In a survey of college students who self-identified as white in a northeastern U.S. university, ∼30% were estimated to have less than 90% European ancestry.[80] In the United States since its early history, Native Americans, African Americans and European Americans were classified as belonging to different races. For nearly three centuries, the criteria for membership in these groups were similar, comprising a person’s appearance, his fraction of known nonWhite ancestry, and his social circle.2 But the criteria for membership in these races diverged in the late 19th century. During Reconstruction, increasing numbers of Americans began to consider anyone with "one drop" of known "Black blood" to be Black regardless of appearance.3 By the early 20th century, this notion of invisible blackness was made statutory in many states and widely adopted nationwide.4 In contrast, Amerindians continue to be defined by a certain percentage of "Indian blood" (called blood quantum) due in large part to American slavery ethics. Finally, for the past century or so, to be White one had to have perceived "pure" White ancestry. Efforts to sort the increasingly mixed population of the United States into discrete categories generated many difficulties (Spickard 1992). By the standards used in past censuses, many millions of children born in the United States have belonged to a different race than have one of their biological parents. Efforts to track mixing between groups led to a proliferation of categories (such as "mulatto" and "octoroon") and "blood quantum" distinctions that became increasingly untethered from self-reported ancestry. A person's racial identity can change over time, and self-ascribed race can differ from assigned race (Kressin et al. 2003). Until the 2000 census, Latinos were required to identify with a single race despite the long history of mixing in Latin America; partly as a result of the confusion generated by the distinction, 32.9% (U.S. census records) of Latino respondents in the 2000 census ignored the specified racial categories and checked "some other race". (Mays et al. 2003 claim a figure of 42%) The difference between how Native American and Black identities are defined today (blood quantum versus one-drop) has demanded explanation. According to anthropologists such as Gerald Sider, the goal of such racial designations was to concentrate power, wealth, privilege and land in the hands of Whites in a society of White hegemony and privilege (Sider 1996; see also Fields 1990). The differences have little

to do with biology and far more to do with the history of racism and specific forms of White supremacy (the social, geopolitical and economic agendas of dominant Whites vis-à-vis subordinate Blacks and Native Americans) especially the different roles Blacks and Amerindians occupied in White-dominated 19th century America. The theory suggests that the blood quantum definition of Native American identity enabled Whites to acquire Amerindian lands, while the one-drop rule of Black identity enabled Whites to preserve their agricultural labor force. The contrast presumably emerged because as peoples transported far from their land and kinship ties on another continent, Black labor was relatively easy to control, thus reducing Blacks to valuable commodities as agricultural laborers. In contrast, Amerindian labor was more difficult to control; moreover, Amerindians occupied large territories that became valuable as agricultural lands, especially with the invention of new technologies such as railroads; thus, the blood quantum definition enhanced White acquisition of Amerindian lands in a doctrine of Manifest Destiny that subjected them to marginalization and multiple episodic localized campaigns of extermination. The political economy of race had different consequences for the descendants of aboriginal Americans and African slaves. The 19th century blood quantum rule meant that it was relatively easier for a person of mixed Euro-Amerindian ancestry to be accepted as White. The offspring of only a few generations of intermarriage between Amerindians and Whites likely would not have been considered Amerindian at all (at least not in a legal sense). Amerindians could have treaty rights to land, but because an individual with one Amerindian great-grandparent no longer was classified as Amerindian, they lost any legal claim to Amerindian land. According to the theory, this enabled Whites to acquire Amerindian lands. The irony is that the same individuals who could be denied legal standing because they were "too White" to claim property rights, might still be Amerindian enough to be considered as "breeds", stigmatized for their Native American ancestry. The 20th century one-drop rule, on the other hand, made it relatively difficult for anyone of known Black ancestry to be accepted as White. The child of a Black sharecropper and a White person was considered Black. And, significant in terms of the economics of sharecropping, such a person also would likely be a sharecropper as well, thus adding to the employer's labor force. In short, this theory suggests that in a 20th century economy that benefited from sharecropping, it was useful to have as many Blacks as possible. Conversely, in a 19th century nation bent on westward expansion, it was advantageous to diminish the numbers of those who could claim title to Amerindian lands by simply defining them out of existence. It must be mentioned, however, that although some scholars of the Jim Crow period agree that the 20th century notion of invisible Blackness shifted the color line in the direction of paleness, thereby swelling the labor force in response to Southern Blacks' great migration northwards, others (Joel Williamson, C. Vann Woodward, George M. Fredrickson, Stetson Kennedy) see the one-drop rule as a simple consequence of the need to define Whiteness as being pure, thus justifying White-on-Black oppression. In any event, over the centuries when Whites wielded power over both Blacks and Amerindians and widely believed in their inherent superiority over people of color, it is no coincidence that the hardest racial group in which to prove membership was the White one. In the United States, social and legal conventions developed over time that forced individuals of mixed ancestry into simplified racial categories (Gossett 1997). An example is the "one-drop rule" implemented in some state laws that treated anyone with a single known African American ancestor as black (Davis 2001). The decennial censuses conducted since 1790 in the United States also created an incentive to establish racial categories and fit people into those categories (Nobles 2000). In other countries in the Americas where mixing among groups was overtly more extensive, social categories have tended to be more numerous and fluid, with people moving into or out of categories on the basis of a combination of socioeconomic status, social class, ancestry, and appearance (Mörner 1967).

The term "Hispanic" as an ethnonym emerged in the 20th century with the rise of migration of laborers from American Spanish-speaking countries to the United States. It includes people who had been considered racially distinct (Black, White, Amerindian, Asian, and mixed groups) in their home countries. Today, the word "Latino" is often used as a synonym for "Hispanic". In contrast to "Latino"´or "Hispanic" "Anglo" is now used to refer to non-Hispanic White Americans or non-Hispanic European Americans, most of whom speak the English language but are not necessarily of English descent. [edit] In Brazil Main article: Race in Brazil Compared to 19th century United States, 20th century Brazil was characterized by a perceived relative absence of sharply defined racial groups. According to anthropologist Marvin Harris (1989), this pattern reflects a different history and different social relations. Basically, race in Brazil was "biologized," but in a way that recognized the difference between ancestry (which determines genotype) and phenotypic differences. There, racial identity was not governed by such a rigid descent rule as in the United States. A Brazilian child was never automatically identified with the racial type of one or both parents, nor were there only a very limited number of categories to choose from. Over a dozen racial categories would be recognized in conformity with all the possible combinations of hair color, hair texture, eye color, and skin color. These types grade into each other like the colors of the spectrum, and no one category stands significantly isolated from the rest. That is, race referred preferencially to appearance, not heredity. The complexity of racial classifications in Brazil is reflective of the extent of miscegenation in Brazilian society, a society that remains highly, but not strictly, stratified along color lines. Henceforth, the Brazilian narrative of a perfect "post-racist" country, must be met with caution, as sociologist Gilberto Freyre demonstrated in 1933 in Casa Grande e Senzala. [edit] Marketing of race: genetic lineages as social lineages New research in molecular genetics, and the marketing of genetic identities through the analysis of one's Y chromosome, mtDNA or autosomal DNA, has reignited the debate surrounding race. Most of the controversy surrounds the question of how to interpret these new data, and whether conclusions based on existing data are sound. Although the vast majority of researchers endorse the view that continental groups do not constitute different subspecies, and molecular geneticists generally reject the identification of mtDNA and Y chromosomal lineages or allele clusters with "races", some anthropologists have suggested that the marketing of genetic analysis to the general public in the form of "Personalized Genetic Histories" (PGH) is leading to a new social construction of race. See above sections Molecular lineages, Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA and How much are genes shared? Clustering analyses and what they tell us. Typically, a consumer of a commercial PGH service sends in a sample of DNA which is analyzed by molecular biologists and is sent a report, of which the following is a sample "African DNA Ancestry Report" The subject's likely haplogroup L2 is associated with the so-called Bantu expansion from West and Central subSaharan Africa east and south, dated 2,000-4,000 years ago .... Between the 15th and 19th centuries C.E, the Atlantic slave trade resulted in the forced movement of approximately 13 million people from Africa, mainly to the Americas. Only approximately 11 million survived the passage and many more died in the early years of captivity. Many of these slaves were traded to the West African Cape Verde ports of embarkation through Portuguese and Arab middlemen and came from as far south as Angola. Among the African tribal groups, all Bantu-speaking, in which L2 is common are: Hausa, Kanuri, Fulfe, Songhai, Malunjin (Angola), Yoruba, Senegalese, Serer and Wolof.

Although no single sentence in such a report is technically wrong, through the combination of these sentences, anthropologists and others have argued, the report is telling a story that connects a haplotype with a language and a group of tribes. This story is generally rejected by research scientists for the simple reason that an individual receives his or her Y chromosome or mtDNA from only one ancestor in every generation; consequently, with every generation one goes back in time, the percentage of one's ancestors it represents halves; if one goes back hundreds (let alone thousands) of years, it represents only a tiny fragment of one's ancestry. As Mark Shriver and Rick Kittles recently remarked, For many customers of lineage-based tests, there is a lack of understanding that their maternal and paternal lineages do not necessarily represent their entire genetic make-up. For example, an individual might have more than 85% Western European 'genomic' ancestry but still have a West African mtDNA or NRY lineage.

Nevertheless, they acknowledge, such stories are increasingly appealing to the general public.[81] Thus, in his book Blood of the Isles (published in the US and Canada as Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland), however, Bryan Sykes discusses how people who have been mtDNA tested by his commercial laboratory and been found to belong to the same haplogroup have parties together because they see this as some sort of "bond", even though these people may not actually share very much ancestry. Through these kinds of reports, new advances in molecular genetics are being used to create or confirm stories have about social identities. Although these identities are not racial in the biological sense, they are in the cultural sense in that they link biological and cultural identities. Nadia Abu el-Haj has argued that the significance of genetic lineages in popular conceptions of race owes to the perception that while genetic lineages, like older notions of race, suggests some idea of biological relatedness, unlike older notions of race they are not directly connected to claims about human behaviour or character. Abu el-Haj has thus argued that "postgenomics does seem to be giving race a new lease on life." Nevertheless, Abu el-Haj argues that in order to understand what it means to think of race in terms of genetic lineages or clusters, one must understand that Race science was never just about classification. It presupposed a distinctive relationship between "nature" and "culture," understanding the differences in the former to ground and to generate the different kinds of persons ("natural kinds") and the distinctive stages of cultures and civilizations that inhabit the world.

Abu el-Haj argues that genomics and the mapping of lineages and clusters liberates "the new racial science from the older one by disentangling ancestry from culture and capacity." As an example, she refers to recent work by Hammer et al., which aimed to test the claim that present-day Jews are more closely related to one another than to neighbouring non-Jewish populations. Hammer et. al found that the degree of genetic similarity among Jews shifted depending on the locus investigated, and suggested that this was the result of natural selection acting on particular loci. They therefore focused on the nonrecombining Y chromosome to "circumvent some of the complications associated with selection".[82] As another example she points to work by Thomas et al., who sought to distinguish between the Y chromosomes of Jewish priests (in Judaism, membership in the priesthood is passed on through the father's line) and the Y chromosomes of non-Jews.[83] Abu el-Haj concluded that this new "race science" calls attention to the importance of "ancestry" (narrowly defined, as it does not include all ancestors) in some religions and in popular culture, and peoples' desire to use science to confirm their claims about ancestry; this "race science," she argues is fundamentally different from older notions of race that were used to explain differences in human behaviour or social status: As neutral markers, junk DNA cannot generate cultural, behavioural, or, for that matter, truly biological differences between groups .... mtDNA and Y-chromosome markers relied on in such work are not "traits" or "qualities" in the old racial sense. They do not render some populations more prone to violence, more likely to suffer psychiatric disorders, or for that matter, incapable of being fully integrated - because of their lower evolutionary development into a European cultural world. Instead, they are "marks," signs of religious beliefs and practices .... it is via

biological noncoding genetic evidence that one can demonstrate that history itself is shared, that historical traditions are (or might well be) true."[84]

On the other hand, there are tests that do not rely on molecular lineages, but rather on correlations between allele frequencies, often when allele frequencies correlate these are called clusters. Clustering analyses are less powerful than lineages because they cannot tell an historical story, they can only estimate the proportion of a person's ancestry from any given large geographical region. These sorts of tests use informative alleles called Ancestry-informative marker (AIM), which although shared across all human populations vary a great deal in frequency between groups of people living in geographically distant parts of the world. These tests use contemporary people sampled from certain parts of the world as references to determine the likely proportion of ancestry for any given individual. In a recent Public Service Broadcasting (PBS) programme on the subject of genetic ancestry testing the academic Henry Louis Gates: "wasn’t thrilled with the results (it turns out that 50 percent of his ancestors are likely European)".[63] Charles Rotimi, of Howard University's National Human Genome Center, is one of many who have highlighted the methodological flaws in such research - that "the nature or appearance of genetic clustering (grouping) of people is a function of how populations are sampled, of how criteria for boundaries between clusters are set, and of the level of resolution used" all bias the results - and concluded that people should be very cautious about relating genetic lineages or clusters to their own sense of identity.[85] (see also above section How much are genes shared? Clustering analyses and what they tell us) Thus, in analyses that assign individuals to groups it becomes less apparent that self-described racial groups are reliable indicators of ancestry. One cause of the reduced power of the assignment of individuals to groups is admixture. For example, self-described African Americans tend to have a mix of West African and European ancestry. Shriver et al. (2003)[80] found that on average African Americans have ~80% African ancestry. Also, in a survey of college students who self-identified as “white” in a northeastern U.S. university, ~30% of whites had less than 90% European ancestry.[86] Stephan Palmie has responded to Abu el-Haj's claim that genetic lineages make possible a new, politically, economically, and socially benign notion of race and racial difference by suggesting that efforts to link genetic history and personal identity will inevitably "ground present social arrangements in a time-hallowed past," that is, use biology to explain cultural differences and social inequalities.[87]

[edit] Political and practical uses [edit] Racism Main articles: Racism and Racial segregation

[edit] Race and intelligence Main article: Race and intelligence Researchers have reported differences in the average IQ test scores of various ethnic groups. The interpretation, causes, accuracy and reliability of these differences are highly controversial. Some researchers, such as Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and Richard Lynn have argued that such differences are at least partially genetic. Others, for example Thomas Sowell, argue that the differences largely owe to social and economic inequalities. Still others have such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin have argued that categories such as "race" and "intelligence" are cultural constructs that render any attempt to explain such differences (whether genetically or sociologically) meaningless.

The Flynn effect is the rise of average Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test scores, an effect seen in most parts of the world, although at varying rates. Scholars therefore believe that rapid increases in average IQ seen in many places are much too fast to be as a result of changes in brain physiology and more likely as a result of environmental changes. The fact that environment has a significant effect on IQ demolishes the case for the use of IQ data as a source of genetic information.[88][89]

[edit] In biomedicine Main article: Race in biomedicine There is an active debate among biomedical researchers about the meaning and importance of race in their research. The primary impetus for considering race in biomedical research is the possibility of improving the prevention and treatment of diseases by predicting hard-to-ascertain factors on the basis of more easily ascertained characteristics. Some have argued that in the absence of cheap and widespread genetic tests, racial identification is the best way to predict for certain diseases, such as Cystic fibrosis, Lactose intolerance, Tay-Sachs Disease and sickle cell anemia, which are genetically linked and more prevalent in some populations than others. The most well-known examples of genetically-determined disorders that vary in incidence among populations would be sickle cell disease, thalassaemia, and Tay-Sachs disease.

distribution of the sickle cell trait

distribution of Malaria There has been criticism of associating disorders with race. For example, in the United States sickle cell is typically associated with black people, but this trait is also found in people of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern or Indian ancestry.[90] The sickle cell trait offers some resistance to malaria. In regions where malaria is present sickle cell has been positively selected and consequently the proportion of people with it is greater. Therefore, it has been argued that sickle cell should not be associated with a particular race, but rather with having ancestors who lived in a malaria-prone region. Africans living in areas where there is no malaria, such as the East African highlands, have prevalence of sickle cell as low as parts of Northern Europe. Another example of the use of race in medicine is the recent U.S. FDA approval of BiDil, a medication for congestive heart failure targeted at black people in the United States.[91] Several researchers have questioned the scientific basis for arguing the merits of a medication based on race, however. As Stephan Palmie has recently pointed out, black Americans were disproportionately affected by Hurricane Katrina, but for social and not climatological reasons; similarly, certain diseases may disproportionately affect

different races, but not for biological reasons. Several researchers have suggested that BiDil was redesignated as a medicine for a race-specific illness because its manufacturer, Nitromed, needed to propose a new use for an existing medication in order to justify an extension of its patent and thus monopoly on the medication,[92] not for pharmacological reasons. Gene flow and intermixture also have an effect on predicting a relationship between race and "race linked disorders". Multiple sclerosis is typically associated with people of European descent and is of low risk to people of African descent. However, due to gene flow between the populations, African Americans have elevated levels of MS relative to Africans.[93] Notable African Americans affected by MS include Richard Pryor and Montel Williams. As populations continue to mix, the role of socially constructed races may diminish in identifying diseases.

[edit] In law enforcement

In the U.S., the FBI identifies fugitives to categories they define as sex, physical features, occupation, nationality, and race. From left to right, the FBI assigns the above individuals to the following races: White, Black, White (Hispanic), Asian. Top row males, bottom row females.[94] In an attempt to provide general descriptions that may facilitate the job of law enforcement officers seeking to apprehend suspects, the United States FBI employs the term "race" to summarize the general appearance (skin color, hair texture, eye shape, and other such easily noticed characteristics) of individuals whom they are attempting to apprehend. From the perspective of law enforcement officers, it is generally more important to arrive at a description that will readily suggest the general appearance of an individual than to make a scientifically valid categorization by DNA or other such means. Thus in addition to assigning a wanted individual to a racial category, such a description will include: height, weight, eye color, scars and other distinguishing characteristics, etc. Scotland Yard use a classification based in the ethnic background of British society: W1 (White-British), W2 (White-Irish), W9 (Any other white background); M1 (White and black Caribbean), M2 (White and black African), M3 (White and Asian), M9 (Any other mixed background); A1 (Asian-Indian), A2 (Asian-Pakistani), A3 (AsianBangladeshi), A9 (Any other Asian background); B1 (Black Caribbean), B2 (Black African), B3 (Any other black background); O1 (Chinese), O9 (Any other). Some of the characteristics that constitute these groupings are biological and some are learned (cultural, linguistic, etc.) traits that are easy to notice. In many countries, such as France, the state is legally banned from maintaining data based on race, which often makes the police issue wanted notices to the public that include labels like "dark skin complexion", etc. One of the factors that encourages this kind of circuitous wordings is that there is controversy over the actual relationship between crimes, their assigned punishments, and the division of people into the so called "races," leading officials to try to deemphasize the alleged race of suspects. In the United States, the practice of racial profiling has been ruled to be both unconstitutional and also to constitute a violation of civil rights. There is active debate regarding the cause of a marked correlation between the recorded crimes, punishments meted out, and the country's "racially divided" people. Many consider de facto racial profiling an example of institutional racism in law enforcement. The history of misuse of racial categories to adversely impact one or more groups and/or to offer protection and advantage to another has a clear

impact on debate of the legitimate use of known phenotypical or genotypical characteristics tied to the presumed race of both victims and perpetrators by the government. More recent work in racial taxonomy based on DNA cluster analysis (see Lewontin's Fallacy) has led law enforcement to narrow their search for individuals based on a range of phenotypical characteristics found consistent with DNA evidence.[95] While controversial, DNA analysis has been successful in helping police identify both victims and perpetrators by giving an indication of what phenotypical characteristics to look for and what community the individual may have lived in. For example, in one case phenotypical characteristics suggested that the friends and family of an unidentified victim would be found among the Asian community, but the DNA evidence directed official attention to missing Native Americans, where her true identity was eventually confirmed.[96] In an attempt to avoid potentially misleading associations suggested by the word "race," this classification is called "biogeographical ancestry" (BGA),[97] but the terms for the BGA categories are similar to those used as for race. The difference is that ancestry-informative DNA markers identify continent-of-ancestry admixture, not ethnic self-identity, and provide a wide range of phenotypical characteristics such that some people in a biogeographical category will not match the stereotypical image of an individual belonging to the corresponding race. To facilitate the work of officials trying to find individuals based on the evidence of their DNA traces, firms providing the genetic analyses also provide photographs showing a full range of phenotypical characteristics of people in each biogeographical group. Of special interest to officials trying to find individuals on the basis of DNA samples that indicate a diverse genetic background is what range of phenotypical characteristics people with that general mixture of genotypical characteristics may display. Similarly, forensic anthropologists draw on highly heritable morphological features of human remains (e.g. cranial measurements) in order to aid in the identification of the body, including in terms of race. In a recent article anthropologist Norman Sauer asked, "if races don't exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them."[98] Sauer observed that the use of 19th century racial categories is widespread among forensic anthropologists: • • •

"In many cases there is little doubt that an individual belonged to the Negro, Caucasian, or Mongoloid racial stock."[99] "Thus the forensic anthropologist uses the term race in the very broad sense to differentiate what are commonly known as white, black and yellow racial stocks."[100] "In estimating race forensically, we prefer to determine if the skeleton is Negroid, or NonNegroid. If findings favor Non-Negroid, then further study is necessary to rule out Mongoloid."[101]

According to Sauer, "The assessment of these categories is based upon copious amounts of research on the relationship between biological characteristics of the living and their skeletons." Nevertheless, he agrees with other anthropologists that race is not a valid biological taxonomic category, and that races are socially constructed. He argued there is nevertheless a strong relationship between the phenotypic features forensic anthropologists base their identifications on, and popular racial categories. Thus, he argued, forensic anthropologists apply a racial label to human remains because their analysis of physical morphology enables them to predict that when the person was alive, that particular racial label would have been applied to them.[102]

[edit] See also • • •

Breed Black Nationalism Clan

• • •

Race (historical definitions) Racial stereotypes Race and genetics

• • •

Racial segregation Racial superiority The Race Question

• • • • • •

Ethnicity Species Political correctness Cultural difference Population genetics Pre-Adamite

• • • • • •

Race and health Race and intelligence Race (fantasy) Race (U.S. census) Race in biomedicine Race baiting

•

Multiracial

•

Racial discrimination

[edit] Footnotes

Day From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search Look up day in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• • • • • • •

The Race of the Future Subspecies White Nationalism Whiteness studies Nationalism Ethnic nationalism List of ethnic groups

•

Genetic averaging

Water, Rabbit, and Deer: three of the 20 day symbols in the Aztec calendar, from the Aztec calendar stone. For other uses, see Day (disambiguation). A day (symbol d) is a unit of time equivalent to approximately 24 hours. It is not an SI unit but it is accepted for use with SI.[1] The SI unit of time is the second. The word 'day' can also refer to the (roughly) half of the day that is not night, also known as 'daytime'. Both refer to a length of time. Within these meanings, several definitions can be distinguished. 'Day' may also refer to a 'point' in time, as in answer to the question "On which day?". The term comes from the Old English dæg, with similar terms common in all other Indo-European languages, such as Tag in German and dive in Sanskrit.

Contents [hide] • • • • • • • • • • • •

1 International System of Units (SI) 2 Astronomy 3 Colloquial 4 Introduction 5 Civil day 6 Leap seconds 7 Astronomy 8 Boundaries of the day 9 Metaphorical days 10 24 hours vs daytime 11 See also 12 Notes and references

•

13 External links

[edit] International System of Units (SI) A day is defined as 86,400 seconds. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) currently defines a second as … the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.[2]

This makes the SI day last exactly 794,243,384,928,000 of those periods. In the 19th century it had also been suggested to make a decimal fraction (1⁄10,000 or 1⁄100,000) of an astronomic day the base unit of time. This was an afterglow of decimal time and calendar, which had been given up already.

[edit] Astronomy A day of exactly 86,400 SI seconds is the fundamental unit of time in astronomy. For a given planet, there are two types of day defined in astronomy: • •

1 apparent sidereal day - a single rotation of a planet with respect to the distant stars (for Earth it is 23.934 hours); 1 solar day - a single rotation of a planet with respect to its star.

[edit] Colloquial The word refers to various relatedly defined ideas, including the following: • • • •

the period of light when the Sun is above the local horizon (i.e., the time period from sunrise to sunset); the full day covering a dark and a light period, beginning from the beginning of the dark period or from a point near the middle of the dark period; a full dark and light period, sometimes called a nychthemeron in English, from the Greek for night-day; the time period from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM or 9:00 PM or some other fixed clock period overlapping or set off from other time periods such as "morning", "evening", or "night".

Dagr, the Norse god of the day, rides his horse in this 19th century painting by Peter Nicolai Arbo.

[edit] Introduction The word day is used for several different units of time based on the rotation of the Earth around its axis. The most important one follows the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky (solar day). The reason for this apparent motion is the rotation of the Earth around its axis, as well as the revolution of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun.

A day, as opposed to night, is commonly defined as the period during which sunlight directly reaches the ground, assuming that there are no local obstacles. Two effects make days on average longer than nights. The Sun is not a point, but has an apparent size of about 32 minutes of arc. Additionally, the atmosphere refracts sunlight in such a way that some of it reaches the ground even when the Sun is below the horizon by about 34 minutes of arc. So the first light reaches the ground when the centre of the Sun is still below the horizon by about 50 minutes of arc. The difference in time depends on the angle at which the Sun rises and sets (itself a function of latitude), but amounts to almost seven minutes at least. Ancient custom has a new day start at either the rising or setting of the Sun on the local horizon (Italian reckoning, for example) The exact moment of, and the interval between, two sunrises or two sunsets depends on the geographical position (longitude as well as latitude), and the time of year. This is the time as indicated by ancient hemispherical sundials. A more constant day can be defined by the Sun passing through the local meridian, which happens at local noon (upper culmination) or midnight (lower culmination). The exact moment is dependent on the geographical longitude, and to a lesser extent on the time of the year. The length of such a day is nearly constant (24 hours ± 30 seconds). This is the time as indicated by modern sundials. A further improvement defines a fictitious mean Sun that moves with constant speed along the celestial equator; the speed is the same as the average speed of the real Sun, but this removes the variation over a year as the Earth moves along its orbit around the Sun (due to both its velocity and its axial tilt). The Earth's day has increased in length over time. The original length of one day, when the Earth was new about 4.5 billion years ago, was about six hours as determined by computer simulation. It was 21.9 hours 620 million years ago as recorded by rhythmites (alternating layers in sandstone). This phenomenon is due to tides raised by the Moon which slow Earth's rotation. Because of the way the second is defined, the mean length of a day is now about 86,400.002 seconds, and is increasing by about 1.7 milliseconds per century (an average over the last 2,700 years). See tidal acceleration for details.

[edit] Civil day For civil purposes a common clock time has been defined for an entire region based on the mean local solar time at some central meridian. Such time zones began to be adopted about the middle of the 19th century when railroads with regular schedules came into use, with most major countries having adopted them by 1929. For the whole world, 40 such time zones are now in use. The main one is "world time" or Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). The present common convention has the civil day starting at midnight, which is near the time of the lower culmination of the mean Sun on the central meridian of the time zone. A day is commonly divided into 24 hours of 60 minutes of 60 seconds each.

[edit] Leap seconds In order to keep the civil day aligned with the apparent movement of the Sun, positive or negative leap seconds may be inserted. A civil clock day is typically 86,400 SI seconds long, but will be 86,401 s or 86,399 s long in the event of a leap second. Leap seconds are announced in advance by the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service which measures the Earth's rotation and determines whether a leap second is necessary. Leap

seconds occur only at the end of a UTC month, and have only ever been inserted at the end of June 30 or December 31.

[edit] Astronomy In astronomy, the sidereal day is also used; it is about 3 minutes 56 seconds shorter than the solar day, and close to the actual rotation period of the Earth, as opposed to the Sun's apparent motion. In fact, the Earth spins 366 times about its axis during a 365-day year, because the Earth's revolution about the Sun removes one apparent turn of the Sun about the Earth.

[edit] Boundaries of the day For most diurnal animals, the day naturally begins at dawn and ends at sunset. Humans, with our cultural norms and scientific knowledge, have supplanted Nature with several different conceptions of the day's boundaries. The Jewish day begins at either sunset or at nightfall (when three second-magnitude stars appear). Medieval Europe followed this tradition, known as Florentine reckoning: in this system, a reference like "two hours into the day" meant two hours after sunset and thus times during the evening need to be shifted back one calendar day in modern reckoning. Days such as Christmas Eve, Halloween, and the Eve of Saint Agnes are the remnants of the older pattern when holidays began the evening before. Present common convention is for the civil day to begin at midnight, that is 00:00 (inclusive), and last a full twenty-four hours until 24:00 (exclusive). In ancient Egypt, the day was reckoned from sunrise to sunrise. Muslims fast from daybreak to sunset each day of the month of Ramadan. The "Damascus Document", copies of which were also found among the Dead Sea scrolls, states regarding Sabbath observance that "No one is to do any work on Friday from the moment that the sun's disk stands distant from the horizon by the length of its own diameter," presumably indicating that the monastic community responsible for producing this work counted the day as ending shortly before the sun had begun to set. In the United States, nights are named after the previous day, e.g. "Friday night" usually means the entire night between Friday and Saturday. This is the opposite of the Jewish pattern. This difference from the civil day often leads to confusion. Events starting at midnight are often announced as occurring the day before. TV-guides tend to list nightly programs at the previous day, although programming a VCR requires the strict logic of starting the new day at 00:00 (to further confuse the issue, VCRs set to the 12hour clock notation will label this "12:00 AM"). Expressions like "today", "yesterday" and "tomorrow" become ambiguous during the night. Validity of tickets, passes, etc., for a day or a number of days may end at midnight, or closing time, when that is earlier. However, if a service (e.g. public transport) operates from e.g. 6:00 to 1:00 the next day (which may be noted as 25:00), the last hour may well count as being part of the previous day (also for the arrangement of the timetable). For services depending on the day ("closed on Sundays", "does not run on Fridays", etc.) there is a risk of ambiguity. As an example, for the Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Dutch Railways), a day ticket is valid 28 hours, from 0:00 to 28:00 (i.e. 4:00 the next day). To give another example, the validity of a pass on London Regional Transport services is until the end of the "transport day" -- that is to say, until 4:30 am on the day after the "expiry" date stamped on the pass.

[edit] Metaphorical days In the Bible, as a way to describe that time is immaterial to God, one day is described as being like one thousand years (Psalms 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8) to him. Also in 2 Peter 3:8, one thousand years is described as

being like one day. However, some Bible experts interpret this more literally as a way to understand some prophecies like those in Book of Daniel and others (like the Book of Revelation) where are mentioned days in form of weeks and years.

[edit] 24 hours vs daytime To distinguish between a full day and daytime, the word nychthemeron may be used for the former, or more colloquially the term '24 hours'. In other languages, the latter is also often used. Some languages have a separate word for a full day, such as 'etmaal' in Dutch and 'сутки' in Russian. German and French don't have similar words. In Spanish, 'singladura' is used, but only as a marine unit of length, being the distance covered in 24 hours [1].

[edit] See also • • • • • • •

1 E4 s, Times from 10 kiloseconds to 100 kiloseconds Calculating the day of the week Dagr Daylight Daylight saving time Season, for a discussion of daylight and darkness near the poles and the equator and places inbetween Week

[edit] Notes and references

Final goods From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Consumption goods) Jump to: navigation, search "Consumer goods" redirects here. For the band, see The Consumer Goods. In economics final goods are goods that are ultimately consumed rather than used in the production of another good. For example, a car sold to a consumer is a final good; the components such as tires sold to the car manufacturer are not; they are intermediate goods used to make the final good. When used in measures of national income and output the term final goods only includes new goods. For instance, the GDP excludes items counted in an earlier year to prevent double counting of production based on resales of the same item second and third hand. In this context the economic definition of goods includes what are commonly known as services Consumer goods are final goods specifically intended for the mass market. For instance, consumer goods do not include investment assets, like precious antiques, even though these antiques are final goods.

Manufactured goods are goods that have been processed by way of machinery. As such, they are the opposite of raw materials, but include intermediate goods as well as final goods. [hide] v•d•e

Types of goods public good - private good - common good - common-pool resource - club good - anti-rival good (non-)rivalrous good and (non-)excludable good complementary good vs. substitute good free good vs. positional good (non-)durable good - intermediate good (producer good) - final good - capital good inferior good - normal good - ordinary good - Giffen good - luxury good - Veblen good - superior good search good - (post-)experience good - merit good - credence good - demerit good - composite good This economics or finance-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_goods" Categories: Goods | Manufactured goods | Economics and finance stubs

Flower From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search For other uses, see Flower (disambiguation).

A poster with twelve species of flowers or clusters of flowers of different families A flower, sometimes known as a bloom or blossom, is the reproductive structure found in flowering plants (plants of the division Magnoliophyta, also called angiosperms). The biological function of a flower is to mediate the union of male sperm with female ovum in order to produce seeds. The process begins with pollination, is followed by fertilization, leading to the formation and dispersal of the seeds. For the higher plants, seeds are the next generation, and serve as the primary means by which individuals of a species are dispersed across the landscape. The grouping of flowers on a plant are called the inflorescence. In addition to serving as the reproductive organs of flowering plants, flowers have long been admired and used by humans, mainly to beautify their environment but also as a source of food.

Contents [hide] • • •

•

• • • • •

1 Flower specialization and pollination 2 Morphology o 2.1 Floral formula 3 Development o 3.1 Flowering transition o 3.2 Organ Development 4 Pollination o 4.1 Attraction methods o 4.2 Pollination mechanism o 4.3 Flower-pollinator relationships 5 Fertilization and dispersal 6 Evolution 7 Symbolism 8 Usage 9 See also

•

10 References

•

11 External links

Flower specialization and pollination Each flower has a specific design which best encourages the transfer of its pollen. Cleistogamous flowers are self pollinated, after which, they may or may not open. Many Viola and some Salvia species are known to have these types of flowers. Entomophilous flowers attract and use insects, bats, birds or other animals to transfer pollen from one flower to the next. Flowers commonly have glands called nectaries on their various parts that attract these animals. Some flowers have patterns, called nectar guides, that show pollinators where to look for nectar. Flowers also attract pollinators by scent and color. Still other flowers use mimicry to attract pollinators. Some species of orchids, for example, produce flowers resembling female bees in color, shape, and scent. Flowers are also specialized in shape and have an arrangement of the stamens that ensures that pollen grains are transferred to the bodies of the pollinator when it lands in search of its attractant (such as nectar, pollen, or a mate). In pursuing this attractant from many flowers of the same species, the pollinator transfers pollen to the stigmas—arranged with equally pointed precision—of all of the flowers it visits.

Callistemon citrinus flower. Anemophilous flowers use the wind to move pollen from one flower to the next, examples include the grasses, Birch trees, Ragweed and Maples. They have no need to attract pollinators and therefore tend not to be "showy" flowers. Male and female reproductive organs are generally found in separate flowers, the male flowers having a number of long filaments terminating in exposed stamens, and the female flowers having long, feather-like stigmas. Whereas the pollen of entomophilous flowers tends to be large-grained, sticky, and rich in protein (another "reward" for pollinators), anemophilous flower pollen is usually smallgrained, very light, and of little nutritional value to insects.

Morphology Flowering plants are heterosporangiate, producing two types of reproductive spores. The pollen (male spores) and ovules (female spores) are produced in different organs, but the typical flower is a bisporangiate strobilus in that it contains both organs. A flower is regarded as a modified stem with shortened internodes and bearing, at its nodes, structures that may be highly modified leaves.[1] In essence, a flower structure forms on a modified shoot or axis with an apical meristem that does not grow continuously (growth is determinate). Flowers may be

attached to the plant in a few ways. If the flower has no stem but forms in the axil of a leaf, it is called sessile. When one flower is produced, the stem holding the flower is called a peduncle. If the peduncle ends with groups of flowers, each stem that holds a flower is called a pedicel. The flowering stem forms a terminal end which is called the torus or receptacle. The parts of a flower are arranged in whorls on the torus. The four main parts or whorls (starting from the base of the flower or lowest node and working upwards) are as follows:

Diagram showing the main parts of a mature flower

An example of a perfect flower, this Crateva religiosa flower has both stamens (outer ring) and a pistil (center). • • • •

Calyx: the outer whorl of sepals; typically these are green, but are petal-like in some species. Corolla: the whorl of petals, which are usually thin, soft and colored to attract insects that help the process of pollination. Androecium (from Greek andros oikia: man's house): one or two whorls of stamens, each a filament topped by an anther where pollen is produced. Pollen contains the male gametes. Gynoecium (from Greek gynaikos oikia: woman's house): one or more pistils. The female reproductive organ is the carpel: this contains an ovary with ovules (which contain female gametes). A pistil may consist of a number of carpels merged together, in which case there is only one pistil to each flower, or of a single individual carpel (the flower is then called apocarpous). The sticky tip of the pistil, the stigma, is the receptor of pollen. The supportive stalk, the style becomes the pathway for pollen tubes to grow from pollen grains adhering to the stigma, to the ovules, carrying the reproductive material.

Although the floral structure described above is considered the "typical" structural plan, plant species show a wide variety of modifications from this plan. These modifications have significance in the evolution of flowering plants and are used extensively by botanists to establish relationships among plant species. For example, the two subclasses of flowering plants may be distinguished by the number of floral organs in each whorl: dicotyledons typically having 4 or 5 organs (or a multiple of 4 or 5) in each whorl and monocotyledons having three or some multiple of three. The number of carpels in a compound pistil may be only two, or otherwise not related to the above generalization for monocots and dicots. In the majority of species individual flowers have both pistils and stamens as described above. These flowers are described by botanists as being perfect, bisexual, or hermaphrodite. However, in some species of plants the flowers are imperfect or unisexual: having only either male (stamens) or female (pistil) parts. In the latter case, if an individual plant is either female or male the species is regarded as dioecious. However, where unisexual male and female flowers appear on the same plant, the species is considered monoecious.

Additional discussions on floral modifications from the basic plan are presented in the articles on each of the basic parts of the flower. In those species that have more than one flower on an axis—so-called composite flowers—the collection of flowers is termed an inflorescence; this term can also refer to the specific arrangements of flowers on a stem. In this regard, care must be exercised in considering what a ‘‘flower’’ is. In botanical terminology, a single daisy or sunflower for example, is not a flower but a flower head—an inflorescence composed of numerous tiny flowers (sometimes called florets). Each of these flowers may be anatomically as described above. Many flowers have a symmetry, if the perianth is bisected through the central axis from any point, symmetrical halves are produced—the flower is called regular or actinomorphic, e.g. rose or trillium. When flowers are bisected and produce only one line that produces symmetrical halves the flower is said to be irregular or zygomorphic. e.g. snapdragon or most orchids.

Floral formula A floral formula is a way to represent the structure of a flower using specific letters, numbers, and symbols. Typically, a general formula will be used to represent the flower structure of a plant family rather than a particular species. The following representations are used: Ca = calyx (sepal whorl; e. g. Ca5 = 5 sepals) Co = corolla (petal whorl; e. g., Co3(x) = petals some multiple of three ) Z = add if zygomorphic (e. g., CoZ6 = zygomorphic with 6 petals) A = androecium (whorl of stamens; e. g., A∞ = many stamens) G = gynoecium (carpel or carpels; e. g., G1 = monocarpous) x: to represent a "variable number" ∞: to represent "many" A floral formula would appear something like this: Ca5Co5A10 - ∞G1 Several additional symbols are sometimes used (see Key to Floral Formulas).

Development Flowering transition The transition to flowering is one of the major phase changes that a plant makes during its life cycle. The transition must take place at a time that will ensure maximal reproductive success. To meet these needs a plant is able to interpret important endogenous and environmental cues such as changes in levels of plant hormones and seasonable temperature and photoperiod changes. Many perennial and most biennial plants require vernalization to flower. The molecular interpretation of these signals through genes such as CONSTANS and FLC ensures that flowering occurs at a time that is favorable for fertilization and the formation of seeds.[2] Flower formation is initiated at the ends of stems, and involves a number of different physiological and morphological changes. The first step is the transformation of the vegetative stem primordia into floral primordia. This occurs as biochemical changes take place to change cellular differentiation of leaf, bud and stem tissues into tissue that will grow into the reproductive organs. Growth of the central part of the stem tip stops or flattens out and the sides develop protuberances in a whorled or spiral fashion around the outside of the stem end. These protuberances develop into the sepals, petals, stamens, and carpels. Once this process begins, in most plants, it cannot be reversed and the stems develop flowers, even if the initial start of the flower formation event was dependent of some

environmental cue.[3] Once the process begins, even if that cue is removed the stem will continue to develop a flower.

Organ Development

The ABC model of flower development. The molecular control of floral organ identity determination is fairly well understood. In a simple model, three gene activities interact in a combinatorial manner to determine the developmental identities of the organ primordia within the floral meristem. These gene functions are called A, B and C-gene functions. In the first floral whorl only A-genes are expressed, leading to the formation of sepals. In the second whorl both A- and B-genes are expressed, leading to the formation of petals. In the third whorl, B and C genes interact to form stamens and in the center of the flower C-genes alone give rise to carpels. The model is based upon studies of homeotic mutants in Arabidopsis thaliana and snapdragon, Antirrhinum majus. For example, when there is a loss of B-gene function, mutant flowers are produced with sepals in the first whorl as usual, but also in the second whorl instead of the normal petal formation. In the third whorl the lack of B function but presence of C-function mimics the fourth whorl, leading to the formation of carpels also in the third whorl. See also The ABC Model of Flower Development. Most genes central in this model belong to the MADS-box genes and are transcription factors that regulate the expression of the genes specific for each floral organ.

Pollination

Grains of pollen sticking to this bee will be transferred to the next flower it visits Main article: pollination The primary purpose of a flower is reproduction. Since the flowers are the reproductive organs of plant, they mediate the joining of the sperm, contained within pollen, to the ovules - contained in the ovary. Pollination is the movement of pollen from the anthers to the stigma. The joining of the sperm to the ovules is called fertilization. Normally pollen is moved from one plant to another, but many plants are able to self pollinate. The fertilized ovules produce seeds that are the next generation. Sexual reproduction produces genetically unique offspring, allowing for adaptation. Flowers have specific designs which encourages the transfer of pollen from one plant to another of the same species. Many plants are dependent upon external factors for pollination, including: wind and animals, and especially insects. Even large animals such as birds, bats, and pygmy possums can be employed. The period of time during which this process can take place (the flower is fully expanded and functional) is called anthesis.

Attraction methods

Bee orchid evolved to mimic a female bee to attracts male bee pollinators Plants can not move from one location to another, thus many flowers have evolved to attract animals to transfer pollen between individuals in dispersed populations. Flowers that are insect-pollinated are called entomophilous; literally "insect-loving" in Latin. They can be highly modified along with the pollinating insects by co-evolution. Flowers commonly have glands called nectaries on various parts that attract animals looking for nutritious nectar. Birds and bees have color vision, enabling them to seek out "colorful" flowers. Some flowers have patterns, called nectar guides, that show pollinators where to look for nectar; they may be visible only under ultraviolet light, which is visible to bees and some other insects. Flowers also attract pollinators by scent and some of those scents are pleasant to our sense of smell. Not all flower scents are appealing to humans, a number of flowers are pollinated by insects that are attracted to rotten flesh and have flowers that smell like dead animals, often called Carrion flowers including Rafflesia, the titan arum, and the North American pawpaw (Asimina triloba). Flowers pollinated by night visitors, including bats and moths, are likely to concentrate on scent to attract pollinators and most such flowers are white. Still other flowers use mimicry to attract pollinators. Some species of orchids, for example, produce flowers resembling female bees in color, shape, and scent. Male bees move from one such flower to another in search of a mate.

Pollination mechanism The pollination mechanism employed by a plant depends on what method of pollination is utilized. Most flowers can be divided between two broad groups of pollination methods: Entomophilous: flowers attract and use insects, bats, birds or other animals to transfer pollen from one flower to the next. Often they are specialized in shape and have an arrangement of the stamens that ensures that pollen grains are transferred to the bodies of the pollinator when it lands in search of its attractant (such as nectar, pollen, or a mate). In pursuing this attractant from many flowers of the same species, the pollinator transfers pollen to the stigmas—arranged with equally pointed precision—of all of the flowers it visits. Many flower rely on simple proximity between flower parts to ensure pollination. Others, such as the Sarracenia or lady-slipper orchids, have elaborate designs to ensure pollination while preventing self-pollination.

Anthers detached from a Meadow Foxtail flower.

A grass flower head (Meadow Foxtail) showing the plain coloured flowers with large anthers. Anemophilous: flowers use the wind to move pollen from one flower to the next, examples include the grasses, Birch trees, Ragweed and Maples. They have no need to attract pollinators and therefore tend not to be "showy" flowers. Whereas the pollen of entomophilous flowers tends to be large-grained, sticky, and rich in protein (another "reward" for pollinators), anemophilous flower pollen is usually smallgrained, very light, and of little nutritional value to insects, though it may still be gathered in times of dearth. Honeybees and bumblebees actively gather anemophilous corn (maize) pollen, though it is of little value to them. Some flowers are self pollinated and use flowers that never open or are self pollinated before the flowers open, these flowers are called cleistogamous. Many Viola species and some Salvia have these types of flowers.

Flower-pollinator relationships Many flowers have close relationships with one or a few specific pollinating organisms. Many flowers, for example, attract only one specific species of insect, and therefore rely on that insect for successful reproduction. This close relationship is often given as an example of coevolution, as the flower and pollinator are thought to have developed together over a long period of time to match each other's needs. This close relationship compounds the negative effects of extinction. The extinction of either member in such a relationship would mean almost certain extinction of the other member as well. Some endangered plant species are so because of shrinking pollinator populations.

Fertilization and dispersal Main article: biological dispersal

Crocosmia flowers. In this picture the stamens of the flower are clearly visible. Some flowers with both stamens and a pistil are capable of self-fertilization, which does increase the chance of producing seeds but limits genetic variation. The extreme case of self-fertilization occurs in flowers that always self-fertilize, such as many dandelions. Conversely, many species of plants have ways of preventing self-fertilization. Unisexual male and female flowers on the same plant may not appear or mature at the same time, or pollen from the same plant may be incapable of fertilizing its ovules. The latter flower types, which have chemical barriers to their own pollen, are referred to as self-sterile or selfincompatible (see also: Plant sexuality).

Evolution Further information: Evolutionary history of plants#Evolution of flowers

Hydrangea flowers in Kamakura, Kanagawa, Japan While land plants have existed for about 425 million years, the first ones reproduced by a simple adaptation of their aquatic counterparts: spores. In the sea, plants -- and some animals -- can simply scatter out genetic clones of themselves to float away and grow elsewhere. This is how early plants reproduced. But plants soon evolved methods of protecting these copies to deal with drying out and other abuse which is even more likely on land than in the sea. The protection became the seed, though it had not yet evolved the flower. Early seed-bearing plants include the ginkgo and conifers. The earliest fossil of a flowering plant, Archaefructus liaoningensis, is dated about 125 million years old.[4] Several groups of extinct gymnosperms, particularly seed ferns, have been proposed as the ancestors of flowering plants but there is no continuous fossil evidence showing exactly how flowers evolved. The apparently sudden appearance of relatively modern flowers in the fossil record posed such a problem for the theory of evolution that it was called an "abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin. Recently discovered angiosperm fossils such as Archaefructus, along with further discoveries of fossil gymnosperms, suggest how angiosperm characteristics may have been acquired in a series of steps. Recent DNA analysis (molecular systematics)[5][6] show that Amborella trichopoda, found on the Pacific island of New Caledonia, is the sister group to the rest of the flowering plants, and morphological studies[7] suggest that it has features which may have been characteristic of the earliest flowering plants.

A Syrphid fly on a Grape hyacinth The general assumption is that the function of flowers, from the start, was to involve other animals in the reproduction process. Pollen can be scattered without bright colors and obvious shapes, which would therefore be a liability, using the plant's resources, unless they provide some other benefit. One proposed reason for the sudden, fully developed appearance of flowers is that they evolved in an isolated setting like an island, or chain of islands, where the plants bearing them were able to develop a highly specialized relationship with some specific animal (a wasp, for example), the way many island species develop today. This symbiotic relationship, with a hypothetical wasp bearing pollen from one plant to another much the way fig wasps do today, could have eventually resulted in both the plant(s) and their partners developing a high degree of specialization. Island genetics is believed to be a common source of speciation, especially when it comes to radical adaptations which seem to have required inferior transitional forms. Note that the wasp example is not incidental; bees, apparently evolved specifically for symbiotic plant relationships, are descended from wasps. Likewise, most fruit used in plant reproduction comes from the enlargement of parts of the flower. This fruit is frequently a tool which depends upon animals wishing to eat it, and thus scattering the seeds it contains. While many such symbiotic relationships remain too fragile to survive competition with mainland animals and spread, flowers proved to be an unusually effective means of production, spreading (whatever their actual origin) to become the dominant form of land plant life. While there is only hard proof of such flowers existing about 130 million years ago, there is some circumstantial evidence that they did exist up to 250 million years ago. A chemical used by plants to defend their flowers, oleanane, has been detected in fossil plants that old, including gigantopterids[8], which evolved at that time and bear many of the traits of modern, flowering plants, though they are not known to be flowering plants themselves, because only their stems and prickles have been found preserved in detail; one of the earliest examples of petrification. The similarity in leaf and stem structure can be very important, because flowers are genetically just an adaptation of normal leaf and stem components on plants, a combination of genes normally responsible for forming new shoots.[9] The most primitive flowers are thought to have had a variable number of flower parts, often separate from (but in contact with) each other. The flowers would have tended to grow in a spiral pattern, to be bisexual (in plants, this means both male and female parts on the same flower), and to be dominated by the ovary (female part). As flowers grew more advanced, some variations developed parts fused together, with a much more specific number and design, and with either specific sexes per flower or plant, or at least "ovary inferior".

Flower evolution continues to the present day; modern flowers have been so profoundly influenced by humans that many of them cannot be pollinated in nature. Many modern, domesticated flowers used to be simple weeds, which only sprouted when the ground was disturbed. Some of them tended to grow with human crops, and the prettiest did not get plucked because of their beauty, developing a dependence upon and special adaptation to human affection.[10]

Symbolism

Lilies are often used to denote life or resurrection Flowers inspire decorative motifs

Flowers are common subjects of still life paintings, such as this one by Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder

Chinese Jade ornament with flower design, Jin Dynasty (1115-1234 AD), Shanghai Museum.

Flowers are beloved for their various fragrances

Many flowers have important symbolic meanings in Western culture. The practice of assigning meanings to flowers is known as floriography. Some of the more common examples include: • • • •

Red roses are given as a symbol of love, beauty, and passion. Poppies are a symbol of consolation in time of death. In the UK, New Zealand, Australia and Canada, red poppies are worn to commemorate soldiers who have died in times of war. Irises/Lily are used in burials as a symbol referring to "resurrection/life". It is also associated with stars (sun) and its petals blooming/shining. Daisies are a symbol of innocence.

Flowers within art are also representative of the female genitalia, as seen in the works of artists such as Georgia O'Keeffe, Imogen Cunningham, Veronica Ruiz de Velasco, and Judy Chicago, and in fact in Asian and western classical art. Many cultures around the world have a marked tendency to associate flowers with femininity. The great variety of delicate and beautiful flowers has inspired the works of numerous poets, especially from the 18th-19th century Romantic era. Famous examples include William Wordsworth's I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud and William Blake's Ah! Sun-Flower. Because of their varied and colorful appearance, flowers have long been a favorite subject of visual artists as well. Some of the most celebrated paintings from well-known painters are of flowers, such as Van Gogh's sunflowers series or Monet's water lilies. Flowers are also dried, freeze dried and pressed in order to create permanent, three-dimensional pieces of flower art. The Roman goddess of flowers, gardens, and the season of Spring is Flora. The Greek goddess of spring, flowers and nature is Chloris. In Hindu mythology, flowers have a significant status. Vishnu, one of the three major gods in the Hindu system, is often depicted standing straight on a lotus flower.[11] Apart from the association with Vishnu, the Hindu tradition also considers the lotus to have spiritual significance.[12] For example, it figures in the Hindu stories of creation.[13]

Usage In modern times, people have sought ways to cultivate, buy, wear, or otherwise be around flowers and blooming plants, partly because of their agreeable appearance and smell. Around the world, people use flowers for a wide range of events and functions that, cumulatively, encompass one's lifetime: • • • • • • •

For new births or Christenings As a corsage or boutonniere to be worn at social functions or for holidays As tokens of love or esteem For wedding flowers for the bridal party, and decorations for the hall As brightening decorations within the home As a gift of remembrance for bon voyage parties, welcome home parties, and "thinking of you" gifts For funeral flowers and expressions of sympathy for the grieving

People therefore grow flowers around their homes, dedicate entire parts of their living space to flower gardens, pick wildflowers, or buy flowers from florists who depend on an entire network of commercial growers and shippers to support their trade.

Flowers provide less food than other major plants parts (seeds, fruits, roots, stems and leaves) but they provide several important foods and spices. Flower vegetables include broccoli, cauliflower and artichoke. The most expensive spice, saffron, consists of dried stigmas of a crocus. Other flower spices are cloves and capers. Hops flowers are used to flavor beer. Marigold flowers are fed to chickens to give their egg yolks a golden yellow color, which consumers find more desirable. Dandelion flowers are often made into wine. Bee Pollen, pollen collected from bees, is considered a health food by some people. Honey consists of bee-processed flower nectar and is often named for the type of flower, e.g. orange blossom honey, clover honey and tupelo honey. Hundreds of fresh flowers are edible but few are widely marketed as food. They are often used to add color and flavor to salads. Squash flowers are dipped in breadcrumbs and fried. Edible flowers include nasturtium, chrysanthemum, carnation, cattail, honeysuckle, chicory, cornflower, Canna, and sunflower. Some edible flowers are sometimes candied such as daisy and rose (you may also come across a candied pansy). Flowers can also be made into herbal teas. Dried flowers such as chrysanthemum, rose, jasmine, camomile are infused into tea both for their fragrance and medical properties. Sometimes, they are also mixed with tea leaves for the added fragrance.

See also • • • • • • • •

Plants List of garden plants Plant sexuality Garden Gardening Sowing Evolution of plants Plant evolutionary developmental biology

References

Religion From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search A religion is a of way of life based on tenets (or a belief system) about the ultimate power. It is generally expressed through conducts such as prayers, rituals, or other practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality (the cosmos, and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[1] but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively. The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures. It considers psychological and social roots, along with origins and historical development. In the frame of western religious thought,[2] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[3] Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on

a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.

Contents [hide]

• • • •

1 Etymology 2 Definitions of religion 3 Religion and superstition 4 History o 4.1 Development of religion o 4.2 The "Axial Age" o 4.3 Middle Ages o 4.4 Modern period 5 Classification 6 Religious belief 7 Related forms of thought o 7.1 Religion and science o 7.2 Religion, metaphysics, and cosmology o 7.3 Mysticism and esotericism o 7.4 Spirituality o 7.5 Myth o 7.6 Cosmology 8 Criticism 9 See also 10 Notes 11 References

•

12 External links

• • • •

• • •

Etymology The English word religion has been in use since the 13th century, loaned from Anglo-French religiun (11th century), ultimately from the Latin religio, "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety, the res divinae".[4] The ultimate origins of Latin religio are obscure. It is usually accepted to derive from ligare "bind, connect"; likely from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect." This interpretation is favoured by modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell, but was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius. Another possibility is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare. A historical interpretation due to Cicero on the other hand connects lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully".[5] It may also be from Latin religiō, religiōn-, perhaps from religāre, to tie fast.[6]

Definitions of religion

Further information: Sociology of Religion, Transcendence, Theism, Sacred (comparative religion), Religion and mythology, and Myth and ritual

Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism are one, a painting in the litang style portraying three men laughing by a river stream, 12th century, Song Dynasty. Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities. Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors. Definitions mostly include: • • •

a notion of the transcendent or numinous, often, but not always, in the form of theism a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality (ethos) and virtue (arete) a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[7] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions. There is a tendency in the sociology of religion to emphasize the problems of any definition of religion. Talal Asad has gone so far as to say ”there cannot be a universal definition of religion … because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes”[8] Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that reduce religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy. For example Rudolf Otto's "The Idea of the Holy," formulated in 1917, defines the essence of religious awareness as awe, a unique blend of fear and fascination before the divine. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as a "feeling of absolute dependence." The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion this way:[9] In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

Other encyclopedic definitions include: "A general term used... to designate all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns"[10] and "human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine."[11]

Religion and superstition Further information: Superstition, Magical thinking, and Magic and religion While superstitions and magical thinking refer to nonscientific causal reasoning, applied to specific things or actions, a religion is a more complex system about general or ultimate things, involving morality, history and community. Because religions may include and exploit certain superstitions or make use of magical thinking, while mixing them with broader considerations, the division between superstition and religious faith is hard to specify and subjective. Religious believers have often seen other religions as superstition.[12] Likewise, some atheists, agnostics, deists, and skeptics regard religious belief as superstition. Religious practices are most likely to be labeled "superstitious" by outsiders when they include belief in extraordinary events (miracles), an afterlife, supernatural interventions, apparitions or the efficacy of prayer, charms, incantations, the meaningfulness of omens, and prognostications. Greek and Roman pagans, who modeled their relations with the gods on political and social terms scorned the man who constantly trembled with fear at the thought of the gods, as a slave feared a cruel and capricious master. Such fear of the gods (deisidaimonia) was what the Romans meant by superstitio (Veyne 1987, p 211). Early Christianity was outlawed as a superstitio Iudaica, a "Jewish superstition", by Domitian in the 80s AD, and by AD 425, Theodosius II outlawed pagan traditions as superstitious. The Roman Catholic Church considers superstition to be sinful in the sense that it denotes a lack of trust in the divine providence of God and, as such, is a violation of the first of the Ten Commandments. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states superstition "in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion" (para. #2110). Superstition is a deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand is to fall into superstition. Cf. Matthew 23:16-22 (para. #2111)

History Main articles: History of religion and Timeline of religion

Detail from Religion, Charles Sprague Pearce (1896). Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C.

The history of religion refers to the written record of human religious experiences and ideas. This period of religious history typically begins with the invention of writing about 5,000 years ago(3,000 BCE) in the Near East.

Development of religion Main articles: Evolutionary origin of religions, Development of religion, Anthropology of religion, and Prehistoric religion There are a number of models regarding the ways in which religions come into being and develop. Broadly speaking, these models fall into three categories: • • •

Models which see religions as social constructions; Models which see religions as progressing toward higher, objective truth; Models which see a particular religion as absolutely true.

In pre-modern (pre-urban) societies, religion is one defining factor of ethnicity, along with language, regional customs, national costume, etc. As Xenophanes famously comments: Men make gods in their own image; those of the Ethiopians are black and snub-nosed, those of the Thracians have blue eyes and red hair. Ethnic religions may include officially sanctioned and organized civil religions with an organized clergy, but they are characterized in that adherents generally are defined by their ethnicity, and conversion essentially equates to cultural assimilation to the people in question. The notion of gentiles ("nations") in Judaism reflect this state of affairs, the implicit assumption that each nation will have its own religion. Historical examples include Germanic polytheism, Celtic polytheism, Slavic polytheism and preHellenistic Greek religion.

The "Axial Age" Main article: Axial Age Karl Jaspers, in his Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte (The Origin and Goal of History), identified a number of key Axial Age thinkers as having had a profound influence on future philosophy and religion, and identified characteristics common to each area from which those thinkers emerged. Jaspers saw in these developments in religion and philosophy a striking parallel without any obvious direct transmission of ideas from one region to the other, having found very little recorded proof of extensive intercommunication between the ancient Near East, Greece, India and China. Jaspers held up this age as unique, and one which to compare the rest of the history of human thought to. Jaspers' approach to the culture of the middle of the first millennium BCE has been adopted by other scholars and academics, and has become a point of discussion in the history of religion. In its later part, the "Axial Age" culminated in the development of monism and monotheism, notably of Platonic realism and Neoplatonism in Hellenistic philosophy, the notion of atman in Vedanta Hindu philosophy, and the notion of Tao in Taoism.

Central Asian (Tocharian?) and East-Asian Buddhist monks, Bezeklik, Eastern Tarim Basin, 9th-10th century.

Middle Ages Newer present-day world religions established themselves throughout Eurasia during the Middle Ages by: Christianization of the Western world; Buddhist missions to East Asia; the decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent; and the spread of Islam throughout the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa and parts of Europe and India. During the Middle Ages, Muslims were in conflict with Zoroastrians during the Islamic conquest of Persia; Christians were in conflict with Muslims during the Byzantine-Arab Wars, Crusades, Reconquista and Ottoman wars in Europe; Christians were in conflict with Jews during the Crusades, Reconquista and Inquisition; Shamans were in conflict with Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims and Christians during the Mongol invasions; and Muslims were in conflict with Hindus and Sikhs during Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent. Many medieval religious movements emphasized mysticism, such as the Cathars and related movements in the West, the Bhakti movement in India and Sufism in Islam. Monotheism reached definite forms in Christian Christology and in Islamic Tawhid. Hindu monotheist notions of Brahman likewise reached their classical form with the teaching of Adi Shankara.

Modern period European colonisation during the 15th to 19th centuries resulted in the spread of Christianity to SubSaharan Africa, the Americas, Australia and the Philippines. The 18th century saw the beginning of secularisation in Europe, rising to notability in the wake of the French Revolution. In the 20th century, the regimes of Communist Eastern Europe and Communist China were explicitly anti-religious. A great variety of new religious movements originated in the 20th century, many proposing syncretism of elements of established religions. Adherence to such new movements is limited, however, remaining below 2% worldwide in the 2000s. Adherents of the classical world religions account for more than 75% of the world's population, while adherence to indigenous tribal religions has fallen to 4%. As of 2005, an estimated 14% of the world's population identifies as nonreligious.

Classification Main article: Major religious groups

Further information: Comparative religion and Sociological classifications of religious movements Religious traditions fall into super-groups in comparative religion, arranged by historical origin and mutual influence. Abrahamic religions originate in the Middle East, Indian religions in India and Far Eastern religions in East Asia. Another group with supra-regional influence are African diasporic religions, which have their origins in Central and West Africa.

Major religious groups as a percentage of the world population in 2005 (Encyclopaedia Britannica).

The main Religions of the World, mapped without denominations. . In summary, religious adherence of the world's population is as follows: "Abrahamic": 53.5%, "Indian": 19.7%, irreligious: 14.3%, "Far Eastern": 6.5%, tribal religions: 4.0%, new religious movements: 2.0%. •

•

•

Abrahamic religions are by far the largest group, and these consist primarily of Christianity, Islam and Judaism (sometimes the Bahá'í Faith is also included). They are named for the patriarch Abraham, and are unified by the practice of monotheism. Today, around 3.4 billion people are followers of Abrahamic religions and are spread widely around the world apart from the regions around South-East Asia. Several Abrahamic organizations are vigorous proselytizers.[13] Indian religions originated in Greater India and tend to share a number of key concepts, such as dharma and karma. They are of the most influence across the Indian subcontinent, East Asia, South East Asia, as well as isolated parts of Russia. The main Indian religions are Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism. Indian religions mutually influenced each other. Sikhism was also influenced by the Abrahamic tradition of Sufism. Far Eastern religions consist of several East Asian religions which make use of the concept of Tao (in Chinese) or Do (in Japanese or Korean). They include Taoism, Shinto, Chondogyo, Caodaism,

•

• •

•

and Yiguandao. Far Eastern Buddhism (in which the group overlaps with the "Indian" group) and Confucianism (which by some categorizations is not a religion) are also included. Iranic religions originated in Iran and include Zoroastrianism, Yazdanism and historical traditions of Gnosticism (Mandaeanism, Manichaeism). It has significant overlaps with Abrahamic traditions, e.g. in Sufism and in recent movements such as Bábísm and the Bahá'í Faith. African diasporic religions practiced in the Americas, imported as a result of the Atlantic slave trade of the 16th to 18th centuries, building of traditional religions of Central and West Africa. Indigenous tribal religions, formerly found on every continent, now marginalized by the major organized faiths, but persisting as undercurrents of folk religion. Includes African traditional religions, Asian Shamanism, Native American religions, Austronesian and Australian Aboriginal traditions and arguably Chinese folk religion (overlaps with Far Eastern religions). Under more traditional listings, this has been referred to as "Paganism" along with historical polytheism. New religious movements, a heterogeneous group of religious faiths emerging since the 19th century, often syncretizing, re-interpreting or reviving aspects of older traditions (Bahá'í, Hindu revivalism, Ayyavazhi, Pentecostalism, polytheistic reconstructionism), some inspired by sciencefiction (UFO religions). See List of new religious movements, list of groups referred to as cults.

Demographic distribution of the major super-groupings mentioned is shown in the table below: Name of Group

Name of Religion

Number of Date of Origin followers

2.1 billion 1st c.

Worldwide except Northwest Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and parts of Central, East, and Southeast Asia.

Islam

1.5 billion 7th c.

Middle East, Northern Africa, Central Asia, South Asia, Western Africa, Indian subcontinent, Malay Archipelago with large population centers existing in Eastern Africa, Balkan Peninsula, Russia, Europe and China.

Judaism

14 million 1300 BCE

>Israel and among Jewish diaspora (live mostly in USA, Canada, and Europe)

Bahá'í Faith

5 million

19th c.

Dispersed worldwide with no major population centers

Rastafarianism

600,000

1930s

Jamaica, Caribbean, Africa

Hinduism

900 million no founder

Christianity

Abrahamic religions 3.6 billion

Indian religions

Main regions covered

Indian subcontinent, Fiji, Guyana and Mauritius

1.4 billion

Far Eastern religions 500 million

Buddhism

376 million

Iron Age (1200– Indian subcontinent, East Asia, Indochina, regions of Russia. 300 BCE)

Sikhism

25.8 million

15th c.

Jainism

4.2 million

Iron Age (1200– India, and East Africa 300 BCE)

Taoism

unknown

Spring and Autumn Period China and the Chinese diaspora (722 BC-481 BC)

Confucianism

unknown

Spring and China, Korea, Vietnam and the Autumn Period Chinese and Vietnamese diasporas (722 BC-481 BC)

Shinto

4 million

no founder

Caodaism

1-2 million 1925

Vietnam

Chondogyo

1.13 million

Korea

Yiguandao

1-2 million c. 1900

Chinese folk religion

Ethnic/tribal 400 million Primal indigenous African traditional and

394 million

1812

no founder, a combination of Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism

India, Pakistan, Africa, Canada, USA, United Kingdom

Japan

Taiwan

China

300 million no founder

India, Asia

100 million no founder

Africa, Americas

diasporic

Other each over 500 thousand

Juche

19 million 1955

North Korea

Spiritism

15 million 19th century

Brazil, Europe, North America

Neopaganism

1 million

20th century

Europe, United States

Ahl-e Haqq

1 million

ancient

Iraq, Iran

Yazidism

800,000– 1,000,000

ancient

mainly Iraq

UnitarianUniversalism

800,000

1961

United States, Europe

Scientology

500,000

1952

United States, Europe

Religious belief Main article: Religious belief Religious belief usually relates to the existence, nature and worship of a deity or deities and divine involvement in the universe and human life. Alternately, it may also relate to values and practices transmitted by a spiritual leader. Unlike other belief systems, which may be passed on orally, religious belief tends to be codified in literate societies (religion in non-literate societies is still largely passed on orally[14]). In some religions, like the Abrahamic religions, it is held that most of the core beliefs have been divinely revealed.

Related forms of thought Religion and science Main article: Relationship between religion and science Religious knowledge, according to religious practitioners, may be gained from religious leaders, sacred texts (scriptures), and/or personal revelation. Some religions view such knowledge as unlimited in scope and suitable to answer any question; others see religious knowledge as playing a more restricted role,

often as a complement to knowledge gained through physical observation. Some religious people maintain that religious knowledge obtained in this way is absolute and infallible (religious cosmology). The scientific method gains knowledge by testing hypotheses to develop theories through elucidation of facts or evaluation by experiments and thus only answers cosmological questions about the physical universe. It develops theories of the world which best fit physically observed evidence. All scientific knowledge is subject to later refinement in the face of additional evidence. Scientific theories that have an overwhelming preponderance of favorable evidence are often treated as facts (such as the theories of gravity or evolution).

Early science such as geometry and astronomy was connected to the divine for most medieval scholars. The compass in this 13th century manuscript is a symbol of God's act of creation. Many scientists held strong religious beliefs (see List of Christian thinkers in science) and worked to harmonize science and religion. Isaac Newton, for example, believed that gravity caused the planets to revolve about the Sun, and credited God with the design. In the concluding General Scholium to the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he wrote: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." Nevertheless, conflict arose between religious organizations and individuals who propagated scientific theories which were deemed unacceptable by the organizations. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has in the past[15] reserved to itself the right to decide which scientific theories were acceptable and which were unacceptable. In the 17th century, Galileo was tried and forced to recant the heliocentric theory based on the medieval church's stance that the Greek Hellenistic system of astronomy was the correct one.[16][17] Many theories exist as to why religions sometimes seem to conflict with scientific knowledge. In the case of Christianity, a relevant factor may be that it was among Christians that science in the modern sense was developed. Unlike other religious groups, as early as the 17th century the Christian churches had to deal directly with this new way to investigate nature and seek truth. The perceived conflict between science and Christianity may also be partially explained by a literal interpretation of the Bible adhered to by many Christians, both currently and historically. The Catholic Church has always held with Augustine of Hippo who explicitly opposed a literal interpretation of the Bible whenever the Bible conflicted with Science. The literal way to read the sacred texts became especially prevalent after the rise of the Protestant reformation, with its emphasis on the Bible as the only authoritative source concerning the ultimate reality.[18] This view is often shunned by both religious

leaders (who regard literally believing it as petty and look for greater meaning instead) and scientists who regard it as an impossibility. Some Christians have disagreed or are still disagreeing with scientists in areas such as the validity of Keplerian astronomy, the theory of evolution, the method of creation of the universe and the Earth, and the origins of life. On the other hand, scholars such as Stanley Jaki have suggested that Christianity and its particular worldview was a crucial factor for the emergence of modern science. In fact, most of today's historians are moving away from the view of the relationship between Christianity and science as one of "conflict" - a perspective commonly called the conflict thesis.[19][20] Gary Ferngren in his historical volume about Science & Religion states: While some historians had always regarded the [conflict] thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.[21]

In the Bahá'í Faith, the harmony of science and religion is a central tenet.[22] The principle states that that truth is one, and therefore true science and true religion must be in harmony, thus rejecting the view that science and religion are in conflict.[22] `Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, asserted that science and religion cannot be opposed because they are aspects of the same truth; he also affirmed that reasoning powers are required to understand the truths of religion and that religious teachings which are at variance with science should not be accepted; he explained that religion has to be reasonable since God endowed humankind with reason so that they can discover truth.[23] Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, described science and religion as "the two most potent forces in human life."[24] Proponents of Hinduism claim that Hinduism is not afraid of scientific explorations, nor of the technological progress of mankind. According to them, there is a comprehensive scope and opportunity for Hinduism to mold itself according to the demands and aspirations of the modern world; it has the ability to align itself with both science and spiritualism. This religion uses some modern examples to explain its ancient theories and reinforce its own beliefs. For example, some Hindu thinkers have used the terminology of quantum physics to explain some basic concepts of Hinduism such as Maya or the illusory and impermanent nature of our existence. The philosophical approach known as pragmatism, as propounded by the American philosopher William James, has been used to reconcile scientific with religious knowledge. Pragmatism, simplistically, holds that the truth of a set of beliefs can be indicated by its usefulness in helping people cope with a particular context of life. Thus, the fact that scientific beliefs are useful in predicting observations in the physical world can indicate a certain truth for scientific theories; the fact that religious beliefs can be useful in helping people cope with difficult emotions or moral decisions can indicate a certain truth for those beliefs. (For a similar postmodern view, see grand narrative).

Religion, metaphysics, and cosmology Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (June 2008) Being both forms of belief system, religion and philosophy meet in several areas - notably in the study of metaphysics and cosmology. In particular, a distinct set of religious beliefs will often entail a specific

metaphysics and cosmology. That is, a religion will generally have answers to metaphysical and cosmological questions about the nature of being, of the universe, humanity, and the divine.

Mysticism and esotericism

Man meditating Mysticism focuses on methods other than logic, but (in the case of esoteric mysticism) not necessarily excluding it, for gaining enlightenment. Rather, meditative and contemplative practices such as Vipassanā and yoga, physical disciplines such as stringent fasting and whirling (in the case of the Sufi dervishes), or the use of psychoactive drugs such as LSD, lead to altered states of consciousness that logic can never hope to grasp. However, regarding the latter topic, mysticism prevalent in the 'great' religions (monotheisms, henotheisms, which are perhaps relatively recent, and which the word 'mysticism' is more recent than,) includes systems of discipline that forbid drugs that can damage the body, including the nervous system. Mysticism (to initiate) is the pursuit of communion with, or conscious awareness of ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or Deity through direct, personal experience (intuition or insight) rather than rational thought. Mystics speak of the existence of realities behind external perception or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible through personal experience. They say that such experience is a genuine and important source of knowledge. Esotericism is often spiritual (thus religious) but can be non-religious/-spiritual, and it uses intellectual understanding and reasoning, intuition and inspiration (higher noetic and spiritual reasoning,) but not necessarily faith (except often as a virtue,) and it is philosophical in its emphasis on techniques of psychospiritual transformation (esoteric cosmology). Esotericism refers to "hidden" knowledge available only to the advanced, privileged, or initiated, as opposed to exoteric knowledge, which is public. All religions are probably somewhat exoteric, but most ones of ancient civilizations such as Yoga of India, and the mystery religions of ancient Egypt, Israel (Kabbalah,) and Greece are examples of ones that are also esoteric.

Spirituality Main article: Spirituality

A sadhu performing namaste in Madurai, India. Members of an organized religion may not see any significant difference between religion and spirituality. Or they may see a distinction between the mundane, earthly aspects of their religion and its spiritual dimension. Some individuals draw a strong distinction between religion and spirituality. They may see spirituality as a belief in ideas of religious significance (such as God, the Soul, or Heaven), but not feel bound to the bureaucratic structure and creeds of a particular organized religion. They choose the term spirituality rather than religion to describe their form of belief, perhaps reflecting a disillusionment with organized religion (see Major religious groups), and a movement towards a more "modern" — more tolerant, and more intuitive — form of religion. These individuals may reject organized religion because of historical acts by religious organizations, such as Christian Crusades and Islamic Jihad, the marginalisation and persecution of various minorities or the Spanish Inquisition. The basic precept of the ancient spiritual tradition of India, the Vedas, is the inner reality of existence, which is essentially a spiritual approach to being.

Myth Main article: Mythology The word myth has several meanings. 1. A traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon; 2. A person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence; or 3. A metaphor for the spiritual potentiality in the human being. [25] Ancient polytheistic religions, such as those of Greece, Rome, and Scandinavia, are usually categorized under the heading of mythology. Religions of pre-industrial peoples, or cultures in development, are similarly called "myths" in the anthropology of religion. The term "myth" can be used pejoratively by both religious and non-religious people. By defining another person's religious stories and beliefs as mythology, one implies that they are less real or true than one's own religious stories and beliefs. Joseph Campbell remarked, "Mythology is often thought of as other people's religions, and religion can be defined as mis-interpreted mythology."[26] In sociology, however, the term myth has a non-pejorative meaning. There, myth is defined as a story that is important for the group whether or not it is objectively or provably true. Examples include the death and resurrection of Jesus, which, to Christians, explains the means by which they are freed from sin and is also ostensibly a historical event. But from a mythological outlook, whether or not the event actually occurred is unimportant. Instead, the symbolism of the death of an old "life" and the start of a new "life" is what is most significant.

Urarina shaman, 1988

Cosmology Main articles: Religious cosmology, Philosophy, Metaphysics, Esotericism, and Mysticism Main articles: Spirituality, Mythology, and Philosophy of religion Humans have many different methods which attempt to answer fundamental questions about the nature of the universe and our place in it (cosmology). Religion is only one of the methods for trying to answer one or more of these questions. Other methods include science, philosophy, metaphysics, astrology, esotericism, mysticism, and forms of shamanism, such as the sacred consumption of ayahuasca among Peruvian Amazonia's Urarina. The Urarina have an elaborate animistic cosmological system,[27] which informs their mythology, religious orientation and daily existence. In many cases, the distinction between these means are not clear. For example, Buddhism and Taoism have been regarded as schools of philosophies as well as religions. Given the generalized discontents with modernity, consumerism, over-consumption, violence and anomie, many people in the so-called industrial or post-industrial West rely on a number of distinctive religious worldviews. This in turn has given rise to increased religious pluralism, as well as to what are commonly known in the academic literature as new religious movements, which are gaining ground across the globe.

Criticism Main articles: Criticism of Religion, Antireligion, Secularism, Agnosticism, and Atheism The Canadian scholar of comparative religion, Wilfred Cantwell Smith argued that religion, rather than being a universally valid category as is generally supposed, is a peculiarly European concept of comparatively recent origin. Most Western criticism of religious constructs and their social consequences has come, however, from atheists and agnostics. Anti-religious sentiment first gathered force during the 18th century European Enlightenment, although pioneering critics such as Voltaire and his fellow Encyclopedists were for the most part deists. The French Revolution then instituted what later became known as secularism, a constitutional declaration of the separation of church and state. As well as being adopted by the new French and U.S. republics, secularism soon came to be adopted by a number of nation states, both revolutionary and post-colonial. Marx famously declared religion to be the "opium of the people," a

statement the implications of which were applied with an iron fist in social systems inspired by his writings, most notably in the Soviet Union and China and, most notoriously, in Cambodia. The possible implications of the rest of Marx's celebrated sentence - that religion is "the heart of a heartless world" were left stubbornly unconsidered. Systematic criticism of the philosophical underpinnings of religion had paralleled the upsurge of scientific discourse within industrial society: T.H. Huxley had in 1869 coined the term "agnostic," a baton taken up with alacrity by such figures as Robert Ingersoll. Later, Bertrand Russell told the world Why I am not a Christian. Many contemporary critics consider religion irrational by definition.[28][29][30] Some assert that dogmatic religions are in effect morally deficient, elevating to moral status ancient, arbitrary, and ill-informed rules - taboos on eating pork, for example, as well as dress codes and sexual practices[31] - possibly designed for reasons of hygiene or even mere politics in a bygone era. In North America and Western Europe the social fallout of the 9/11 attacks has fertilized a flurry of secularist tracts with titles such as The God Delusion, The End of Faith and God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. This criticism is mostly focused on the monotheistic Abrahamic traditions.

See also Religion portal

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Religion

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Religion Main lists: List of basic religious topics and List of religious topics • • • • • • •

International Association for the Scientific Study of Religion Code of Hammurabi List of religious populations Religions by country Wealth and religion Religion and happiness Religious conversion

Notes

Terrorism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search "Terrorist" redirects here. For other uses, see Terrorist (disambiguation).

Terrorism Definitions History International conventions Anti-terrorism legislation Counter-terrorism War on Terrorism Red Terror White Terror

By ideology Communist Eco-terrorism Narcoterrorism Nationalist Racist Religious (Christian • Islamic • Jewish)

Types and tactics Agro-terrorism Bioterrorism Car bombing Environmental Aircraft hijacking Nuclear Propaganda of the deed Proxy bomb Suicide attack

State involvement State terrorism State sponsorship

Configurations Fronts Lone wolf

Lists Designated organizations Incidents

v•d•e

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1]There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.[4] The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used.[6] A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist. The concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political opponents, and thus legitimize the state's own use of terror against those opponents. Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[7] The presence of non-state actors in widespread armed conflict has created controversy regarding the application of the laws of war. While acts of terrorism are criminal acts as per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and domestic jurisprudence of almost all countries in the world, terrorism refers to a phenomenon including the actual acts, the perpetrators of acts of terrorism themselves and their motives. There is disagreement on definitions of terrorism.

Contents [hide] • • • • •

1 Origin of term 2 Key criteria 3 Pejorative use 4 Definition in international law 5 Types

•

• • • • • •

•

o 5.1 Democracy and domestic terrorism 6 Perpetrators o 6.1 Terrorist groups o 6.2 State sponsors o 6.3 State terrorism 7 Tactics 8 Responses 9 Mass media 10 History 11 See also 12 Further reading o 12.1 UN conventions o 12.2 News monitoring websites specializing on articles on terrorism o 12.3 Papers and articles on global terrorism o 12.4 Papers and articles on terrorism and the United States o 12.5 Papers and articles on terrorism and Israel o 12.6 Muslim public opinion from the World Values Survey o 12.7 Other

13 Footnotes

[edit] Origin of term Main article: Definition of terrorism See also: State terrorism Under UNITED NATIONS resolution numbered 1566 taken in the year 2004 TERRORISM is defined as an act of of voilence made in order to make a public mishap."Terror" comes a Latin word meaning "to frighten." The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105BC. The Jacobins cited this precedent when imposing a Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. After the Jacobins lost power, "terrorist" became a term of abuse. Although the Reign of Terror was imposed by a government, in modern times "terrorism" usually refers to the killing of innocent people by a private group in such a way as to create a media spectacle. This meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist."[8] Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group People's Retribution (Народная расправа) in 1869. In November 2004, a United Nations Security Council report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." (Note that this report does not constitute international law.)[9] In many countries, acts of terrorism are legally distinguished from criminal acts done for other purposes, and "terrorism" is defined by statute; see definition of terrorism for particular definitions. Common principles among legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries. Among these definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country and would, thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.[10]

[edit] Key criteria Official definitions determine counter-terrorism policy and are often developed to serve it. Most government definitions outline the following key criteria: target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy or legality of the act. Terrorism is also often recognizable by a following statement from the perpetrators. Violence – According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence." However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault. Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime, but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism. Psychological impact and fear – The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance,” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[11] Perpetrated for a political goal – Something many terrorist attacks have in common is their perpetration for a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, not unlike letter writing or protesting, that is used by activists when they believe no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where the interrelationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[12] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians. Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers, and the elderly are murdered, or injured, and put in harm's way. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorist possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting a message out to an audience, or otherwise accomplishing their often radical religious and political ends.[13] Disguise – Terrorists almost invariably pretend to be non-combatants, hide among non-combatants, fight from in the midst of non-combatants, and when they can, strive to mislead and provoke the government soldiers into attacking the wrong people, that the government may be blamed for it. When an enemy is identifiable as a combatant, the word terrorism is rarely used.[citation needed] Unlawfulness or illegitimacy – Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness[14] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned. For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government. This criterion is

inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term. [15][16][17][18] For these reasons this criterion is not universally accepted. Most dictionary definitions of the term do not include this criterion.

[edit] Pejorative use The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong negative connotations. These terms are often used as political labels to condemn violence or threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, unjustified or to condemn an entire segment of a population.[19] Those labeled "terrorists" rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other euphemistic terms or terms specific to their situation, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, or any similar-meaning word in other languages and cultures. Jihadi, mujaheddin, and fedayeen are similar Arabic words that have entered the English lexicon. On the question of whether particular terrorist acts, such as murder, can be justified as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: While, according to David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can in theory conceive of cases in which evil of terrorism is outweighed by goods that can be achieved in no morally less costly way, in practice utilitarians often universally reject terrorism because it is very dubious that acts of terrorism achieve important goods in a utility efficient manner, or that the "harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism."[20] Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that terrorism is always morally wrong but at the same time those who engaged in terrorism can be morally justified in one specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so."[20] In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One: Defining Terrorism that "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, `'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."[5] The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This is exemplified when a group that uses irregular military methods is an ally of a State against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the State and starts to use the same methods against its former ally. During World War II, the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor, the Malayan Races Liberation Army, were branded terrorists by the British.[21][22] More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen freedom fighters during their war against the Soviet Union,[23] yet twenty years later when a new generation of Afghan men are fighting

against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled terrorism by George W. Bush.[24][25] Groups accused of terrorism usually prefer terms that reflect legitimate military or ideological action.[26][27][28] Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as attacks against civilians for political or other ideological goals, and goes on to say: "There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless."[29] Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called terrorists by the Western governments or media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called statesmen by similar organizations. Two examples of this phenomenon are the Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36] Sometimes states that are close allies, for reasons of history, culture and politics, can disagree over whether members of a certain organization are terrorists. For example for many years some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as terrorists, while it was using methods against one of the United States' closest allies (Britain) that Britain branded as terrorist attacks. This was highlighted by the Quinn v. Robinson case.[37][38] Many times the term "terrorism" and "extremism" are interchangeably used. However, there is a significant difference between the two. Terrorism essentially threat or act of physical violence. Extremism involves using non-physical instruments to mobilise minds to achieve political or ideological ends. For instance, Al Qaeda is involved in terrorism. The Iranian revolution of 1979 is a case of extremism[citation needed] . A global research report An Inclusive World (2007) asserts that extremism poses a more serious threat than terrorism in the decades to come. For these and other reasons, media outlets wishing to preserve a reputation for impartiality are extremely careful in their use of the term.[39][40]

[edit] Definition in international law There are several International conventions on terrorism with somewhat different definitions.[41] The United Nations sees this lack of agreement as a serious problem.[41]

[edit] Types In the spring of 1975, the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration in the United States formed the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. One of the five volumes that the committee was entitled Disorders and Terrorism, produced by the Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism under the direction H.H.A. Cooper, Director of the Task Force staff.[42] The Task Force classified terrorism into six categories. • • •

Civil Disorders – A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community. Political Terrorism – Violent criminal behaviour designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes. Non-Political Terrorism – Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits “conscious design to create and maintain high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective.”

•

•

•

Quasi-Terrorism – The activities incidental to the commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form and method to genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient. It is not the main purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce terror in the immediate victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasi-terrorist uses the modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces similar consequences and reaction. For example, the fleeing felon who takes hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods are similar to those of the genuine terrorist but whose purposes are quite different. Limited Political Terrorism – Genuine political terrorism is characterized by a revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism refers to “acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the State. Official or State Terrorism –"referring to nations whose rule is based upon fear and oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions.” It may also be referred to as Structural Terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts carried out by governments in pursuit of political objectives, often as part of their foreign policy.

In an analysis prepared for U.S. Intelligence[43] four typologies are mentioned. • • • •

Nationalist-Separatist Religious Fundamentalist New Religious Social Revolutionary

[edit] Democracy and domestic terrorism The relationship between domestic terrorism and democracy is complex. Such terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom and that the nations with the least terrorism are the most democratic nations.[44][45][46][47] However, one study suggests that suicide terrorism may be an exception to this general rule. Evidence regarding this particular method of terrorism reveals that every modern suicide campaign has targeted a democracy- a state with a considerable degree of political freedom. The study suggests that concessions awarded to terrorists during the 1980s and 1990s for suicide attacks increased their frequency.[48] Some examples of "terrorism" in non-democracies include ETA in Spain under Francisco Franco, the Shining Path in Peru under Alberto Fujimori, the Kurdistan Workers Party when Turkey was ruled by military leaders and the ANC in South Africa. Democracies, such as the United States, Israel, and the Philippines, also have experienced domestic terrorism. While a democratic nation espousing civil liberties may claim a sense of higher moral ground than other regimes, an act of terrorism within such a state may cause a perceived dilemma: whether to maintain its civil liberties and thus risk being perceived as ineffective in dealing with the problem; or alternatively to restrict its civil liberties and thus risk delegitimizing its claim of supporting civil liberties. This dilemma, some social theorists would conclude, may very well play into the initial plans of the acting terrorist(s); namely, to delegitimize the state.[49]

[edit] Perpetrators Acts of terrorism can be carried out by individuals, groups, or states. According to some definitions, clandestine or semi-clandestine state actors may also carry out terrorist acts outside the framework of a state of war. However, the most common image of terrorism is that it is carried out by small and secretive cells, highly motivated to serve a particular cause and many of the most deadly operations in recent times,

such as 9/11, the London underground bombing, and the 2002 Bali bombing were planned and carried out by a close clique, composed of close friends, family members and other strong social networks. These groups benefited from the free flow of information and efficient Telecommunications to succeed where others had failed.[50] Over the years, many people have attempted to come up with a terrorist profile to attempt to explain these individuals' actions through their psychology and social circumstances. Others, like Roderick Hindery, have sought to discern profiles in the propaganda tactics used by terrorists. It has been found that a "terrorist" will look, dress, and behave like a normal person, such as a university student, until he or she executes the assigned mission. Terrorist profiling based on personality, physical, or sociological traits would not appear to be particularly useful. The physical and behavioral description of the terrorist could describe almost any normal young person.[51]

[edit] Terrorist groups Main articles: List of designated terrorist organizations and Lone wolf (terrorism)

[edit] State sponsors Main article: State-sponsored terrorism A state can sponsor terrorism by funding or harboring a terrorist organization. Opinions as to which acts of violence by states consist of state-sponsored terrorism or not vary widely. When states provide funding for groups considered by some to be terrorist, they rarely acknowledge them as such.

[edit] State terrorism Main article: State terrorism

“

Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

”

— Derrick Jensen [52] The concept of state terrorism is controversial. [53] Military actions by states during war are usually not considered terrorism, even when they involve significant civilian casualties.[citation needed] The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of the 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international humanitarian law.[4] Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that it is "time to set aside debates on socalled 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law"[54] However, he also made clear that, "...regardless of the differences between governments on the question of definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians, regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism."[55] State terrorism has been used to refer to terrorist acts by governmental agents or forces. This involve the use of state resources employed by a state's foreign policies, such as the using its military to directly perform acts of considered to be state terrorism. Professor of Political Science, Michael Stohl cites the examples that include Germany’s bombing of London and the U.S. atomic destruction of Hiroshima

during World War II. He argues that “the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents." They also cite the First strike option as an example of the "terror of coercive dipolomacy" as a form of this, which holds the world "hostage,' with the implied threat of using nuclear weapons in "crisis management." They argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism has occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War ll. In this analysis, state terrorism exhibited as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and that the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of this state behavior. (Michael Stohl, “The Superpowers and International Terror” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Atlanta, March 27-April 1, 1984;"Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988;The State as Terrorist: The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and Repression, 1984 P49). State terrorism is has also been used to describe peace time actions by governmental agents or forces, such as the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 flight. Charles Stewart Parnell described William Gladstones Irish Coercion Act as Terrorism in his "no-Rent manifesto" in 1881, during the Irish Land War.[5] The concept is also used to describe political repressions by governments against their own civilian population with the purpose to incite fear. For example, taking and executing civilian hostages or extrjuducial elimination campaigns are commonly considered "terror" or terrorism, for example during Red Terror or Great Terror. [56] Such actions are often also described as democide which has been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism.[57] Empirical studies on this have found that democracies have little democide.[58][59]

[edit] Tactics Main article: Tactics of terrorism Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare, and is more common when direct conventional warfare either cannot be (due to differentials in available forces) or is not being used to resolve the underlying conflict. The context in which terrorist tactics are used is often a large-scale, unresolved political conflict. The type of conflict varies widely; historical examples include: • • • • •

Secession of a territory to form a new sovereign state Dominance of territory or resources by various ethnic groups Imposition of a particular form of government Economic deprivation of a population Opposition to a domestic government or occupying army

Terrorist attacks are often targeted to maximize fear and publicity. They usually use explosives or poison, but there is also concern about terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist organizations usually methodically plan attacks in advance, and may train participants, plant "undercover" agents, and raise money from supporters or through organized crime. Communication may occur through modern telecommunications, or through old-fashioned methods such as couriers.

[edit] Responses Main article: Responses to terrorism

Responses to terrorism are broad in scope. They can include re-alignments of the political spectrum and reassessments of fundamental values. The term counter-terrorism has a narrower connotation, implying that it is directed at terrorist actors. Specific types of responses include: • • • • • • •

Targeted laws, criminal procedures, deportations, and enhanced police powers Target hardening, such as locking doors or adding traffic barriers Pre-emptive or reactive military action Increased intelligence and surveillance activities Pre-emptive humanitarian activities More permissive interrogation and detention policies Official acceptance of torture as a valid tool

[edit] Mass media Media exposure may be a primary goal of those carrying out terrorism, to expose issues that would otherwise be ignored by the media. Some consider this to be manipulation and exploitation of the media. [60] Others consider terrorism itself to be a symptom of a highly controlled mass media, which does not otherwise give voice to alternative viewpoints, a view expressed by Paul Watson who has stated that controlled media is responsible for terrorism, because "you cannot get your information across any other way". Paul Watson's organization Sea Shepherd has itself been branded "eco-terrorist", although it claims to have not caused any casualties. The mass media will often censor organizations involved in terrorism (through self-restraint or regulation) to discourage further terrorism. However, this may encourage organisations to perform more extreme acts of terrorism to be shown in the mass media. There is always a point at which the terrorist ceases to manipulate the media gestalt. A point at which the violence may well escalate, but beyond which the terrorist has become symptomatic of the media gestalt itself. Terrorism as we ordinarily understand it is innately media-related. —Novelist William Gibson[61]

[edit] History Main article: History of terrorism The term "terrorism" was originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club during the "Reign of Terror" in the French Revolution. "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible," said Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre. In 1795, Edmund Burke denounced the Jacobins for letting "thousands of those hell hounds called terrorists" loose upon the people of France. In January 1858, Italian patriot Felice Orsini threw three bombs in an attempt to assassinate French Emperor Napolean III.[62] Eight bystanders were killed and 142 injured.[62] The incident played a crucial role as an inspiration for the development of the early Russian terrorist groups.[62] Russian Sergey Nechayev, who founded People's Retribution in 1869, described himself as a "terrorist", an early example of the term being employed in its modern meaning.[8] Nechayev's story is told in fictionalized form by Fyodor Dostoevsky in the novel The Possessed. German anarchist writer Johann Most dispensed "advice for terrorists" in the 1880s.[63]

[edit] See also • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

List of terrorist incidents List of terrorist organisations 9/11 7/7 Abortion clinic bombers Agent provocateur Christian Terrorism Colombian Armed Conflict (1960s–present) Communist Terrorism Conspiracy theory Counter-terrorism Cyber-terrorism Destructive cult Domestic terrorist (United States) Eco-terrorism False flag operations Hate crime Hate group Hirabah Indoctrination Islamic Terrorism Middle east Narcoterrorism Northern Ireland Nuclear 9/11 Propaganda Sikh Extremism Strategy of tension Suicide attack Symbionese Liberation Army Ten Threats identified by the United Nations Terror bombing Terrorism insurance Terrorist Screening Center Unconventional warfare Weather Underground World Trade Center

[edit] Further reading

Night

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the time of day. For other uses, see Night (disambiguation). This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)

A composite satellite image of the earth at night. Night or nighttime is the period of time when the sun is below the horizon. The opposite of night is day (or "daytime" to distinguish it from "day" as used for a 24-hour period). Time of day varies based on factors such as season, latitude, longitude and timezone.

Contents [hide]

•

1 Duration and geography 2 On other celestial bodies 3 Impact on life 4 Humans and the night o 4.1 Social and economic factors o 4.2 Cultural aspects 5 See also

•

6 References

• • • •

[edit] Duration and geography Nights are shorter than days on average due to two factors. One, the sun is not a point, but has an apparent size of about 32 minutes of arc. Two, the atmosphere refracts sunlight so that some of it reaches the ground when the sun is below the horizon by about 34 minutes of arc. The combinaton of these two factors means that light reaches the ground when the centre of the sun is below the horizon by about 50 minutes of arc. + - Without these effects, day and night would be the same length at the autumnal (autumn/fall) and vernal (spring) equinoxes, the moments when the sun passes over the equator. In reality, around the equinoxes the day is almost 14 minutes longer than the night at the equator, and even more closer to the poles. The summer and winter solstices mark the shortest night and the longest night, respectively. The closer a location is to the North or South Pole, the larger the range of variation in the night's length. Although equinoxes occur with a day and night close to equal length, before and after an equinox the ratio

of night to day changes more rapidly in locations near the poles than in locations between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. In the Northern Hemisphere, Denmark has shorter nights in June than India has. In the Southern Hemisphere, Antarctica has longer nights in June than Chile has. The Northern and Southern Hemispheres of the world experience the same patterns of night length at the same latitudes, but the cycles are 6 months apart so that one hemisphere experiences long nights (winter) while the other is experiencing short nights (summer). Between the pole and the polar circle, the variation in daylight hours is so extreme that for a portion of the summer, there is no longer an intervening night between consecutive days and in the winter there is a period that there is no intervening day between consecutive nights.

[edit] On other celestial bodies The phenomenon of day and night is due to the rotation of a celestial body about its axis, creating the illusion of the sun rising and setting. Different bodies spin at very different rates, however. Some may spin much faster than Earth, while others spin extremely slowly, leading to very long days and nights. The planet Venus rotates once every 224.7 days – by far the slowest rotation period of any of the major planets. In contrast, the gas giant Jupiter's sidereal day is only 9 hours and 56 minutes.[1] A planet may experience large temperature variations between day and night, such as Mercury, the closest planet to the sun. This is one consideration in terms of planetary habitability or the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

[edit] Impact on life

Bats are just one of the thousands of species of animals that are active during the night Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (June 2008) The disappearance of sunlight, the primary energy source for life on Earth, has dramatic impacts on the morphology, physiology and behavior of almost every organism. Some animals sleep during the night, while other nocturnal animals including moths and crickets are active during this time. The effects of day and night are not seen in the animal kingdom alone, plants have also evolved adaptations to cope best with the lack of sunlight during this time. For example, crassulacean acid metabolism in a unique type of carbon fixation which allows photosynthetic plants to store carbon dioxide in their tissues as organic acids during the night, which can then be used during the day to synthesize carbohydrates. This allows them to keep their stomata closed during the daytime, preventing transpiration of precious water.

[edit] Humans and the night [edit] Social and economic factors

A busy street at nighttime Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (June 2008) Throughout the rest of history, night has primarily been a time of resting and sleep for humans, since little work or labor can be done in the dark. On the other hand, clandestine activities such as romance, sex, prostitution, and criminal and police activity flourish. As artificial lighting has improved, especially after the Industrial Revolution, night-time activity has increased and become a significant part of the economy in most places. Many establishments, such as nightclubs, bars, convenience stores, fast-food restaurants, gas stations, distribution facilities, and police stations now operate 24 hours a day or stay open as late as 1 or 2 a.m. Even without artificial light, moonlight sometimes makes it possible to travel or work outdoors at night. The phrase "The night is young" refers to the period when the sun is below the horizon and not the period before midnight.

[edit] Cultural aspects Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (June 2008)

Nótt, the personification of night in Norse mythology, rides her horse in this 19th century painting by Peter Nicolai Arbo. Night is often associated with danger and evil, because bandits and dangerous animals can be concealed by darkness. The belief in magic often includes the idea that magic and magicians are more powerful at night. Similarly, mythical and folkloric creatures as vampires, and werewolves are thought to be more active at night. Ghosts are believed to wander around almost exclusively during night-time. In almost all cultures, there exist stories and legends warning of the dangers of night-time. In fact, the Saxons called the darkness of night the 'death mist'.[citation needed]

[edit] See also Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Night Look up night in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Listen to this article (info/dl) This audio file was created from a revision dated 2006-12-10, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)

More spoken articles • • • • • •

Earth clock Midnight Night sky Nightlife Nocturne Olbers' paradox

[edit] References

Day From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search Look up day in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Water, Rabbit, and Deer: three of the 20 day symbols in the Aztec calendar, from the Aztec calendar stone. For other uses, see Day (disambiguation). A day (symbol d) is a unit of time equivalent to approximately 24 hours. It is not an SI unit but it is accepted for use with SI.[1] The SI unit of time is the second. The word 'day' can also refer to the (roughly) half of the day that is not night, also known as 'daytime'. Both refer to a length of time. Within these meanings, several definitions can be distinguished. 'Day' may also refer to a 'point' in time, as in answer to the question "On which day?".

The term comes from the Old English dæg, with similar terms common in all other Indo-European languages, such as Tag in German and dive in Sanskrit.

Contents [hide] • • • • • • • • • • • •

1 International System of Units (SI) 2 Astronomy 3 Colloquial 4 Introduction 5 Civil day 6 Leap seconds 7 Astronomy 8 Boundaries of the day 9 Metaphorical days 10 24 hours vs daytime 11 See also 12 Notes and references

•

13 External links

[edit] International System of Units (SI) A day is defined as 86,400 seconds. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) currently defines a second as … the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.[2]

This makes the SI day last exactly 794,243,384,928,000 of those periods. In the 19th century it had also been suggested to make a decimal fraction (1⁄10,000 or 1⁄100,000) of an astronomic day the base unit of time. This was an afterglow of decimal time and calendar, which had been given up already.

[edit] Astronomy A day of exactly 86,400 SI seconds is the fundamental unit of time in astronomy. For a given planet, there are two types of day defined in astronomy: • •

1 apparent sidereal day - a single rotation of a planet with respect to the distant stars (for Earth it is 23.934 hours); 1 solar day - a single rotation of a planet with respect to its star.

[edit] Colloquial The word refers to various relatedly defined ideas, including the following:

• • • •

the period of light when the Sun is above the local horizon (i.e., the time period from sunrise to sunset); the full day covering a dark and a light period, beginning from the beginning of the dark period or from a point near the middle of the dark period; a full dark and light period, sometimes called a nychthemeron in English, from the Greek for night-day; the time period from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM or 9:00 PM or some other fixed clock period overlapping or set off from other time periods such as "morning", "evening", or "night".

Dagr, the Norse god of the day, rides his horse in this 19th century painting by Peter Nicolai Arbo.

[edit] Introduction The word day is used for several different units of time based on the rotation of the Earth around its axis. The most important one follows the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky (solar day). The reason for this apparent motion is the rotation of the Earth around its axis, as well as the revolution of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. A day, as opposed to night, is commonly defined as the period during which sunlight directly reaches the ground, assuming that there are no local obstacles. Two effects make days on average longer than nights. The Sun is not a point, but has an apparent size of about 32 minutes of arc. Additionally, the atmosphere refracts sunlight in such a way that some of it reaches the ground even when the Sun is below the horizon by about 34 minutes of arc. So the first light reaches the ground when the centre of the Sun is still below the horizon by about 50 minutes of arc. The difference in time depends on the angle at which the Sun rises and sets (itself a function of latitude), but amounts to almost seven minutes at least. Ancient custom has a new day start at either the rising or setting of the Sun on the local horizon (Italian reckoning, for example) The exact moment of, and the interval between, two sunrises or two sunsets depends on the geographical position (longitude as well as latitude), and the time of year. This is the time as indicated by ancient hemispherical sundials. A more constant day can be defined by the Sun passing through the local meridian, which happens at local noon (upper culmination) or midnight (lower culmination). The exact moment is dependent on the geographical longitude, and to a lesser extent on the time of the year. The length of such a day is nearly constant (24 hours ± 30 seconds). This is the time as indicated by modern sundials.

A further improvement defines a fictitious mean Sun that moves with constant speed along the celestial equator; the speed is the same as the average speed of the real Sun, but this removes the variation over a year as the Earth moves along its orbit around the Sun (due to both its velocity and its axial tilt). The Earth's day has increased in length over time. The original length of one day, when the Earth was new about 4.5 billion years ago, was about six hours as determined by computer simulation. It was 21.9 hours 620 million years ago as recorded by rhythmites (alternating layers in sandstone). This phenomenon is due to tides raised by the Moon which slow Earth's rotation. Because of the way the second is defined, the mean length of a day is now about 86,400.002 seconds, and is increasing by about 1.7 milliseconds per century (an average over the last 2,700 years). See tidal acceleration for details.

[edit] Civil day For civil purposes a common clock time has been defined for an entire region based on the mean local solar time at some central meridian. Such time zones began to be adopted about the middle of the 19th century when railroads with regular schedules came into use, with most major countries having adopted them by 1929. For the whole world, 40 such time zones are now in use. The main one is "world time" or Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). The present common convention has the civil day starting at midnight, which is near the time of the lower culmination of the mean Sun on the central meridian of the time zone. A day is commonly divided into 24 hours of 60 minutes of 60 seconds each.

[edit] Leap seconds In order to keep the civil day aligned with the apparent movement of the Sun, positive or negative leap seconds may be inserted. A civil clock day is typically 86,400 SI seconds long, but will be 86,401 s or 86,399 s long in the event of a leap second. Leap seconds are announced in advance by the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service which measures the Earth's rotation and determines whether a leap second is necessary. Leap seconds occur only at the end of a UTC month, and have only ever been inserted at the end of June 30 or December 31.

[edit] Astronomy In astronomy, the sidereal day is also used; it is about 3 minutes 56 seconds shorter than the solar day, and close to the actual rotation period of the Earth, as opposed to the Sun's apparent motion. In fact, the Earth spins 366 times about its axis during a 365-day year, because the Earth's revolution about the Sun removes one apparent turn of the Sun about the Earth.

[edit] Boundaries of the day For most diurnal animals, the day naturally begins at dawn and ends at sunset. Humans, with our cultural norms and scientific knowledge, have supplanted Nature with several different conceptions of the day's boundaries. The Jewish day begins at either sunset or at nightfall (when three second-magnitude stars appear). Medieval Europe followed this tradition, known as Florentine reckoning: in this system, a reference like "two hours into the day" meant two hours after sunset and thus times during the evening

need to be shifted back one calendar day in modern reckoning. Days such as Christmas Eve, Halloween, and the Eve of Saint Agnes are the remnants of the older pattern when holidays began the evening before. Present common convention is for the civil day to begin at midnight, that is 00:00 (inclusive), and last a full twenty-four hours until 24:00 (exclusive). In ancient Egypt, the day was reckoned from sunrise to sunrise. Muslims fast from daybreak to sunset each day of the month of Ramadan. The "Damascus Document", copies of which were also found among the Dead Sea scrolls, states regarding Sabbath observance that "No one is to do any work on Friday from the moment that the sun's disk stands distant from the horizon by the length of its own diameter," presumably indicating that the monastic community responsible for producing this work counted the day as ending shortly before the sun had begun to set. In the United States, nights are named after the previous day, e.g. "Friday night" usually means the entire night between Friday and Saturday. This is the opposite of the Jewish pattern. This difference from the civil day often leads to confusion. Events starting at midnight are often announced as occurring the day before. TV-guides tend to list nightly programs at the previous day, although programming a VCR requires the strict logic of starting the new day at 00:00 (to further confuse the issue, VCRs set to the 12hour clock notation will label this "12:00 AM"). Expressions like "today", "yesterday" and "tomorrow" become ambiguous during the night. Validity of tickets, passes, etc., for a day or a number of days may end at midnight, or closing time, when that is earlier. However, if a service (e.g. public transport) operates from e.g. 6:00 to 1:00 the next day (which may be noted as 25:00), the last hour may well count as being part of the previous day (also for the arrangement of the timetable). For services depending on the day ("closed on Sundays", "does not run on Fridays", etc.) there is a risk of ambiguity. As an example, for the Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Dutch Railways), a day ticket is valid 28 hours, from 0:00 to 28:00 (i.e. 4:00 the next day). To give another example, the validity of a pass on London Regional Transport services is until the end of the "transport day" -- that is to say, until 4:30 am on the day after the "expiry" date stamped on the pass.

[edit] Metaphorical days In the Bible, as a way to describe that time is immaterial to God, one day is described as being like one thousand years (Psalms 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8) to him. Also in 2 Peter 3:8, one thousand years is described as being like one day. However, some Bible experts interpret this more literally as a way to understand some prophecies like those in Book of Daniel and others (like the Book of Revelation) where are mentioned days in form of weeks and years.

[edit] 24 hours vs daytime To distinguish between a full day and daytime, the word nychthemeron may be used for the former, or more colloquially the term '24 hours'. In other languages, the latter is also often used. Some languages have a separate word for a full day, such as 'etmaal' in Dutch and 'сутки' in Russian. German and French don't have similar words. In Spanish, 'singladura' is used, but only as a marine unit of length, being the distance covered in 24 hours [1].

[edit] See also • • •

1 E4 s, Times from 10 kiloseconds to 100 kiloseconds Calculating the day of the week Dagr

• • • •

Daylight Daylight saving time Season, for a discussion of daylight and darkness near the poles and the equator and places inbetween Week

[edit] Notes and references A calendar is a system of organizing days for a social, religious, commercial or administrative purpose. This organization is done by giving names to periods of time – typically days, weeks, months and years. The name given to each day is known as a date. Periods in a calendar (such as years and months) are usually, though not necessarily, synchronized with the cycles of some astronomical phenomenon, such as the cycle of the sun, or the moon. Many civilizations and societies have devised a calendar, usually derived from other calendars on which they model their systems, suited to their particular needs. A calendar is also a physical device (often paper). This is the most common usage of the word. Other similar types of calendars can include computerized systems, which can be set to remind the user of upcoming events and appointments. As a subset, calendar is also used to denote a list of particular set of planned events (for example, court calendar). The English word calendar is derived from the Latin word kalendae, which was the Latin name of the first day of every month.[1]

Contents [hide] •

• •

• • • • • • • •

1 Calendar systems o 1.1 Solar calendars  1.1.1 Days used by solar calendars  1.1.2 Calendar reform o 1.2 Lunar calendars 2 Calendar subdivisions 3 Other calendar types o 3.1 Arithmetic and astronomical calendars o 3.2 Complete and incomplete calendars 4 Uses 5 Currently used calendars o 5.1 Fiscal calendars 6 Gregorian calendar with Easter Sunday 7 Physical calendars 8 Legal 9 Calendars in computing o 9.1 Layout 10 See also o 10.1 List of calendars 11 Sources

•

12 References

•

13 External links

[edit] Calendar systems A full calendar system has a different calendar date for every day. Thus the week cycle is by itself not a full calendar system; neither is a system to name the days within a year without a system for identifying the years. The simplest calendar system just counts time periods from a reference date. This applies for the Julian day. Virtually the only possible variation is using a different reference date, in particular one less distant in the past to make the numbers smaller. Computations in these systems are just a matter of addition and subtraction. Other calendars have one (or multiple) larger units of time. Calendars that contain one level of cycles: • •

week and weekday – this system (without year, the week number keeps on increasing) is not very common year and ordinal date within the year, e.g. the ISO 8601 ordinal date system

Calendars with two levels of cycles: • •

year, month, and day – most systems, including the Gregorian calendar (and its very similar predecessor, the Julian calendar), the Islamic calendar, and the Hebrew calendar year, week, and weekday – e.g. the ISO week date

Cycles can be synchronized with periodic phenomena: • • •

•

A lunar calendar is synchronized to the motion of the Moon (lunar phases); an example is the Islamic calendar. A solar calendar is based on perceived seasonal changes synchronized to the apparent motion of the Sun; an example is the Persian calendar. There are some calendars that appear to be synchronized to the motion of Venus, such as some of the ancient Egyptian calendars; synchronization to Venus appears to occur primarily in civilizations near the Equator. The week cycle is an example of one that is not synchronized to any external phenomenon (although it may have been derived from lunar phases, beginning anew every month).

Very commonly a calendar includes more than one type of cycle, or has both cyclic and acyclic elements. A lunisolar calendar is synchronized both to the motion of the moon and to the apparent motion of the sun; an example is the Hebrew calendar. Many calendars incorporate simpler calendars as elements. For example, the rules of the Hebrew calendar depend on the seven-day week cycle (a very simple calendar), so the week is one of the cycles of the Hebrew calendar. It is also common to operate two calendars simultaneously, usually providing unrelated cycles, and the result may also be considered a more complex calendar. For example, the Gregorian calendar has no inherent dependence on the seven-day week, but in Western society the two are used together, and calendar tools indicate both the Gregorian date and the day of week.[2]

The week cycle is shared by various calendar systems (although the significance of special days such as Friday, Saturday, and Sunday varies). Systems of leap days usually do not affect the week cycle. The week cycle was not even interrupted when 10, 11, 12, or 13 dates were skipped when the Julian calendar was replaced by the Gregorian calendar by various countries.

[edit] Solar calendars Main article: Solar calendar [edit] Days used by solar calendars Solar calendars assign a date to each solar day. A day may consist of the period between sunrise and sunset, with a following period of night, or it may be a period between successive events such as two sunsets. The length of the interval between two such successive events may be allowed to vary slightly during the year, or it may be averaged into a mean solar day. Other types of calendar may also use a solar day. [edit] Calendar reform Main article: Calendar reform There have been a number of proposals for reform of the calendar, such as the World Calendar, International Fixed Calendar and Holocene calendar. The United Nations considered adopting such a reformed calendar for a while in the 1950s, but these proposals have lost most of their popularity.

[edit] Lunar calendars Main article: Lunar calendar Not all calendars use the solar year as a unit. A lunar calendar is one in which days are numbered within each lunar phase cycle. Because the length of the lunar month is not an even fraction of the length of the tropical year, a purely lunar calendar quickly drifts against the seasons, which don't vary much near the equator. It does, however, stay constant with respect to other phenomena, notably tides. An example is the Islamic calendar. A lunisolar calendar is a lunar calendar that compensates by adding an extra month as needed to realign the months with the seasons. An example is the Hebrew calendar which uses a 19-year cycle. Lunar calendars are believed to be the oldest calendars invented by mankind. Cro-Magnon people are claimed to have invented one around 32,000 BC.

[edit] Calendar subdivisions Nearly all calendar systems group consecutive days into "months" and also into "years". In a solar calendar a year approximates Earth's tropical year (that is, the time it takes for a complete cycle of seasons), traditionally used to facilitate the planning of agricultural activities. In a lunar calendar, the month approximates the cycle of the moon phase. Consecutive days may be grouped into other periods such as the week. Because the number of days in the tropical year is not a whole number, a solar calendar must have a different number of days in different years. This may be handled, for example, by adding an extra day (29

February) in leap years. The same applies to months in a lunar calendar and also the number of months in a year in a lunisolar calendar. This is generally known as intercalation. Even if a calendar is solar, but not lunar, the year cannot be divided entirely into months that never vary in length. Cultures may define other units of time, such as the week, for the purpose of scheduling regular activities that do not easily coincide with months or years. Many cultures use different baselines for their calendars' starting years. For example, the year in Japan is based on the reign of the current emperor: 2006 was Year 18 of the Emperor Akihito. See Decade, Century, Millennium

[edit] Other calendar types [edit] Arithmetic and astronomical calendars An astronomical calendar is based on ongoing observation; examples are the religious Islamic calendar and the old religious Jewish calendar in the time of the Second Temple. Such a calendar is also referred to as an observation-based calendar. The advantage of such a calendar is that it is perfectly and perpetually accurate. The disadvantage is that working out when a particular date would occur is difficult. An arithmetic calendar is one that is based on a strict set of rules; an example is the current Jewish calendar. Such a calendar is also referred to as a rule-based calendar. The advantage of such a calendar is the ease of calculating when a particular date occurs. The disadvantage is imperfect accuracy. Furthermore, even if the calendar is very accurate, its accuracy diminishes slowly over time, owing to changes in Earth's rotation. This limits the lifetime of an accurate arithmetic calendar to a few thousand years. After then, the rules would need to be modified from observations made since the invention of the calendar.

[edit] Complete and incomplete calendars Calendars may be either complete or incomplete. Complete calendars provide a way of naming each consecutive day, while incomplete calendars do not. The early Roman calendar, which had no way of designating the days of the winter months other than to lump them together as "winter", is an example of an incomplete calendar, while the Gregorian calendar is an example of a complete calendar.

[edit] Uses The primary practical use of a calendar is to identify days: to be informed about and/or to agree on a future event and to record an event that has happened. Days may be significant for civil, religious or social reasons. For example, a calendar provides a way to determine which days are religious or civil holidays, which days mark the beginning and end of business accounting periods, and which days have legal significance, such as the day taxes are due or a contract expires. Also a calendar may, by identifying a day, provide other useful information about the day such as its season. Calendars are also used to help people manage their personal schedules, time and activities, particularly when individuals have numerous work, school, and family commitments. People frequently use multiple systems, and may keep both a business and family calendar to help prevent them from overcommitting their time.

Calendars are also used as part of a complete timekeeping system: date and time of day together specify a moment in time. In the modern world, written calendars are no longer an essential part of such systems, as the advent of accurate clocks has made it possible to record time independently of astronomical events.

[edit] Currently used calendars Calendars in widespread use today include the Gregorian calendar, which is the de facto international standard, and is used almost everywhere in the world for civil purposes, including in the People's Republic of China and India (along with the Indian national calendar). Due to the Gregorian calendar's obvious connotations of Western Christianity, non-Christians and even some Christians sometimes justify its use by replacing the traditional era notations "AD" and "BC" ("Anno Domini" and "Before Christ") with "CE" and "BCE" ("Common Era" and "Before Common Era"). The Hindu calendars are some of the most ancient calendars of the world. Eastern Christians of eastern Europe and western Asia used for a long time the Julian Calendar, that of the old Orthodox church, in countries like Russia. For over 1500 years, Westerners used the Julian Calendar also. While the Gregorian calendar is widely used in Israel's business and day-to-day affairs, the Hebrew calendar, used by Jews worldwide for religious and cultural affairs, also influences civil matters in Israel (such as national holidays) and can be used there for business dealings (such as for the dating of checks). The Iranian (Persian) calendar is used in Iran and Afghanistan. The Islamic calendar is used by most nonIranian Muslims worldwide. The Chinese, Hebrew, Hindu, and Julian calendars are widely used for religious and/or social purposes. The Ethiopian calendar or Ethiopic calendar is the principal calendar used in Ethiopia and Eritrea. In Thailand, where the Thai solar calendar is used, the months and days have adopted the western standard, although the years are still based on the traditional Buddhist calendar. Even where there is a commonly used calendar such as the Gregorian calendar, alternate calendars may also be used, such as a fiscal calendar or the astronomical year numbering system[3].

[edit] Fiscal calendars Main article: Fiscal calendar A fiscal calendar (such as a 5/4/4 calendar) fixes each month at a specific number of weeks to facilitate comparisons from month to month and year to year. January always has exactly 5 weeks (Sunday through Saturday), February has 4 weeks, March has 4 weeks, etc. Note that this calendar will normally need to add a 53rd week to every 5th or 6th year, which might be added to December or might not be, depending on how the organization uses those dates. There exists an international standard way to do this (the ISO week). The ISO week starts on a Monday, and ends on a Sunday. Week 1 is always the week that contains 4 January in the Gregorian calendar.

[edit] Gregorian calendar with Easter Sunday Calculating the calendar of a previous year (for the Gregorian calendar taking account of the week) is a relatively easy matter when Easter Sunday is not included on the calendar. However, calculating for Easter Sunday is difficult because the calculation requires the knowledge of the full moon cycle. Easter Sunday is on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox according to the computus. So, this makes an additional calculation necessary on top of the normal calculation for January 1st and the calculation of whether or not the year is a leap year.

There are only 14 different calendars when Easter Sunday is not involved. Each calendar is determined by the day of the week January 1st falls on and whether or not the year is a leap year. However, when Easter Sunday is included, there are 70 different calendars (two for each date of Easter).

[edit] Physical calendars

At-A-Glance 2004-2005 calendar A calendar is also a physical device (often paper) (for example, a desktop calendar or a wall calendar). In a paper calendar one or two sheets can show a single day, a week, a month, or a year. If a sheet is for a single day, it easily shows the date and the weekday. If a sheet is for multiple days it shows a conversion table to convert from weekday to date and back. With a special pointing device, or by crossing out past days, it may indicate the current date and weekday. This is the most common usage of the word. The sale of physical calendars has been restricted in some countries, and given as a monopoly to universities and national academies. Examples include the Prussian Academy of Sciences and the University of Helsinki, which had a monopoly on the sale of calendars in Finland until the 1990s.

[edit] Legal Main article: Docket (court) For lawyers and judges, the calendar is the docket used by the court to schedule the order of hearings or trials. This is especially used in a criminal calendar. A paralegal or court officer may actually keep track of the cases on the calendar or docket, by use of docketing software or law practice management software.

[edit] Calendars in computing • •

Category:Calendaring standards Electronic calendar

[edit] Layout There are different layouts for calendars.

A table for each weekA calendar which has a different month on each page. This page shows August

[edit] See also • • • •

Calendar reform Calendrical calculation Real-Time Clock (RTC), which underlies the Calendar software on modern computers. Time for divisions smaller than one day

[edit] List of calendars Main article: List of calendars

[edit] Sources