Dominant group/History

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
French painter and art theorist, Charles Lebrun is the dominant artist of Louis XIV's reign. Credit: Gdr.

"History is the discovery, collection, organization, and presentation of information about past events. ... It is a field of research which uses a narrative to examine and analyse the sequence of events, and it sometimes attempts to investigate objectively the patterns of cause and effect that determine events.[1][2]"[3]

Dominant group has a long history for a two-word term that dates from 1826 and probably earlier.

History[edit | edit source]

History is the study of past events.

History starts with events, particularly in human affairs.

These events are in the past.

As these events are no longer here in the present, they cannot be studied directly.

Sometimes there is a whole series of events connected with someone or something.

A continuous, typically chronological, record of important or public events or of a particular trend or institution is studied as a history of these events.

Dominant group[edit | edit source]

Examples from primary sources are to be used to prove or disprove each hypothesis. These can be collected per subject or in general.

  1. Accident hypothesis: dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.
  2. Artifact hypothesis: dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.
  3. Association hypothesis: dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.
  4. Bad group hypothesis: dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.
  5. Control group hypothesis: there is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.
  6. Entity hypothesis: dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  7. Evolution hypothesis: dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.
  8. Identifier hypothesis: dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.
  9. Importance hypothesis: dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.
  10. Indicator hypothesis: dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.
  11. Influence hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.
  12. Interest hypothesis: dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.
  13. Metadefinition hypothesis: all uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group.
  14. Null hypothesis: there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.
  15. Object hypothesis: dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  16. Obvious hypothesis: the only meaning of dominant group is the one found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.
  17. Original research hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.
  18. Primordial hypothesis: dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a synonym for dominant group.
  19. Purpose hypothesis: dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.
  20. Regional hypothesis: dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.
  21. Source hypothesis: dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  22. Term hypothesis: dominant group is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Angiosperms[edit | edit source]

“The Plant life of this Period was of a very varied and luxuriant character, and the Angiosperms had now become the dominant group.”[4]

Enzymes[edit | edit source]

"It appears to us that the only interpretation that can be placed upon the facts as they are now known to us is that the acceptor is a radicle which is very closely allied to, if not identical with, a dominant group in the hydrolyte."[5]

Ethnography[edit | edit source]

"While the human groups are many and diverse, they are conveniently combined in two categories: first, the natural or consanguineal or kinship group in which the unit is the ethnos; and second, the artificial or essentially social group in which the unit is the demos. The ethnos, or ethnic group, is the homologue of the varietal or specific group of animals; it is the dominant group in lower savagery, but its influence on human life wanes upward, to practically disappear in enlightenment except as retained in the structure of the family. The demos is the product of intelligence applied to the regulation of human affairs; it has no true homologue among animals; its importance waxes as that of the ethnos wanes from savagery through barbarism and civilization and thence into enlightenment."[6]

Medicine[edit | edit source]

"[P]atients of the microangiopathy-dominant group were significantly older, had a longer duration of diabetes, higher systolic blood pressure, and were more likely to be treated with insulin and have a family history of diabetes, compared with the no complications group."[7]

Notation: let the symbol PD stand for Parkinson's disease.

Notation: let the symbol UPSIT stand for University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test-40.

"We then evaluated predictors of reduced UPSIT scores within the tremor-dominant group. Overall, olfaction did not differ between tremor-dominant PD and regular PD; however, the subgroup of tremor-dominant PD with a family history of tremor had less olfaction loss than those without a family history (P = 0.0007) or those with regular PD (P = 0.0350)."[8]

Natural selection[edit | edit source]

“The dominant species of the larger dominant groups tend to leave many modified descendants, and thus new sub-groups and groups are formed.”[9]

“Under the many conditions of life which this world affords, any group which is numerous in individuals and species and is widely distributed, may properly be called dominant" [a dominant group]. [Letter 110. To W.H. Harvey, August, 1860][10]

Orthogenesis[edit | edit source]

"Many other principles, such as those concerned with reversion and orthogenesis, are gradually being formulated and it is only a matter of time and more extended observation before the science of phylogeny will be placed on a much more uniform and exact footing. ... The ancestors of our modern hexapods achieved their first success through some advance in specialization over this more primitive type, but the improvements which gave them ascendancy and which enabled them to found a distinct and dominant group were certain unknown changes, doubtless in plastic and functionally important characters which were of great value for survival at the time, but which, having isolated the family and put it on its feet, so to speak, continued to change and may be possessed by few or no living descendants."[11]

Mammology[edit | edit source]

"One would think that such a diverse and dominant group of large mammals would be well studied and understood."[12] "The last general discussion of the history of rhinos was by Viret (1958), but much has happened in the last 30 years."[12]

Tokenism[edit | edit source]

"The first of these is a history of relationships with a series of sponsors. The second is a history of differential association with members of the dominant group, rather than the deviant group."[13]

India[edit | edit source]

“In the multiplicity of communalisms prevalent in India today, the major one obviously is Hindu communalism since it involves the largest numbers and asserts itself as the dominant group. I shall therefore discuss only the notion of the Hindu community and not those of other religions. Nevertheless my comments on communal ideology and its use of history would apply to other groups claiming a similar ideology.”[14]

"Gujarat was a major trading area in the subcontinent and the Gujaratis had traditionally been a dominant group among the Indian mercantile communities."[15]

New Zealand[edit | edit source]

"Pakeha, the dominant group, showed outgroup favouritism, and distanced themselves from past injustices using linguistic strategies."[16] "The current reaction to the naming of the dominant ethnic group in New Zealand is one of the historical anomalies"[16] "From [the perspective of social dominance theory (SDT)], dominant groups attempt to impose their versions of history on subordinate groups as part of the legitimizing myths that give them the right to sovereignty and a disproportionate share of resources."[16]

United States[edit | edit source]

"US history is replete with examples of the confounding of dominant group and national interests."[17]

"In the social conflict theory, the struggle of dominated groups to change the conditions that oppress them and the attempts of the dominant groups to reproduce the conditions of their dominance are the key to understanding changes in the economy, in social relations, and in the culture."[18]

"Throughout U. S. history, dominant groups have attempted to impose a set of values and norms on subordinate groups."[18]

"When challenged, dominant groups will attempt to avoid giving in, or at least will try to absorb the challenge in a way that sharply reduces the potential effect of compromise on the dominant group's capacity to make history."[18]

Hypotheses[edit | edit source]

  1. Dominant group has a history and an origin.

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. Professor Richard J. Evans (2001). "The Two Faces of E.H. Carr, In: History in Focus, Issue 2: What is History?". University of London. Retrieved 10 November 2008.
  2. Professor Alun Munslow (2001). "What History Is, In: History in Focus, Issue 2: What is History?". University of London. Retrieved 10 November 2008.
  3. "History, In: Wikipedia". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. September 14, 2012. Retrieved 2012-09-14.
  4. Herbert Goss (1880). Herbert Goss. ed. Cainozoic Time (On the Insecta of the Miocene Period, and the animals and plants with which they were correlated.), In: The geological antiquity of insects: Twelve papers on fossil entomology. London: John Van Voorst. pp. 40-46. Retrieved 2011-07-31. 
  5. E. Franklin Armstrong; Henry E. Armstrong (June 1913). "Studies on the Processes Operative in Solutions (XXX) and on Enzyme Action (XX).--The Nature of Enzymes and of their Action as Hydrolytic Agents". Proceedings of the Royal Society London B Biological Sciences 86 (568): 561-86. doi:10.1098/rspb.1913.0051. Retrieved 2012-02-22. 
  6. W J McGee (July 1899). "The Trend of Human Progress". American Anthropologist New Series 1 (3): 401-47. Retrieved 2011-09-20. 
  7. K. Matsumoto; Y. Sera; Y. Ueki; G. Inukai; E. Niiro; S. Miyake (October 2002). "Comparison of serum concentrations of soluble adhesion molecules in diabetic microangiopathy and macroangiopathy". Diabetic Medicine 19 (10): 822-6. doi:10.1046/j.1464-5491.2002.00799.x. Retrieved 2012-04-03. 
  8. William G. Ondo; Dejian Lai (April 2005). "Olfaction testing in patients with tremor‐dominant Parkinson's disease: Is this a distinct condition?". Movement Disorders 20 (4): 471-5. doi:10.1002/mds.20365. Retrieved 2012-04-03. 
  9. Charles Robert Darwin (1859). On the origin of the species by means of natural selection: or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray. pp. 516. 
  10. Charles Robert Darwin (October 1902). Francis Darwin and A. C. Seward. ed. More Letters of Charles Darwin A Record of his Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Letters Volume I.. Cambridge. Retrieved 2011-11-18. 
  11. Edmund W. Sinnott (December 1913). "The Fixation of Character in Organisms". The American Naturalist 47 (564): 705-29. Retrieved 2012-05-06. 
  12. 12.0 12.1 Donald R. Prothero; Claude Guérin; Earl Manning (1989). D.R. Prothero & R.M. Schoch. ed. The History of the Rhinocerotoidea. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 321-40. Retrieved 2012-04-03. 
  13. Judith Long Laws (March 1975). "The psychology of tokenism: An analysis". Sex Roles 1 (1): 51-67. doi:10.1007/BF00287213. Retrieved 2012-04-03. 
  14. Romila Thapar (1989). "Imagined Religious Communities? Ancient History and the Modern Search for a Hindu Identity". Modern Asian Studies 23 (2): 209-31. doi:10.1017/S0026749X00001049. Retrieved 2011-07-21. 
  15. Om Prakash (September 1, 2004). "The Indian maritime merchant, 1500-1800". Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 47 (3): 435-57. doi:10.1163/1568520041974738. Retrieved 2012-09-14. 
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 James H. Liu; Marc Stewart Wilson; John McClure; Te Ripowai Higgins (1999). "Social identity and the perception of history: cultural representations of Aotearoa/New Zealand". European Journal of Social Psychology 29: 1021-47. Retrieved 2012-04-03. 
  17. Ashley W. Doane Jr. (June 1997). "Dominant Group Ethnic Identity in the United States: The Role of “Hidden’ Ethnicity in Intergroup Relations". The Sociological Quarterly 38 (3): 375-97. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1997.tb00483.x. Retrieved 2012-04-03. 
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 Martin Carnoy (1989). Henry A. Giroux, Peter McLaren. ed. Education, State, and Culture in American Society, In: Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 3-23. ISBN 0791400360. Retrieved 2012-04-04. 

Further reading[edit | edit source]

External links[edit | edit source]

{{Terminology resources}}