Humanities desk
< December 5	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 7 >

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

December 6

Polynesian expansion

I did a quick check of the archives but couldn't find anything relevant, so I hope I'm not doubling up here.

In the WP articles I've read through there are two points that leave me curious, and the first may require some speculation. I understand now that population expansion (as opposed to hero conquest, religious fanaticism) was probably the main motive for the massive eastern expansion of the prehistoric polynesian peoples, and that they likely did in fact make it all the way to South America, but my question concerns the fact that they didn't actually appear to settle SA at all. If the Polynesian peoples were so motivated to expand through all of the Pacific islands, why would they suddenly stop when then encountered a huge fertile land-mass? Surely the west coast of SA wasn't that densely populated at the time, was it? Or were the Polynesians less interested in abandoning their islands?

My second question: one article gives reference to a navigation technique involving "studying the reflections on clouds" in order to find new islands. I guess that means they were spotting dark/light spots over the horizon via reflections on the bottoms of flat clouds, but does anyone have any other information about this?

Thanks in advance! 219.102.221.182 (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably some Polynesian ships did make it to South America (statistically it seems likely), but on most of the islands they settled the Polynesians were the first human inhabitants, while that was not the case in South America (where most areas suitable for human habitation would have already been inhabited). Also, the winds blowing from the west in the south Pacific kind of lead to the coastal desert areas of Chile. We do have Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact#Polynesians -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with anything regarding studying reflections on clouds, but our article does mention that clouds tend to form over islands, which is what I would assume is being talked about. That clouds do tend to form over islands is probably the result of orographic lift, though our article implies that's a slightly different process. Matt Deres (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly well accepted that the polynesians used the sight of clouds as indications of the location of islands, in exactly the way that Matt mentions. I'm not sure how they would use the "reflection of clouds", though. Grutness...wha? 22:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the "reflection of clouds", but the reflection of a bright turquoise lagoon on the base of a cloud. Try a simple google books search.—eric 00:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The turquoise blue of the coral shores reflected on the bottom of white standing clouds! Great, thanks a lot. About the Pre-Columbian contact; it seems that if they had arrived in SA (which I believe they did), they aren't there anymore, and that was my question. I imagine the shores of Chile wouldn't have been nearly as densely inhabited as (and have more resources than) a previously encountered small tropical island at the time, so it's a bit of a mystery to me why there wasn't more incentive to continue expansion along the SA coast. 219.102.221.182 (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see any reason to presume if they did arrive in South America they aren't there anymore. There's a good chance they would have mixed/inter-married with the local population and some native South Americans may very well have Polynesian 'blood' from centuries previous. Is there any particular evidence that suggests this is unlikely that I'm not aware of? Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all that takes is a genome test, right? Even if it can be shown that their blood still exists in the Americas, it still seems pretty clear that their culture didn't have a very strong impact on the tribes at that time. 219.102.221.182 (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Given that there was already quite a number of significant cultures with probably some fairly well established populations in South American and the Polynesia voyagers often weren't particularly interested in conquest, it's not that surprising if the Polynesian immigrants would have become well integrated into the existing cultures but I don't see any evidence that they didn't have a 'strong impact', however you define that. (Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the Mapuche language is significantly Polynesian in character but rather when you have so much uncertainty about how it developed over time, concluding that there was no Polynesian impact is likely going to be difficult.) There's some disputed evidence for chickens for example, that may very well have had a resonable impact on some of the cultures of the time for example. And looking at Mapuche, the section on the pre-Columbian history is rather short but does have evidence for controversies on where the language came from for example. While I presume a fair amount more is known about their history then covered there it seems likely to me that what is known is still rather limited and often disputed and what and who impacted many parts of its development is unclear. How you can conclude therefore that Polynesian immigrants had no sigificant impact, I'm not sure. And that is of course just one of the number of cultures. Some of the ones who have survived less well we probably know even less about. Some of these may have been resonably significant at a time, the fact that they didn't survive so well doesn't mean they can be ignored. And as for genomic analysis, sure it could provide some clues but would likely be rather difficult since 1) We don't know how well those that did integrate survived the later events 2) Given there remains some uncertainty over precisely when and where both the Polynesians and South Americans came from etc, showing that certain South American people had historic mixing with Polynesians is probably difficult at the best. P.S. Polynesian navigation appears to cover the additional evidence or theories for a Polynesian influence in the cultures of the Americas better then anything else I saw in our articles. While I'm not saying I believe any of these have great merit, I think it does illustrate the fallacy of coming out with a point blank 'oh they had no significant impact' when there's still so much we don't know about either, and a fair amount of it is lost too. Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the work of Thor Heyedahl, who sailed the boat named the Kon-Tiki in the opposite direction (from S. America to Polynesia) to show that the islands could have been settled from South America. Heyerdahl's theories have been somewhat discounted by other evidence (such as ethnography, etc.); however his methodology is still important as it represents an important landmark in experimentalism in the social sciences. One could basically argue, using his expedition, and others modeled on it like the Kantuta Expeditions, that cross-Pacific travel, using crude ships (by modern standards) was perfectly feasible. That is, if one can make it from South America to Polynesia via small craft, one could make the trip in the other direction. There is the evidence of Sweet Potatoes in Polynesia which predate Western exploration there by some 1000 years; it is unclear how these sweet potatoes got to Polynesia, whether native Polynesians went to South America and brought them back OR whether native South Americans brought them to Polynesia, but it basically proves that there had to be SOME connection which has, to my knowledge, not been fully explained. The article Polynesian navigation also contains some good, referenced, information on this topic. --Jayron32 06:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Public Law

How do I look up a public law? I want to see the text of the 1947 soldier brides act, public law 213. 174.20.56.210 (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google "War Brides Act" u.s.c. and there's a lot of material - your question is interesting because I looked up that law at Cornell's LII and of course it says "omitted" because it's no longer a law - Tempshill (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, though, that there are about three or four things that could end up being called "war brides act," but only two of them actually are; the ones in 1945 and 1946. That search is showing stuff related to those two. 174.20.56.210 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to Lexis Nexis Congressional, it is pretty easy. Otherwise I suspect it may take a trip to a law library. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably unnecessary. If you look up the major official links to the United States Code, which is where Public Laws end up after being unnumbered Statutes at Large, most of those official sites are annotated, showing when changes were made, and usually what those changes were. I haven't tried this for the Soldiers' Brides Act of 1947, but it seemed to work for the Glass-Steagall Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I took a very elementary paralegals' course in Legal Research & Writing, but Wikipedia itself and laymen's sources like Findlaw.com have good guides to figuring out the jargon and nomenclature for the ordinary man or woman in the street (or on the Clapham Omnibus). —— Shakescene (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie-dokie. I've just found that historical statutes can be somewhat hard to find online (outside of Lexis Nexis, which makes a point of making it pretty easy), but are pretty easy to find in paper copies. A huge amount of legal publications were done exclusively on paper or microfilm until relatively recently. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not too surprising; same problem with the other obvious source, The Congressional Record for the "Do-Nothing 80th Congress" (1947-49). Relatively recent pages going back over the last six or ten Congresses (2-year sessions) were, last time I checked, available, as well as some from the 19th century, including the Journals of the Congress of the Confederate States of America. But given a huge task with inadequate resources, the Library of Congress will take a while to put on-line even those Records of continuing, lively interest such as the debates and filibuster over the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the debates over Watergate and President Nixon's potential impeachment. [As for sorting and declassifying the huge base of intelligence documents (even on the Korean War or the Bay of Pigs) that the intelligence community doesn't want to declassify anyway, one should realistically expect to wait for several more Presidencies (or perhaps the Second Coming) for that to happen.]—— Shakescene (talk)

It's in this huge PDF file: [1], page 401. Here's the text:

“

To amend the Act approved December 28, 1945 (Public Law 271, Seventy-ninth [H. R. 3149] Congress), entitled "An Act to expedite the admission to the United States [Public Law 213] of alien spouses and alien minor children of citizen members of the United States armed forces".
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the Act approved December 28,1945 (Public Law 271, Seventy-ninth Congress, ch. 591, first session) (59 Stat. 659 ; 8 U. S. C. 232-236), is amended by adding a new section thereto, to be known as section 6, and to read as follows

"SEC. 6. The alien spouse of an American citizen by a marriage occurring before thirty days after the enactment of this Act, shall not be considered as inadmissible because of race, if otherwise admissible
under this Act ."

Approved July 22, 1947 .

”

-- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And some background: At the time, the Magnuson Act allowed only 105 Chinese immigrants a year to come to America, and Japanese people were banned from immigrating or becoming U.S. citizens. After World War II, some U.S. servicemen presumably married Asian women and wanted to bring them home with them. This law looks like it allowed them to do so. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is (as the enquirer noted) a huge amount of background, of which I got a glimpse by Googling "Soldier Brides Act 1947". The main purpose, heavily pushed by the Japanese American Citizens League was to allow Japanese soldier brides (not technically war brides but brides of the Allied Occupation) into the country, but it was superseded by a racial immigration liberalization in the otherwise-illiberal McCarran-Walter Act of 1952. While the 1947 Act may have affected or superseded the Magnuson Act, it was probably more directed (as was the Magnuson Act) to repealing the Asian Exclusion Act incorporated within the Immigration Act of 1924. See, for example, these semi-random Google hits: "Out of an obscure place": Japanese War Brides and Cultural Pluralism in the 1950s and About the JACL. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! You guys are awesome, and I'm sorry that I forgot I had asked this. Now there's an interesting thing here; I was looking this up because the book War Brides (Shukert and Scibetta) claims that the phrase "irrespective of race" is in this law. While the intent is certainly the same, I'm wondering why they (evidently from another source) are claiming that this phrase is in the law. But you guys don't need to answer that. 174.20.56.210 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

albert henry prime minister of cook islands 1965

Albert henry governed the cook islands 1965 and died 1981 looking for photos of him and his family brothers and sisters and his history before he returned to the cook islands if he was in sydney or new zealand did he have a relationship with a therese bower from new zealand aged 19 at the time. who were the cheifs before 1964 and kings and photos of them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielle fenner (talk • contribs) 09:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not start here, Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and here, Albert Henry? See also Cook Islands, History of the Cook Islands and Politics of the Cook Islands. [My personal knowledge is limited to their rule by New Zealand and their nifty postage stamps I once collected showing maps and portraits of Captain Cook.] —— Shakescene (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also see if I could find anything in the archives of the New Zealand Herald. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Farrell (Lord Mayor of Dublin)

Did someone know informations about this Lord Mayor of Dublin? Or are there any sources about him? I didn't find anything about him in the internet, beside his term as Lord Mayor. --89.12.136.94 (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I Googled "John J. Farrell Dublin" and didn't see much, either. However his heart seems to have been in the right place (if that's not inserting a personal opinion or starting an inappropriate debate on a matter of current public controversy), since the one thing I found apart from his term in office was a two-sentence story from The New York Times of May 13, 1911 (datelined London, May 12), reporting that he and members of the Dublin Corporation appeared in full municipal regalia before the House of Commons in Westminster to present a petition in favour of women's suffrage. It adds that "the ceremony was attended with picturesque details." DUBLIN FOR WOMAN SUFFRAGE; Lord Mayor Presents Petition to Commons Urging Enactment of a Bill. leads to a short, free PDF. Perhaps a parallel search of The Times, The Irish Times or Hansard for May 1911 might yield more. In 1939, I see, Dublin got her first female Lord Mayor. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are highways named after police officers who died in the line of duty?

Do they name the highways to honor the police officer who died in the line of duty? WJetChao (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In New England and I presume other parts of the U.S., highways or intersections are often named after soldiers, sailors, Marines and aviators who died in the line of duty. That's apart from numerous veterans' parkways, and roads named after the Grand Army of the Republic or the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Other roads have been named after public officials (such as the Kennedys) and artists (e.g. George M. Cohan Boulevard in Providence, Rhode Island). That doesn't mean, of course, that other highways, roads or squares might not be named after a fallen police officer or firefighter. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local roads are often named for locally important figures of ALL types. I have frequently, in many parts of the country, seen highways or segments thereof dedicated to police officers, possibly those which have died in the line of duty. It is uncommon for these names to become the primary name of the road; but act as more of a memorial to the person so honored. It isn't only fallen officers so honored, but given that highway patrol officers are highly visible on the highways, it makes sense that many of them, when killed in the line of duty, recieve such an honor. --Jayron32 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold - Gay couple?

Our article says homophobic remarks were directed at Klebold and Harris. Last night, I watched a documetary on NatGeo, and they said there were rumours about their relationship and sexual orientation. My question is, is there any evidence about their sexualities?. Thank you and forgive me If I've committed any spelling mistake. I am from a non-English speaking country. --190.50.92.48 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing more than rumors. It's high school, people always make such rumors about anyone they don't like, so I wouldn't put much stock in it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]