Humanities desk
< October 19	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 21 >

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.

October 20

Law question: If gay soldiers come out now, is their fate simply a question of whether or not the injunction is overturned on appeal?

According to both the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network as well as guidance from the Pentagon's Personnel and Readiness Office, new recruits are being warned not to admit to being gay, because if the injunction is overturned on appeal, they could be discharged.

Is it that simple, or are there other possible outcomes? For example, is the appellate judge permitted to write an opinion which vacates the injunction EXCEPT with respect to evidence of homosexuality acquired during/in reliance on the injunction? What legal arguments might the attorneys for the Log Cabin Republicans make to induce such a judgment? (e.g. is there a doctrine regarding reliance on injunctions?)

If so, is there any possibility that the availability of this sort of outcome might be signaled before the entire appeal runs its course?

Note that I have carefully rephrased this question to avoid soliciting any legal advice. To be clear, I do not want an answer that provides legal advice. Thanks. 128.59.180.164 (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without answering all of the questions you have raised, I think that it is safe to say that their fate could hinge on whether the injunction is overturned on appeal. There is always the possibility that the government would suspend prosecutions even if the injunction is overturned, but this government does not seem to have much concern for gay soldiers. Marco polo (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The appeals court will look to the lower court's ruling and reverse if it finds error. The appeals court will rule as to the scope of its opinion. It may or may not apply to those who relied upon the previous ruling. There is no precedent for someone to rely upon a lower court ruling and continue to enjoy the lower court's ruling indefinitely even if that court is later found to have erred. An example of an appellate court limiting the scope of an injunction is California granting legitimacy to gay marriages before that institution was eliminated by the state's constitutional amendment. The appeals court ruled that marriages enacted prior to the amendment were still valid, although it could have ruled that they were not. The arguments are not exactly clear in the military's case because the law does not fully delineate the status vs. conduct argument. The military has a long standing tradition of prohibiting certain kinds of conduct such as adultery, which can result in discipline and a discharge. The court could decide to permit service members who identify with the "status" of gay to continue to serve while upholding the prohibition on homosexual conduct. Most likely this will not occur, the court would group status and conduct together, and the ruling would apply to those service members who entered the military while relying on the judgment. Indeed, the Pentagon will most likely force the court to address this issue by the questions it raises on appeal and the Pentagon would most likely not ask the court to create a new legal status. Gx872op (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, it isn't the Pentagon that would appeal the ruling but the U.S. Department of Justice. Marco polo (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(The reason for this, in case people are confused, is that the DOD did not make the law, Congress did. The DOJ generally tries to enforce laws created by Congress, even if the then-current administration is not fond of them.) --Mr.98 (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DOJ does not always appeal court orders striking down laws and is not required to do so. That Obama's DOJ has chosen to appeal is consistent with his administration's failure to repeal the law despite a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and public opinion polls favoring repeal. It is also consistent with the Obama administration's record of sympathetic rhetoric on gay issues coupled with homophobic actions. See this argument. Marco polo (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to start an OT debate, all the examples, given appear to be when the administration felt the law in question was unconstitutional. I may be mistaken, but I don't think the Obama administration has ever said they felt the law was unconstitutional, just that they (strongly?) didn't agree with it. Defending a law that you feel is unconstitutional does seem odd since you are defending something you consider inherently undefendable. But defending a law you don't agree with not necessarily, in fact it may seem the necessary thing to do if the court has said the law is unconstitutional (since in that case, you're fundamentally disagree with the courts decision, even if not with the outcome) particularly since given this is the US it could have far reaching precedents you may not want. The other stuff the DOJ may have done doesn't seem germane to the discussion. P.S. Although I understand why some people are rather angry at all this and may not even agree with the Obama's view on the constitution. Nil Einne (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your answers. FYI, the ninth circuit just decided, I think, that the permanent injunction should be preliminarily suspended until it has more time to decide whether to keep it in place for the duration of the appeal. That's a mouthful! 128.59.181.223 (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.A. Commonwealth of Nations

Why is U.S.A. not part of the Commonwealth of Nations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.234 (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Commonwealth was founded long after the U.S. had declared independence from the U.K. Commonwealth countries tend to include those that either never really declared independence from the U.K. (like Canada) or that split in an amicable manner (like India). Places like Ireland and Israel that left on less-friendly terms are not part of the organization. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada did, in a manner of speaking. See Patriation. Aaronite (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dont think Israel was ever part of the United Kingdom or Empire. MilborneOne (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Mandate Palestine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that but Mandate Palestine is not the same as Israel. MilborneOne (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting hairs there. The point is, the land that now comprises Israel was run by the British before 1948. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Great Britain had been willing to grant the equivalent of 1931 Dominion status to the colonies ca. 1770, there might not have been an American revolution... AnonMoos (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, if there had not been a successful American Revolution, there might not have been a 1931 Dominion Act. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer to your question, but worth reading - Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria. DuncanHill (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Commonwealth was founded after the United States had declared independence from the British Empire primarily as a way for parts of the empire to retain an association with the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom retains a position of leadership in the organization. Since declaring independence, the United States has had an independent political culture that would forbid even the appearance of deference to the United Kingdom. (The US might have come to the assistance of the UK in the World Wars, but on its own terms.) Marco polo (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, Mozambique is a member, though never having been a British colony, but all of its neighbors are members, so it may have thought it worthwhile to join because of that. 216.93.213.191 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Succinctly, because the USA has never applied to join the Commonwealth of Nations. Googlemeister (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, in my very-incomplete understanding of the Statute of Westminster 1931, the Commonwealth (as opposed to the Empire) included the UK and the self-governing British Dominions, which were considered to include both British India and the Irish Free State. When Ireland (after a change of government) declared herself a republic in 1949, and thus no longer even nominally a dominion of King George VI, she thereby withdrew from the Commonwealth. The Union of India and Dominion of Pakistan had achieved independence in 1947 as dominions whose head of state was King George, but when India became a republic with her own President in 1950, the rules changed to allow her to stay within the Commonwealth. Nothing constitutional prevents the US or the Irish Republic from applying to join the Commonwealth (in fact Irish premier Bertie Ahern, following the example of his predecessor Eamon de Valera, once mooted this as one way to reassure loyal Ulster Unionists, but received very little support). But the political and practical difficulties have always been large. In the early 20th century, American rivalry with the then-still-powerful British Empire, plus pronounced Anglophobia among certain communities (e.g. Irish-Americans whose ancestors had suffered in the Potato Famine) matched British fear and envy of growing American dominance. Later in the century, the British Empire and Commonwealth was seen in Britain as a counterweight to the Pax Americana, as an affirmation of a distinct and worthy British identity, and as an alliance of nations sharing common British-originated ideals. Letting in the Yanks would have been seen as defeating some of the Commonwealth's chief purposes (like letting the USSR or Franco's Spain into the Council of Europe). —— Shakescene (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not noticed any clamor on the American side to be allowed in :-) --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civilizations for which we don't know their name for themselves

What civilizations were there that we don't know what they called themselves? I know Cahokia and the Olmec civilization, but what others? Preferably ones that had significant-sized cities and were predominant at least regionally.

Since this is for a story set in the 19th century, civilizations whose names for themselves we now know, but didn't in c. 1855, would also be useful.

Civilizations from Eurasia would be more useful in this context, I think.

128.194.250.58 (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We know so little about the Minoan civilization, and their writing systems (Linear A, Linear B, Cretan hieroglyphs) are so imperfectly understood, that I don't think we know what (if anything) they called themselves. I don't believe things are much better for the Indus Valley Civilization: the Indus script is similarly inaccessible. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Linear B has been extensively deciphered, and some have speculated that the Minoans called themselves something similar to "Keftiu"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick alert! Linear B was not used by the (non-Greek, non Indo-European speaking) Minoans, but by their invasive successors the Mycenaean Greeks who adapted Linear A into Linear B in order to write their form of early Greek. The Greeks seem generally to have referred to the Minoans (or their descendants) as Eteocretans ("true Cretans") and under the broader term Pelasgians. "Keftiu" was used by the Egyptians (and similar names used by related peoples) to refer to a people and/or locale which might have been Minoan Crete but might also have been someone/where different. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minoans, Indus Valley: OK, that's a big help. Thanks. 128.194.250.89 (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many civilisations did not have names for themselves, other than perhaps a word like "ourselves" in their own language. Categorising themselves as a "civilisation" would not have occurred to them at the time, as they had no need to communicate outside their own group. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there was no word for "Phoenicia" or "Phoenician" in the Phoenician language; the Phoenicians referred to themselves by the names of their individual cities, or as "Canaanites" (a very vague and general term which also applied to many surrounding peoples). AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most civilizations in Eurasia left some kind of written record, usually including the terms they used to describe themselves. In fact, one of usual the criteria for "civilization" is a writing system, though you have described the Cahokia culture as a civilization even though it was preliterate. In that case, your list could include any of the preliterate precursors of later Eurasian civilizations, such as the Erlitou culture, or other preliterate cultures such as the La Tène culture. Like the Phoenicians, these people may not have had a shared identity but may have identified instead with a city-state or tribe. Other possibilities include the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex or the Kingdom of Funan. Marco polo (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably a culture rather than a civilisation, but Celt (from Greek Κελτοί) was a term originally applied to that ethno-linguistic group by the Greeks (and subsequently adapted by the Romans, etc), not their own word: the Celts of the Classical Period seem not to have acknowledged a unifying "Celtic" identity, which seems to have been adopted only in modern times (though presumably Greek and/or Latin-speaking Classical-era Celts would have become aware of the concept). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the cultures in Category:Historical ethnic groups of Europe may meet your standard for not knowing what the civilization called itself. For a story set in the 19th century, perhaps the "Bushmen" -- back then, it was not widely understood that they were actually a couple different linguistic groups, and that they really didn't like being called Bushmen. --M @r ē ino 15:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hittites fall under this, more or less. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do know what the Hittites called themselves. It was something like Nešum. See Hittite language. Marco polo (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.

As Ghmyrtle said, many civilizations' words for themselves was just the word "ourselves" in the local language. This is still true today; the name of the territory Nunavut means "our land" in the Inuktitut language, so the demonym Nunavummiut (singular Nunavummiuq) just means "people of our land". —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catal Huyuk and Kurgan culture might also be of interest. Steewi (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17th or 18th century statesman quote

I was reading an anonymous Danish political pamphlet from 1771, in which it was stated (my translation): "I would say, like a well-known wise statesman, every government that has stood unchanged for 50 years needs a reformation, on account of abuses and mistakes that has appeared over the years, a reformation which will almost be like a new form of government." I am quite sure this must be a non-Danish statesman that would be well-known and liked by enlightenment reformers. I am thinking Frederick the Great, or perhaps some of the French cardinals or statesmen, but I am drawing a blank in my search. Does this claim about the reformation every 50 years, ring a bell with anyone? -.Saddhiyama (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson said some similar things, but I don't remember him mentioning fifty years, and 1771 is probably too early for him to be known in Denmark... AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1771 was too early for him to be known almost anywhere. —Kevin Myers 02:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did get momentary associations to the "blood of tyrants watering the Tree of Liberty"-sentence, although I am quite sure the author of the statement I quoted had much more peaceful change-from-above intentions. And yes, even though there was a great interest and sympathy for the cause of the North American independence movement in Denmark, I don't think Jefferson would have qualified yet, as a well-known statesman which an author in Denmark could expect his readers to know about. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the date, and his use of anonymous pamphlets for self-promotion, are you sure that this isn't a reference to Johann Friedrich Struensee? Marco polo (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for not having made that clear in my question, but the pamphlet was written precisely in defence of Struensees reform, and the quote is used as part of that defence. Thus, it is unlikely it would be a quote from Struensee himself, especially as that would not be worth much to his enemies. I am thinking it must be some well known and respected European statesman, one that would carry authority to defend even the reforms of a disliked "usurper" (in the eyes of his enemies) like Struensee. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something Voltaire would have said, but I can't find anything like that specifically. He would fit the date but I suppose he's not really a "statesman". Adam Bishop (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voltaire (or Hume) via Struensee, maybe. Does this fit? I assume you've jstor access. If not, let me know by posting here. I'll give you what I can. Haploidavey (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the suggestions, please keep them coming. But I do think in this case the "statesman" part should be taken literally, and that it must have referred to a real statesman, but of course someone literary who wrote about politics and was known throughout Europe. Thanks for taking the time with searching out that article, I really appreciate it, although I must confess I am familiar with it (and yes I do have JSTOR access). I am imagining that the quote must be something recognisable to the general homme de lettres of the 18th century, referring to any likely member of the republic of Letters, and would thus, in 1771, not have any specific connection to Struensee, but would be an internationally known figure. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know, but there is an interesting analogy to the Jewish/Christian concept of Jubilee, in which every 50 years all debts were supposed to be forgiven and all slaves freed -- this principle is outlined in the book of Leviticus, and I think was supposed to come from Moses. Looie496 (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee (Biblical) is much older than the Judaeo-Christian tradition - it dates to Sumer. Michael Hudson, a leading scholar on modern and ancient economics is the guy to read. [1][2] [3] [4] etc. Somewhere he favorably compares Sumerian economic understanding to modern. :-)John Z (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, people in 1771 Denmark wouldn't have had the slightest knowledge of Sumeria, while they knew a lot about the Bible. AnonMoos (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couplet des enfants

Is there a site where can I listen to the couplet des enfants of La Marseillaise (vocal). Thanks. PS: I'm only interested in the couplet des enfants, not the rest of the song. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Tube is a good bet. You'll have to suffer through the rest, though.--Wetman (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a great rendering. That song gives me chills, and I'm not even French. But for something completely different, or at least less reverent...[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response Wetman. Unfrotunately that video does not include the couplet des enfants (by which I mean the stanza at the bottom of La_Marseillaise#Text. It ends, as most renditions do, with the sixth stanza (Amour sacré de la Patrie...). I'm looking for somewhere where I can here the seventh (which incidentally was not part of the original song and appended about 3 years later, this is maybe why it is so hard to find). Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the video linked by Wetman includes the first verse, then the seventh (couplet des enfants) then the sixth. The La Marseillaise#Text article says "Only the first verse (and sometimes the sixth and seventh) ... are sung today in France" which the video confirms. Sussexonian (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]