Humanities desk
< June 11	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 13 >

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.

June 12

Baron Hirsh suicide rumors

A New York Times article from May 18, 1896 refutes a rumor that Baron Hirsch committed suicide. Does anyone know where I could find more information about these rumors? Were they ever published anywhere else, not in the form of a refutation? There are obscure references to this rumor in unusual sources, which piqued my curiosity... Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

significant Muslim population in Ontario and Quebec

Besides Toronto and Montreal, is there any other places in Ontario and Quebec that have significant Muslim population? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.161 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "significant"? ... A cluster of 10 Muslim families living in a small town with a total population of 500 would be quite significant in terms of the town... but not that significant in terms of the over all demographics of the Province. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mississauga, if you consider that separate from Toronto. London, Ontario also has a large Muslim population. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, "significant" probably means, enough to sustain the usual services, establishements, etc, associated with a presence of that group of people. An islamic bank woudl be one example. --188.28.52.18 (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Okay, I meant to say is there any place that the most Muslims in the Ontario and Quebec? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.104.148 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at List of mosques in Canada, does that give you any help? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That list is clearly incomplete, as it doesn't list any mosques in Montreal or any other part of Quebec. Hamilton, Ontario seems to have several mosques or Islamic centres. They also exist in Waterloo, Kitchener, Guelph, St. Catharines, Niagara Falls, Ottawa, Windsor, Sarnia, Oshawa, Sudbury, Kingston, Newmarket, and Thunder Bay, in addition to various suburbs of Toronto and the other cities already mentioned. In addition to the Montreal region, there are mosques or Islamic centres in Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières, and Quebec City in Quebec. Marco polo (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can add Gatineau to the list of cities in Quebec, as well as all of Montreal's suburbs (Laval, Longueil, etc). With the level of immigration in Canada, any town in Central Canada with 100,000 people or more will receive a inflow of immigrants, of which a significant proportion are muslim; smaller town tend to attract fewer immigrants, unless there is a job boom. It's a bit different in the Prairies and in the Maritimes, where fewer immigrants tend to settle. --Xuxl (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A sovereign power unilaterally vacating it's sovereignty?

I have an unusual question. Under international law, what are the ramifications of a state unilaterally and de jure (by an act of parliament) abandoning its' jurisdiction over an area of territory?

"Why would a state choose to do such a thing?", you may well ask. Well, this situation most commonly arises when the territory in question contains a pesky minority population seen to threaten the state's demographic balance. The example I have in mind is Umm al-Fahm. It's Israel's second-largest Arab city - and at the edge of Israel's border with the West Bank. Some Israeli politicians have suggested re-drawing Israel's borders so as to exclude it. The residents of Umm al-Fahm have overwhelmingly rejected such a proposal, some calling it "racist". But my question is not about morality - it's about international law.

Obviously, if the residents of the city agreed to seccede or become part of a future Palestine, this would be quite legal. But what if they don't? May a state unilaterally vacate its jurisdiction over a part of its sovereign territory, and its' citizens living there? And what are the ramifications under international law of such a step? Has the issue ever been canvassed in other cases? Eliyohub (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, every state has a responsibility to its citizens unless there's a clear and agreed secession. Recently a member of the British government suggested that if there were to be a referendum on Scottish independence in Scotland, and another one in the rest of Britain, the Scots would vote to stay and the rest of us would vote to boot them out. But that would obviously raise some huge human rights issues etc. if it turned out to be true! ╟─Treasury Tag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 19:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While that is a noble idea, really a state has the power to do what it wants, despite the will of the people. ^Avic _ennasis @ 20:13, 10 Sivan 5771 / 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Other countries can take action against them, though. --Tango (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Terra nullius may be a good read for this. ^Avic _ennasis @ 20:13, 10 Sivan 5771 / 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not strictly about territory, but rules about stateless persons would be relevant. For example, Israel has signed (although not ratified) the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness which includes a provision about not taking away someone's citizenship if that would leave them stateless. If Israel tried to remove the citizenship of residents of Umm al-Fahm, there would probably be widespread condemnation from other countries. If they renounce sovereignty over the city while keeping the residents as citizens, then they would need to provide protection to those residents or give them a chance to re-locate or something. Not doing so would result in the same condemnation as taking away their citizenship. --Tango (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the Scottish example, Scotland already has its own government, laws &c and a functional economy so I doubt there would be substantial "human rights" objections (the ECHR doesn't actually focus on nationality and statehood much, although one of the protocols could be interesting).

In the Israeli example, I'm puzzled why the government of Israel would invest so much effort in controlling arab-populated areas only to decide that having lots of arabs around is demographically unpalatable. Setting that city adrift could set some rather unfortunate precedents for Israel.

Usually it's the other way round; a part of a country wishes to secede but the "national" government doesn't want to let go. bobrayner (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to providing "protection" for its citizens, how can one do so after one no longer rules or controls the area? Would it be sufficient for Israel to ensure an orderly transfer of security responsibilities (either to a local force, or U.N. peacekeepers)?

As to statelessness, Israel's rsponse would no doubt be to say "the city's residents have the option of declaring statehood (i.e. become a city state with the residents as its citizens)". If they refuse to do so, their statelessness is self-imposed". Would this argument hold any water? Eliyohub (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank in 1988. At the time, the West Bank had been under Israeli control for 19 years, but I don't know what it meant for the citizenship of the Palestinians living there from then until the formation of the Palestinian Authority. Egypt renounced its claims to the Gaza Strip in 1979. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but something a bit like this happened in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Belavezha Accords signed by Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus (but not the other SSRs) dissolved the union before the republics officially seceeded in the Alma-Ata Protocol two weeks later. So during those two weeks, the republics were vacated by the union without having declared themselves independent. (Though this was more or less a technicality- it was already clear that they would become independent.) Staecker (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the return of Macau and Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty might be other cases. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sealand might be an example. 92.24.183.103 (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spain's abandonment of the Spanish Sahara might be a good example. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(from the OP) The situation I'm describing - isn't that exactly what happened with Singapore? Unilaterally expelled from of the Malaysian federation? (for the same exact reason - it contained an inconvenient ethnic minority). Was there any discussion at the time re the legality of Malaysia's move in disowning its' territory and citizens? Eliyohub (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Novels about Canadian inuit

Can anyone name any novels about Canadian Inuit that are by Canadian Inuit authors? Or can anyone name any novels about Natives in Alaska? I don't want children's' books. Young adult or Teen novel and Memoirs or autobiographies are fine. Neptunekh2 (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make Prayers to the Raven is an ethnography on the Koyukon in Alaska, and a very facscinating read (if you are interested in the academic side of things). I can't think of the author and I don't have the book at this location, unfortunately. Falconus^{p t c} 05:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: if you look at the article on the Koyukon that I linked to, you will find that Make Prayers to the Raven is cited as a source, and the author is Richard Nelson. Also mentioned in the article is a Koyukon author, but I am not familiar with her or any of her works. Falconus^{p t c} 05:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't this question been asked recently? Twice, possibly? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, in fact it was asked twice in April, here and here. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone name of any notable LGBT Inuit or Native Alaskan people?

Can anyone name of any notable LGBT Inuit or Native Alaskan people? Neptunekh2 (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looked for a list and couldn't find it. Check out this interesting origin myth though. There is also a wee list here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT is a bizarre recent Western social construct, not a universal human category. There are plenty of stories of transgender issues in Shamanism and among Native Siberians and Native Americans. See, for instance, berdache. Don't limit yourself to the categories "gay" and "lesbian" when researching this. Search google books and google scholar using the terms homosexual and transvestite in order to find a wider and deeper perspective not necessarily governed by political concerns. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the princesses of Japan

In the article Emperor of Japan, there a lot of information about the marriage of emperors and crown princes, and about which brides were considered to be suitable for them to marry, but I can find no information about the Imperial princesses (nor about the younger princes not being heirs to the throne either, but that is a different matter), and I am curious to find that out. Which status did the Japanese princesses have? did they have any role to play in the court? Where they secluded, or allowed to meet men? Did they marry, or where they expected not to? If they did, which partners where considered suitable for them? Only relatives? Did they keep their status as royals after marriage to a non-royal man? Perhaps it is different depending on which time period: I am very curious about the early modern age. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Imperial House of Japan, Imperial Household Law, and this. Oda Mari (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but this seem to be information of the current situation; my question was rather about the princesses before 1867. --Aciram (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The case of Princess Kazu is interesting in this regard. Normally, imperial princesses were married to high members of the kuge (or aristocratic) class. Apparently, however, they were occasionally married to a shogun. Marco polo (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will reed the article. It sounds logicall that they where married to kuge. But did they keep their royal status after marriage? Did they have a place in court ceremonies? Did they live secluded? --Aciram (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike today, it seems that they could keep their royal status after marriage before Meiji period. I found a ja article. The machine translation is here. Princesses in Japan are categorized in three types. Sisters, daughters, daughters-in-low and granddaughters of the Emperor are called naishin'nō (translation), wives of the Emperor's sons, brothers, uncles, and male cousins are called Shin'nōhi (translation), nieces of the emperor, there are none at the present though, and daughters of the Emperor's male cousins and uncles are called jo'ō (translation). Oda Mari (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]