Humanities desk
< October 26	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 28 >

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 27

Secession from the union

Excuse me for asking a question that has no doubt been extensively chewed over. If a state wishes to succeed from the United States, petitions congress for permission, AND congress is amenable to granting this wish(!) what exactly is needed? Can an act of congress alone authorize a succession? Or is there a need for a constitutional amendment to allow permitting successions? (No, such a thing is NOT "impossible", the civil war notwithstanding). 58.111.224.157 (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean secession, not succession. Quest09 (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated. See Texas v. White.

Basically the supreme court ruled (Based on the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation) that secession is not legally possible "except through revolution or through consent of the States.". But as far as I know the procedure for that "consent" isn't really specified anywhere, but clearly it would take more than just the consent of the congress. Perhaps it would take a form similar to the procedure for admitting new states? APL (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still secession, not succession. Huge difference. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Fixed. But I liked it better my way. APL (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said that. I don't understand how people do not secede to understand the difference. Quest09 (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "still". Language change is a real phenomenon, but the meaning of the word "succession" did not change between 8:09 and 8:20 today. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Secession is fine, but succussion from the Union can't be beaten. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing succudes like succuss. But wait, why are we all talking like Kiwis all of a sudden? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

APL, the procedure for admitting new states is by Act of Congress, as specified in the Constitution. Which means, as with any other piece of legislation, both houses have to agree on a bill, and the President then signs it into law. But the Constitution says nothing about letting a state go out of the Union, so there's no specified mechanism for that; no doubt the lawyers (to say nothing of the politicians and the journalists) would have a field day if there were ever a serious drive to get Congress to pass such a bill. And even if it got enacted, the matter would surely end up in the lap of the Supreme Court, and they might say that's a no-go. But it's never been done by Congress or the courts, only briefly by force of arms, so who knows? PS - Some people are still prepared to argue that there was no legal basis for America's successful, if treasonous, secession from the British Empire. Textorus (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under those criteria, there's no end to the infinite regression back to the first proper state, and indeed back to the first organized tribe of humans. At some point, reality must be considered when compared against purely intellectual exercises such as this. --Jayron32 15:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, since the legal basis for the English colonists' earlier expropriation of Native American lands, often at musket-point, is even more questionable. Marco polo (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw that article, I was very surprised to hear that anyone argued that it was legal. Americans at the time were subject to British law and I think it is pretty obvious that fighting the British authorities is against British law. A new state being created in a way that was within the law of the predecessor state has never been a requirement for recognising a new country, and nor should it be. That doesn't make it legal, though. --Tango (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The European colonists mostly justified the taking of Native American land using one or another aspect of international law (as it had evolved in Europe anyway), at least after the earliest foothold planting stages. Of course it was never hard to find casus belli, fight and win a war, then claim territory by right of conquest. Nice and legal, right? Pfly (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Textorus. Oh, you're right. I think I was thinking of the procedure for ratifying constitutional amendments, not new states. APL (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, admitting new states is much easier than amending the Constitution. Procedurally, that is. Textorus (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution could certainly do it, if the State legislature consented to be "deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Dualus (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that various treaties establishing the Canada - United States border (such as Webster–Ashburton Treaty) have involved the cession of land which, at least from the U.S. perspective, was U.S. territory. (most comically, the Pig War, named after its sole casualty!) So it seems like the U.S. can give up territory, at least, without special constitutional actions. There's also a long List of U.S. state partition proposals in which states have been split up. Combining these two things, it seems altogether plausible that nothing beyond an ordinary vote is required for secession - maybe the standards for ratifying a treaty apply. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Witikind

I would like to know some things on Witikind. I have tried your site many times but all I have found is Widukind. Please help meLynae8475 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Witikind" and "Widukind" are different ways of spelling the same name (along with various other ways, like "Wittekind". Which one are you looking for? Widukind, the enemy of Charlemagne? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican secession

As the US integrated parts of Mexican territory, what happened to the population living there? Did they have to go to Mexican? Did they become American citizens? Did the US try to move as much population as possible into the new territories? Quest09 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which explains in several places what happened to the Mexicans living in the territories. It appears they were granted American citizenship, and were nominally guaranteed property rights, but their property rights were later compromised. The number of actual "Mexican nationals" quoted by the article so affected is listed at about 3000 people, which seems quite low; it likely doesn't include Native Americans living in the area. Most of the territory was lightly populated; I think the only sizable settlement in the area was San Francisco whose population was under 1000 at annexation and whose population was very multinational, even then. --Jayron32 17:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, another near-miss on spelling. What you mean is the Mexican Cession. You're talking about a relatively sparse population dotted across a vast territory, which was already a mix of races, ethnicities, and nationalities, so the answers to your questions are not easily summed up in a few words. But I'll start the ball rolling by saying, No they did not have to go to what was left of Mexico, Yes they became American citizens when the territory was transferred, and there was no particular rush by the U.S. Government to "move as much population as possible into the new territories," not in the way you seem to be thinking. Americans - if you mean by that non-Hispanic whites - had already been trickling into Mexican territories for decades. Indeed, Spain, and later Mexico, deliberately encouraged such Americans to come colonize Texas long before the Mexican War. See Mexican Texas. Textorus (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were certainly more than 3,000 people of Mexican origin in the Mexican Cession when it passed to the United States. Most of these were in what is now New Mexico, where their descendants to this day make up nearly half of that state's population. In 1850, when the first census was taken in New Mexico Territory, its population was 61,547 per the U.S. Census, a large majority of which was Mexican in origin. This area included the present-day states of both Arizona and New Mexico. In the present-day area of New Mexico alone, according to a source cited in History of New Mexico, the Spanish population in 1842 had been almost 50,000. California was not as heavily populated under Mexican rule, and, as others have said, part of its population was already of Anglo origin before 1848. Still, according to this source, the Spanish or Mexican population of California in the 1840s was almost 12,000. So, there were certainly at least 60,000 Mexican nationals in the Mexican Cession when it passed to the United States. I will edit our article accordingly. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gives a scholarly source for a figure of 80,000 Mexicans. Also, as far as their citizenship, Article VIII of the treaty says that Mexicans in the ceded territory have a year to move back to Mexico, or if they remain, "shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States." Textorus (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the article was internally inconsistent before my edit. Note, however, that the figure of 80,000 includes Texas, which is not normally considered part of the Mexican Cession. Marco polo (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question. The Mexican Texas article quotes a scholarly source for 30,000 Americans and only 7,800 Mexicans in the province of Texas in 1834. The Republic of Texas article infobox gives an unsourced figure of 70,000 total population for the Republic, no year specified. I don't have the inclination to dig further, but the Handbook of Texas might have more figures if anyone's itching to do the math. Textorus (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so hard to get from 7,800 Mexicans in Texas in 1834 to maybe 15,000 Mexicans in 1850 (80,000 in Texas and the Mexican Cession minus about 65,000 in the Mexican Cession proper) given birth rates at that time. Marco polo (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. Textorus (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Textorus, there was a bit of a rush to move people into the territories owing to the desire of both the North and the South to pile as many people sympathetic to their side of the "slavery question" to encourage said territory to become a Free or Slave state when statehood would come about. It was a HUGELY contentious issue, and there was several years of jockeying during the 1840s-1850s on how to deal with it. See Wilmot Proviso and Compromise of 1850 for some background. --Jayron32 20:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the slavery question was indeed hugely contentious - to put it mildly. In Bleeding Kansas, lots of pro-slavery settlers from Missouri flocked to establish "squatter sovereignty," all in hopes of preserving the free/slave balance in the U.S. Senate. So you're quite right that in some places there may have been a move on by individuals and groups to settle new territories - but it was tied in with the never-ending slavery issue, which was self-limiting: I know that in Texas, for example, the cotton-producing lands where slavery was economically practical ended just east of San Antonio. Further west, it's too arid for those kinds of crops, so no rush of Southerners, at least, to populate the empty, wide-open Southwest just for the hell of it. And the OP's question implied that the federal government might have tried to stimulate settlement of the Mexican Cession as a deliberate policy, but I've never heard of any such policy. I think instead that the feds had their hands full trying to avert the looming sectional rift in the country, and assumed that the natural westward movement of the population would take care of populating the Southwest in due time. Them's my thoughts on it, anyway, without digging any further into sources. Textorus (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The history of New Mexico's incorporation into the US is a bit unusual. It was made New Mexico Territory in 1850, at which time the population was over 60,000, with former-Mexican-now-US citizens being the vast majority. There was a spectrum of peoples between Mexicans of Spanish heritage and Native Americans, with unusual and often mixed heritage groups like the Puebloan peoples and the Comancheros. I'm not quite sure how the US decided which people would automatically become US citizens and which would not (Native Americans were not fully granted citizenship until 1924). In any case, the territorial population required for statehood was 60,000, I think. New Mexico's efforts to gain statehood were rejected by Congress for over 60 years, until 1912. I think this is the longest period between territory and state status for any state. In comparison, Nevada Territory was formed in 1861 and statehood was granted in 1864. The population in 1864 was less than 40,000, but Congress let that pass. So why did it take so long for New Mexico to gain statehood? The slavery issue was part of it, sure, but not after the 1860s. Basically, it wasn't until the 20th century that "Anglo" American citizens outnumbered "Hispanic" citizens in New Mexico Territory. It is a telling example of how the Mexicans incorporated into the US after the Mexican War were, despite being given citizenship, not really considered truly "American". Pfly (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I should say the history is more complex than I just put it. And New Mexico's Anglo population didn't match the Hispanic population until the 1930s. Also, statehood wasn't blocked by Congress so much as by political conflict between Anglos and Hispanos within New Mexico. The first attempt to become a state was not until 1890, and when put to a vote in New Mexico was soundly rejected by both Anglos and Hispanos. The history is complicated, but I think it is safe to say the long gap between territorial and state status was mostly due to the large Hispanic population and Anglo distrust of them (and vice versa), and the commonly held opinion that the Hispanics were "un-American" in various ways. Anyway, I'm not sure our Wikipedia pages say much about this. I got this info mostly from Meinig, Donald W. (1971). Southwest: Three Peoples in Geographical Change, 1600-1970. Oxford University Press. Pfly (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's New Mexico wasn't all that strategically important, excepting as a place to put a railroad through. The important bit of the Mexican Cession was always California; it was what the U.S. wanted; even before the discovery of Gold and Silver in the Cession lands on either side of the Sierra Nevadas. California had farmland, and more importantly, some really good cites for ports (San Francisco especially). While the discovery of Gold certainly sweetened the pot in terms of attractiveness, California was always the goal of the U.S. New Mexico was sort of the bit of wasteland that they had to take as part of the package. It may be unfair to the New Mexicans, but that's really how it was treated historically. --Jayron32 00:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald W. Meinig has written some well-known books on the politics/economics of different groups within New Mexico / Texas during the history of the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In one of his Shaping of America books there's an interesting section on the debate within the US, during the peace treaty process at the end of the Mexican War, about how large the Mexican Cession shoule be. There were many proposals, some of which would have taken way more territory. It's true that New Mexico was not high on the list of US demands (the port of San Diego was way more important), but the Mexicans of New Mexico were not all that keen about remaining part of Mexico. As a remote territory of low population density (relative to the Valley of Mexico), they felt alienated from the central government to the to the point of nearly declaring independence. At the same time they did not want to be absorbed into the US. But New Mexico was too small to hope for a future existence separate from both Mexico and the US. Anyway, yes, California was the real prize for the US, but the history of New Mexico in all this is interesting and complicated. Pfly (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. As a Texan, I've never paid much attention to New Mexico history. I would have thought that the long delay of statehood was due to low population; but how interesting to hear that both Anglos and Hispanics opposed it in 1890. I wonder if there were economic reasons at work also. Textorus (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were economic differences between New Mexico's Anglo and Hispanic peoples of the time, but it seems the main impasse was each side fearing domination by the other. Here's a passage from that Meinig book I cited above, context being the late 19th century: "In general. the Anglos of the southern counties [of NM] opposed statehood out of fear of domination by the Hispanos of the north, whereas the latter were fearful that merger into the federal body would only accentuate their minority position within the nation and bring about even heavier pressures upon their institutions." And on the 1890 statehood bid: "[soundly defeated by both]: by the Hispanos of the north, led by the local Catholic church which saw its parochial school system threatened, and by the Democrats of the south [the northern Hispanos were largely Republican] who did not wish to be an Anglo minority under the domination of Santa Fe. The national Congress...was reluctant to admit New Mexico simply because its dominant Spanish-speaking Roman Catholic population seemed 'un-American'." Another bit apparently not described on Wikipedia: There was an attempt to separate the southern part of New Mexico Territory, which had an Anglo majority, as the Territory of Sierra, which would perhaps merge with part of Arizona Territory. I thought we might have a page about this aborted Sierra Territory, but it seems we don't. Pfly (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting indeed, thanks for the quotes. There's always been something for people to quarrel over, hasn't there? Textorus (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Fiction Writers

If you know some notable English-speaking authors in the mystic fiction genre, I'll be thankful to have your suggestions. --Omidinist (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "mystic fiction"? Do you mean Magic realism? --Jayron32 16:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little Googling reveals that "mystic fiction" is an obscure term that was invented in early 2010, and apparently means a type of romance novel that is set in a fantasy world. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mysticism, theosophy, in fiction is what I mean. It may include magic realism. --Omidinist (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think of some of Robert Anton Wilson's writing as mystic fiction, as it apparently borrows heavily from Freemasonry. Wnt (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a relief. Arthur Machen? Card Zero (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea whether they fit your personal definition, but George MacDonald and Charles Williams are well-known earlier authors whose works sometimes contained prominent mystical themes... AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, two who are obscure now, but somewhat well-known in their day, are Marie Corelli and Dion Fortune... AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identify a movie?

Hello. Can you help me identify a movie? I saw it at the IFC theatre in lower Manhattan maybe 3 christmases ago. I believe it was set outside of Prague, and had at its center a police man who was assigned to collect evidence of small time drug dealing by a few students. He didn't really want to do the job, and complained that probably the drug laws would change anyway soon. It ended with the police chief giving him an argument from a dictionary where he looked up "police" and "duty" and things like that. Do you know the title? 134.74.82.71 (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Police, Adjective. See the New York Times review. Deor (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, Romanian. That's it, thanks so much. 198.105.46.54 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advantage of being a woman artist

From a list of reasons:

"Working without the pressure of success" "Having the opportunity to choose between a career and motherhood"

And what does this reason mean:

"Getting your picture in the art magazines wearing a gorilla suit."? Quest09 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I think we'd have to see the picture to explain that one fully. Where did you find this list, in The Onion?Textorus (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no picture. Just a list of reasons. ~~It's not from a known source,~~ I got this from a girlfriend's private newsletter. Quest09 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solved. It's from the Guerrilla Girls, as I just discovered. They are known for wearing gorilla masks. Quest09 (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to read some of their writings once, but they just went on and on. It was a guerilla megillah. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Texas and Mexico during the Texas Revolution

What was the population of Texas and what was the population of Mexico during the Texas Revolution? --Belchman (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The population of Texas in 1835 was only about 35,000 (source); the population of Mexico at the same time was somewhere between 6 and 8 million (source). LANTZY ^TALK 22:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suspected that it was tiny at the time, but this begs the question: how did Texas manage to defeat Mexico with such a tiny population? --Belchman (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read about the Battle of San Jacinto and it should give some insights. It didn't hurt that Santa Anna was captured in the aftermath. Holding the guy who was both the general of the army and the nation's president gave them a significant bargaining chip. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That clears things up a bit. --Belchman (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As said in Texas Revolution: it was 2,000 Texans against 6,500 Mexicans. The whole population is irrelevant, since not all were fighting. It's hardly unbelievable that such war cannot be won, if your side has the better weapons. Quest09 (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, much greater differences in force strength have been overcome before, see Battle of Crécy. --Jayron32 00:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is the Battle of Agincourt, where the superior weaponry and placement of the English forces under Henry V resulted in their victory and the near decimation of the numerically-stronger French troops.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Key signatures

For pieces that don't change key, why aren't they always written in the easiest key for that instrument (e.g. C major/A minor for piano)? Even with pieces that change key, why isn't the piece transposed so that the largest section in in CM/am? --99.23.200.230 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In modern tunings (see equal temperament) all keys are harmonically equivalent; this didn't always used to be so in older tunings. Furthermore, you can write any piece of music in any key at all. It is completely arbitrary. However, you want to write the music in the key that uses the least number of accidentals, to make it easier to read and play. It does no good to write the music in C Major if every third note needs a sharp or a flat after it! --Jayron32 00:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't just change the key signature and add accidentals. What I meant was that if it was in, say, B major, you could raise every note by a semitone and it would still have the same number of accidentals as the original, just with an easier key signature to play. --99.23.200.230 (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each key sounds different, and if every song was played in the same key it would get dull. I wondered this when I was directing my church choir until we played an entire Mass in one key and we were all bored by the end. Since the piano can play every key, and so could the singers (to a certain extent), things would have to be written in different keys to get that variety. After all, when the key is changed (up or down) the singers have to use a different vocal range and that affects the overall sound, even without the key change. Mingmingla (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a lot of popular music since at least the mid-20th century the guitar has been the most important instrument--more than the piano at least. The keys of C and A minor are less easy to play on guitar than keys like D, A, and G. For genres with brass instrument dominance, like much jazz, flat keys like Bb, Eb, and Ab tend to be easier. I would argue that music is indeed frequently written in the "easiest key for that instrument", or at least one of the easier keys for whatever instrument is dominant. Also, I find the key of C less easy to play on piano than keys with one or two sharps or flats. The black piano keys provide a kind of reference point for my fingers. When everything is all white keys I find my fingers get offset a note or two more easily. When sight reading, or at least when looking at the sheet music is more important than looking at my fingers, the black keys are especially useful for providing a "feel" for where my hands are on the keyboard, without having to look away from the sheet music, if that makes sense. That said, I've recently been toying around with the music of Salome--I have a piano reduction of the orchestral score. The work has an overarching "conflict" between the keys of C and C#, with Jochanaan's key being C and Salome's key being C#. When Salome is in control of the music the key sometimes modulates into even sharper keys, like G#. The score is full of double sharps. Trying to play--mostly sight read--that kind of thing on piano is extremely annoying! But there's sense and logic as to why Strauss composed the work this way, and there is a great moment near the end when Salome tries to "become one" with Jochanaan, resulting in a delightfully dissonant clashing of the keys of C and C#. Pfly (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]