Humanities desk
< June 18	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 20 >

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 19

Ambassadors and the like

What exactly is the difference between a Minister Plenipotentiary, a commissioner, consul-commissioner and a consul/consul-general? I am trying to reconstruct a list of foreign representatives/ambassadors in Honolulu during the Kingdom of Hawaii and the various titles are extremely confusing. I know a nation in the 19th century can have a consul in any city within another nation not just the capital to represent the interest of its nation's citizens. Was this the same for commissioners or were they delegated only to capitals of foreign nations? I assume Minister Plenipotentiary were only allowed in capital cities as well, right? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic rank may help, although it is sadly unsourced and needs cleanup. Neutrality^talk 08:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current diplomatic ranks are based on the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, which is of course much more recent than the period to which the OP is referring. In the 19th century, an Ambassador would normally be assigned by a fully sovereign country to another fully sovereign country and be located in the receiving country's capital. A Minister Plenipotentiary has basically the same powers as an ambassador but is of lower rank either because the host or the sending country is not considered fully sovereign, or he reports to an Ambassador who outranks him (resident or non-resident). A Commissioner is someone who has received a commission from the government to represent it in a foreign locale, usually with powers limited to only certain matters (trade commissioner is a common type). A consul can be either a representative in a non-capital city, or someone in a capital who has been given specific powers relative to passports and other travel documents, visas, shipping etc. There can be many consuls in a single embassy, and also vice-consuls, who are of lower rank. A Consul General is a consul who is also head of a diplomatic mission (for example, if it is not located in the capital). Consulates and consuls still exist these days, but Commissioners are no longer in existence - except for High Commissioners who are the exact equivalent of an Ambassador, but between two countries who are members of the Commonwealth. --Xuxl (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does someone who holds the title "Commissioner and Consul-General" fit into this spectrum? So does this mean that countries which sent only "Commissioner and Consul-General" as representatives in a foreign capital instead of Ministers Plenipotentiary viewed the designated country as less than fully sovereign. In Hawaii's case, only the US ever had ministers stationed at Honolulu during the period of the Kingdom and Republic; all other nations had consuls with the exception of Japan, Portugal, Great Britain, France which had "Commissioner and Consul-General" in Honolulu.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact no country had an actual Ambassador seems to point out that Hawaii may not have been considered fully sovereign. I'm no expert on Hawaiian history, but I expect there must have been some sort of protectorate agreement with a great power (the UK perhaps). The Commissioner and Consul-General title point to a holder being the head of the diplomatic mission, but whose functions would be of a more consular nature (looking after the interests of your citizens in Hawaii) and possibly trade, than a more regular diplomatic assignment, in which developing a relationship with the local head of state/government to further strategic interests is the main task. --Xuxl (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was never an official protectorate declared over Hawaii. The lack of full fledged ambassadors is probably the result of European nations not viewing the country important enough to have an ambassador. Where does "Minister Resident" and "Chargé d'Affaires" fits into this diplomatic ranking system? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Chargé d'affaires is anyone who is temporarily given the power to act on behalf of an absent Ambassador. The position is usually filled by the next highest ranking member of the diplomatic staff, but it can be anyone else the Ambassador decides to appoint who is acceptable to the receiving country. The absence of the Ambassador may be because he is on holidays, because he resides in a different country, because he has completed his mission and his successor has not arrived yet, or because the sending country has decided to be represented at a lower level (that happens when relations are strained). The use of "chargé d'affaires" (literally, caretaker of business) implies that the situation is a temporary one. Minister resident is not used nowadays, but was a senior diplomat who was not an Ambassador who was resident in the receiving country (see minister plenipotentiary discussed above). --Xuxl (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Commandment

I know there are many versions to the ten commandments. I'm just using one version from the top of my head.

You shall have no other gods.
I the Lord your God am a jealous God,
punishing children for the iniquity of parents,
to the third or fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love
to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

I don't understand why God will punish people who reject him to the third or fourth generation. If every generation sins, then wouldn't there be an endless loop of divine punishment? How is it possible to predict what future generations will do? What if one whole generation faithfully obeys God but later generations start moving farther and farther away from God, until you get to a situation that is something like the one portrayed in the Noah (2014) film, where people will just kill each other for meat and torture for pleasure? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ten commandments are in the Tanakh/Old Testament, they're not necessarily as universal as some evangelical Christian groups try to present it as. The rejection bit would apply to those who were a part of the Israelite covenant who broke away from it. Everyone else would just have to put God at the top of their idolatrous pantheons to ensure a comfortable afterlife. The idea that God leaves kids alone regardless of their parents behavior is more from the Second Temple period (which was after the Tanakh/Old Testament wrapped up), and still not close to universally accepted until much later.

And given that Biblical law may have been intended to be read allegorically, the meaning was probably not intended to be "do this/that and your kids will be rewarded or punished," but "God is willing to reward 1000 times for every 3 or 4 times He punishes." Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Rashi's commentary of the later-generations punishment/reward thing. Basically, he says it only applies when the children "continue to follow in the path of their parents". If the child rejects their parent's evil ways, he or she will not be punished for them. And the same would apply for reward. 101.160.164.9 (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me those are all just rationalizations, to try to make the multi-generational collective punishments described in the Bible seem more benign. StuRat (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What it boils down to is this: if you believe in The Great Spirit In The Sky, contradictions don't matter.DOR (HK) (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on projectile/exploding fire works in California

In what year did the state of California ban the use of exploding/projectile fireworks (bottle rockets,firecrackers,etc) for personal use without a permit?137.164.249.42 (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I've removed the leading space from your question, so it displays properly)

Did you mean to ask "In what year...? Rojomoke (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there is not a state-wide law, only local (county and municipality) level laws. (See this state doc telling people to comply with local law: [1]) (Although the state regulates fireworks and which kinds are allowed locally depends on the classifications given by the state.) Suggest you google the local jurisdiction you are interested in as well as the term "safe-and-sane". 184.147.134.128 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brunswick Corps in Sicily?

In our Black Brunswickers article, it says that the Brunswick Corps "carried the battle honours "Peninsula-Sicily-Waterloo" until the end of World War I in 1918". The there is no mention of the Brunswickers' involvement in any fighting in Sicily in the article and I'm having trouble finding any reference to Sicily in the Napoleonic Wars; History of Sicily#Bourbon period simply says "The Sicilian nobles welcomed British military intervention during this period". Can anybody shed any light on the matter? Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord William Bentinck contains some history of the British in Sicily right after the Peninsular war (he was the commander). The regiments are not named in that article, though. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, here’s a brief reference [2] It says the Brunswick Hussars were part of Bentinck’s brigade in August 1813 in Spain and in 1814 took part in the invasion of Sicily. And more confirmation of Brunswick hussars in Bentincks Sicilian troops here if you can read or google-translate Italian [3] 184.147.134.128 (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I'll follow that up as soon as I have time. Many thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalism in Literature/Myth

I was really interested to see what sources and cultures had myths and literature involving cannibalism. I know that some Greek myths include cannibalism (like Cronus or Atreus), but I wanted to know if there were other myths or gods. Also, I know there are different fairy tales with cannibalism like Hansel and Gretal- I was curious if there were others. I would like 6-10 examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.196.218 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will find some examples in Cannibalism#Myths.2C_legends_and_folklore. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A classic text on cannibalism is the essay Of Cannibals by Michel de Montaigne. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you define "literature" broadly, see R v Dudley and Stephens, a famous British legal case (still studied) today about cannibalism and the criminal law. Neutrality^talk 03:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Sawney Bean family in Scotland was mythical but I could be wrong. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly (an increasingly unlikely scenario), a detailed article in Fortean Times a couple or more years ago concluded that they were indeed mythical, in the sense that the detailed story about them was invented by a journalist or pamphleteer (in London?), possibly based on vague stories from Scotland that have been found not to have any authentic basis. However, I (or the article) could be wrong.

[Addendum: Aaand it was actually 10 years ago, being reference 2 in the Sawney Bean Article!] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In less politically correct times, "missionary in the cooking pot" was a popular subject for cartoonists and I was rather surprised to find pages of examples viewable online.[4] Perhaps we're not as civilised as we thought we were. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And one poor fellow was eaten by missionaries. DuncanHill (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]