Humanities desk
< December 10	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 12 >

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 11

Descendants of Taksin

What became of the children/descendants of King Taksin? Do/did they have any status after the rise of the Chakri Dynasty?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KAVEBEAR: In all the English sources I have access to, there was no mention of Taksin's descendants. I did find one source (in Thai) that said Rama I executed all of Taksin's sons except one. When Taksin was still king, Rama sent one of his legitimate (i.e. from his official wife) daughters to be a concubine of Taksin. Taksin produced a son with her. Since this son of Taksin was also Rama's grandson, he alone was spared. It doesn't say what became of him, but given his lineage as a son of Rama's legitimate daughter, he was probably considered a member of the Chakri line and given a minor position/title. This is a very fascinating period of Thai history if one is a fan of palace drama and intrigue. Taksin himself was born of a Chinese father and Thai mother. He had no royal blood and although modern Thais revere him as "Taksin the Great", his contemporaries regarded him as a usurper. When he sought recognition from China, they replied "maybe you should seek out and assist the legitimate heirs of Ayutthaya instead". He then scoured his kingdom and killed the heirs of the former dynasty and again asked for recognition from China. China only really recognized him after he proved he controlled an army large enough to fight the Burmese because they wanted a proxy in their war with Burma.[1] Taksin left most of the former Ayuttayan power structure in tact. Local power was still in the hands of the noble families. Rama I was not only Taksin's most powerful general but also related, by blood and/or marriage, to three of the most powerful Ayuttayan noble families. When Rama I took power it was viewed as a restoration of sorts to the former order -- a properly-bred noble had the throne again. Given this atmosphere, Taksin's descendants were doomed from the start. (An interesting side note is that, since China had already granted recognition to Taksin, Rama I in his own letters to China claimed to be the son of Taksin[2] and thereby received immediate recognition from China and for generations Chakri rulers used Taksin's surname in the Chinese version of their communications.[3]). See David Wyatt's Thailand: A Short History for a good concise overview of Thai history.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reading in the Thai source, it states that the one son who was spared (Rama I's grandson) was named Prince Kasatranuchit and launched a rebellion against Rama II upon Rama I's death. The rather feeble attempt was quickly put down and Rama II "executed Kasatranuchit, all his sons, and all his siblings (i.e. all of Taksin's remaining children), including Princess Samliwan", a daughter of Taksin who was married to Rama I's brother.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Counting electoral votes in Congress

Recently I noticed that as per the Electoral College (United States) and referenced to counting electoral votes in Congress the official count is not done until 6 January. I was wondering if there was any particular significance to that date. Why not the 5 or 7 January or some other date. Given the date of the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution I was wondering if Christmastide (Twelve Days of Christmas) was a factor in that date being used. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14 days before the January 20 inauguration, most likely. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when did they do it before the 20th Amedment introduced that inauguration date? --76.71.5.45 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Wednesday in February, starting in 1792. The law setting the Jan 6 date was enacted in 1948; I haven't found the exact law for the 1936, 1940, and 1944 elections. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The date is specified by law in 3 USC 15 [4], and Congress has the power to choose a different date, either permanently or for a particular election (they tend to avoid weekends). As to why it was chosen as the 6th in the first place, I don't know, but perhaps someone can find something on the history of that law. Dragons flight (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation here: According to United States Congress, the first day a new Congress meets is on January 3. January 6 would mean it would be one of the first new items of business for the new congress, the three days would give them a chance to do the sort of organizational business a new Congress probably needs (electing leadership, voting on rules, committee assignments, etc.) --Jayron 32 23:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. So in the end probably not much significant about the date. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English descendants' and Boers' racism

Back to the days of Apartheid, were both the English descendant and Boers (Dutch, French and German) equally racist? And how racist were they against each other? --Llaanngg (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does one measure the degree of racism exhibited by a group of people? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the political parties they vote for? By the amount of violence? By hate speech? You can also not really measure the amount of anti-Semitism of the Nazi party, but do you have any doubt it was huge? --Llaanngg (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was a plank in the Nazi platform, it would have to 100 percent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially yes, it was a core part of Nazi ideology and philosophy. The infamous disagreement between Eichmann and Rommel over using Germany's rolling stock on either reinforcing the western front as opposed to deporting every last possible Jew to the gas chambers is a classic example. Rommel argued that the war effort desperately needed the trains, as France was being overrun. Eichmann argued, as I understand it, the the third Reich was doomed anyways, kill every last Jew whilst they still could. The question went to Hitler himself. Hitler ruled that the army had priority only when it was advancing, but since it was retreating, Eichmann got the trains. The soldiers? They could retreat on foot. But even here, when it comes to those who sign up, things are not always completely what they seem. See our article on the book Eichmann in Jerusalem where the author attempts to examine things through Eichmann's eyes. Groupthink does take over, as opposed to personal belief or deep conviction on the part of the individual participants. Tammy Bruce's descriptions of her experiences in the feminist movement were quite eye-opening. She was truly committed to the feminist cause (or at least as she understood the cause should be!), but still ran aground. She said that you were expected to all be "noisy, submissive parrots". Her words were to the effect that "I was a parrot, but a reluctant one, and was seen by those above, in the leadership, as a problem in the making". (Not endorsing Tammy in any other respect here, simply noting her comments on that particular experience). I'm sure that to some extent you would have found the same or similar in Nazi Germany. And, for that matter, Apartheid South Africa. Eliyohub (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall it was widely understood that the Boers were much more hardline against blacks' rights. Maybe you could find that in the article Boer or History of South Africa. The lead of National Party (South Africa) implies that it was Afrikaaner-based and says it implemented and maintained apartheid. Loraof (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article British diaspora in Africa says that "The majority of the British diaspora supported the United Party, led by J. B. M. Hertzog and Jan Smuts while it was the ruling party between 1934 and 1948, and its various successors up to the Democratic Party, the predecessor of the Democratic Alliance", while the right-wing National Party was "Afrikaner-dominated". Alansplodge (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Churchills

No, according to Jack_Churchill#Family. RudolfRed (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this biography which says of the days immediately after VE Day: "[Jack] Churchill was flown to Sarajevo and then on to Berlin, there apparently being some thought that he was a relative of Winston Churchill". Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winston did have a brother, John Strange Spencer-Churchill, who was known as Jack. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What were Ma and Pa Churchill thinking when they decided to call their son "Strange"? Alansplodge (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were thinking of the friend and gentleman they asked to be the boy's godfather, John Strange Jocelyn, the 5th Earl of Roden. What Ma and Pa Jocelyn were thinking of was probably the 5th earl's GGGG-uncle, Sir Strange Jocelyn, 2nd Bt, son of Sir Robert Jocelyn (1st Bt) and Jane Strange, though I can't fathom why they were thinking of such a distant relative. - Nunh-huh 08:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramming speed, Mr. Christian

What is the origin of that quote? Wasn't Mr. Christian the first mate on the Bounty? Captain Bligh wouldn't have rammed anyone, so where does this quote come from? Different Mr. Christian? Is it just my imagination that I've heard this quote? RJFJR (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another objection is that you can't order a change of speed in a sailing ship, you have to change the rig of the sails. I've never heard of it, but a quick Google search shows that it's all over the internet. Alansplodge (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this the first time the term was used was in Ben-Hur (1959 film). There is mention on a couple sites that the actual term is Flank speed though the article makes no mention of the connection. RJFJR do you remember what film/tvshow/book etc you encountered "Mr Christian" being added to the phrase? MarnetteD|Talk 22:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Searches bring up two possible sources; though neither uses "Mr. Christian": Ben Hur and Star Trek: First Contact. --Jayron 32 22:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Mr. Christian" part was certainly not used in Ben-Hur, and it wouldn't have made sense anyway.[5] The hortator, relaying the commands of the Roman official, ran the crew through "battle speed", "attack speed", "ramming speed", and finally "rest" after working them to the extreme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clue where I first heard it (it was a long time ago). It took me a while to realize I didn't know where it came from. RJFJR (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can only think that someone has conflated phrases from Ben-Hur and Mutiny on the Bounty; they were made within 3 years of each other. Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That could be checked by sitting through that 1962 film. That would require a volunteer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the film some years ago and nobody gets rammed. Hence my suggestion that the two things have been put together inside somebody's head. But who knows? Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone. I googled "ramming speed, mister" and didn't find anything interesting either so I have no idea where I got this from. I appreciate the assistance. RJFJR (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]