Humanities desk
< October 9	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 10

Settler colonialism that was done with the consent of the existing population of a particular territory?

Which cases of settler colonialism have there been that were done with the consent of the existing population of a particular territory? Futurist110 (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the legends of the founding of Carthage, the natives of the area gave permission. In the pre-Roman Mediterranean, many colonies were coastal trading outposts without much possibility to expand beyond their coastal enclaves. If the native inhabitants of such areas welcomed trade goods, but had no ability to conduct long-distance maritime trade themselves, then they often welcomed the colonies... AnonMoos (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also the legend of Hengist and Horsa. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. What about in more modern times? Futurist110 (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the book Humans, Tom Phillips writes that in the first half of the 19th century, when Mexico was newly independent from Spain, they "decided to put the underdeveloped land in their northern province of Texas to good use. Wanting a buffer zone that would protect Mexico from both raids by the Comanche people and the westward growth of the United States, the Mexicans started encouraging American ranchers and farmers to come and settle in the area". But the American community wanted political power, with the result that "in 1830 the Mexicans abruptly tried to ban any further American immigration, but found themselves powerless to stop the influx of American immigrants". When the authoritarian Santa Anna took power in Mexico, Texas revolted, and of course later joined the US. Phillips concludes: "There are a couple of divergent lessons we can draw from this. On the one hand, there's 'don't encourage immigration only to later turn against those same immigrant communities'. On the other, there's also 'don't assume that you'll always be a democracy, because THAT'S EXACTLY WHEN THINGS GO WRONG'."

I don't know how accurate this is; I have not looked for other descriptions of these events.--174.89.48.182 (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American settlers in the area of Texas were known as the Empresarios. You can read more at that article, and you can find more information at additional links from that article. --Jayron 32 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did Mexico also invite US settlers into California? Or did the US settlers who came to California do so without the Mexican government's permission and consent? Futurist110 (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under Mexico, the current state of California was at the time part of the (larger) territory of Alta California. You may want to start your research there. --Jayron 32 18:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on who's telling the story. For example, for my city in Australia, Melbourne#Early history and foundation tells us "...John Batman, a leading member of the Port Phillip Association in Van Diemen's Land, explored the Melbourne area, and later claimed to have negotiated a purchase of 600,000 acres (2,400 km2) with eight Wurundjeri elders." It has been argued since that language and cultural barriers made it impossible for there to have been any real understanding on the part of the Aboriginal people as to what they allegedly agreed to. I'm sure this story has been repeated dozens of times all over the world. HiLo48 (talk)

Even if these elders understood the deal fully well, one wonders if they were authorized to seal it. I think I can find some New York elders with whom I can negotiate the purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge for a case of wine. --Lambiam 14:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The indigenous population of Egypt (the Copts, who are monophysite) were persecuted by the Orthodox church. They welcomed the Muslims for this reason but soon realised their mistake. Proof of the adage "better the devil you know than the devil you don't". 2A00:23C6:2403:E900:A9B0:FBB2:63AF:F685 (talk)

In Ontario, Joseph Brant wanted to bring Europeans into the territory he was given by the crown so that his people would learn better agricultural practices from them and to use the money from selling land to the settlers to invest in his community. Of 19 (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The change in Iraq's religious demographics over time?

Does anyone here know how Iraq's religious demographics have changed over time? Futurist110 (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Iraq#Religions 2 has some unreferenced guestimates. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UK Government stats are on page 11 of this report. Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA Factbook from various years may show you the differences over time. RudolfRed (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Amendment interpretation

My argument on 2nd amendment is that regarding semi auto/auto/bolt action/lever action weapons, the Founders could not have conceived of such weaponry and they should be more regulated beyond strict interpretation. Strict interpretation leaves these weapons as an outlier. My question is.. Has there ever been an argument in the myriad court cases to this effect? -- 108.222.210.123 (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that, but there have been arguments about whether a strict Originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution would allow an air force to exist (see [1] etc) -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus among legal scholars appears to be that the Second Amendment does not imply "the right to bear bazookas", although at least one court has issued an originalist ruling that seems to imply this right.^[2] I wonder if this court would also uphold the right to keep and bear Davy Crocketts (with warheads). --Lambiam 14:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

District of Columbia v. Heller addressed this:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
— Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court[3]

fiveby(zero) 14:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it doesn't; a person can certainly "bear" a Stinger surface-to-air missile, but to do so is a federal felony punishable by life imprisonment. The idea that there is a simple, neat, clean definition of "bearable arms" which are all legal, is simply another fallacy of Scalia's nonsense originalism. The Second Amendment cannot be read literally, and not even originalists are willing to try. They just want to pretend it can to defend outcomes they want. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is asking for an argument in the myriad court cases. Your own opinion is of no value here. fiveby(zero) 15:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a slew amicus briefs for Heller and having trouble finding which makes the argument you are looking for. May be something in the briefs for Caetano v. Massachusetts. fiveby(zero) 15:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ardent defenders of the 2nd Amendment say that its purpose is "to defend against a tyrannical government." Presumably that's what the alleged kidnapping plotters in Michigan were using to justify their plans. However, without military-grade weapons being available to the general public, that "defense" argument has very little practical value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why some think the AKs and M4s of today's average infantrymen should be as easy to get as mundane civilian guns. Would that work? I dunno. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "dangerous and unusual" see Kolbe v. Hogan and "arms in existence in the 18th century". fiveby(zero) 16:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, private ownership or sale/transfer of machine guns requires the approval of the Attorney General if the weapon was manufactured after 1986. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite responses to this exceptionally common "the founders never could have conceived" argument (thoroughly put to bed in Heller as noted above) is to note that the founders never could have conceived of a home printer that could turn out dozens of pages per minute of the vilest libel, sedition, and obscenity that virtually any person could operate. Yet the First Amendment still protects ownership of those devices. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Libel is not protected speech or print. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Libel is not protected speech, and murder is not a protected use of a firearm. But 199's assertion is that suppression of printing devices (not their uses) would run afoul of the First Amendment. I'm not sure whether that's actually true; I'm not aware of any serious proposal to ban printers, so it has never really come up. But I could see the argument being made. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While we are getting off-topic, I might add that some on this side of the world wonder about the "well trained militia". Doug butler (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically, that clause is called an absolute, and these are quite rare in law so it's problematic figuring out what to do with it. Generally, in English, absolutes have the force of a subordinate clause, providing context for the main part of the sentence but usually not altering its meaning.

That would make it a surplusage. There's a principle of statutory interpretation called the "rule against surplusages", which suggests that interpretations should try to "give effect" to all parts of legal text. But the originalist argument is that there is no way consonant with ordinary English semantics to read this clause as limiting the right to its exercise in a militia. --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it says "well regulated". Legalistically, the National Guard is considered to fit that definition. These characters calling themselves "militia" are sometimes just domestic terrorists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try to refrain from inserting your personal opinions into the discussions? --Lambiam 12:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the opinion of the Michigan governor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have written, "According to Michigan governor Whitmer, ...". But what she objected to was not people calling themselves "militia", but to the use of that label by the FBI in the complaint^[4] against the group accused of planning to assault the State Capitol and arrest her. --Lambiam 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic terrorism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire clause is treated as surplusage following Heller. My take is that it functions something like a "legislative findings" section in a statute; it doesn't have any effect itself, but speaks of an aspirational goal or motivating concern that the legislative body had when passing the law. It certainly does not function as "words of limitation", confining the bearing of arms to members of a state militia when in service.

My personal take, which I've not seen elsewhere, is that the militia clause makes clear that the framers wanted an armed civilian populace that could rise up in defense of the country on a moment's notice, and in order for this to happen in a "well regulated" or orderly and effective fashion, the civilian populace would need to have access to and experience with arms sufficient for defending the nation against threats, foreign and domestic. I think to the extent the term "militia" itself provides a limiting principle, it's that the Second Amendment shouldn't be thought of as permitting the raising of a private army to fight a war of aggression, or of eliminating the marque power reserved to the Congress, or otherwise interfere in foreign affairs matters reserved to the President. In the modern sense, this would mean the Second Amendment wouldn't permit unfettered possession of weapons of mass destruction, artillery, tanks, militarized fighter aircraft, warships, etc. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while a lot of people claim that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow people to form a militia to overthrow the government of it becomes tyrannical, the actual US Constitution explicitly states that the President is the Commander in Chief of the militias, and that they can be called up for the purpose of suppressing insurrection. Iapetus (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And making war on the USA is treason. I've asked gun-loving acquaintances, "Who decides if the government has become tyrannical?" They've got no answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One man's tyranny is another man's not tyranny. One man's duh that Marxist or caliphate or Marxist climatologist takeover of Earth or holocaust of Earth's whites and Palestinians won't happen is another man's insane belief. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who decided in 1776? —Tamfang (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the President commands the militias, does the Second Amendment mean that Federal forces shall not disarm Federal forces? —Tamfang (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

on regulating guns like cars —Tamfang (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before Heller the most important (and therefore most misrepresented) SC opinion on the Second was US v Miller, 1939. Miller was charged with bearing a short shotgun on which a tax (designed to discourage such weapons) had not been paid. The District Court dismissed on 2A grounds, and the Govt appealed, arguing that only members of an organized militia are protected. The SC ignored that argument, and said that weapons that would be useful to a well-regulated militia are protected, but that it was improper to dismiss the case without taking evidence on whether a short shotgun has such utility. (Miller himself having disappeared or died, the case was never resolved.) —Tamfang (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source needed for Beethoven Statue by János Horvay

Hi, I'm working on List of monuments to Ludwig van Beethoven and I'm unable to find a reliable source for a statue of Beethoven in Budapest, Hungary. The Commons file says that it is by János Horvay and was installed in 1932 but I can't find any source to support this. Any help would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for the four keywords beethoven statue budapest horvay found multiple references. The caption to File:János Horvay - Beethoven - 1932 (1).jpg gives the location in Budapest as the hu:Városmajor. Checking Google Maps shows that the statue is indeed there, labeled as the "Beethoven szobor" and visible in Street View imagery. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources say (snippeted) "... Beethoven. Városmajor Park. By János Horvay",^[5] and (translated) "a statue by János Horvay of Beethoven (original in Városmajor, Buda, 1932)."^[6]

An English language source is;

Pap, Miklós; Székely, László; Vitéz, András (1964). Budapest; a Guide to the Capital of Hungary. Budapest: Corvina Press. p. 160.

"At present a statue of Beethoven by János Horvay (1932), and the statue of the “Tyrolese Sharpshooter" by Zsigmond Kisfaludi Strobl (1940), ornament the park" (snippet view).