Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 October 22

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 22

Did German, Italian, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian royalty and nobility ever have coats-of-arms of their own?

Did German, Italian, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian royalty and nobility ever have coats-of-arms of their own? I was inspired to ask this question by the Capetian Armorial article. Futurist110 (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

What does German heraldry and Russian heraldry suggest? We don't have similar articles for Italy or Austria-Hungary, at least not obvious ones. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Heraldry of the World - Austro-Hungarian Empire. Alansplodge (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The reference to Capetian Armorial suggests that the question is whether the families ruling these realms had a coats-of-arms of their own, distinct from the arms of the respective realms.  --Lambiam 08:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! Futurist110 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah. That is a very different question. For the German-speaking countries, at least, the answer is clear yes. Nearly all dukes-or-higher displayed a big shield tiled with arms for all their fiefs, and in front of it all a smaller shield of their ancestral arms. (An exception: the Habsburg dynasty of Austria never displayed the Habsburg arms in that way, as far as I know.) Sometimes the arms of the dynasty came to be used for the state (e.g. the Wittelsbach arms now stand for Bavaria); for the kingdom of the Netherlands, the dynastic coat of the counts of Nassau was adapted by addition of a crown and a sword to a pre-existing lion. —Tamfang (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Another exception comes to mind. The kings of Hanover used (as such) only a composite of the coats of three fiefs. (The present pretender uses the arms of his patrilineal ancestor George III of Britain, in which the shield of Hanover takes the dynastic role. I don't recall whether he uses a label; like the duke of Anjou & Cadiz, the senior male Capetian, he may reckon he doesn't need it.) —Tamfang (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The Romanov coat of arms (as adopted in 1856) has nothing to do with the Coat of arms of Russia. Before that date the Russian monarchs used the national coat of arms. Ghirla^-трёп- 20:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Sardinia and the Kingdom of Italy used coats of arms adapted from those [[1]] of the ruling royal House of Savoy, blazoned gules a cross argent. 2003:F5:6F14:9A00:9DC:B0EE:1ED9:2F7B (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Marco PB

Can popular culture be considered part of actual culture

I had a flashback dream a couple nights back and now the subject of that dream is kinda stuck in my noggin, so please forgive me if I sound like I'm venting. It was when me and another guy who was once a close mate of mine had a heated argument which contributed to us parting ways almost a decade ago. The subject was, in short, that popular culture such as cartoons, arcades, comic books, films, anime/manga, movies, etc. isn't history or actual culture and cannot be part of the culture of a country, or a country's national identity. "Pop culture isn't really culture, how many times I have to get that through your thick skull" he would tell me. "It's ultimately an industry, it's vapid entertainment for kids made to sell toys, merchandise, and videogames, and as those kids grow old they fondly remember it just because of nostalgia, not because it "made an impact on their lives" or anything adhered to any culture that was practised. Master Chief, Pokemon, or Jason Voorhees is not comparable to stuff like the Winged Victory of Samothrace. You know why? Because in 1000 years, nobody will give a single damn about Master Chief, Pokemon, or Jason Voorhees." I can remember him ranting quietly to himself at one point after discussing to someone else "Knowing a lot about comic books, movies, and cartoons passes for culture in your mind?" It made me sad because when we were at high school, I remember he loved anything science fiction (especially Star Trek and hard science fiction works), before some random revelation or experience changed his mind and behaviour.

I know I tried to tell him before that art is part of culture. Movies, cartoons, videogames to some extent, and all the other things could be considered forms of art. Artists, animators, musicians, producers, and creators should not be wholly lumped in with or compared to businessmen, neither should they be compared to cultural practitioners, but I understand that they had to seek income, recognition, and fame from somewhere. I'm aware that many forms of art often add to or warp our perceptions of a nation's culture and may add to a stereotype. Sanrio, Kaiju films, videogames from many prominent publishers, giant robots, and the entire concept of "kawaii" are nowadays often considered as big a part of Japanese culture as the history of samurai or the Shinto religion. The skylines of Hong Kong, Taipei, Shanghai, and several Japanese cities are often intentionally chosen as a visual aesthetic for cyberpunk settings. The British love of rock and metal music is seen as a big influence on the United Kingdom's cultural image, as is Harry Potter and Doctor Who. And of course, no cultural depiction of the United States is complete without a little Star Wars, Disney, Looney Toons, the abundance of slasher films in the 80's and 90's, 500,000-or-so comedy sitcoms, and perhaps most importantly, American Idol. And these are all very small samples of national identities shaped by popular culture.

Even if all of this isn't completely true, I find myself occasionally wondering is there really something wrong with being a grown working adult and still be able to enjoy aspects of popular culture like a kid would, or is that still prevailing as a stigma that is frowned upon because people are too ashamed of their own "unprofessional" little secrets that "only children and the image of a snot-dripping, pimple-covered, obese manbaby nerd are allowed to enjoy", yet a man with a room full of bobbleheads, jerseys, and sports paraphernalia is considered normal. Am I truly wrong in believing that popular culture does not contribute to a nation's actual culture? --72.234.12.37 (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Your debate centers on how one defines “culture”. Experts disagree on that, so I doubt you get much of a consensus here among non-experts. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

How does your pal know that anyone will care about a headless old statue 1,000 years from now? Is he a time-traveler? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything inherit about culture that restricts "popular culture" from it. I prefer to think of popular culture as something that people see as "short-lived" vs culture which can be seen as a longer, historical trend. For types of food, religion, clothing, these things are almost always long-lasting but for the arts like Rock and Roll or Star Wars (in general), are short lasting. Rock and Roll was massively popular, but it came and left; Star Wars still makes movies, yes, but they will have to stop eventually and like Rock and Roll will be gone having been massively popular for their time. Of course both are influential, but will probably not continue long enough to join what people consider "national culture" – at least that's how I see it. Conversely, things like pieces by Mahler or paintings by van Gogh come to mind as things that took a long time to gain popularity (long after Mahler and van Gogh's respective deaths), eventually permitting them into the Western canon. Because of this, I think a lot of popular culture has to reach a certain longevity to become part of "culture". There are surely some prominent examples of mediums that have either become "culture" or are very close as well. Manga in Japan comes to mind, which is of course a true descendent from the ukiyo-e of the Edo period. Of course you bring up mass production, and the issues stemming from this are widespread. As far back as a workshop from Raphael, just Rembrandt by himself or a piece by Mozart, mass production can always result in low quality examples of an otherwise well-made product. Nevertheess, these figures have managed to enter what people consider "culture" even if Rembrandt (and van Gogh now that I think of it – look up his potato paintings) did make some truly awful paintings. Aza24 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Who was influenced by that old headless statue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• The most important adage on culture ever produced is Sturgeon's law, which is "90% of everything is crap". 90% of what someone might call "high culture" as distinct from "pop culture" was crap, only the 10% survived until today. The same will be true of the culture we are producing now. 90% of what is happening in popular music or comic books or movies is crap, and will be forgotten, not because it is "pop culture", but because it is exactly like the culture we consider "high culture"; we're living it now and can't see the forest for the trees. It is quite likely that aspects of pop culture today will be preserved for centuries. Most will not. However, that is also true of the culture that was produced in past times and we only get to see the 10% that has survived. It isn't that older culture was better, it's just the better stuff hangs around. And, perhaps to an even more important point that's a discussion for another day, it isn't always (or even usually) the best stuff that gets canonized; there are lots of political reasons for what we consider the "good stuff" when it comes to culture, and a lot of what you think of today as "good" (music, movies, art, whatever) has been carefully curated for you by people who had a very specific political agenda. But that's a different discussion entirely. --Jayron32 17:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Did President Truman really know the military intended to drop a second atom bomb?

I’ve been hearing that after the bombing of Nagasaki, Truman issued an order saying no more atom bombs should be dropped without his express approval. I’ve also heard that he claimed he authorized both bombings. Could it be he didn’t know about the plan for the second bombing that ended up destroying Nagasaki, and he didn’t authorize it, and he felt terrible afterwards and made sure no more would be dropped without his permission? He might have reasoned that even if he didn’t know about it(the 2nd bombing), that he should have known, and that he should take responsibility for it.(And/or also maybe he didn’t want to seem like he didn’t know what his undelings were doing? After all, Truman was famed for saying “the buck stops here. Also, had he always said that, or did he adopt the mantra” the buck stops here” after Nagasaki?Rich (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't help you but it's so interesting that Truman didn't know what the Manhattan Project was before FDR died. Hayttom (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

According to Article Two of the United States Constitution, the President is "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States". While I'm sure neither FDR nor Truman personally authorized every bombing run over Tokyo, for the military to do something like the Nagasaki bombing on their own initiative without even telling the C-in-C is pretty hard for me to swallow. It would be career-ending at the very least, though I suppose I can imagine abstractly that they might have calculated that Truman would not find it in his interest to make the dispute public.

Anyway, I don't see how anyone can help you with references that illuminate this sort of speculative alt-history, but if someone does, I'll be interested to see. --Trovatore (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Choice of targets notes how the targets were chosen, and also notes that Nagasaki was added to the list of potential targets on July 25. It does not mention whether Truman was in on that conversation or not, but it is clear that Truman was aware of and approved the dropping of two bombs. The actual selection of Nagasaki from the approved list and the specific day and time of the bomb dropping may or may not have had Truman's active involvement, but he was aware of both Nagasaki as a potential site and the planned use of a second bomb. --Jayron32 17:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Reading your link, I can see that Truman okayed Nagasaki as one of several possible targets, but I don’t see why you say that means Truman was ok with dropping any more than one atom bomb, although some in the military might have been been able and willing to interpret Truman’s ok as a directive to drop atom bombs on all five targets on the list, rather than an authorization to drop one abomb on one of the five targets.Rich (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

After Nagasaki, according to the article linked by Jayron: "On August 10, [Groves] sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that "the next bomb ... should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August." Marshall endorsed the memo with the hand-written comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President", something Truman had requested that day. This modified the previous order that the target cities were to be attacked with atomic bombs "as made ready". So, as stated, Truman had given authorization to use the two bombs that were ready to be launched, at the Army's discretion as to where and how (within certain parameters, that are explained in the article). He then asked to specifically authorize future bombings because he realized that Japan was about to surrender and did not wish to have more bombings unless absolutely necessary to end the war. Regarding "the buck stops here", it's adapted from a speech he made in 1948 (see the reference in Truman's article), in which he mentions the phrase while speaking in retrospect about his decision to authorize the two bombings. Xuxl (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Further information:

• Frank, Richard B. (1999). Downfall : the end of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Random House. ISBN 9780141001463.

(Often considered a definitive source on the subject). --2606:A000:1126:28D:6D82:1150:3AC7:E5B0 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Another authoritative source is Richard Rhodes's The Making of the Atomic Bomb. In May 1945, just before the war in Europe ended, a civilian committee was formed with the deliberately vague name of the Interim Committee, with Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War, as chairman. At their June 1 meeting, Stimson was absent and James F. Byrnes made the recommendation "that the bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible; that it be used on a war plant surrounded by workers' homes; and that it be used without prior warning". Truman "did not give the order to drop the atomic bomb on June 1. But he appears to have made the decision then, with a little help from Jimmy Byrnes" (Rhodes, pages 650-651). Note that there was no implication of using any specific number of bombs as implied above (although Lt. Gen. Leslie Groves did make an offhand prediction after the Trinity test that two would be enough: Rhodes, page 676). They were to be used when they were ready, and it was only after the Nagasaki bomb that Truman decided to use no more: "Truman said he had given orders to stop the atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'." (Rhodes, page 743, quoting the diary of Henry A. Wallace, Secretary of Commerce). --174.89.48.182 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Weird. That's my second mention of the Trinity test on the Reference Desk in just over 24 hours. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Frank's book includes "new" information from declassified and non-redacted Ultra & Magic documents, only available post Rhodes's book. 2606:A000:1126:28D:6D82:1150:3AC7:E5B0 (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC) . . . See also: Richard Frank (8 August 2005). "Why Truman Dropped the Bomb". Washington Examiner.

I don't see anything there that addresses the question of whether the dropping of a specific number of bombs was authorized. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

A recent article by Alex Wellerstein, "a historian of science at the Stevens Institute of Technology who studies the history of nuclear weapons", Did the U.S. plan to drop more than two atomic bombs on Japan? (National Geographic, August 2020), says:

"On August 8, weather forecasters were predicting that August 10, the planned date for the second attack, was going to be unfavorable. Instead, U.S. officials on Tinian, without consulting anyone in Washington, D.C. (including Truman or even Stimson), decided that they had the authority under the launch order to use the next weapon".

Alansplodge (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

ok. Part of the reason for my suspicions is there is information that General LeMay jumped the gun on authorization on an earlier massive bombing of Japan. I suspected, based on my cynicism, that LeMay’s superiors had indirectly indicated to LeMay that they wanted LeMay to jump the gun, getting the dirty job done. If LeMay’s higherups had used that bureacratic tactic with LeMay,(which they might have thought of as cutting thru red tape), and on board with a dropping a second atom bomb, they might have used the tactic of jumping the gun get the secon abomb dropped without authorization from Truman, even if Truman wasn’t tacitly supporting it.Rich (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Chinese folk religion

It is truly hard for me to grasp Chinese folk religion. I get that's a it's a badly defined umbrella category but what would it even look like for most people, are there some consistencies in practice or does it vary wildly? And what would common practicers even refer to themselves as practicing, surely they wouldn't say they were apart of "folk religion"? Aza24 (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

People don't often have a name for these things in their own language. "Just what we do" is the name they would give to it. The set of cultural practices that we label "religion" is not always clearly divided from cultural practices we label "not religion", and even more so the idea that religion itself could be put in a box as distinct from other cultural practices is an extremely western practice that really didn't get happened until the 1600s (the Thirty Years' War and the Peace of Westphalia and its treatment of religion in particular represented a unique paradigm that informed Western thought on the matter down to today). In many places, they don't have neat little boxes where cultural practices are divided into "religious" and "non-religious" spheres, and most people don't think in those terms. --Jayron32 17:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As with religious practices around the world, there are some people who practice it very diligently (thoroughly?), and some who have only a passing interest. Just about everyone in East Asia celebrates lunar new year, from Japan and Korea through South-east Asia. Beyond that, the variations are pretty extreme. DOR (HK) (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Aza24 -- One interesting parallel is that words for "religion" and "Judaism" are not attested in Biblical Hebrew (though a kind of equivocal verb form occurs in the late Biblical Hebrew of Esther 8:17). AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about the 14th Amendment and "state action"

I'm sorry if this is a really stupid question, but had, purely hypothetically, the 1849 Constitution of California survived up to the present-day and an original provision of it had been found to conflict with the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, what would have been the basis for viewing this hypothetical original 1849 California constitutional provision as "state action" when California didn't even have its own government yet back in 1849? To state my question here more succinctly, what is the basis for viewing an action by a US state constitutional convention (for instance, the Monterey Convention of 1849) before a particular US state would have actually been admitted into the Union--and thus before this US state would have ever actually had its own government--as being a form of "state action" that is liable to challenge under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution? The 14th Amendment only applies to state action, after all, and a US state constitutional convention is not a US state governmental body--is it? Futurist110 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If the State never acts on such a provision of its constitution, how would the question arise? —Tamfang (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Futurist110 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)