Humanities desk
< July 14	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	Current desk >

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.

July 15

Nationality of Crown Dependency citizens (are they "English")?

According to Crown Dependencies: "Since the British Nationality Act 1981 came into effect, they have been treated as part of the United Kingdom for British nationality law purposes." So obviously citizens of those islands are British. Two questions:

Is it accurate to call those citizens also English? If not, is there another term more specific than British, but less specific than naming the actual island?
What was the situation before this act in 1981? Were they called "British"? If not, what else?

--KnightMove (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're not English - they don't live in/come from England. People from the Isle of Man are Manx. Those from the Channel Islands are (rather unimaginatively) channel islanders, or , more specifically, Guernésiais or Jersiais (I guess there are more specific names for the inhabitants of the smaller islands too). Chuntuk (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think Channel Islanders rather than channel islanders. Note that the islands don't have a single administration but are either part of the Bailiwick of Jersey or the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Alansplodge (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On your second question, I am certain the answer is "yes", but haven't found a reference for you. Alansplodge (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has the English nationality, not even those living in England. They are British, or a different nationality, but not English. See British nationality law, note English is only used in terms of the language, not as a nationality. Of course they might consider themselves English, but there is no legal concept of English nationality. Fgf10 (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean any bio article here which says "English" has it wrong? Benny Hill, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, yes. You are probable well aware that's a contentious issue on here. It should read British or UK (the difference gets particularly difficult for Northern Irish people, but that's a whole other issue again), but the regionalists somehow got their way. Fgf10 (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only a little bit aware. But I'm puzzled about Northern Ireland. Isn't the UK "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the citizenship is British. Before the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force the citizenship was Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Some people from Northern Ireland identify as British, some as Irish, some as Northern Irish, and some as a combination of these. DuncanHill (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, loyalists will identify as British, nationalists as (Northern) Irish. (Generalising and less so these days, but mostly true). Legally they are all entitled to both British and Irish passports/nationality. Fgf10 (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fgf10 is talking in strictly legal terms according to British nationality law. Culturally, it is quite correct to say that a person is English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish (unless they come from the Channel Islands of course). Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or Cornish. DuncanHill (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed (I'm the son of a son of Cornwall). Alansplodge (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarize and clarify the disparate answers above; by the British Nationality Act 1981, there is only one legal nationality for all such people, they are considered British nationals. In terms of informal cultural/ethnic identification, the people who live in the crown dependencies generally identify ethnically with their local culture (Manx, Jersiais, etc.) though they could also identify as British generally. British ethnicity is an evolving concept, and people who have British nationality may identify primarily as British culturally, or as one of their home nations culturally, or may identify as both. It's complex and there are no hard rules. In terms of Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia is generally agnostic on whether to identify someone as "British" or "English/Scottish/Welsh/Manx/etc." though it tends to favor self-identification (i.e. if a person describes themselves as a certain ethnicity, we tend to defer to that) and also favors historical accuracy (i.e. William Wallace is better described as "Scottish" than "British" because at the time there was no concept of a unified British culture or nationality; whereas Gordon Brown is described as "British", despite both being from Scotland). --Jayron 32 12:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but hmmm... Guernsey-born Chris Foss is called English in several places. Do you think this is correct or rather not? --KnightMove (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get to make those decisions. Chris Foss does. If he identifies as English, trust him over anyone else. --Jayron 32 14:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Wikipedia article only uses the word British. Also also, when I said "It's complex and there are no hard rules", what I meant by that is "It's complex and there are no hard rules". --Jayron 32 14:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been observed that, in the UK, Andy Murray is 'British' when he wins and 'Scottish' when he loses. Hayttom (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a widespread phenomenon. Mel Gibson, who was raised in Australia and had his first successes here (although never an Australian citizen), is claimed by us as an Australian when he does something praiseworthy, but becomes an American when he acts like an arsehole. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly true that the "British when he wins and Scottish when he loses" point is made by Scottish nationalists, but I shall be astonished if you can find me an actual example. Alansplodge (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference I'm seeing to the Murray joke in Newspapers.com (pay site, not comprehensive) is in the Independent, London, July 2, 2010, page 9. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But is that just repeating the meme, or actual anti-Scottish reporting? Alansplodge (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for an example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ASP asked for an example of Murray being reported on as being Scottish when losing and British when winning, not for an example of the statement that the phenomenon exists. Such a statement is not an occurrence of the actual phenomenon. --Lambiam 16:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously a joke. Murray himself has repeated it. So what you're looking for is a report that matter-of-factly calls him Scottish when he loses? I suspect that even when he's Scottish, he could still defeat a Blancmange. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And British when he wins. Because people believe that this sort of bias exists and I don't think it does. Alansplodge (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of old information, but the Independent for July 2, 2010, had the results of a survey of "national newspapers" (i.e. presumably UK) counting the number of mentions of Murray's nationality during the previous 10 years: "British" 2,261 and "Scottish" 566. Somewhat more recent is the Evening Standard for July 11, 2013, in which a survey said that before he won Wimbledon, only 36 percent of the English considered him British, and after he won that figure jumped to 48 percent. The percent of Scots who consider him Scottish remained basically unchanged, at 70 to 71 percent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Baseball Bugs, so maybe a grain of truth after all. Alansplodge (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Inquisition

What was so distinctive about the Spanish Inquisition that it is still referenced in literature, jokes, memes, etc? Why don't we remember other inquisitions? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fear and surprise Chuntuk (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chuntuk, that's why I'm asking. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Spanish Inquisition. They were peculiarly enthusiastic about forcing conversions by torture and execution of the non-compliant. and Spain before the inquisition had a large population of Jewish and Muslim people. England, by comparison, had expelled all their Jews in the 14th century and only had a few reformers to worry about. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Spanish Inquisition was an obvious target for writers with an anti-Catholic or anti-clerical agenda. One writer in the 1970s calculated a figure of 31,912 executions, while some Evangelical Protestants have speculated figures in the millions. [1] Recently, other historians have revised the figures downwards, saying that many of the atrocities were carried out by local organisations rather than the Inquisition itself (probably not much comfort to the victims). Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge, Thanks, so the Spanish were markedly more sadistic and bloodthirsty than other inquisitions, though perhaps only because Spain was a particularly "target rich environment" compared to most of the rest of Catholic Europe. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. There were only three Inquisitions; the Spanish one, the Portuguese Inquisition and the Roman Inquisition. An earlier Medieval Inquisition focused on heresies such Catharism. Alansplodge (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish nationalist answer is the Black Legend, which would introduce bias in English, Dutch, French or German sources. The SI was an instrument of the Spanish Crown overruling the different kingdoms (see Antonio Pérez, who fled to Aragon in vain). It was thus opposed by autonomists. It was opposed by the colonialist rivals of Spain, many of them non-Catholics (see for a curious instance the Russian allegations about Peter the Aleut). It was opposed by later freethinkers. It was opposed by Conversos.

In their defense, the last witchcraft trials are the Basque witch trials which ended in 1614 when the inquisitor realized that moral panic and superstition are no good basis for a trial (that did not alleviate fear of witchcraft among the Spanish populace). In contrast, the Salem witch trials are from 1693, and other un-bloodthirsty parts of Europe kept burning witches for longer. The SI had enough work with Conversos, Protestants, blasphemers, alumbrados and Rationalists.

About the toleration of different beliefs, Servetus fled Spain to burn in Geneva, and the persecution of Catholics in the United Kingdom has a long reach, even today when HM's Government is proposing a statute of limitations for the Troubles.

I don't have references, but another apology is that, while the brutality of the SI horrorizes modern white Westerners, its prisons were better than the civilian ones, and criminals would confess inquisitionable offenses to get transferred to Inquisition prisons.

Another cause of its ill fame was its longevity. When the rest of Europe thought of itself as the Enlightenment, the SI was still active until the Napoleonic invasion. Ferdinand VII of Spain restored it later and its restoration was part of the Carlist program. By that time, it was quite tame. Juan Antonio Llorente was its 1808 general secretary, but also an afrancesado and used its privileged access to the archives to write a critical history of the SI.

The victim counts from Spanish sources are lower than those from rival-nation sources.

About Alan's point, there are articles about at least the Mexican Inquisition, Peruvian Inquisition. I don't find one about the Philippine Inquisition.

--Error (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, I should have said European inquisitions (you forgot the Goa Inquisition BTW). Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition is more specialized. --Error (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One thing the Spanish inquisition did which went strongly against the norms of its own time, was take foreign sailors from foreign ships anchored in Spanish harbors and subject them to religious inquisition, even though they were not Spaniards and were not resident in Spain in any meaningful sense (since their ships were scheduled to leave Spain). It would probably be going too far to say that this was a violation of international law, but it was a violation of customary international norms of behavior, and was considered by some outside Spain to be a sign of extreme religious fanaticism which refused to be bound by any limits or rules... AnonMoos (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that. What I understood was that trade between the Spanish Indies and Europe was a Seville (later Cadiz) monopoly. Hence, foreign ships near a Spanish American port could be constructed as smugglers. (I read now that there were exceptions like the asiento de negros and the navío de permiso). Such an incident was the immediate cause of the War of Jenkins' Ear. --Error (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latin

This gentleman is John Florio. He has been accused of being Shakespeare, but we can't blame him for that. Kind people have helped me translate the words surrounding him, but I also want a competent translation of the words under him. Or a source that bothered to translate it, of course. Bottom left corner refers to William Hole, we've figured that out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a transcript:

En virtute suâ contentus, nobilis arte,
Italus ore, Anglus pectore, uterque opere
Floret adhuc, et adhuc florebit; floreat ultra
FLORIUS, hâc specie floridus, optat amans.

Gul: Hole sculp: Tam fœlix utinam.

and here is my attempt at a literal translation:

Behold, [he is] eager by his virtue, noble by [his] art,
Italian by [his] mouth, English by [his] character, and [he]
Flourishes yet by either skill, and will flourish yet; may FLORIO
flourish further, florid by this likeness, [so] wishes a lover.

William Hole sculpted [this]. Would that [I was?] so happy.

I have translated the whole litany of ablatives uniformly by prepositional phrases using the same preposition by. Full disclosure: I am not a native Latin speaker. --Lambiam 21:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's just beautiful, thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was also summoned, I will offer light feedback: while I would not commit LGBT erasure, because it is not factual, I find fault with "so wishes a lover", as the English sounds to me unambiguously homoerotic, while the Latin is not so, so one risks perhaps heterosexual erasure(?). Perhaps something like "so wishes one who admires", or that which you would call only ambiguously homoerotic rather than unambiguously homoerotic. "Vterque opere" would in principle mean "by his work both (Italian and English)", since you translated as if from "utroque opere", which is not what was written. "Sculpsit" I propose to translate as "engraved", since it will simply be better understood. I think also "eager by his virtue" is hard to conceptualize. I would honestly say the Latin is also not entirely easy to conceptualize, but the phrases are not matching in my head, as "eager by his virtue" seems to say in other words that he is just "naturally eager". Perhaps "brimming with virtue", or something of the sort; or indeed "content with his virtue". It is hard for me to conceptualize. "Behold, brimming with his virtue, renowned of skill (or indeed the less translated "noble of art", or "of noble art") / Italian of language (or "Italian when he speaks", as Florio did not grow up in England and could only properly learn English after he came to England at the age of 19, so I imagine he certainly spoke English with an Italian accent and mannerisms), English of heart (or "but his heart is English", "with an English heart", "English on the inside", "essentially English"), [and] both of his work (this sounds perhaps weak, but the English for this expression is not taking shape in my mind) / he flourishes still, and will yet flourish; flourish for ever / FLORIO, blooming as he is here, wishes he who admires." "Engraved by William Hole | Who but were so blessed ("Who wishes he was so blessed")". I wish to avoid "florid" at the cost of wordplay, since for some reason in English this refers to complexion. Sadly I am also not a native speaker of Latin, and not truly proficient. Draco argenteus (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to you too. Hopefully we can crowd-source the stercore out of this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, based on the above comments because I have no Latin at all, "Anglus pectore" should be translated as "English at heart"? Chuntuk (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, possibly "Italian of tongue, English at heart." IacobusAmor (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should not just have written "literal translation" but "(too) literal translation". The Latin ablative can have many meanings, and providing a good translation is not only a matter of choosing the properly idiomatic way of expressing the intent, but also guessing the intent of an ambiguous construction. I indeed did not translate uterque correctly. In the context, I think skill is a better translation though than work. There is some more text along the rim of the oval on the inside: ÆT : 58. A^o. Dⁱ. 1611 and CHI SI CONTENTA GODE. The left part is in Latin: Aetate 58, Anno Domini 1611, meaning At age 58, AD 1611. The right-hand bit is an Italian saying, literally, Whoever is content, enjoys [themselves]. An English equivalent is the saying, "Enough is as good as a feast". --Lambiam 11:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian saying was Florio's motto.^[2] This suggests that in this case the meaning of the ambiguous Latin word contentus is content, satisfied. --Lambiam 11:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, contentus from contineo would be normal in such phrasing, while contentus from contendo, perhaps deeply unusual, on reflection. Draco argenteus (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

virtute contentus just means, 'content with virtue', as it does in Seneca. >Italus ore, Anglus pectore is a deliberate ambiguity, and can also mean 'Italian in appearance/an Englishman at heart'. Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I wouldn't be surprised if Florio and his witty contemporaries chuckled at Italus ore, Anglus pectore as a possible sexual innuendo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would The US Government extradite someone only to deport them?

Hello, Wikipedians I was watching an episode of Law and Order:SVU about a man from Africa who was being deported from the US because he had committed war crimes in Africa, while watching the episode this question that I would like answered came to mind, if that guy fled to Canada would the US Government extradite him back to deport him back to Africa? -- 23:42, 15 July 2021 98.113.197.52

The normal situation is that the country in Africa where he committed his crimes, or an international criminal court, would request extradition from the country where he's located. If he's not currently in the United States, and did not commit any crimes in the United States, then I'm not too sure why the U.S. would even be legally involved. AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition is the legal process of physically transferring an actual person (which is to say, taking him bodily) from one legal jurisdiction to another legal jurisdiction. If the U.S. were not in custody of said person, which is to say if they did not have control of him bodily, they cannot extradite him. If he were in a position to flee (i.e. not detained or locked up) then he cannot be extradited, and if he actually were to flee to Canada, he's now Canada's problem to deal with; they would have to capture and detain him before they could extradite him. The U.S. has no say in such a process once he is outside U.S. jurisdiction. Deportation is slightly different; deportation is the physical removal of a person from your own country. While you also must be in custody of said person to deport them, with deportation, they aren't being transferred to another country specifically in the way they are extradited. In extradition, the receiving country has specifically requested the person's transfer for the purposes of legal prosecution. In deportation, the sending country is kicking the person out, the receiving country may or may not even care if the person is coming. --Jayron 32 11:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the suspect had fled but was now in Canadian custody, and the U.S. asked to have him extradited, it would be in order to put him on trial, not simply to deport him. The U.S. legal authorities would have to demonstrate before a Canadian court that they have sufficient evidence to try him in the U.S., for offenses that are recognized as such under both Canadian and U.S. criminal law. Now, if extradition is granted, the result of the subsequent trial in the U.S. may be that he is sentenced to be deported instead of jail, but the purpose of the extradition request cannot be simply in order to have him deported back to his country of origin. Caveat: IANAL. Xuxl (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See [3], deportation requires an impartial and fair hearing (though a short, summary hearing may be sufficient, a due process in deportation hearing is MUCH lower than the standards of criminal courts) before a person is deported. They don't even need to be judicial hearings, Findings of fact reached by executive officers after a fair, though summary, deportation hearing may be made conclusive. though there are some restrictions as to who can preside over such hearings (i.e. the immigration officers themselves are generally thought to not be sufficiently independent to meet the requirements of the law), it usually isn't, under U.S. law, legally difficult to deport someone; however they would not likely violate the extradition treaty with Canada to avoid a criminal trial in the U.S; if extradited to the U.S. he would likely stand a full criminal trial. More likely, however, is that Canada may instead extradite him to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in The Hague instead, as that court has the specific power to try war crimes; as Canada is a signatory to the ICC they have the power to bring such charges up. The U.S. is not an active signatory to said court, and could not do so. --Jayron 32 15:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]