Humanities desk
< May 15	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 17 >

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.

May 16[edit]

Republic colonialism[edit]

Assuming the question would center around the 1800s and the age of colonialism, can a republic (say in Europe) colonize land and not be considered an empire? 64.229.204.143 (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the Republic of Somewhere Largely Unnoticed sent a fleet to colonise Somewhere Else That Nobody Was Quite Sure Actually Existed, I doubt that they'd qualify as an empire. For a practical historical example, see Darien scheme - though this was a kingdom attempting to become an empire, rather than a republic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be a little confused between the vague semi-metaphorical term "colonial empire" and the specific use of the word Empire to refer to the realm ruled over by an emperor. Of the 19th-century colonial powers, only the U.K. claimed to be a formal empire based on its colonial possessions -- after the Mogul figureheads were deposed as a result of the Indian Mutiny, Victoria proclaimed herself "Empress of India"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Empire of Brazil count? —Tamfang (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The colonizing of uninhabited lands shouldn't be considered imperialism, right? Such as Portugal's colonization of Madeira and the Azores. Pfly (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this addresses the question, but the Dutch were a republic until 1795, and the lands they colonized are known as the Dutch Empire. Looie496 (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this also has to do with the question of how the word 'empire' is understood. For the time period you're asking about, having an empire, I assume, would be seen as positive. If we look at terms such as 'manifest destiny', and 'mission civilisatrice', these convey that empire and colonisation were positive as they sought to spread civilisation from Europe to the barbarian others. Being an empire would therefore not be something which should be shunned.

Today, on the other hand, 'empire' seems to have a more negative undertone. Just think of Star Wars or Reagan's 'evil empire'. The idea being that an empire imposes its will (foreign domination) on relatively peace-loving isolated natives who represent no threat to the empire. Being an empire, is domination, subjugation, racism and exploitation of others. In this context, being labelled 'an empire' is surely something no polity would want.

This then begs the question of how the term 'empire' is meant to be understood. In a Western context we usually see an empire to be expansionist, but what about states that are not expansionist? (Imperial China is typically portrayed to be a relatively peaceful state for most of its existence, not seeking to conquer others.) Similarly, Japan is ruled by an emperor, but is quite mono-ethnic and doesn't seem to fit the bill for a vast and multi-ethnic polity. V85 (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, beyond the cultural understanding of imperialism; we should think about the functional material meanings. Lenin's Imperialism is trite except for its insights on the fundamental interlinking of capitalist economies: that monopoly capitalism implies a certain kind of empire. China was in no sense an "empire" in these terms of reference. And I'd suggest that they're far in advance of whatever gutter sweepings of rhetoric were piled together by the military-industry complex. No matter how much of a fuckstick Lenin was, he at least took theory seriously; even when he got it wrong (such as in an infantile disorder). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Theories of New Imperialism... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Relations[edit]

A person who studied international relations in the university is called what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.155.106.225 (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployed. 109.97.173.200 (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a heading for this question. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International relations isn't a professional qualification, so it doesn't automatically lead to any particular title. For someone who is studying or is considered an authority on international relations, Wikipedia uses the term "international relations scholar". Warofdreams talk 09:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on their degree, but it may be BA (Sociology) or PhD (Politics) or MSocSci (International Relations). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The usual degree in Germany would be a BA/MA/PhD (Political Science / rer. pol.). Whereas a BA Soc/soc.sci. could certainly involve themselves in the study of International Relations, Sociologists might involve themselves more heavily with organizations and nonprofit organizations and rather less heavily in the study of the political interactions between nation states themselves. Also: BA degrees do not usually lead to the level of qualification necessary for the term IR-scholar. Pertinent charis are usually attached to the political science departement. --Abracus (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they studied the subject to postgraduate level, and are employed in the field, you could call them, as suggested above, an "international relations scholar" or an "expert in international relations". There is no short term for them like "sociologist", "economist" or "political scientist". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what if you studied "European studies" or "African studies?" 88.9.109.2 (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the office we describe multi-disciplinary scholars who study and teach European studies or African studies, "Europeanists" or "Africanists"; probably because one of our disciplines does this for historians with geographically prescribed specialities, compare "Early Modernist," "Medievalist" Fifelfoo (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In many places here in the US (like where I went), African history is shunted off into "world history" and not really given as much attention as it should; the one professor at our school who specialized in African history (specifically West Africa) was a "world history" professor. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Identify somebody from history[edit]

Who is he?

http://i49.tinypic.com/331lt9w.png

Thank you!

193.224.66.230 (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Mengele.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a serial killer. Although, come to think of it... ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More of a parallel killer. StuRat (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

And the boy gets a cigar! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English term for the French "l'Euphratèse"[edit]

In French articles on the history of Byzantium/Armenia I find the term "l'Euphratèse", for which I don't know the analogue in English. Would be grateful for help. --Max Shakhray (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Euphratensis, "sometimes called Euphratesia or Augusta Euphratensis". ---Sluzzelin talk 13:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The French term is associated with the name of Vasil Gogh, who was "the ruler of Euphratèse" [1], but for some reason I can't find any mutual mention of Euphratensis and Gogh in English [2]. --Max Shakhray (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though French historiography uses the term Euphtratèse to refer to the region of the former Roman province of Euphratensis even in later periods when the province no longer existed, whereas in English the term refers only to the Roman and early Byzantine province itself, which ceased to exist during the 7th century, before the time of Gogh Vasil . During the 7th century, the former provinces were replaced by the Byzantine themes, but by the time of Vasil, the theme structure had been replaced in Vasil's region by more of a warlord organization. Vasil was such a warlord. I don't think that English has a generic name for the region Vasil ruled. Usually it is described in terms of its capital, known as Kaysun or Kesun. Note that Vasil's name is often spelled "Kogh Vasil" in English. Marco polo (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Office of Economic Opportunity[edit]

Where was OEO located in the early 1970s? This page says that it started in the Executive Office of the President, but I can't find any organisational history beyond that — no indication that it moved and no indication that it stayed where it started. Nyttend (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 1973, President Nixon ordered the OEO Director to dismantle the Office of Economic Opportunity. Several NGOs sued to keep it open and a Federal court ordered the administration to halt termination. In 1975, President Ford signed a bill creating Community Service Administration to replace OEO. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chafing-dish[edit]

A Chafing-dish "... is a kind of portable grate ("a dish of Coles")". What does this mean?Curb Chain (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking what "a dish of Coles" means, try with modern spelling: "a dish of coals". Does that help? --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. But checking wiktionary or wikipedia does-not/did-not indicate that Coles was an older spelling or indicate why "C" was capitalized.Curb Chain (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says "Forms: OE–ME col, ME–17 cole, ME kole, ME–15 coole, (ME–15 Sc. coyll(e, coil(l, colle), 15–16 coale, 15– coal." --ColinFine (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back far enough, English didn't have any rules. Some people seemed to capitalize all nouns, for example. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English always had rules. Some of them were different from the ones we have now. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike with French, there's no formal body which decides the rules, even today. However, a rough consensus of rules has emerged, over time. But, back before the creation of dictionaries and such, everyone spelled things and capitalized however they wanted. StuRat (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question should probably remove the archaicly spelled quote anyways. It doesn't add to the article so much as it confuses the heck out of people. I will do that presently. --Jayron32 23:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why "chafing-dish" is hyphenated in the title and the first word of the article, but unhyphenated thereafter. I don't understand the purpose of the hyphen to begin with (but then, I am an arch-anti-over-hyphenationist). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well based on the rule of thumb that the description in the article should match the title you've got a choice. You can either go through and hyphenate the name through the article, or move the article. -- role^player 06:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew how to fix it, thanks anyway. I wanted to know why the discrepancy is there in the first place. I'm assuming good faith here, by assuming there's a reason for this. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason for the hyphen (except, of course, in the cites where "chafing-dish" is used as a two-word adjective), so I agree with Jack that we should remove the hyphen at the start of the article and move the article. I've left a note on the talk page. Dbfirs 08:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional explanation is that a "chafing-dish" is a dish for chafing, while a "chafing dish" is a dish that is chafing (for example, it might be incorporated into one's costume if one were an avant-garde musical artiste, and the fit might be slightly imperfect). But I agree that this sort of distinction isn't usually observed these days. Tevildo (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I've ever seen reference to frying-pans, roasting-pans, baking-dishes, scouring-pads, carving-knives or cooking-implements of any kind. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the OP (and I've probably misunderstood what the OP is after here) a chafing dish has a source of heat in a container underneath a grid on which food is kept warm. If you imagine a barbecue with charcoal in you're part of the way there: rake some of the hot coals into a metal tin, put a lid on it and then put something you want to keep warm such as a casserole on top and you've got it. These days they use tealights instead of coals. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the differences are subtle and overlapping between such things as chafing dishes, braziers, warming tables, tureens, tajines, hibachi, etc. Such dishes and serving methods have overlapping definitions and uses, and there are not sharp dividing lines between them. Which term one uses depends a lot on cultural factors and other subtle differences. --Jayron32 13:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]