Humanities desk
< July 17	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 19 >

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.

July 18

Oceanian turbans

How common was wearing turbans in the islands of the Pacific in Oceania? I am wondering if the turban worn by Seru Epenisa Cakobau in this portrait was a native or an introduced/European influenced type of fashion. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mention here of "a turban-like headdress made of masi which was a prerogative of chiefs". Searching for masi and turban brings up a couple more references,[1] [2] it seems very likely an indigenous Fijian garment. 184.147.131.217 (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they were influenced by anyone, I'd think it would be Sihks or some Muslims, who also wear turbans. Muslim influence did spread fairly near Fiji, to Indonesia, for example (much closer than Europe, in any case). StuRat (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turbans have existed thousands of years in the Middle East and other part of the world even in Renaissance Europe before the Muslims or Sikhs came along. --2602:30A:C0A8:AC10:289F:BEBC:6382:F3C7 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they were less common in pre-Muslim Europe, and much farther away from the Fiji chief in both space and time, making any influence from there less likely. StuRat (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the Muslims copied the turban from the Byzantine Empire (and Constantinople is in Europe). Alansplodge (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Byzantine Empire fell in 1453, and the Fiji chief in question was born in 1815, making any direct influence from the Byzantines unlikely. StuRat (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: maybe indirectly though. Alansplodge (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If turbans weren't a native innovation, it is most likely a fashion adopted from South Asian maritime trading contacts or, a little later on, from Lascars who deserted European vessels. The sandalwood trade was just one enterprise that historically brought many ships from India to the area.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the leads. I think from the things I was able to find online that, which I used to create I-sala, it was most likely a native custom that merely resembles the turbans of Asia. It turns out that it was more of a hairscarf and the turban shape is from the hair of the wearer and not from wrapping in the shape of a normal turban. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a US senator who represent two countries?

Not at the same time, of course. 149.78.124.20 (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "countries" I assume you mean states? See Category:Members of Congress who served in multiple states for the full list of Senators and Representatives - note that some people on the list have served as Representative for one state and Senator for another. James Shields is the only senator to have represented three states (Illinois, Missouri and Minnesota). Tevildo (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only other person to have represented two states as Senator (rather than Senator and Representative) is Waitman T. Willey (Virginia and West Virginia). Tevildo (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not assume that. "States" can mean either, but "countries" only means nations. StuRat (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the language in the Title of Nobility Clause would prevent a US Senator from holding an office in a foreign country. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does. The President must be a "natural born" citizen, but not Senators, AFAIK. Thus, somebody with dual citizenship could possible serve in both nations at the same time. There are restrictions on Senators accepting cash from foreigners, though, so financing a campaign abroad could be tricky. If they were rich and could self-finance, that issue would be eliminated. Then there would be charges of "dual loyalties" made by their opponents in each nation, but those would be less of an issue if the two nations were close allies. Of course, no restrictions in place in the US would keep an ex-Senator from moving to another country and then seeking office there. StuRat (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see several ways around that:

1) It doesn't apply to an ex-Senator.

2) It doesn't apply to somebody running for Senate who formerly held a foreign office.

3) It's unclear whether it applies to somebody currently holding a foreign office who then runs for US Senator. It could be interpreted to not allow them to accept the offer while they are a US Senator. (If the concern was that the offer of a foreign office could be used to reward a US Senator for a given vote, that wouldn't work if they already had it when elected in the US. Case 1 would still be a concern, but then US Senators voting in favor of some bill and then getting rewarded with a lucrative job at the company that benefited from that vote, as soon as they leave office, is a far more severe problem.)

4) Congress can give their consent, in any case. As I already mentioned, for purely political reasons the two nations would need to be close allies anyway, so consent from Congress might not be that difficult to get (although partisan politics might get in the way). StuRat (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We may mention in passing Oliver Wallop, 8th Earl of Portsmouth, who had been a legislator in Wyoming before he succeeded to the peerage; and John W. Geary, who was San Francisco's last alcalde and first mayor, governor of Kansas Territory, and governor of Pennsylvania. —Tamfang (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget the Republic of Texas... there were several early US Senators from Texas who had served in various posts in the Texas government prior to Texas becoming a State. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the Confederate States of America formed its provisional congress at the outset of the Civil War, one of its members was John Hemphill, who had been a U.S. senator. I don't know if he was the only one (I only noticed him by seeing the disambiguator "(senator)" on this page), and I don't know if any former US senators were members of the CSA's later, elected congresses. Of course, since the US won the war, the de jure status of the CSA is that it was never a real country and doesn't count anyway. --174.88.133.35 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Davis, before becoming President of the CSA, was a senator from Mississippi (and also a House representative from Mississippi and Pierce's Secretary of War).--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CSA was not an actual nation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's arguments to be made in both directions on that. Let's just say it's not clearly one side or the other. --Jayron 32 04:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No nation considered the CSA to be a separate country. They had no more legitimacy as a nation than did Sealand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, the CSA did have informal relationships with France and Britain. Napoleon III was sympathetic to their cause, but pragmatically avoided formal recognition because they were never really viable. There's some speculation that Trent Affair could have caused Britain to formally support the Confederacy as well. --Jayron 32 06:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't the place to argue this, but, in brief, whether any other country considered the CSA to be a separate country is irrelevant in determining its status as a nation per se. Take a Poli Sci 101 class and it will be clear that all of Bugs' arguments are against its legitimacy (i.e. its relationship to other nations), not its status as a nation. All that's required for a nation state is that there be an "identification of a people with a polity" -- in this case a polity that happened to have its own constitutional framework, an elected government, well-defined borders, armed forces to protect said borders, printed and used its own currency, etc. You can argue against its de jure legitimacy, but not its de facto status and operation as a sovereign nation (however short-lived) during the war.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 07:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CSA pretended to be a nation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As sovereign states customarily do. —Tamfang (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Ward served in the Texas House of Representatives (when it was an independent country) and later as a U.S. Senator, so that's close. --Jayron 32 03:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Claiborne Clay served in the Senates of both the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. There may be more, a good place to research this would be at List of members of the Confederate Senate. --Jayron 32 03:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which side is whose?

In the Middle East the old bipolar alliances are clearly dead. Old enemies the US," Iran, and Syria each oppose ISIS. Sunnis and Shias are generally at each other's throats. President Obame has declared "daylight" between the US and Israel, after decades of very close cooperation.

Can anybody make sense of the current lineups? How many conflicts are there, and which countries are on each side? --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complex task, but let's take a shot at it:

Palestinian conflict: Israel on one side, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Iran, Syria (the remaining area controlled by Bashar al-Assad) on the other. The US supports Israel politically and financially, but not with direct military intervention. Egypt is an interesting case, where the military government now in control (and formerly in control before the Arab Spring) opposes the Palestinian militants, while the recent Muslim Brotherhood government supported them. Most other Middle Eastern and EU nations stay somewhat neutral.

Syrian Civil War: a 3-way conflict here, with Assad and his supporters (including Iran) on one side, the US, Kurds, and some small remaining rebel groups on another, and ISIL on the other. Turkey is trying to remain neutral.

Iraqi insurgency: Similar to the Syrian Civil War, except Assad isn't involved and the Iraqi military is, allied with the US, although some Iraqi militias are under Iranian control.

Yemeni Civil War: Saudi Arabia is on the side of the old Yemeni government (what little is left of it), while Iran is supporting the rebels. The US has so far avoided this one. ISIL/ISIS has even fought against Al-Qaeda in Yemen. So, this is like a 4-way civil war.

There are also conflicts in Afghanistan, North Africa, etc., but I tried to narrowly define "Middle East" to avoid talking about those. One key to understanding the current situation is that the secular vs. fundamentalist division has now become as important as which sect/religion people are in. So, just being in the same sect and religion no longer guarantees that two groups will be allies, as was the case with recent fighting between Hamas and the Fatah, while secular people can cooperate even if they are of different religions, like the Israeli government and current Egyptian government. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it is more complex, and I think StuRat's description doesn't capture very well how Palestine issue and the Israeli role links to the regional confrontations.

There are several layers of conflict, that correlate with each other. What needs to be stated is that different actors have primary and secondary antagonists. Iran and Saudi are competing for regional influence across the region, a mini Cold War of sorts. This confrontation is largely fought along Sunni-Shia lines, but it would be wrong to say that the confrontation in based upon sectarian contradictions. Rather Sunni-Shia sectarianism is an instrumentalization of a regional power game. Notably for Iran the sectarianization of regional power struggle has meant that it has had to retreat from its past ambitions to become a leading pan-Islamic force (an ambition that peaked with the 2006 Lebanon War).

Israel pitches Iran to be its primary opponent, but doesn't mean that Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies per se. Pitching itself against Iran is important for Israeli leaders in order to plead for US politicians to fund their military, it is a semantic game to portray one-self as the underdog.

In regards to Syria, Israel has exclusively hit Hezbollah/regime targets, even at times that Hezbollah battles with al-Qaeda affiliate Nusra Front. Stating that Israel and Nusra are allies would be a stretch, but evidently Israel prefers having Nusra on the Golan than Hezbollah.

All Palestinians inside Palestine are united against the Israeli occupation, there isn't any political space for collaborationist projects. Contradictions between Palestinian parties is a secondary contradiction. The Palestinians have tried to stay out of regional conflicts, but economic dependency on either Gulf states, Western states or Iran complicates that. --Soman (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "All Palestinians inside Palestine are united against the Israeli occupation", that wouldn't seem to apply to Arabs with Israeli citizenship. (I am defining "Palestine" to include Israel, as most Palestinians do.) StuRat (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that quote were literally true, it would indicate that peace-loving Palestinians are afraid to speak up, for fear of being killed by their beneficent leaders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One can be peacefully against an occupation. Typically not very effective, but popular for everyone's natural instinct against being killed by anyone. Si vis pacem, para bellum isn't as catchy as kumbaya. Despite the picture in American news, the majority of the opposition goes forward by not fighting fire with fire. Doing so is virtually a sure loss, and the violence is the thing they oppose, not the occupation, per se. Good intentions, which still pave the road to hell. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"For those who have never lived in a system of violence like the Israeli occupation, it is hard to understand how simply not going anywhere constitutes resistance, but when the objective of your oppressor is to get you to leave your land, staying put is part of the daily struggle. In this sense, every Palestinian living under the Israeli occupation is a nonviolent resister." InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I dispute that "all Palestinians inside Palestine are united against the Israeli occupation, there isn't any political space for collaborationist projects". Plenty of Palestinians would be happy to move to Israel if they had the chance. Or for Israel and the West Bank to unite into a "bi-national" state. Abu Mazen runs on a relatively moderate (or at least pragmatic) platform, and he's mainstream. And when it comes to non-political practical collaboration with Israel, be it civil administration, military, or commercial, believe me, thousands of Palestinians are involved in such activities. They don't usually feel safe boasting about it, though. Nuance and moderation are not unheard of in the West Bank. The compactness of the Gaza Strip on the other hand, pretty much forces everyone into the same cauldron, ergo a lot less nuance. 110.149.165.69 (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think someone should refer the OP the the USA's long-term strategy: Balance of power (international relations). The US remains the biggest guy in the room by ensuring that everybody else is worrying about each other, and cancelling each other out, so no regional hegemon arises. Ergo, The US can and does shift alliances to help maintain this supposed "balance". That's the theory, at least. 110.149.165.69 (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal level many Palestinians are coerced into collaboration. Sometimes for money, sometimes to secure medical treatment for a family member. This reality is very much part of the Palestinian collective tragedy. But as a political project, collaborationism would be a dead-end. Fatah, albeit heavily entrenched in coordinations with Israeli authorities, maintains a nationalist posture. --Soman (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Syrian Conflict is far more complex as our article describes. You left out Hezbollah, the Khurds, Iran, etc. and al Qaeda versus ISIL among other belligerents. Rmhermen (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Good afternoon!

On the Wikipedia page for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (top, right hand side) it has his birth name as:

Born	Michael King, Jr.

January 15, 1929 Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.

Is this correct?

Thank You,

boyd schenck2601:242:8201:16F0:CD78:FE57:BC1B:4B67 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post. In the "early life and education" section the birth name is mentioned with a link to this website as a reference so the line in the infobox is correct. MarnetteD|Talk 19:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though King's father said Martin was never supposed to be named Michael, but the doctor made an incorrect assumption and "Michael" ended up on the birth certificate. But yeah, the definition of "birth name" seems to be "whatever the doctor wrote on the paper", rather than "what the family intended and actually used". He was apparently never called "Michael". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:242:8201:16F0:CD78:FE57:BC1B:4B67 (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]