Humanities desk
< June 11	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 13 >

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.

June 12[edit]

Historical border colonization proposals/attempts/programs[edit]

Due to my own work writing this article (Pashtun colonization of northern Afghanistan), I am curious about this--other than the ethnic Pashtun colonization of Afghanistan, the proposed Polish Border Strip during World War I (which was never implemented), and the proposed Austro-Hungarian border strip in northern Serbia during World War I (which was also never implemented; see here: https://books.google.com/books?id=jGboBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT159&dq=austria-hungary+%22border+strip%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5ht-cqKHNAhVYz2MKHWAWB-8Q6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=austria-hungary%20%22border%20strip%22&f=false ), exactly which other serious proposals/attempts/programs have there been to have the dominant/ruling ethnic or racial group (or groups) in a (specific) country colonize the border areas of this country?

Indeed, any thoughts on this question of mine? Futurist110 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the marches of the Holy Roman Empire ruled by a Markgraf including Austria but not those ruled by the Teutonic Knights outside the empire.
Sleigh (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Welsh Marches? Although in that case the colonization was eventually more inside Wales... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been claimed that China is doing this sort of thing to dilute the native population of what used to be Tibet. See Tibet Autonomous Region#Demography. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a really crappy article yesterday, Forward Policy, which is either on or near this topic, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the article attests, the Transmigration program is sometimes accused of having the same purpose. You could also say the same about the Sri Lankan state-sponsored colonisation schemes Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltic states, I hear, have a large Russian-speaking minority because of Soviet policy. —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree question: What is the relationship called between siblings of a married couple?[edit]

Two people get married (B = bride; G = groom). Bride has a brother (bride's brother = BB) and a sister (bride's sister = BS). Groom has a brother (groom's brother = GB) and a sister (groom's sister = GS). If I am the groom, then the bride's (my wife's) brother and sister (BB and BS) are called my "brother-in-law" and "sister-in-law". Correct? If I am the bride, then the groom's (my husband's) brother and sister (GB and GS) are called my "brother-in-law" and "sister-in-law". Correct? I think: so far, so good. Now, of course, BB and BS are siblings (brother and sister). And GB and GS are siblings (brother and sister). So, my question: what is the relationship between the different sets of siblings? If I am BB or BS, what is the relationship that I have with GB and/or GS called? And vice versa. If I am GB or GS, what is the relationship that I have with BB and/or BS called? Are these relationships also called "brother-in-law" and "sister-in-law"? Or no? Is there some other relational term? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:co-brother-in-law and wikt:co-sibling-in-law and wikt:co-sister-in-law.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a term I have ever actually heard used (in England). There is no specific term in common use - I would simply refer to my sister-in-law's brother, or my brother-in-law's sister. Wymspen (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that there's no proper term in common usage. In some cases, they may just refer to each other as "in-laws", depending on their closeness (in terms of friendship, not strictly kinship). Or even siblings. Matt Deres (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the reverse confusion. English, in its paucity of names for relationships, uses the same term for my spouse's sibling as my sibling's spouse. If I refer to my brother-in-law, I may or may not be married. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Western countries use the Eskimo kinship system. There is no relationship in our system.
Sleigh (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English has many oddities in the way it names relatives. Consider this one. Your great grandfather is from the generation before your great uncle. Your great great uncle and your great grandfather are the same generation. Bonkers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That one is logical if you accept that great = grand. So "Great grandfather" = father + 2 extra generations, "Great great uncle" = uncle + 2 extra generations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. Two different words that are not interchangeable ("Meet my greatfather" will be misunderstood every time) for the same thing is just a confusing oddity. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

grand uncle is a known term, though it has always been less popular than great uncle. So, there is a workable English term, "grand uncle", which avoids the problem. --Jayron 32 05:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lahu surnames[edit]

Are there any Lahu surnames besides See, Saesee, Seechan and Balang? Cilantrohead (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about the Lahu which says "Lahu people used to have just a given name, until the Chinese government gave them surnames. About 90% of the Lahu people are either named Lee or Zhang, two of the most common Chinese surnames." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wymspen (talk • contribs) 11:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That fact in the article only applies to China and is unsourced. Nonetheless, Lee and Zhang do seem to be the most common surnames among the Lahu groups currently in China. In one particular Chinese Lahu village there are five surnames: Shi, Zhang, Li, Luo and Wei.[1] Among the Lahu, surnames are of little significance; they tend only to use them when required by authorities and are very fluid -- when asked for a surname, a child may report the surname of their father, their mother, or even adopt their own.[2] While "Lee/Li" seems to be the most common Lahu surname in China, many choose "Zhang" as that was the Han name given to a prestigious Lahu family associated with the reborn E Sha Buddha in the 1800s and others choose to be called Bai, Tie, Shi, Ji, or Kong.[3] However, Lahu in Southeast Asia (Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam) tend to adopt surnames similar to that of those of their host nations. The four names the OP mentions are common Lahu surnames in Southeast Asia[4] and are similar to surnames of other, non-related, tribes in Thailand such as the Iu Mien people. Many Lahu in Southeast Asia have no surnames and only "acquire" one through intermarriage with different ethnic groups.[5]--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 12:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]