Humanities desk
< May 17	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 19 >

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.

May 18[edit]

Woodrow Wilson, national self-determination, and the Mexican-American War[edit]

How exactly did Woodrow Wilson square his support for national self-determination with the United States's conduct in the Mexican-American War seventy years earlier (specifically taking land from Mexico without inquiring about the views of the inhabitants of the Mexican Cession on this transfer)? Futurist110 (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that he ever needed to, either with his own conscience or with other inquisitors? (Not a leading or contrarian question – I genuinely don't know.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.24.23 (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe nobody ever asked him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to 1848 Mexican-American War - Opposing Viewpoints from the University of Michigan; 'many Americans had the idea of a “manifest destiny” carved into their heads. They insisted that their nation had a manifest destiny to dominate the continent and felt that it was their mission to extend the “boundaries of freedom” to others by passing on their idealism and belief in democratic institutions to those who were capable of self-government'.

We also have an article; manifest destiny, a concept which was not universally accepted in the USA.

Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Ford stair incident[edit]

A disclaimer that this is a U.S.-centric question. How significantly did the Gerald Ford stair incident significantly impact his political viability? I hear it cited a lot as one of the most embarrassing moments ever for a U.S. President, mostly by comedians, but it's not clear to me how much it actually affected his standing.--WaltCip (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Ford was dead-in-the-water from the moment of the Pardon of Richard Nixon. Presidents aren't elected or not elected based on odd goofs that occasionally happen to them, like tripping or something like that. It was a non-issue; most people saw Ford as intractably tied to Nixon and Watergate; the article 1976 United States presidential election makes no mention of the incident. Ford was generally a competent politician and he tended to perform well on the issues and in direct debates with Carter, but Carter tended to benefit from the dislike of the handling of Watergate. The election was close in the end, but the economic downturn of the 1970s, the association with Nixon, and the rather ignominious end to the Vietnam war probably were enough to undo his chance for election (not re-election, it should be noted, he was never elected). The surprise was not that Ford lost, but that he made it as close as it was; by all reasonable analysis, Carter should have crushed him. This article does a good job of analyzing the election. It also makes no note of Ford's clumsiness. --Jayron 32 14:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about what I figured too. I was just wondering if that moment ever amounted to anything more than a punchline, or if it ever permeated the American psyche any more than the rest of Ford's reputation - and, of course, the pardoning of Nixon. And from what you are saying, it likely didn't.--WaltCip (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It made a good source of comedy for impressionists and comedians, but then again every President has done something in terms of their personality, actions, tics, and foibles that will ALWAYS provide some fodder for caricaturists to exploit. Ford's clumsiness was one of those, but not particularly distinct from those of other presidential parodies. I can come up with similar events or character traits that have been exploited by comedians for literally every President since then, from Reagan's detached cluelessness to Clinton's lechery, and none of it means all that much in the end. --Jayron 32 15:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional staple of SNL.[1][2] Aykroyd did a fun Nixon. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959)[edit]

How is Bartkus pronounced? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 22:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an audio of the Lithuanian pronunciation of the name; I hear /ˈbɐrt.kus/. (Disclaimer: my knowledge of Lithuanian phonology is merely based on reading the Wikipedia article.) For US speakers, the natural inclination would be to say /ˈbɑɹt.kəs/. Alfonse Bartkus's sister married someone with the Lithuanian surname "Blozis",^[3] so apparently the family maintained a Lithuanian identity, but this need not mean they kept the original pronunciation. Noam Chomsky's father migrated from what is now Ukraine, where to this day his surname is often spelled^[4][5][6] and pronounced [Ukrainian phonology|the Ukrainian way]: Хомський, /ˈxɔms.kɪj/. --Lambiam 11:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]