Humanities desk
< February 16	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 18 >

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.

February 17

Vietnamese protest in Washington 1974

Anyone know of any online resources addressing a protest by Vietnamese in Washington in 1974? The protest was against Congress rejecting an increase in aid to South Vietnam. Sorry, I know the information provided is thin. I've checked Google news archives with no luck. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No source, but the vote was on cutting off aid, not rejecting an increase. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how do we go about finding donnors for an income project for non governmental organization

We are an organization that sees to the plight of elderly people aged 65 years and above. These elderly are in their homes as most of them look after children and orphans affected and infected by HIV and AIDS related diseases. We have embarked on horticulture and our challenge is water, we are apealling for a borehole and fence.Maybe you can direct us to where we can apply for funding,

Thank you,

Nariyeti Mpala Director -Trace The Fortune Of The Elderly Organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.221.242.173 (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could start with United Way Worldwide, and ask if they have a chapter in your nation. If so, then you could apply for aid from them. StuRat (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon Crook

Our article on Croydon says "in 1883 the ancient parish of Croydon, excluding its exclave of Croydon Crook or Selsdon was created a municipal borough within Surrey." Is anything else known about this exclave? The Selsdon article--rossb (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC) throws no light on it.[reply]

For a start, two pages from the London Gazette of January 9 1883, documenting the legal incorporation of the Crook into the Borough of Croydon, under the Municipal Corporations Act 1882. [1][2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, that raises a problem - our article says that the Crook was excluded in 1883, whereas the document I've found seems to be saying that the Crook was incorporated into Croydon in 1883. Maybe I've misinterpreted the material, or maybe our article is wrong... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - I've misread the documents I linked - The Crook (which was part of the parish of Croydon) was excluded when Croydon was incorporated as a municipal corporation in 1883. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the boundaries of an exclave on the Vision of Britain website. Go to Croydon St John the Baptist AP/CP and choose 'Boundary map'. There are two slightly different redline boundaries superimposed, but one of them has an exclave covering Selsdon. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secession from the Russian Federation? (was USSR Dissolution)

Since the USSR was made up of republics, and they split up, could there be a scenario in which some of Russia's current "republics" secede? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.68.10 (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The right of secession was written into the Soviet Constitution, but I strongly doubt whether there's such a right in the Russian constitution, and Chechnya's attempt to secede hasn't gone too well...AnonMoos (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(@199.203.68.10): there have been a number of disputes, most notably related to Chechnya, which led to violence. See First Chechen War and Second Chechen War

No republic has yet seceded from the Russian Federation.

(See also South Ossetia and Abkhazia that achieved some measure of independence from the former Soviet republic of Georgia, with support from Russia. Also Ingushetia that seceded from Chechnya to join the Russian Federation.)

To an extent, you are asking us to predict the future, which reference desks don't do (apart from solar eclipses) so I have tried to help as far as I can.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This source may be of interest although a little old [3]. This even older may be too [4] if you can get access to it. If you're interested in the legal issues [5] seems interesting. And this very old source [6] a good reminder against too much crystal balling. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of Putin's first acts in power was to strip the right of the republics to elect their own governors, and making them subject to appointment by him from Moscow. That goes a long way toward quashing the possibility of secession, or reform of the central government at the insistence of the regional governments. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russia is a federation in name only. The 1993 constitution does not allow the "federal subjects" to secede. Separatist talk is viewed as a crime. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why more Indian indentured workers were imported, not Chinese to Guyana?

Hi. I like to know why did the British import more Indians indentured workers than Chinese indentured workers to British Guiana (now Guyana) back in the 19th century? Was it the long distance and too costly to ship those Chinese workers to Guyana? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at our Indian indenture system article, which says that despite abuses, the system was legally regulated at both ends. In India, there was a potential labour force of many millions, at least some of whom would be willing to submit themselves to indenture. The only part of China under direct British rule was Hong Kong which was acquired in the 1840s, after the indenture system was already underway, and perhaps more importantly, in the mid-19th century, Hong Kong had a population of only 125,000. The total number of indentured workers eventually sent to British Guiana was 239,000. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The British could have gotten more Chinese labour force from mainland China or they could have taken some Chinese or Malays from Malaysia. Why didn't the British do that and ship them to Guyana for plantation? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because they already had the system in place to ship them from India. That's basically what Alansplodge said. I'm not sure why that clear answer is unacceptable. --Jayron32 02:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify further, to get around British anti-slavery laws, before labourers could be indentured, they had to appear in front of a magistrate (a sort of amateur judge who dealt with minor cases) and swear that they were going voluntarily. This had to be done in the town where they had been recruited, rather than their exit port, as it was thought this would avoid coercion. There were no British magistrates in mainland China. I'm not very well-versed in the history of Malaysia, but it seems that the British started in Singapore and slowly consolidated their hold on the various Malay states, a process that wasn't completed until the early part of the 20th century, according to our Malaysia article. Our Malaysian Chinese article says that although there were some early Chinese settlers in the Malay Peninsula, the bulk of them in the "Third Wave" arrived during the British administration "from the late 19th century until the early 20th century". Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading is at Forced Labour: A New System of Slavery?, an article accompanying an exhibition at The National Archives (United Kingdom). It mentions early attempts (1830s) to recruit labourers from China, but doesn't say why they were unsuccessful. This was before the legal regulation of the indenture scheme. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can a country be led by a dead person?

I saw a thing earlier today on one of reddit's subs, "Today I Learned" - the essentials of this entry were that the late leader of North Korea, Kim Il Sung, is still technically (albeit not formally) in charge of the country. This is apparently a Necrocracy - government by the dead. The question I have is - how the hell does that work? Thanks. CharlieTheCabbie (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done before. Mankind might be "progressing" toward a neanderthal revival where certain politicians claim the ability to "channel" their desires. 71.246.144.84 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC) What is wrong with this reply? I didn't expect it to attract so much attention, did you? Something we'd rather not face? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, look at the latter part of the Woodrow Wilson, and Warren G. Harding administrations. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read 1984? Cambalachero (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CharlieTheCabbie, since it seems self-evident that you won't get a serious answer to your question on this so-called 'reference desk', I suggest that you first look at our articles on North Korea, Government of North Korea and Politics of North Korea, and then look elsewhere - you might find some useful material in the references cited for our articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevamind AtG here -- the point is that a dead person clearly has difficulty communicating his edicts to others ... which I suspect you already knew. This "desk" is more a community affair -- and sometimes when the "real answer" is sufficiently clear, editors go off on tangents, just as most people actually behave in real life. And clearly there have been a number of examples of governments pretending that the "leader" is not incapacitated, but they generally do acknowledge death at some point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that non-communicative entities (Allah, God Senior, God Junior, God the Pigeon) are "technically (albeit not formally) in charge" of numerous Necrocracies. So help me God. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was dead for a couple of days. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember hearing a conspiracy theory that posits Leonid Brezhnev having died in 1978 but being replaced by a series of doubles for public appearances. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, his eyebrows were sentient enough to maintain control of basic government functions even after the rest of him passed away... --Jayron32 21:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Serious answer: a dead leader functions as a political ideal, to more or less the same degree as The Glorious Revolution or the Intent of the Founders. Whoever is physically in charge would have to justify their actions as in accordance with the beliefs of the leader (WWKISD: What Would Kim Il Sung Do?). This gives them a fair degree of policy latitude, of course, but it also serves as a constraint: would Fearless leader really support executing one's political rivals? OldTimeNESter (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Prime Minister of Australia, Harold Holt, went for a swim at a beach on 17 December 1967, and was never seen again. Searches were carried out, to no avail. But the caravan of government has to move on, so on 19 December he was officially declared presumed dead, his commission as prime minister was formally terminated and a new PM was sworn in. At the time there was no provision under Victorian law for an inquest where there was no body and no absolute proof of death. That did not change until 2005. An inquest was finally conducted; it was very brief, there was no new evidence tendered, and the coroner formally ruled that, as everyone had always known, Holt had drowned on the day he disappeared, 17 December 1967. But he still remained formally the prime minister until 19 December. After 37 years it would be pointless to go back and retrospectively amend the termination of his commission to have it conclude 2 days earlier. So, for 2 days, Australia was ~~lead~~ led by a dead person. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gee: lead (noun) = soft grey metal; to lead (verb) = to go ahead or to command; led = past tense of "to lead", but pronounced the same as the metal, which is spelled the same as the present tense of the verb. Now that I've got that out of my system, I would like to know if there is a real question here. Any country can declare anything it likes in its constitution. If Kim was proclaimed leader "in perpetuity", or some such phrase, I guess we could say he's technically still the leader. Jeremy Bentham still attends meetings at London University and is formally recorded as being present every time his stuffed body is brought in to the room. His contributions, however, have not been notable in recent centuries. Paul B (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Laveau still draws an exceptional number of tourists into New Orleans. While not officially a leader (or a landlocked country), the economy wouldn't be the same without her. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a dead leader is only one of an entire class of absentee leaders. There have been incapacitated leaders (including US Presidents, one of whom seemed to have his wife acting on his behalf), child rulers with regents supposedly acting on their behalf, and, as mentioned previously, God is often listed as the official ruler, but whoever interprets the will of God just so happens to always interpret it to be in their own personal interest.

Then you have situations like Imperial Japan, where the emperor was the official leader, but he was considered to be a god, and thus above the daily decisions required to run a nation, and so had others to do that for him. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does technically differ from formally in this case? DanielDemaret (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically = He's still in charge, because He's the Eternal Leader according to the law. Formally = He's obviously not in charge, because He's a skeleton in a hole somewhere. CharlieTheCabbie (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an uncommon use of 'formally', and I think swapping the labels 'technically' and 'formally' would be at least as valid. Your best bet might be de jure vs de facto. —Tamfang (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the monarch theoretically holds absolute power, but delegates all of it to an elected government. The monarch is not dead, but it's another example of power officially residing in one person while actually being exercised by somebody else, supposedly on their behalf.

Um, no. In the UK, absolute power is held by the Crown in Parliament. See Edward II, Charles I, James II and Edward VIII for worked examples of the monarch _not_ holding absolute power. Tevildo (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Adam and Eve book

Bit of a long shot. My dad once had a Soviet cartoon book about God creating Adam and Eve – and possible the universe/world as well – published some time after the war (I'd guess between 1950 and 1963). God is shown forming Adam and Eve with his own hands out of clay. The book was very touching, funny even. Can't find it on Google. Anyone have any idea what it's called/link? Ericoides (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be mentioned in the following book, since the Soviet era is mentioned in its description; but, I cannot find an online preview. ~Sorry that I can't be more helpful. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dimnik, Martin. The Apocrypha of Adam and Eve in Russia: The Forbidden Fruit. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller. ISBN 3639253175.

Thanks very much for that, although as you say there is no preview. My sense is that the book was quite popular in the SU and that the artist was well known; it was peopled by heavy, clumpy figures, looking similar to this woman. Ericoides (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably doesn't have any relevance to the book, but the artist most famous for "heavy, clumpy figures" was Fernando Botero... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's not Russian, but Jean Effel made some cartoons about Adam and Eve which were quite popular in the USSR (the article has some details). Here's a drawing [7], maybe it rings a bell and you can search for more. --Xuxl (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, that's exactly it. Must have been a Russian edition of Le Roman d'Adam et Eve. Thank you very much! Ericoides (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]