Humanities desk
< October 27	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 29 >

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.

October 28

Archaic tractor at Great Oregon Steamup 2014-2015

This question concerns a historical tractor, so it seems to fit here. This machine. (Third in the video overall - first non-steam tractor.) I've seen it in person (in 2015) but I did not get the model number. Might anyone here recognize it? 67.42.179.33 (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a 1918 Holt 75. Here's a solo video of (presumably) the same machine. Tevildo (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thank you! 67.42.179.33 (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised that our article doesn't mention the role of the Holt tractor in the development of the tank. Another job for a rainy day. Alansplodge (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Holt Manufacturing Company#Influence on development of tanks, although the tractor article could be expanded - or, indeed, merged with the company article. Tevildo (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US President from American Samoa

US Representative Tulsi Gabbard was born in American Samoa, a US territory, in 1981 to parents who were US citizens, and was raised in Hawaii from age 2. Does she satisfy the "native born" requirement to become US President? Would it matter how long her parents were in American Samoa what her parents' status was at the time of birth (tourists, diplomatic or military station, religious mission, business persons, for instance)? Edison (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is maybe. We don't have any case law which has ever tested the "Native born" provision, and defined its parameters. The provision, known as the Natural-born-citizen clause, doesn't itself well-define "natural born citizen", though most interpretations hold it to mean "had the rights of citizenship from birth." For a parallel case that matches hers closely, see Natural-born-citizen_clause#John_McCain, who was born in a US territory to parents who were US Citizens. Respected law professors and other legal scholars have disagreement over the issue. There have been some court cases that hold muddy the waters here; the courts have held that Congress does have the authority to set limits on citizenship, and that a person who is born abroad of U.S. parents have the right to citizenship, but that it is not automatically conferred, that it is a necessary but not sufficient condition in cases like this. For example, Rogers v. Bellei established that a person born abroad to U.S. Citizens would also have to meet reasonable U.S. residency requirements (as defined by Congress) to "activate" their citizenship status; citizenship is not granted for life from birth. A person who met all of those requirements, however, may still likely be considered "natural-born citizens". And I say "may" because the ONLY provision in ALL of the U.S. legal code for the "natural-born" status as having any special consideration is for President and Vice President, and the clause has never been tested in a court of law to define its parameters. --Jayron 32 22:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possible case law because this is a political question that the courts won't get involved in, any more than they were willing to get involved in whether Bush and Cheney were both Texans and therefore whether the Twelfth Amendment prohibition on electors voting for a president and vice president from the same state as themselves would come into play. The only true test is whether Congress will certify the electoral vote in January. All presidents and vice presidents born after 1788 (the clause about being citizens of a state at the time the constitution came into force) were born in a state. I don't think that anything stops a person born in, or even a resident of a territory, from running and being elected president, and if that happened, would Congress really stand in the way of the will of the people? The obvious practical problems seem less important given that the Republicans seem ready to nominate someone without a record of serving in office or significant military service.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, Ted Cruz was born in Canada, Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was still a territory. The definitive answer is uncertain, but the trend is toward "Yes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this because I just saw her on TV and she made a very good impression, having volunteered for two combat tours, and having said she would be willing to run for vice president if asked. BTW she is a Hindu of Samoan origin and seemed (ahem) quite presentable and intelligent. Good to hear she might be eligible. Edison (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that the president be born in the United States, as being born in the US is not the exclusive means of acquiring American citizenship by right of birth. This has come up before, with Lowell Weicker, who briefly ran for president in 1980. Twelfth Amendment says no person ineligible to be president can be VP, so she would be OK. It's Congress's job to deal with the electoral vote, so again, I doubt a court would touch it; no one would have legal standing to challenge. If I recall correctly, there were a small number of challenges in court that got nowhere about the 2000 election, and several representatives tried to challenge it in the joint session, but also went nowhere because the rules for the joint session said they needed a senator to go along for the challenge to be considered, and they couldn't get one to sign on.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another theoretical test case was Michigan governor George W. Romney, a Republican presidential primary candidate in 1968, and father of 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney. The elder Romney was born in Mexico to American citizens who were residents of a breakaway Mormon polygamist colony, who had fled the U.S. because of legal repression. Most commentators in 1968 concluded that George Romney was eligible because his parents were U.S. citizens. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another consideration is that the Constitution does not follow the flag. US citizenship was not automatically extended to residents of the territories taken from Spain, nor did those born there thereafter automatically become citizens until Congress later extended citizenship. Congress has full jurisdiction over territories; their governments are its creations (which is why I would be very interested in seeing informed discussion of whether the proposed Puerto Rican debt restructuring , if forced on the unwilling, would violate the 14th Amendment requirement that the public debt not be questioned, since the governments that issued them are creations of Congress, at root).--Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umaid Bhawan Palace

Today's main page says "Did you know ... that the Umaid Bhawan Palace was constructed in 1928 to assist famine-stricken farmers by employing 2,000 to 3,000 people as builders?" The article asserts that "it had served the main purpose of helping the citizens of Jodhpur to face the famine situation", and cites the hotel guide, which is hardly a reliable source on economic matters, and which in turn does not cite references. Hence, my questions:

Where did the money come from? From Rajastan's taxpayers, which included the suffering farmers?
How effective is it really to build a palace as a measure against famine?

— Sebastian 22:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first question: According to the corresponding article on German Wikipedia the construction costs of 12.100.000 rupees came from the Maharaja's private assets. No reference included, alas. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to your question about economics, such public works are a main plank of Keynsian economics. In the The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money of 1936, John Maynard Keynes postulates that "If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is". Such profligate government spending was an anathema to the Monetarists of the 1980s, but most modern economists seem to advocate a middle course. Unemployment relief schemes of this kind were common well before Keynes's time; my own home town in the London suburbs created a huge boating lake for the sole purpose of keeping the unemployed busy in 1911. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled Public works which discusses the economic benefits of government sponsored public works programs, and includes many links to further reading, inside and outside of Wikipedia, on the subject. --Jayron 32 11:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers so far. I was aware of the similarity to public works, but I hadn't looked at that article before. I am still unclear about some important questions there, such as for what situations such programs have been tried, and how effective it was for each. So I'm doing my own guessing here. There are a number factors that I would think are significantly different:

Rajastan had experienced a famine, which is quite a different situation from the situations where public works are usually employed, such as unemployment. Even in the best cases, public works have been criticized by some as inefficient.
Public works are investments in infrastructure, which will pay off for the populace. By contrast, a palace takes away resources that could be used much better elsewhere - see opportunity cost. Is there any reason that choosing to build the Umaid Bhawan Palace instead of the obvious choice of a rural development program was justifiable?

— Sebastian 18:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, "public works" has comprised largely the construction of public buildings/structures such as palaces, aqueducts, and military roads. A rural development program is a much newer idea, and defining "public works" to include it but to exclude a palace would confuse most people throughout history. Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get this statement from. Our article public works doesn't list the history of the concept, but according to its German sister article, the first such programs were carried out in France (Ateliers de charité and Ateliers nationaux). Those were workshops, not projects centered around big public buildings. But that isn't actually answering my question, anyway. — Sebastian 22:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read Byzantium: The Early Centuries and the other two volumes of the series, or any of many other histories of the Eastern Roman Empire, for some examples of this concept. It predates the Ateliers de charité et Ateliers nationaux by something like two thousand years, or more. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find a referenced answer for your question, but note that the rulers of the Princely States in the British Indian Empire had almost total internal autonomy, most were absolute monarchs and many were fabulously wealthy. Therefore, if the Maharaja wanted a new palace, that's exactly what he got. By Keynes's "buried money" example above, it would have benefited the local economy anyway, and in the very long term, it has provided employment and tourist income from its present use as luxury hotel. Alansplodge (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, in the long term. But how did that help the starving farmers? (Compare this with the Fairy Tale King of Bavaria, who was hated by the populace at the time, and eventually deposited.) — Sebastian 22:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it gave them wages to buy food with. These days when direct food aid is available from charities and government agencies, a famine means that there is no food available. In the past, it could mean that the price of food had risen beyond the ability of working people to pay for it, especially if their income was derived from the crop which had failed. See The Great Irish Famine: Public Works Relief During the Liberal Administration for an earlier (but not very successful) parallel. Alansplodge (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting about the Irish Famine; I hadn't been aware they also tried something like this then. Re "it gave them wages to buy food with": Sure, but it does matter what the wages are for. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, in other words, if you have a palace, there's something else you won't have. The farmers' labor was diverted from things that actually could have also helped them the next year, such as improving their tools, digging wells, &c. But I'm beginning to realize that this may not be appropriate for the RD. The question (#2) boils down to whether it was a sound investment at the time. That probably would be a good topic for an economics doctor degree. — Sebastian 23:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to change my mind on this. If it was the Maharaja's own money, then the statement "it had served the main purpose of helping the citizens of Jodhpur to face the famine situation" is tenable. Thanks for your patient explainations, Alan! — Sebastian 23:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]