Humanities desk
< October 18	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 20 >

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 19

French response to Hawaiian overthrow and annexation

Can someone help me find out what was France's stance and response to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the subsequent annexation by the US in 1898? France had conflicts with Hawaii in the 1840s and were one of the three powers along with the US and Great Britian to recognize the Kingdom. I've seen plenty of sources about Japan and Britian's stance during this period but never heard much about France's response during this period. I know they recognized the Provisional Government and the Republic and annexation but hopefully there is more. The diplomatic representatives of France on the ground were Marie Gabriel Georges Bosseront d'Anglade, Henry Leon Verleye, Jean Antoine Vizzavona, and Louis Vossion.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This book, in the public domain and free to peruse, looks somewhat useful. Towards the end it says something about the British and French ambassadors delaying their recognition of Hawaii as a possession of the U.S. for a time, then finally recognizing it. It is from 1899, so it is fairly contemporary to the events. I didn't look harder, but it may prove a useful source in general for your continued research on Hawaiian history (which has always impressed me, FWIW). Keep up the good work! --Jayron 32 01:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some more: this page discusses some of the history of The French in Hawaii, maybe of use? --Jayron 32 01:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found what may be a great lead for this question: This book here is not fully previewable, so I can't search the whole thing, but the index is among the previewable pages. Under "France" in the index it has a lot of good leads, but most interestingly it says "France seeks to prevent annexation of Hawaii to U.S." on pages 418-419. --Jayron 32 01:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I will look into these sources. But the last suggestion (viewable here) relates to the mid-1800s when there was another annexation scare that never materialized.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also posted at fr:Wikipédia:Oracle/semaine 42 2016#French response to Hawaiian overthrow and annexation (Renversement du Royaume d'Hawaï) hoping that something can be found in French sources. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me find out when Marie Gabriel Georges Bosseront d'Anglade died?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the skills of a good lawyer is the ability to research almost anything (and in my case, the only skill of good lawyer that I possess), so I was hoping to find an answer. But no luck. What I can tell you is that, in the espionage novels by fr:Jean Bommart, "Georges Sauvin" is the real name of the spy known as "le poisson chinois".--Shirt58 (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That publication came after Bosseront d'Anglade usage of the name I presume. Interesting...Funny, maybe my work on Wikipedia can get me into law school one day! I'm thinking of it currently in my gap year after undergrad. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First US State Dinner

It is stated on list of U.S. State Dinners that Kalakaua was the first state dinner. Yet this source claimed that the 1865 visit by Queen Emma of Hawaii was the first state dinner for a visiting royal. Andrew Johnson was the president. The definition of a state dinner requires the guest to be an incumbent head of state which Emma was not and the list article states that other "formal dinners for important people of other nations, such as a prince or princess, are called official dinners, the difference being that the federal government does not pay for them". My questions are did the US government paid for the dinner with Queen Emma and what other formal dinner did presidents have with royals or head of states incumbent/deposed before 1874?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

End of money in the future

Has anyone ever predicted the end of money in the future?Uncle dan is home (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the news, Tim Cook has recently suggested killing cash. Killing cash would ordinarily mean all transactions are recorded and tracable - a despot's dream; no private transactions. But ApplePay supposedly addresses this by making transactions untracable. (Your credit card pays Apple, Apple pays the person you want to pay, Apple retains no records connecting the two parties). - Nunh-huh 06:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they resisted any temptation to snoop it seems so easy to hack things these days. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, that's the point. If you keep records, they can be hacked. If you don't keep records, there's nothing to hack. - Nunh-huh 20:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of a need for money can be a feature of a Post-scarcity economy, which as that article shows has been discussed in Economics and Futurology, and has formed part of the background of various Science Fictional (and Fantasy) works. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If hard cash disappears, look for a return to the barter system. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prediction as such, but The Culture in Iain M. Banks science fiction novels is a post-scarcity society without money, private property or economics. As a result, life in The Culture is pretty dull and the novels have to achieve dramatic tension by positing scenarios where The Culture comes into conflict with various less advanced civilisations. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Culture, population 30 trillion; where living on planets is considered weird and space station/starship is the urban/suburban divide of the day. i.e. the General Systems Vessel Size Isn't Everything, 50 miles of parks and hulls and shit seemingly exposed to vacuum and flying in formation but really rigidly held together by forcefields (which contain the air). Or the GSV Empiricist, hundreds of kilometers long, population over 13 billion. Controlled by 7 hyperintelligent sentient computers which are mostly in hyperspace with a little I/O thingy in realspace (cause 1: they wouldn't fit and 2: the speed of light). Antimatter engines are too primitive for anything but hobby craft (like our sailboats I guess), real engines are piece(s) of metamaterial that push against the boundary of our universe in another dimension and you can get a full sex-change and become a mother-father gentleman. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This came up a week or so ago and User:FT2 started a new article, cashless society. That's a good place to find or add some info. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are 2 quite different concepts here:

1) Elimination of cash, that is, folding paper and coins you carry. This is possible, although it may have unintended negative effects, as the underground economy can be a significant portion of the total economy, and go completely unappreciated until it is eliminated. I believe they found this out in Zimbabwe when they cracked down on unregistered businesses, and the economy went to pot. However, it might be possible to keep the underground economy going using barter, or some other exchange medium, like, oddly enough Tide detergent bottles.

2) Elimination of private ownership and wealth. This is the Marxist dream, but all of the old problems come back with a lack of motivation to work if everyone gets the same "stuff", regardless. StuRat (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-sided conflicts

Has there ever been a war involving as many sides as the Syrian Civil War (which has so many sides it breaks the infobox)? I'm struggling to think of any examples - some colonial wars such as the Dutch–Portuguese War involved colonial powers at war with each other as well as with the native people, but otherwise wars seem to bed down into two sides even if those sides don't have much in common beyond their enemies. Even in WWII, although Germany and Japan or Britain and the USSR had almost no policy objectives in common, they still allied together into two sides. Smurrayinchester 09:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In WW2, Finland was arguably a third side, since it was specifically at war only with the invading Soviet Union (in two separate campaigns, in order to preserve the independence won from Russia during WW1), but had no quarrel with any of the other Allied Powers. Finland was careful to describe itself as a "co-belligerent" rather than an "ally" of Germany during the second campaign (and towards the end of WW2 overall entered a third campaign against Germany). During the second campaign, Britain formally declared war on Finland, but except for one unsuccessful bombing raid, the non-Soviet Allies avoided any direct military actions against Finnish forces. See Military history of Finland during World War II for the details. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The situation in Finland didn't have as many sides, but perhaps never has the weird center of a war seemed so striking. From Continuation War: "The field synagogue in Eastern Karelia was one of the very few functioning synagogues on the Axis side during the war. There were even several cases of Jewish officers of Finland's army being awarded the German Iron Cross..." I think there is such a spot at the center of every war, a place that no one true to any side wants to look. Wnt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many sides are you considering the Syrian Civil War to have? (where WWII is 2) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our own article, linked by the OP, indirectly suggests six, though one could argue that the Kurdish fighters constitute a seventh rather than being part of the Syrian Democratic forces. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least Assad + Russia, Opposition, Western Coalition, ISIS, Al-Nusra, Kurds, and Turkey - not counting the fact that it's also arguably part of the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict and Iran–Israel proxy conflict. That seems to be the minimal set of alliances (as 90.197... says, it's not really clear on any given day whether or not Rojava and FSA are cooperating). Smurrayinchester 11:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, during the early Crusades you had the various crusader states, the various muslim states, and the Byzantine empire. Arguably also some of the Italian city states and the Kingdom of Sicily. So complex and shifting coalitions seem to be a tradition in this area. The Warring States period in China had 7 major and 3 minor states, and probably hundreds of independent brigand groups. The Italian Wars had most Italian city states in changing coalitions, and most of the major European powers meddling. The Thirty Years' War had only two official "sides", but all of Europe joined one or the other (or both) sides over time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Coalition Wars or Napoleonic Wars, rather a headache to remember all participants. There were several such multi-sided wars in the past. Later there were also proxy wars, such as Vietnam War. Brandmeister^talk 11:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This search actually turned up some good leads on historical multi-sided wars. Maybe I'm misreading it, but it seems that a good number of multi-sided wars are civil wars, which makes sense as many such civil wars occur in the context of a total breakdown of a central organizing authority, and thus multiple (rather than just 2) competing factions, each with their own goals and ambitions, end up fighting each other multilaterally (ironically, the United States Civil War was an atypical civil war in that way, as each of the two sides established themselves into two essentially state-organized factions with clearly delineated territory; it was a much more traditional war in that manner). Take, for example, these famous civil wars:

The Russian Revolution: You had the following sides all fighting one another: You had absolutist-Tsarists looking to maintain, or later re-establish, monarchy. You had traditional liberals of the Russian Provisional Government (the Lvov and Karensky governments) looking to establish a traditional liberal democracy/constitutional Monarchy. You had various socialist factions which fought with each other as much as the other groups, such as the Trudoviks, Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. You had external groups that came in to fight, such as the North Russia Intervention. Historians traditional divide the groups into the "Reds" and the "Whites", but even that becomes problematic since neither group really had any cohesion; it's the same sort of problem as in the Syrian Civil War trying to classify the fighters as "Assad-Government" forces vs. "Opposition", where the opposition is not a cohesive group.
The French Revolution likewise had numerous, multiple sides to the conflict. While broadly the conflict gets divided into the Revolutionaries and the Royalists, within each of those factions are numerous groups which also fought each other. I'm pretty sure the Reign of Terror killed as many those ostensibly on the Revolutionary side as it did true Royalists, with the Jacobins fighting the Girondins fighting the Montagnards fighting the Dantonists, etc.

In this way, the Syrian Civil War is quite typical for a civil war within a society where political control breaks down. --Jayron 32 20:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were in fact 4 major factions in November 1860. Two of them just didn't disagree enough with the other northern or southern faction to go to war with them in April 1861. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were 4 political parties. That's quite different from a 4 sided war. Once it came to war, it was basically a traditional 2-state war, where each side had a functional government and a defined territory. Not the sort of multi-sided clusterfuck of what is usually meant by "civil war". --Jayron 32 22:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's interesting that neither of those articles list all the sides in the infobox (although the Russian Revolution one does mention conflict between Bolsheviks and other socialists in the intro). Perhaps a hundred or two hundred years from now, the Syrian Civil War infobox will look like that, and it will have "Assad and Russia" on one side, "FSA, Rojava, ISIS and NATO" on the other. Smurrayinchester 07:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do have an article titled Russian Civil War which covers the complexities. --Jayron 32 12:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the Mongols invaded China, China was already split into several separate states, all of whom repeatedly though that fighting each other while also fighting the Mongols was a reasonable strategy. (Spoiler: it wasn't). Based on the main belligerents listed in the article, it doesn't meet the 6 or 7 sides of the Syrian Civil War - but if there were any minor factions that took advantage of the chaos, I expect it could top it. The Mongol invasion of Europe, and earlier, the various barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire would probably be worth looking into. Iapetus (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that considering all involved parties as individual "sides" is quite valid, though they may each, of course, seek their own ends. In Syria, for example, there are a multitude of parties, but they more or less fall into two basic camps - those fighting for the Syrian government and those trying to overthrow it. Of course, once that issue is resolved on way or another, then these various factions will quite likely come into conflict over other issues, and very likely find that their alliances may shift. In any case, I imagine most large conflicts end up being multi-sided, in that they will inevitably involve many parties, all with their own goals. For example, the conflict in England in 1066 had at least three distinct sides: the English under Harold Godwinson, the Normans under William, and the Norse under Harald Hardrada. Both the Harald Hardrada and William fought against Harold, but they were not allies - each wanted the throne for himself. There are plenty of good examples from the ancient Near East too, such as the struggle between Assyria, Elam, and Babylon over the control of Babylonia in the time of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (early 7th C BC). Ushumgal (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except it isn't that simple in Syria because the groups on the opposition side are fighting each other as well. For example, both the Syrian Interim Government and ISIL are fighting against the Assad regime, they are also fighting against each other. They're not even begrudging allies. --Jayron 32 13:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Northern Railway and The Northern Pacific Railway.

Am I right to understand that The Great Northern Railway (US) was completed in 1893, reaching Seattle, going all the way from Minnesota? It's a bit confusing with all the different companies and railroads being built and often merged with each other at some point or another.

I also wonder why The Northern Pacific Railway was being built at roughly the same time as the Great Northern Railway, when they both seemed to run from Upper Midwest to Seattle. Why build two railways going the same path?

Third, I wonder in what year they successfully established railway connection from Minnesota/Upper Midwest to Chicago?

84.211.184.66 (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can find detailed answers to these questions Here and Here. Centpacrr (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of engagement for ship security crews in repelling boarding attempts by pirates

In international maritime law, a pirate is absolute scum - Hostis humani generis - an enemy of all humanity! Even ships and nations NOT under attack may attack the pirates.

My question is, what licence does or doesn't this give security crews aboard ships, when faced by a pirate boarding attempt? What are the rules of engagement? If a pirate with a rifle slung over his back hooks a ladder to the side of the ship and begins climbing, may the security guard shoot to kill, leaving the corpse of this "enemy of all humanity" to topple back onto the pirate's ship, or into the ocean? In simpler terms, once the security crew have identified a clear attempt to carry out a hostile boarding of their ship, are there any restraints on using deadly force as a first resort to drive off the boarders? Ditto if the pirates have managed to board, and the non-security crew have barricaded themselves in the control room / bridge (the so-called "citadel tactic"). May the security crew kill the armed and hostile intruders who are trying to seize the ship and take its' crew captive, so as to regain full control of their own ship? Are there any restrictions under international law (including international maritime law) on using deadly force in this situation?

(Most ships operate under a Flag of Convenience such as Liberia or Panama, and I can't see either of these countries restricting the activities of security crews, so I don't think the ship's flag-nation's jurisdiction is a practical factor here - though laws which govern a country's citizens abroad, i.e. the security guards' country of citizenship, including when ocean-bound - extraterritorial jurisdiction - might be. But I'm not sure all countries would have such laws. In fact, I suspect most don't). 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted your question into the Google searchbar and found Rules of Engagement and Legal Frameworks for Multinational Counter-Piracy Operations which says:

'The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the primary law applicable to piracy... Under UNCLOS, force can be used to combat and apprehend pirates in accordance with minimum international law requirements of necessity and proportionality. For example, Article 8 of the 2005 Protocol to the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation declares, “[a]ny use of force pursuant to this article shall not exceed the minimum degree of force which is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances”'. Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(OP here) Proportionate force? OK? But MINIMUM force??? That sounds like a requirement to be extremely nice to people who are extremely NOT nice! They're trying to take your crew and ship hostage, for heaven's sake, and all you're allowed to respond with is minimum force??? What's the logic???

Also, as a seperate question, who's job is it to practically enforce the rules? With Navies, there is dicipline, rules, and a chain of command. But what about a ship's private security crew? Remember, they are all alone on a ship which pirates are trying to seize with armed force, and they likely have NO backup - they are alone. Experience is, fighters in such a position will do WHATEVER IT TAKES - even extreme force - to repel the enemy. Look at how private military contractors have behaved in Iraq, if you want an example. Being all alone with no backup, if they come under attack, they go ALL OUT, and just shoot, shoot, shoot their way out of the situation with the limited weapons and personnel at their disposal - damn the civilian casualties, GET ME OUT OF HERE. That's the reality. If a private security contractor on a ship pirates were attempting to seize did the same, assuming he in fact violated the rules of UNCLOS (dubious, as I've explained, given his situation), whose job is it to charge him and put him on trial? Forget the ship's flag state, they likely don't give a damn. Is there ANY risk of the guard being charged, and if yes, by whom? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's no different to the usual legal requirement of 'reasonable force'; and although the word 'minimum' sounds restrictive, actually it's saying you can do anything deemed reasonable. Reasonable force just means equality of response- but that basicly means you can use the same weapons against the pirates as they are using against you. And since pirates today favour the AK-47 rather than the flint lock pistol ;) you can see where that leads you? _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So are M16s kosher if they're only using AK47s? They have a longer range and accuracy than AK47s I believe and if kept in a good case until needed probably wouldn't have the M16s ruggedness disadvantage unless you're unlucky enough to be attacked by pirates in a sandstorm. It's not a big advantage so maybe that's allowed right? What if they have a cannon but didn't touch it yet? Can you use a cannon against them? What if they shot a cannon off target on purpose hoping you'd surrender without having to damage your ship or get in a firefight, can you take the tarp off your cannon and shoot to kill? What if you're not sure they missed on purpose, can you shoot to kill now? What if you had a .50 caliber machine gun and the pirates only have AKs? Or a 20 millimeter automatic cannon. What do they do if the ship has to go within 12 nautical miles of a country that bans automatic guns? What happens if you're attacked in the territorial waters of a country but their coast guard sucks? (and you don't trust their ability to save you). What really happens is you machine gun the pirates to possibly save your life but legally are you just supposed to let them capture you? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No; what really happens is that you either misunderstand or misread. Fair exchange for me wasting twenty-four seconds reading and re-reading that post in bemusement I guess. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one has answered my second question: who is responsible for enforcing the rules against private security crews? Imagine the pirates try to board a ship, and the security crew drive them off with live gunfire. The pirates, realizing the presence of armed security on board, beat a hasty retreat (that's what they usually do in such a situation - they know they're no match for the ex-commandos who guard the ships). The security crew are not satisfied. They know the pirates will strike again, and the next victim ship will likely not have armed security (most ships don't). Wanting to prevent this, they board the pirate ship and slaughter the pirates to the last man. Who prosecutes?

Please don't let this distract from my question, but Sagittarian Milky Way, I don't think there are sandstorms at sea - even off the coast of sandy Somalia. But an AK47 might stand up better than an M16 to the rigours of ocean saltwater spray - or it might not, I'm no firearms expert. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answer will depend on the particular case. See here for some discussion. [1] [2] [3] The answer often is, no one actually does anything no matter who could. Note that the vast majority of countries do have restrictions on murder, even if those laws are not necessarily well enforced. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know about this issue, but I was under the impression that the main "rule of engagement" holding things up has something to do with commercial ships and crews being pressured to be unarmed, possibly to avoid being considered warships? I have a feeling you're barking up the wrong tree, in a way. Wnt (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]