Humanities desk
< October 21	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

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 22[edit]

The Banishment of Hagar[edit]

An interesting and detail-rich painting. It's one of those that tells a story like a comic-strip, note for example what I think is the Binding of Isaac on the right.

My question is, Abraham is carrying something that could be a big coinpurse. Is the artist insinuating that he is a greedy Jew? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He couldn't have been Jewish. Jewish/Hebrew people are descendants of Jacob. Anyone older than Jacob cannot also be descended from him. --Jayron 32 13:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Jewish, but Abraham is actually called a Hebrew in Genesis (14:13). The name 'Hebrew' is traditionally connected to Eber, an ancestor of Abraham (see also Children of Eber). - Lindert (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While that is a theory, most scholars agree that Hebrew (Ivri in, erm, Hebrew) derives from the verb to pass [over], (laavor), referring possibly to Abraham traversing the land of Canaan or the river Euphrates. See Hebrews. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point, but would the artist/his employer have cared? And according to WP, "According to the Hebrew Bible narrative, Jewish ancestry is traced back to the Biblical patriarchs such as Abraham, his son Isaac, Isaac's son Jacob, and the Biblical matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel, who lived in Canaan." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the clothing of the figures, I would guess the artist was emphasizing Abraham's higher social status. He is fully clothed in what seems to be fine clothing, wears boots, there is a decorative cloth (or fur) on his shoulders, and a fancy hat with a jewel of some kind. There seems to be the scabbard of a sword behind his back.

Meanwhile, Hagar and Ishmael are dressed in rather simple peasant's clothes, they are barefoot, they have small provisions of food and water, and carry no decoratve items.

Note that the boy in the picture is Abraham's son, but his father is exiling him. Ishmael is the eponymous ancestor of the Ishmaelites. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although a bit undersized for a 14 year-old. The artist hadn't read his Bible obviously. Alansplodge (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that he is beating the crap out of his brother on the left (with his walkingstick). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, Isaac was only a baby at that time. Perhaps Ishmael was annoyed that his dad had decided to circumcise him at the age of 13 (ouch!). Alansplodge (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Family of Henry VIII c 1545, the man on the far right is Will Somers, the court jester, who is sporting a very similar man-bag.

"Before pockets were a thing, there was the girdle pouch (a small pouch suspended by a belt or girdle). Renaissance men would use these to hold spices, herbs and money. Then pockets happened, reducing the immediate need for girdle pouches as storage devices. Instead, pouches filled with sweet smelling materials or confections known as "swete bagges" were used to overpower bodily odours and showcase wealth". From A brief history of the man-bag.

See also Post subject: 15th Century Girdle Purse "One type of purse that was very commonly worn by all classes of men was the girdle purse, which has two integral belt loops, and various shapes varying from kidney or ballock shaped, Cupid's bow, squared off, rounded, trapezoidal... Commonly, there is a ballock dagger or some form of utility/eating knife worn from the belt between the belt loops or tucked through them. Curiously, this style is only shown being worn by men - women, of course, had purses and pouches as well, but of different style". Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that Will Somers probably got his from the same shop as Abraham, I'll by this interpretation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The trim/lining of Abraham's tunic is (a conventional representation of) ermine. —Tamfang (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jews revere Abraham as the founder of monotheism and the spiritual founder of their religion. The Bible describes Abraham as the first Hebrew, which, as our article explains, then becomes a synonym for Israelite (descendant of Israel=Jacob) and later Jew (descendant of Judah - most living Jews are from the tribe of Judah, with a sizable minority from Levi).

That is the Jewish perspective. A 17th century Christian perspective would be that Abraham was a hugely important person in the Holy Bible and perish the thought that he might be considered Jewish. Everything about Abraham's depiction is therefore intended to show him with reverence and respect. The Bible makes it clear, btw, that Abraham became very wealthy indeed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A 17th century Christian perspective" Wrong century. The painting is attributed to Jan Mostaert, who died in 1552 or 1553. Dimadick (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a) I don't think Christian attitudes to Abraham were any different 100 years earlier. b) I know nothing about art. I was going by the caption above, which says the painting is from "1620–25". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dimadick, thanks for that, in my "defense" I was copypasting [1]. That said, I now agree with Dweller's reasoning, it seems unlikely a patriarch would be treated with anything but reverence in this context, it's not Shylock we're talking about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Cambodian genocide a genocide?[edit]

Can anyone point me to a book/ article/ whatever discussing why the Cambodian genocide is considered a genocide? I can see why it feels like a genocide, but equally it doesn't seem targeted at a particular ethnic/ racial/ religious/ whatever group (which seems to be a key part of the definitions at Genocide#International law. And I imagine this question must have been addressed by someone somewhere! (NB I'm not interested in Cambodian genocide denial, obviusly, more in academic or legal commentary on the criteria and how it fits them.) Thanks Amisom (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that article it seems that several ethnic and religious groups were specifically targeted, so I'm not sure that I see the issue. Mikenorton (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Mikenorton, Cambodian genocide#Ethnic and religious victims would seem to lend credence to the proper use of the term "genocide" here. --Jayron 32 15:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our Genocide article states that The genocide charges related to killings of Cambodia's Vietnamese and Cham minorities, which is estimated to make up tens of thousand killings and possibly more. Our Cambodian genocide articles states that The Cambodian genocide ... was carried out by the Khmer Rouge regime under the leadership of Pol Pot, killing approximately 1.5 to 3 million. (Both my emphasis). My conclusion would be that "genocide" in this case is a loose rather than a legalistic use of language. That doesn't make it necessarily wrong, of course, as long as we make that distinction. As I think you imply, there is an element of "this was really nasty, so we need to call it genocide so as not to trivialise it". Henry ^Flower 16:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry raises a good point on the difference between legal usage, which is often precisely defined by statute, and common usage, which is far less precise. In the case of the Cambodian genocide, that is the common name for the killings, so we use it here at Wikipedia, even though the bulk of the killings were not ethno-religious in nature. In this case, the word is being used probably as a synonym for massacre, which is, as the article notes, vague in its parameters. --Jayron 32 18:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not meant to be a synonym for just "massacre", but rather for "systematically organized massacres on a very large scale"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As additional point, both Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan have been charged with genocide in the Khmer Rouge Tribunal and are awaiting judgement expected on 16 November [2]. They have already been convicted of other crimes, but not genocide, nor has anyone else as far as I can tell. Both Ieng Sary and Ieng Thirith was also accused of genocide, but died before their cases had finished (or maybe even begun, not sure). Three others technically are still awaiting trial but it seems unlikely these will proceed. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].

From what I can tell from those sources, while there is much criticism of various aspects of the tribunal, including the cost, interference which has limited their ability to pursue all suspects, how long it's all taking etc; there does not seem to be that much of a view that these will result in an unfair guilty verdict. In other words, perhaps the tribunal has not be able to go far enough to deliver justice, but if a guilty verdict is delivered it's likely to be seen as a fair and just verdict and would be good evidence there was genocide. Even if not necessarily all the killings, or even the majority would fit the accepted legal definition of genocide. (I mean I'm sure there will be a few who argue a guilty verdict is unfair, just that it doesn't seem it will be widespread.)

A complicating factor is that I assume there would be some provision for appeal and with the funding and political difficulties and advancing age of the accused [8], it's possible even a guilty verdict may end up be vacated, especially given the pre-existing convictions. In a similar manner, given the problems as well as the deaths of several people who have been accused (formally or not) including Pol Pot the lack of any verdict of genocide against a specific individual doesn't mean nothing that happened fits the legal definition of genocide.

BTW If you're interested in the details, this site says they will publish a summary of the case before the judgement is due [9].

Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide was first defined as a crime, and possibly as a concept, in 1948 in reference to the Nazi atrocities against (especially although not solely) the Jews, and was defined than as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical (sic), racial or religious group." The actions of the KR don't fit that definition except in part (notably the Vietnamese and Cham communities). Most deaths under the KR were not intentional at all, but the result of the callous application of a utopian leftist ideology, although there was deliberate killing of Lon Nolists, intellectuals, and of sections of the KR cadre suspected of disloyalty to the Pol Pot group - the victims of the torture centre in Phnom Penh and the killing field outside the city belong to that last group. Good books have been written by Ben Kiernan, Philip Short, and Alexander Hinton, and there are several lists of titles, like this one. (There's a photo on the top of that website showing a young man waving a pistol and looking angry - it says he's a Khmer Rouge, but he isn't, he was a deranged youth from a high-ranking family who briefly tried to take over Phnom Penh just before the KR arrived).PiCo (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks, and yes, I think @AnonMoos: hit the nale on the head when he pointed out that the term genocide is here being used as a synonym to mean 'systematically organized massacres on a very large scale', when that isn't [strictly] what it means. But I'm surprised there doesn't seem to ahve been any academic or legal comment on it so far? Amisom (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is pretty close to that.[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a definition. Most of the commonly used ones have the targeting of the Other [however listed] as an essential part. Amisom (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering several groups (racial and religious) were targeted for elimination, I don't see how you could say it was NOT a genocide. Is it that multiple groups were targeted? Or that people not in the targeted groups were killed as well? --Khajidha (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you want to use the formal definition (attempts at eliminating an ethnic group), the killing of minorities during that period were a genocide, whereas the killing (for any reason) of Pol Pot's own people is not part of the formally defined genocide, but instead is "a long series of systematically organised massacres on a very large scale". If however, you use the common definition (where any large scale organised massacres qualify as genocide) the whole thing is a single large genocide.---Lgriot (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were several organized attempts to eliminate various ethnic groups all going on at the same time, each of which would unquestionably be a genocide. At the same time, there were large numbers of other killings for other reasons being carried out by the same people. Trying to separate all these details is pointless. I hate to drag the Nazis into an online discussion, but one would hardly say that the Holocaust was not a genocide because ti wasn't JUST directed at Jews. Lots of ethnic groups were targeted there, too. And lots of individuals from non-targeted groups were killed by the same people, too. --Khajidha (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thin kthe difference though is that the Nazis did not kill vast numbers of their 'own' people. The Nazis targeted Jews (and they weren't Jews), homosexuals (and they weren't gay, at least theoretically), ROma (and they weren't Roma) etc. They did not kill vast numbers of native aryan Germans. Whereas the Cambodian genocide did involve vast numbers of people racially, religiously and ethnically indistingusiahble from the Khmer Rouge being killed. Amisom (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're kinda stuck with the term, because it has become fixed in form, but perhaps a better term would have been "purge". In nature, it is much closer to, say, the Great Purge in the Soviet Union, where perceived enemies of the State were eliminated regardless of ethnic basis. If we had to go back 40 years and pick a name to lock in, maybe "Cambodian Purge" would have been more appropriate. Unfortunately, language doesn't work that way, and we're stuck with the name humanity picked decades ago. --Jayron 32 13:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but my question was about whether or not this issue has been addressed by any secondary literature? Amisom (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aktion T4 --Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disability? Amisom (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS - and the homosexuals would have mostly been "Aryans", too. --Khajidha (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But nevertheless distinguishable from the Nazi regime on the grounds that the Nazis were [theoretically) straight aryans. Amisom (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the "other" in the definition of genocide is a racial or ethnic group, you don't have "genocide" of homosexuals or the disabled.However, once the machinery for genocide is in motion, it becomes very easy to get rid of anyone for any reason. By the nature of the beast, any society engaged in active genocide is going to wind up killing a lot of other people, too. --Khajidha (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Khajidha et al have a point that most genocides will include killings which strictly speaking won't fit the common definition of genocide. Even the Rwandan genocide included a number of Hutu moderates as targets AFAIK (and this seems to be supported by our article). While this may have been in part because of the desire to destroy Tutsi and others ethnic/national/racial/religious groups the perpetrators didn't like like the Twa, and maybe also in part because these people weren't seen as true Hutu, I suspect it was also motivated simply from hate of these people themselves even if they were Hutu. But by the same token, I don't know if I'd quite agree with "once the machinery for genocide is in motion, it becomes very easy to get rid of anyone for any reason" as it seems to suggest a distinction in intent, as if the other killings are always going to be an addition or afterthought. I would suggest it's as much as anything to do with perpetrators often having views of who should be eliminated that doesn't necessarily fit within simple definitions. Some would suggest these relate in part to our definitions of genocide, something our article notes. Genocide definitions includes several definitions which don't restrict to peoples along "ethnic, national, racial, or religious" lines. Some include political differences. Others instead take a different tack and instead rely on the perpetrators defining the groups. (Although these still may not necessarily cover all the examples.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambodian Genocide is sometimes referred to as an "autogenocide", a genocide against one's own people (e.g. in "Atrocities" by Matthew White, p.495). I believe that the Khmer Rouge's goal of an agrarian utopia required that the population of Cambodia be reduced from the then-current population of 6 million to a population of 1 million, so "intent to destroy, in whole or in part..." fits.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So a while later, but per my comment above it seems the tribunal has indeed found there was genocide (whether or not most of the killings were part of a genocide) [11] [12] Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 1840s,[edit]

Did some people move south to continue being in Mexico?

Did some move north to the ceded land while it was still Mexico so they'd get to become American citizens? Probably not too many, Americans had just invaded, many (especially Southerners) wanted to annex all or more of their country and/or didn't like Catholics or immigrants and the GDP per capita ratio was probably less extreme. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. After the Mexican-American war, about 90% of the residents of the Mexican Cession chose to accept U.S. citizenship, and lose their Mexican citizenship. Those who did not had the option to go back to Mexico; most did, though it does note that some of those who settled in the area of New Mexico remained in the U.S. and retained Mexican citizenship. --Jayron 32 16:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, GDP per capita is not a statistic that existed in 1848; such macroeconomic ideas were not well developed at that point. --Jayron 32 16:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"many (especially Southerners) wanted to annex all or more of their country and/or didn't like Catholics"

Where are you basing this? According to Catholic Church and politics in the United States: "By 1840, there were about 600,000 Catholics in the United States. " Before mass migration from Ireland increased their numbers in the late 1840s.

Based on our statistics, Catholics supported the Democratic Party for much of the 19th century (since Andrew Jackson courted their votes), where they were allied with Episcopalians, and German Lutherans due to shared interests.

The later-emerging Republican Party was mainly attracting voters who were "Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other Protestant pietists". Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of Mexico Movement, nativism in the United States, anti-Catholicism in the United States, Know Nothing Party, Ku Klux Klan, fear of Pope helping a Democrat lose the Presidency in a landslide in 1928 even though the South would vote for a yellow dog, pope conspiracy theories being an issue as late as JFK, Gangs of New York.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of that is relevant, but only the "nativism", "anti-catholicism", and possibly the Know Nothing Party articles are relevant to a discussion of anti-Catholic sentiment in 1848, which is what you asked. You do need to take care of understanding that all of history did not happen at the same time, and that Al Smith's presidential election bid could not possibly have had any effect on the Mexican Cession. --Jayron 32 15:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If otherphobics were that picky in the 20s and 60s then imagine 1848. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the imagine desk, this is the reference desk, and if you don't understand how time works, I'm not sure why you continue to think that people will be able to help you. --Jayron 32 10:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better now? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, there were only three main areas of compactly-settled significant Spanish-speaking populations in the whole area of Texas and the Mexican Cession: San Antonio and its surroundings, the lower Rio Grande valley, and northern New Mexico. (Other areas tended to be rather low-density, despite the inhabitants often leading what are now considered to be picturesque ranching or ex-mission lifestyles: "By 1846, Alta California had a Spanish-speaking population of under 10,000") Most of the pre-1848 inhabitants would have decided to leave or stay based on what they understood of their specific immediate present circumstances and likely future prospects where they lived, and were probably not greatly influenced by grand generalizations about the overall nature of the Mexican and United States national systems... AnonMoos (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did post-perspective Western art often have everything contemporary-looking?[edit]

With Biblical, Greek mythological and other distant times being painstakingly and beautifully drawn with the anachronistic fashion, architecture, hairstyle and even racial look of whatever the artists' time and place was like. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This juxtaposition of biblical scenes taking place in contemporary setting was an expected and understood convention at the time these paintings were created, one that in the modern era has fallen from the visual vernacular, and seems strange or surreal to us. The intention of having, for example, Mary and the attendants wearing contemporary clothing was to make the teachings of the church come alive for a largely illiterate population". From Tufts University - Historical Anachronism. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Makes sense now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, re-setting historical events in more modern dress and vernacular is not entirely unknown in modern times; see Romeo + Juliet, Hamlet (1996 film), Richard III (1995 film), etc. Re-setting Shakespeare in anachronistic dress and scenery was all the rage in the 1990s. It has fallen out of favor in the visual arts, but it still happens in other media. --Jayron 32 18:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although a quick Google throws up the Biblical paintings of American artist John Collier, whose Virgin Mary at the Annunciation is dressed as a high school student and in another work, St Joseph is wearing denim overalls (shown here). Alansplodge (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you anachronism:[13][14]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarian_Milky_Way -- in any case, before the High Renaissance, they only had a relatively vague idea of what ancient Romans wore, and little available reliable information about what most other peoples of ancient times wore... AnonMoos (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus has rarely been painted or drawn other than in the ways you suggest. He probably had short hair, a bushy beard and looked rather less European than you're used to seeing him. Here's a short article by an expert on the subject. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overlooking that conceptions of how ancient people looked or dressed like have changed over time due to developments in archaeology. Neoclassicism, for example, was formed by erroneous ideas about the topic and often used the wrong stylistic references.:

"The Neoclassical writers and talkers, patrons and collectors, artists and sculptors of 1765–1830 paid homage to an idea of the generation of Phidias, but the sculpture examples they actually embraced were more likely to be Roman copies of Hellenistic sculptures. They ignored both Archaic Greek art and the works of Late Antiquity. The "Rococo" art of ancient Palmyra came as a revelation, through engravings in Wood's The Ruins of Palmyra. Even Greece was all-but-unvisited, a rough backwater of the Ottoman Empire, dangerous to explore, so Neoclassicists' appreciation of Greek architecture was mediated through drawings and engravings, which subtly smoothed and regularized, "corrected" and "restored" the monuments of Greece, not always consciously."
"... examples from ancient painting that demonstrated the qualities that Winckelmann's writing found in sculpture were and are lacking. Winckelmann was involved in the dissemination of knowledge of the first large Roman paintings to be discovered, at Pompeii and Herculaneum and, like most contemporaries except for Gavin Hamilton, was unimpressed by them, citing Pliny the Younger's comments on the decline of painting in his period." ... "As for painting, Greek painting was utterly lost: Neoclassicist painters imaginatively revived it, partly through bas-relief friezes, mosaics and pottery painting, and partly through the examples of painting and decoration of the High Renaissance of Raphael's generation, frescos in Nero's Domus Aurea, Pompeii and Herculaneum, and through renewed admiration of Nicholas Poussin. Much "Neoclassical" painting is more classicizing in subject matter than in anything else. A fierce, but often very badly informed, dispute raged for decades over the relative merits of Greek and Roman art, with Winckelmann and his fellow Hellenists generally the winning side." Dimadick (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Way to Calvary by Andrea di Bartolo (c. 1400), Jesus wears a long robe, while everybody else wears the latest fashions. Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was his robe in that painting not contemporary to the early 1400s? --Jayron 32 13:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so, but on reflection, a long robe was needed to fit in with the story of the soldiers casting lots for the possession of it (John:19, vv, 23-24). Alansplodge (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]