Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 September 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< September 25 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 27 >
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.


September 26[edit]

Natural unification projects that were never actually completed?[edit]

Which natural unification projects were never actually successfully completed? I mean, one could see a lot of examples of successful national unification projects:

Korea, of course, is still divided into North Korea and South Korea, but it had a previous history of unity, so national unity was achieved in the past--just not nowadays. The Somali nationalist movement has, of course, failed to unify all of the Somali lands into one state/country and to create Greater Somalia. That said, though, what other examples of failure in regards to this have there been? Futurist110 (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, German Unification ultimately failed with regard to the Sudetenland, and parts of Silesia, Posen, and Prussia. Do we have an article on Hungarian Irrendentism? More broadly, perhaps Irredentism generally would be worth looking at. Yugoslavia was more a project of "Greater Serbia" than any "reunification". Wilson was a fool, and a dangerous one at that. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Germany got to keep the Sudeten, Silesian, Posen, and Prussian Germans themselves even if it couldn't actually get to keep their land. I would consider that a type of win in regards to this. As for Greater Hungary, it actually was a reality before World War I and again in the 1941-1944 time period. I'll check out the "Irredentism" article and the articles that it leads to. As for Yugoslavia, it was meant to be the vehicle for the national unification of all of the Southern Slavs other than the Bulgarians, who never actually joined Yugoslavia in spite of them likewise being Southern Slavs. Futurist110 (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Pan-Germanism. The original plan of the 19th century romantics was to unite all the German-speaking lands in a Greater Germany, but the Austrians wouldn't play ball because they didn't get on with the Prussians. The Sudetenland was a Habsburg possession and was never part of the German Empire. The Greater German dream was finally realised by the Austrian corporal for a few brief years. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One China? 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DDAF (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good example! Its situation is comparable to Korea's. Futurist110 (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irish reunification; Pan-Arabism; Pan-nationalism --Amble (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it has a name, but the movement to unify Romania and Moldova has not met with much success. Xuxl (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at the concept of Greater Indonesia, which was inevitably in contradiction with the formation of the Federated States of Malaysia in 1963 as their territorial scopes overlapped, and led to the Konfrontasi conflict of 1963-6.
(One event in this conflict was the MacDonald House bombing, in which my Mother and I would have been killed when a bomb detonated in or beside a lift (elevator) that we would at the time have been using, had we not been running 5 minutes late for an appointment with our dentist on the building's 3rd floor.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230 195} 2.219.33.80 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cisjordan, cause most Palestinians do not want to live in the same country as Juden no matter how autonomous. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's somewhat speculative - had the 1967 war never happened, had the Israelis not invaded and occupied Cisjordan, it can't be said with any certainty that the PLO would have made any claims on the territory against Jordan.. that would be a radically different alternate history, in any case. Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Cisjordan was from the river to the sea, logical since Transjordan's bigger but apparently that's a sloppy thing some of us English speakers do. I don't really care that Israel occupied the part Jordan occupied from Palestinians which Britain occupied from Turkey which Turkey occupied from Cairo which Cairo occupied from Europe once or twice which occupied from Cairo who occupied from Baghdad which occupied it from Makkah which occupied from Byzantines which occupied from Rome which Greeks occupied which Israel occupied (holy shit!) which Greeks occupied which Persia occupied which Babylon occupied which Assyria occupied (pretty much) which Israel occupied which evolved from Canaanites which occupiers from "before Turks occupied Turkey", "before Iraqis occupied Iraq" and "before Egyptians occupied pharoah" occupied back and forth like a who can occupy more times contest and the Egyptians or Mesopotamians occupied the West Bank from prehistoric farmers who occupied it from hunter-gatherers who occupied from fauna which occupied from other fauna which occupied from reptiles which occupied from amphibians which occupied from invertebrates which occupied from bacteria which occupied from prokaryotes which occupied from simpler life... Occupation is not worse than genocide and that's what would've happened if the wars of Israeli extermination had been more successful. It sounds a bit hyperbolic but the mufti (the leader of right-leaning Palestinians and "Pope of Jerusalem") literally met with Hitler around the start of the Holocaust, there's literally photos of them bonding over their shared hate of Jews and Britain and Hitler saying he has Aryan stock and shit like a white supremacy circle jerk. They were allies and he tried to get Hitler and Mussolini to bomb Tel Aviv and no one cares. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Cisjordan" sometimes means the West Bank, especially in French ("Cisjordanie")... AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And that I learned after clicking my link when Firejuggler replied. I knew there was Israel, Palestine, former Mandate, Canaan, Levant, Judea, Philistia, Eretz Israel, Judah (Hebrew, Jew).. with so many names what's one more right? :) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And even if a majority would accept Middle East Switzerland an unacceptable amount of limbs would still be lost to fanatics blowing themselves up in crowds. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan:[1] --2606:A000:1126:28D:ADC6:7A08:1D3C:354B (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
France and Dutch splitting Belgium. Artificial artifact of Hapsburg oppression but it's too late now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • North America: 1) Canada was asked to join the United States during the American Revolution, but chose not to. 2) The United States never extended the borders of its west coast northward to latitude 54-40 (your welcome, Vancouver). Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Federation ? DOR (HK) (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The War of 1812 was, in part, an attempt to unify the whole of North America under the US flag; "The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent." (Thomas Jefferson, 1812) [2]
I think the Russians, the Spanish, and the Mexicans (at least) might have had something to say about that claim about "whole of North America". --174.89.48.182 (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Manifest Destiny, Oregon boundary dispute, Alaskan Purchase, Mexican American War, etc. While not every one of those went the U.S.'s way (some did, some didn't) it was a clear plan from the U.S. point of view that their "natural" borders were the whole continent, or at least the useful stuff. --Jayron32 18:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I bet we would've got Baja and most or all the rest of the desert if it weren't for the extra slave territory. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure why the United States would have wanted Baja, since it contains very rugged terain with few natural resources. Some in the United States have sometimes had vague grandiose expansionist daydreams, but on the Pacific coast the US secured what it most wanted and thought it needed: the natural harbor at San Diego, the natural harbor at Seattle, and the coastal lands in between. Similarly, the U.S. managed to get most of the temperate areas of North America, leaving to Britain (and afterwards Canada) the "quelques arpents de neige".... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's too much trouble to hold sure but why not find out first? Aren't countries usually greedy before their borders settle down? Chile and Argentina fought all the way to the tip, probably at least some of it was negotiation but none of them ever said it's too rubbish down there, you can have it. Is Vancouver not as coveted as Seattle then or is it too similar to Seattle to antagonize Britain over? The convenience savings would be minimal I guess, a few people are much closer to Vancouver than Seattle but very few. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History would've been so different if someone invented a Gatling gun of the

right size and the Gatling vs redcoat war wasn't ruined by something like gun cost or spies. Better timeline or worse I don't know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technically, German unification was never "complete". Austria was long considered part of Germany, it was less than 100 years ago it was assumed by many that any German national state would only be complete if it included Austria, see German Question, Republic of German-Austria, etc. It wasn't until the end of World War II, 1945 or so, that the idea that Germany wouldn't include Austria stopped being a thing. Of course, today they are clearly distinct nations with distinct identities, but that is a fairly recent development, within living memory. --Jayron32 18:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

皇嗣, Huangsi and Kōshi[edit]

Can someone find more detail of the usage of the title 皇嗣, Huangsi in Chinese Pinyin and Kōshi and Japanese? I know the typical title for the heirs of Japanese and Chinese emperors was Huang Taizi. But what else was odd about the title? Did the title ever apply anyone in China besides Emperor Ruizong of Tang? Does Si part have negative connotations in Ancient Chinese culture? Why was Naruhito’s brother Fumihito given this title? Has any Japanese prince ever held this title before Fumihito? 2600:1700:A06D:6A30:680F:BE90:8BD0:6E7D (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the Taiwan Ministry of Education's dictionary—which I've generally found is highly comprehensive, particularly of ancient words and phrases—has no entry for 皇嗣 as a phrase. As to the standalone character 嗣, I see no indication in the entry for that character that there's a negtive connotation. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps 皇太子 - heir apparent, 皇嗣 - heir presumptive? That appears to be the case with Fumihito: until Naruhito has a (male) 子, his brother would otherwise 嗣 the throne .--Shirt58 (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Characters linked for convenience.--Shirt58 (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2020_September_26&oldid=981711831"