Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 7

Dorence Atwater was appointed US Consuls to Tahiti in 1870. Was this a diplomatic gesture to France (having many consuls in French areas of controls) or was it because of a treaty/recognization of the still semi-independent kingdom? Was there ever an American-Tahitian treaty?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the US considered it independent, presumably a chargé d'affaires or minister would have been sent, not a consul... AnonMoos (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand how the consular system worked at that time, but apparently it had more of an economic function than a diplomatic one. In any case it looks like the first U.S. consul to Tahiti was a Belgian named J. A. Moerenhout, appointed Jan. 1835 (oddly he later became the French consul!).--Cam (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appointing a consul would not meant the same as recognising a country as independent. A country might have an embassy in the capital of a country and several consulates scattered around the country. So, if a country has an embassy in DC and consulates in NY, LA and Houston, that doesn't mean it recognises those places as independent, but that for whatever reason, it is necessary to have some sort of official representation in those places (lots of business going on in those places, or just to make it easier for citizens of their own country to get paperwork, or citizens of the other country to get visas). My guess is that the US at the time view Tahiti as an area of interest where it was necessary to have some sort of official representationwho could deal directly with the local authorities, rather than having communcations having to pass through Paris all the time. V85 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are a set of four Views of the South Seas:

1. View of Huaheine, one of the Society Islands;
2. View of Morea, one of the Friendly Islands;
3. View of Charlotte Sound in New Zealand (sic, actually a view in Matavai Bay, Tahiti);
4. View of Owhyhee, one of the Sandwich Islands (also known as 'The Death of Cook')

My questions are which is which? Which painting is missing here and what does it look like. Also where is "Morea, one of the Friendly Islands", the Friendly Islands was Tonga; it isn't Moorea since that was called "Eimeo" at the time. I am assuming that the third image is 'The Death of Cook' but why does it differ from the other version, also credited to John Cleveley the Younger, File:Deathofcookoriginal.jpg, File:Death of Captain Cook, Alexander Turnbull Library.jpg and File:John Cleveley the Younger, The Death of Cook (1784).jpg; which is the original one?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a description of the set of four at the time of their auction by Christies in 2004. There's a tiny thumbnail of the missing one. These four watercolours of Matavai Bay in Tahiti, the nearby Morea, Huaheine and Sandwich slands (Hawaii). These are thought to be the original drawings from which a set of prints was published in 1788. The scene of the Sandwich Islands depicts the skirmish that resulted in the death of Captain Cook. However, this watercolour shows Cook trying to defend himself, whereas the subsequent print depicts Cook being attacked from behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.9.92 (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the original Christies listing, compare lots 35, 40 and 41. You may have images of J. Martyn's aquatints, not Cleveley's originals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.9.92 (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And The Independent, reporting on the sale, explains why the Death of Cook is different: it shows what actually happened, from Cleveley's brother's original sketch (Cook fought the Hawaiians). Martyn and other aquatinters revised the image to show the "official" version (Cook tried to make peace).

Dozens of aquatints produced after his death in 1779 show Cook acting the peace-maker...this image of Cook became the authorised version of his death... But a painting by John Cleveley, on which the etchings were based, exposes another version...Cleveley died in 1786 and by the time his four watercolours were turned into aquatints by John Martyn two years later, the changes to the scene had been made... Clevely's previously unknown work makes clear that 18th-century engravers deployed the art of spin to boost sales...Nobody had known until now that the Martyn set of aquatints, called Views in the South Seas , were so clearly an act of historical revisionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.9.92 (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has always been a discussion about the monarchy in the UK. One of the Royalist arguments is to say that a monarch, as the permanent (ceremonial) head of state, is more experienced than a temporary elected one (and saves a small fortune on not having to organise and facilitate elections). If the head of state is ceremonial then couldn't they just do away with monarchy altogether, and just continue, unceremoniously, as they already do? — Fly by Night (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd likely be interested in Republicanism in the United Kingdom. Dismas|^(talk) 01:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Couldn't they just do away with monarchy altogether, and just continue, unceremoniously, as they already do?" Yes. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if they died, what then? Who would succeed them? The point of a monarchy is that the succession is a matter of fact rather than election: this in itself removes uncertainty, promotes stability, and facilitates the transfer of experience. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"They" who? I don't think FbN was proposing an elected ceremonial head of state, but rather dispensing with a ceremonial head of state altogether.

This is one of my issues as well. Constitutional royalists often respond to cost questions by saying that, if you didn't have the monarch, you'd still need a head of state. But do you, really? Why is a head of state necessary at all? --Trovatore (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way international relations work, you do need a head of state. You could just have the Prime Minister as head of state, though. --Tango (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The Queen doesn't really do anything as regards international relations. She is toasted, she shows up, people are introduced to her. None of that is in any obvious way essential to conducting international relations. People seem to assume it is, but I have never seen any good reason given for it. Do you have an example where it has been tried and failed? --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomacy is all about protocol and tradition. It's part of how you show respect to a country. When a foreign head of state comes to the UK on a state visit, they expect to be hosted by the the British head of state, for instance. It's really just a name, though. You could call the Prime Minister head of state and that ought to work just fine for diplomatic purposes. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think, if the UK (UR?) were to decide to just dispense with all this protocol and tradition, other countries would want to stop interacting with it? --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's no argument for change. Every country has its protocols and traditions, almost none of which are strictly necessary for the continuation of the country, or life on the planet. They are part of the set of things that make other countries interesting, and people have a funny habit of being interested in things that are interesting and different, but not particularly interested in things that are the same as what they're familiar with. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I wasn't making an argument for change. I was attempting to refute an argument I've heard against it, another matter entirely. --Trovatore (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sure read like an argument for change to me: Why is a head of state necessary at all?. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument I'm attempting to refute says that the monarchy is not a waste of money, because in any case a head of state is necessary and money would have to be spent on one. I am questioning the underlying assumption that a head of state is necessary. Now, even if a head of state is not necessary, there is a possible argument for having one along the lines you bring up, but that is a separate argument from the one that says a head of state is necessary. --Trovatore (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider just one aspect; the right to grant pardons. In the US, pardons are given freely to the highest bidder, especially if the criminal in question is of the same party as the governor or president, who happens to be retiring. In the UK, that type of corruption doesn't happen, because the Queen has plenty of money, so has no reason to risk the scandal, which could ultimately result in the monarchy being dissolved. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like most actions of the monarchy, royal pardons are done "on the advice of a government minister" (Pardon#United Kingdom) and the Queen would never normally refuse, so the existing system could easily be modified by giving the Home Secretary or Justice Secretary the formal right to pardon. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then he would sell pardons to whoever contributes the most to his party, as in the US. If he recommends pardons to the Queen based on such bribery, however, and she gets wind of it, she would refuse to grant them, and he would be disgraced. It's an extra level of safety. Hopefully she would also be suspicious if an outgoing minister suddenly submits hundreds of pardon requests (since he will soon be beyond caring about voter contempt). StuRat (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He would, Stu? Really. You are wildly and baselessly speculating, something we don't engage in on the ref desks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question of why any system of government is used requires thinking of possible ways that governments have failed, and can fail again, so we can then determine if the system in question is more or less likely to have the same failings. StuRat (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Colapeninsula mentioned, the Queen pretty much never acts against ministerial advice. Technically, she could, but it would be a major constitutional crisis and it is generally assumed that she would lose whatever reserve power she had used in the aftermath. She's unlikely to intervene in that way to prevent corruption and would just leave it to the justice system to deal with (selling pardons is illegal - if the minister tried to pardon themselves from the corruption charges, that is where the Queen might step in!). --Tango (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Queen just delay granting iffy pardons until an investigation is concluded ? StuRat (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If advised to by her ministers, yes. Otherwise, no, not in practice. --Tango (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She wouldn't lose power if the decision (to act against ministerial advice) had popular support. This is one function of the monarchy: as a backup system against the unlikely event that the elected government is utterly corrupt. See Thailand.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She probably wouldn't lose her position, but using her reserve powers like that would draw attention to them and people will generally be uncomfortable with her having that kind of power. One of the main reasons the UK has never got rid of its monarchy is because we really don't care all that much. It would be a lot of work and we don't really see any harm in just letting things carry on the way they are. There are a small number of strong supporters of the monarchy and a small number of ardent republicans, and the rest of the population doesn't have a strong enough opinion to really do anything about it. The Queen overruling elected officials, even in a beneficial way, would force the argument and the result would probably be to at least remove the power she used. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, have monarchs historically refused to create peerages (etc) that were motivated by donations to the party in power? —Tamfang (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Queen didn't play any significant role in the cash for honours scandal. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of the debate is that we, the people of the United Kingdom, rather like things the way they are, thank you very much. Yes, we could do without them, but we'd rather not. Alansplodge (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like change. You speak for yourself, not the 'people of the United Kingdom'.Dalliance (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if that sounded a bit pompous; what I meant was that the Constitutional Monarchy continues by the grace of Parliament, which represents (however poorly) the collective will of the people of the United Kingdom. If and when a reasonable majority come around to your way of thinking, then the time for change will have arrived. Alansplodge (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Granted that this seems to be a theoretical question (can the UK become a republic?) rather than one of likelihood (is the UK likely to become a republic?) or procedure (what would it require for the UK to become a republic?), the simple answer is, of course, yes: the UK could indeed become a republic if the necessary legal changes were made, much in the same way that the Supreme Court was made a separate entity from the House of Lords.

However, I don't think that it's likely, at least not anytime soon (let's come back to that one when King Charles III has been crowned), for two reasons: firstly, the Monarch would have to be written out of all legislation and whoever holds the actual power would have to be written in, instead. Secondly, when I read the OP, I got hung up on the formula 'just continue, unceremoniously, as they already do?', which seems to show a lack of understanding for how British society works. The British do not do things unceremoniously, they do them with all the pomp and circumstance that they can muster. V85 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't need to rewrite legislation like that, you just have to pass one piece of new legislation that says all references to the monarch in existing legislation should now be interpreted as references to whatever replaces them. References to the monarch are fairly rare, anyway, outside of Acts specifically pertaining to the monarchy (which would probably just need to be repealed). --Tango (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis answered this question. This question was put intending to cause debate and seek opinions, rather than to seek answers and references adequately. This question has been repeatedly asked and answered as demonstrable from the archives. The history of parliamentary supremacy is reasonably well known in the British constitution just as well known as the failure of potential Commonwealth forces in supraparliamentary movements like the Chartists or the disinclination for the UK Labour party to take republican stances. Can we all now go and read the archives; for this is as tiresome as a question seeking debate on abortion politics, US firearms law, or the moral deficiency of the Australian. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Where is Arcadia, South Sea Islands?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In some Nicholas Chevalier admirer's art collection?[1]. The only other Arcadia with any connection to the South Seas I can find is MV Arcadia, which will be sailing there in 2013. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it made up? Or is it an archaic European name for a South Sea Island?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chevalier was just using "Arcadia" in its extended sense of "an idyllic place". As the text at Clarityfiend's link states, the actual setting was Opunohu Bay on Moorea. Deor (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Et in Arcadia ego. I'm not sure the article is brilliantly done, currently, as to my mind, it seems to bury the information about the phrase while explaining the paintings' contents and significance. Might need to split the article. --Dweller (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for names of famous personalities who got married in a particular year say 1949 (my current interest). Appreciate any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.20 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Internet has a "Celebrity Weddings Archive"! There are 160 listed for 1949 there. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When Buddhists say meditation is good against daydreaming, do they imply daydreaming is bad for you? And, assuming they imply that, do they say that because daydreaming is just an illusion? And, how do Buddhists view things like prestige? Is that also just an illusion? Budddhhha (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Buddhist meditation, satipatthana, and mindfulness. Neutrality^talk 18:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do not explicitly say daydreaming is bad, or that the prestige that you get from, as an example, being fashionable is just an illusion that has to be avoided. I've already read similar articles, but it's difficult to find concrete information. Budddhhha (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you daydream you are not living in the present, fully experiencing what it is to be human now. That is what Mindfulness is about. (I doubt whether a Buddhist would say anything is bad, actually. I think what they'd probably say is that it keeps you from doing something which is better for you.) Prestige I think they view as a diversion from the pursuit of nirvana. Having a status in the eyes of others is irrelevant really. What is relevant is the achievment of nirvana and the Eightfold Path. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many of the world's technological advancements have come from Buddhists? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a serious question, Bugs, it should have its own section. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paper, gunpowder, rocketry...you know, nothing special. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daydreaming is "outside the box" thinking, and if someone really opposes that concept, I don't see how they could invent anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Gunpowder article, it was invented by Chinese warriors. Buddhist warriors??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like how the atom bomb was invented by Judaism? μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jews invented it after all? I always though the atomic bombs were just a Jewish hoax. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Daydreaming is "outside the box" thinking" sure, and jaywalking ought to be confessed before the community of Christ as a sin. You're projecting quite badly here, and could probably do with closer reading of articles surrounding mindfulness. Many, if not most, practising Buddhists are aware of the idea of mindfulness and mindful action in the world. Daydreaming is a typical act which is unmindful, it is a thought process occurring to an individual and catching them up in their attachment to the contents of the though process. Given that some strands of Buddhism spend a great deal of time thinking about the way the mind works on the basis of its observed workings, and, given that a significant number of Buddhist practices encourage mind states involving "outside the box" thinking—even if only in a pedagogical context—I'm not exactly seeing your point Bugs. Finally, given that a large part of day dreaming appears to be a result of a process lying prior to the mind, in external reality, it is hard to prevent a mind from wandering because this is the nature of the mind—but it is possible for some people to do so "mindfully," and without "attachment" to the desiring nature of having your mind wander. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]