Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 January 24

= January 24 =

Nation-States Based on Large-Scale Immigration (of a Specific Ethnic/Ethnoreligious Group)
I find it interesting that the Zionist movement leading to the creation of the nation-state of Israel was dramatically helped by large amounts of Jewish immigration into this area in the decades before the creation of Israel. To elaborate on what I mean -- http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton_e.html?num_tab=st02_09&CYear=2013 -- it appears that 65% of Israeli Jews were foreign-born in 1948, which was the year that Israel was created. Without large-scale Jewish immigration into Palestine in the decades before 1948, it is unlikely that there would have been enough Jews in Palestine to create a Jewish state there (after all, even with all of the Jewish immigration into Palestine in the decades before 1948, the Jewish state in the 1947 UN Partition Plan only had around half of its population be Jewish (with the other half being Arab).

My question here is asking whether or not there are any other cases of nation-states which were established (or re-established) in locations where establishing such nation-states (with a majority of the population belonging to a certain ethnic group) would arguably not have been possible without large-scale immigration of this ethnic (or ethnoreligious) group into this area in the several decades before the creation (or re-creation) of these nation-states?

I apologize if my question here is a little vague. I genuinely tried to make it as clear as I could. Futurist110 (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Iceland and Greenland. Greenland had the first permanent European settlements in North America. Greenland was mostly settled by immigrants from Iceland. Greenlanders shared their island with native North Americans who lived north of the Arctic Circle. Greenland was independent for about 200 years until they submitted to Norwegian rule. Contact with Greenland was lost during the Little Ice Age and all the Greenlanders died of famine. Sleigh (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe Iceland can work for this, but Greenland is not a nation state for/of a European ethnic group, and thus, I don't think that Greenland will work for this. Futurist110 (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There have to be close to zero native-born inhabitants of Vatican City. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I don't think anyone has ever suggested a "Vaticani" ethnicity or culture exists. So it isn't a nation-state. 81.133.41.14 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For some values of "ethnic group" and "several decades", every country in the Americas. Rojomoke (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean back when human beings first immigrated to the Americas thousands of years or more ago? Futurist110 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Peru still has a significant indigenous population and culture, using non-European languages. I'm not sure if that applies anywhere else in Latin America? 81.133.41.14 (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The History_of_Turkey may be of interest, in particular the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, which was established as a Turkic state in 1077 in what was formerly part of the Byzantine Empire. Many Turkic people had migrated from other parts of the Seljuq Empire in the earlier part of the 11th century, which made the formation of this sultanate possible. - Lindert (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, this might very well work for this. Futurist110 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Given the early history of the Kingdom of England (and the immigration of Angles and Saxons and Jutes to the island of Britain), I think that might qualify.  Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Futurist110 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the traditional view but now rather contentious. This article says there were "around 2 million [Celtic] natives in later Germanic settlement areas in the post-Roman period. Between 250,000-500,000 male [Anglo-Saxon] immigrants suggested by Y-Chromosome data, possibly around 100,000 female immigrants estimated." So probably not. Alansplodge (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Australia and New Zealand may qualify, depending on what you mean by "several decades". Singapore was created because of mutual mistrust between the majority Malays of Malaysia and Singapore's nonidigenous Chinese majority, who had immigrated over a period of more than a century before independence. Marco polo (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Australia and New Zealand aren't really nation-states, though, are they? Or are you talking about when the first human beings moved to Australia and New Zealand thousands of years ago? What you wrote here about Singapore is very interesting (I didn't know about this before right now), and thus, if it is true, then Singapore might partially work for this (since it was apparently created as a state/territory for Chinese people, but since it was not created as a nation-state for most or all Chinese people worldwide (China, on the other hand, does appear to fit this role/description)). Futurist110 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What's your definition of a nation-state? The colonies which eventually merged to create Australia were populated by very close to exclusively British stock. The White Australia Policy, which stood until 1973, kept those evil people with different coloured skin out of the place until relatively recently. Even today, some of us believe that our government's anti-boat people policies are a way of keeping happy those who want maintain that homogeneity. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose that a nation-state is a state which is created (mainly) for a certain ethnic or ethnoreligious group, especially if within its own borders, this state has a plurality or a majority of the people which belong to this specific ethnic/ethnoreligious group worldwide (for instance, a plurality of the world's Jews currently live in Israel). Was the White Australia policy's goal to keep Australia overwhelmingly British or overwhelmingly White in general? Either way, though, the British themselves are not one single ethnic or ethnoreligious group--after all, there are English, Welsh, Scottish, et cetera people. Thus, I do not think that I would consider Australia, New Zealand, or the United Kingdom to be nation-states (though I would consider England, Wales, and Scotland to be three separate and different nation-states if they all became their own independent countries). Futurist110 (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Moors formed a series of nations in what is now Spain, following their invasion. They were eventually pushed back out, however.  See Moors.  StuRat (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, this might very well work here as well. Futurist110 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sovereign, but how about Utah? —Tamfang (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Utah would have worked here if I was asking about religious groups rather than ethnic/ethnoreligious groups. I don't think that Mormons really have or ever had an ethnic component to them like, say, Jews did and do. Futurist110 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Liberia is one good example; see also: History of Liberia, (but that article needs work). ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've previously thought about Liberia before I asked this question. However, freed Blacks and their descendants are not an ethnic or ethnoreligious group by themselves, are they? They arguably are (or were) a part of the Black/African-American community in the U.S., but as far as I know, they themselves are not a separate ethnic group of their own. Futurist110 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the freed slaves at that time were born in the US, (decedents from various African regions) and had little or no connection with the culture/religion/language/etc of the indigenous people. It is a matter of opinion, I suppose, whether or not they constituted a distinct "ethnic group".   ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but it is worth noting that these freed slaves and their descendants did have their own culture and perhaps even their own dialects from their and/or their ancestors' time living in the United States. Also, please read my comment right below this one--I think that Liberia might partially work for this, though as you said, it might be a matter of opinion (at least to some degree). Futurist110 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, after reading the Right of return article here on Wikipedia, Liberia might partially work for this since it allows anyone of Black/"Negro" ancestry to immigrate there (but since it was probably not created as a nation-state for most or all Black people worldwide). Futurist110 (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure if these meet your criteria, but Cape Verde and São Tomé and Príncipe were uninhabited until the Portuguese came along. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I will need to do more research on them myself and then to get back to you in a little while. Futurist110 (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

David Campbell Bannerman
Is the British Conservative MEP David Campbell Bannerman any relation to the former Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman? It's quite a distinctive name, but the article doesn't give any details about his family. 81.133.41.14 (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * He does not mention this on his own website. (One would think he would mention it if he was related.) And not according to this blog where it says "he was not in any material way related to the Liberal PM Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman".--Shantavira|feed me 16:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Approaching the question from the other direction: Henry Campbell-Bannerman was born Campbell, and adopted -Bannerman as part of an inheritance from his uncle (it was his mother's family name). As such, it seems likely all his immediate relatives were either Campbell or Bannerman, not hyphenated. HCB and his wife did not have any children, so the name would not be passed on from them. Hence, probably a coincidence... Andrew Gray (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the BBC he is a distant relative. Various blogs claim he is Sir Henry's great nephew.--Britannicus (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This anti-UKIP blog says that "David is still persisting in repeating the lie that he is the great, great nephew of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman" and that "On Bannerman’s Bombay birth certificate his first names are David Campbell and his surname is Bannerman. He used to be known as David Bannerman. When he stood in Scotland (1997) it suddenly became David Campbell-Bannerman (with a hyphen). LINK When he stood in 2001 for the Tories in Warrington and Leamington he reverted to David Bannerman. BBC NEWS VOTE 2001 RESULTS & CONSTITUENCIES Warwick & Leamington The fable about being the great, great nephew of the dead prime minister wasn't used again until he joined UKIP." Make of that what you will. Alansplodge (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A comment on this page says " HC-B’s sister Louisa also seems to have married a Bannerman and given the name Campbell-Bannerman to her descendants, though I think they might have died out in the male line and no longer have any actual Campbell Bannermans.". Alansplodge (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hadn't considered the possibility of a sibling doing the same thing! That said, I'm happy to take Anthony Wells as well-informed on such things & class a close relationship as "unlikely". Andrew Gray (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Recording genealogies in old family bibles
I know some families, particularly if they have Christian ancestors, may keep really old bibles in their homes, presumably passed down the generations and keeping records of marriages, deaths, and births. Is there a particular format to this sort of record-keeping? Did people from previous decades record the wives' names and all their grandchildren's names? In which tradition/denomination does this occur? What is the purpose of keeping it in the Bible instead of in a separate book? 140.254.227.114 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One reason people may have used their Bibles to record their family trees: as recently as the 1700s, books were relatively expensive... only the rich had lots of books, and for the poor and those on the frontiers it was not uncommon for the family bible to be the only book the family owned.
 * Even when a family owned other books, the bible was often considered the most important book they owned. It would get passed down from generation to generation as a treasured heirloom.  By using the family bible as a repository of family history, you could ensure that the record would be passed down, and continued from one generation to another.
 * Then there is the fact that the early chapters of the Bible are filled with "Begats"... a family tree for the Old Testament Patriarchs (and for Jesus). That makes it a logical book in which to start listing your own "Begats"... which after a few generations becomes a family tree. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the format, some bibles had dedicated forms in them that could be filled in with details of marriages and births. If you search Google Images with your question header you will find plenty of examples.--Shantavira|feed me 16:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant the family relationships and whether or not all the names would be included or just the heirs and their wives and children. 140.254.227.114 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The examples that I have seen, including the rather incomplete one from my own family, have just been a vertical list of entries, each entry usually including a date, the nature of the event (ie, birth or marriage), and by the name, generally including all the forenames. Some examples from Google are here, here and here. I have attached a picture from our Genealogy article which shows the pro forma pages that Shantavira describes above. I think that it's likely that only the immediate family would be recorded and not cousins or more distant relatives who would maybe have their own family Bible. It seems unlikely to me that parents would only record their first-born children - if nothing else because it was by no means certain that they would survive childhood. Alansplodge (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Did the Catholic church have problems with planets being named after Greek and Roman gods?
I know the Catholic church cared enough about astronomy to exert force on Galileo to stop saying the Earth went around the sun. I also know that the Galilean moons of Jupiter, as well as, well, Jupiter and the other planets known at the time, were given and had names which came from Greek and Roman mythology. I don't ever recall having heard in school of the Catholic church (which I only single out because it had so much power in those days) having any problem with the names of celestial objects deriving from what that religion must have considered false gods. Are there any sources someone can point to in which documents from Galileo's days talked about the names of the planets? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not aware whether there was ever any campaign to rename the planets by the Church. But the names of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were all traditional from before the Classical period of Greece and Rome.  See, for instance, Jupiter, where both th Greeks and the Romans named the largest planet after *Dyeus-Pəter, the Indo-European Sky Father.  So, these planets had names for centuries or millennia before Galileo.  Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were discovered well after Galileo's time.  At first, Uranus was named Georgium Sidus by Herschel in honor of George III.  This was not popular internationally, and hence the name of a pagan god was chosen to match European tradition. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Medeis -- I'm not sure that that's the case. The Latin word "Jupiter" certainly goes back to an early Indo-European phrase, but I doubt that the identification of that name or god with the planet we now call "Jupiter" goes back nearly that far.  I think that the system of identification of planets with divinities that we know today actually originated in Babylonian astrology (which was tremendously influential during the Hellenistic period, almost displacing traditional religion and philosophy in some cases), so that "Marduk" = planet Jupiter, "Nebo" = planet Mercury, "Ishtar" = planet Venus, etc.  According to Franz Cumont's Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans, before the influence of Babylonian astrology, the Greeks actually called the planet Mars Πυροεις "fiery", the planet Jupiter Φαεθων "luminous", didn't always recognize the identity of the morning and evening stars (i.e. planet Venus), etc. AnonMoos (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to imply that the planet names go back to common Indo-European, I said that the Greek and Roman names for the planet Jupiter do. I'll accept that Greek had an older name for Jupiter, but our article mentions one cognate to Jupiter.  And I am aware that, for instance, the Indic names aren't the same as the Roman ones.  And that the discovery that Lucifer and Venus were the same object seen at dawn and at dusk was a discovery made during recorded history. Addressing all those issues would have clouded my point, which is that these planets were known and named long before Galileo, and long before Christianity, in case the OP thought the naming or discovery of the planets was dated to Galilean times or the Christian era. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Babylonian-influenced planet names in Greek date to a few centuries before Christianity ("after the fourth century" [BC] according to Cumont)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

20.137.2.50 -- In Franz Werfel's science fiction novel "Star of the Unborn", a far-future civilization (which is not Christian) uses Christianized names of the planets (due to intervening historical vicissitudes). So "Mary Magdalene" = Venus, "John the Baptist" = Mars, "Apostle Paul" = Saturn, "John Evangelist" = Mercury, and "Apostle Peter" = Jupiter. I don't know that anybody has ever attempted to impose a similar scheme in real life, though... AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose this is a good time to bring up the pagan Earendel. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Side-note
Although individuals may have, the Catholic Church never did "exert force on Galileo to stop saying the Earth went around the sun"; and Jesuit astronomers (such as Galileo contemporary Christopher Clavius) very much "cared about astronomy". Much has been written about this; (e.g., this treatise is fairly concise: The Galileo Affair). ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, they "cared about astronomy", in that they wanted to ensure that it fit everything either they, or the Bible, said. And certainly some individuals in The Church were more opposed to Galileo than others.  However, the difficult individuals were in charge, and thus the official Church position was against the teachings of Galileo. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Although condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" (emphasis mine) and subject to abjuration, his teachings were less problematic than the person himself. (E.g., the Holy Office granted imprimatur for The Complete Works of Galileo in 1781). ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A mere 139 years after his death. Marco polo (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but the bottom line is that the Church (which also defended Kepler) had no problems with the Galileo's assertions about the Copernican system; rather, it was his insistence that this theory can be demonstrated from the Scriptures. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your link doesn't seem to be working; all I see is the cover of a book called Memoirs and Writings of the Very Reverend James F. Callaghan. Matt Deres (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I get page 326 of same (on Google Books). ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC) (try a less-crufty link?)→ http://books.google.com/books?id=oesYAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA326
 * Google Books seems to be very fickle about whom it shows what. I'm not sure if it's geographic or just random. Alansplodge (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Under the patronage of Cardinal Del Monte, Galileo teaches the Copernican system for many years, and goes to Rome in 1607 where he is received with "highest honors" and is "pressingly invited" to give lectures after which the Pope gives him "marks of esteem". Four years later, he is summoned by Monty Python the Inquisition, having been accused by Lorini of "asserting that [the Copernican] theory could be demonstrated from the Scriptures"; evidenced by a letter from Galileo asserting such, with reference to Revelation. The rest of the page goes on about the fairness of the Inquisition regarding evidence.

The next page [327] describes a letter from Cardinal Barberini (who would become the next Pope; Urban VIII) imploring Galileo to stick to physics and mathematics, and not to meddle in theology and scripture. At this point, Galileo was free to go, but "[he] wished an official declaration that his astronomical opinion was taught by the Holy Scripture".

This is when things start to go badly, etc...




 * I don't know about the planets, but classical gods continued to be popular subjects for painting, poetry, music right through. --ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)