Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 August 26

= August 26 =

Trivia about Julius Caesar's assassination
Is Plutarch's story that Julius Caesar pulled his toga over his head when he saw Brutus coming to stab him true ? 223.176.2.57 (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * how do you think we can know that better than Plutarch? Somehow they failed to record on film the live event Gem fr (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's one film of it, but Caesar looks suspiciously like Louis Calhern. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Many could know better than Plutarch, if not us, since Plutarch was born a century after the assassination. However, he apparently drew on the writings of Gaius Asinius Pollio who was a contemporary (and a politician who supported Caesar) - but who also was in Spain at the time of the assassination. He also may have copied Suetonius (see below).


 * The chief contemporary to write about the event was Cicero, who was apparently sympathetic to the conspirators, though not in the conspiracy or present at the assassination. See Epistulae ad Brutum, for example. Scholars consider Cicero's letters reliable historical sources.


 * Among other contemporaries: Lucius Cornelius Balbus was a Caesar supporter and his diary of events was used as a source by Suetonius more than a hundred years later. Hypsicrates was a former slave freed by Caesar three years before the assassination and his writing may have been used by Strabo several decades later. Livy was a teenager at the time of the assassination and was in any case not yet living in Rome. Because Livy's history of Rome, begun about 15-20 years after the assassination, contains internal consistencies inconsistencies, and because he wrote elaborate speeches for people in history, scholars are wary of his accuracy.70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Livy is considered inaccurate because his histories were consistent? Tough crowd. Matt Deres (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL - thanks for catching! Fixed.70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "Cicero, who was apparently sympathetic to the conspirators" Unsurprising. Despite his novus homo status, Cicero was a member of the Optimates political faction (Caesar's political opponents). Cicero also supported Pompey during Caesar's Civil War (49-45 BC). While Caesar pardoned him and allowed him to return to Rome, Cicero was still not a supporter of Caesar's regime. "A letter Cicero wrote in February 43 BC to Trebonius, one of the conspirators, began, "How I could wish that you had invited me to that most glorious banquet on the Ides of March"!" Dimadick (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Cases of settler colonialism culminating into separatism?
Which cases were there where settler colonialism ultimately culminates into separatism? So far, I could think of Northern Ireland, Palestine, and Texas, but which other cases of this were there? Futurist110 (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If you mean present-day countries where descendants of post-1492 immigrants outnumber descendants of pre-1492 inhabitants, then that would appear to include the majority of the Western Hemisphere (excluding Paraguay), Australia, New Zealand, and some others (assuming that you're looking for information, not just an excuse to trot out pseudo-leftist buzzwords)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I was looking more for cases where settler colonialism resulted in local majorities in certain places but not throughout an entire territory and where the settlers and their descendants subsequently wanted to secede from the main territory. So, for instance, having North Ireland secede from Ireland and remain part of Britain, having the Jewish parts of Palestine plus the Negev secede from Palestine in order to create a Jewish state in these territories, having Texas secede from Mexico and become independent, et cetera. Futurist110 (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't get what the relevance of this comment is? Is "settler colonialism" a pseudo-leftist buzzword? Futurist110 (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Israel did not "secede" from Palestine. The British withdrew from their mandate territory, leaving behind a vacuum of no government, and in various places various Arab and Jewish forces flowed into said vacuum.  (Nominally the British claimed that they would hand their Mandate over to the United Nations Palestine Commission, but the British worked hard to sabotage this commission so that it would not be able to have any practical influence or authority, and achieved great success in that goal, so that the United Nations dissolved the Commission on May 14th, just before the Mandate ended).
 * Also, I don't see how Texas is too different from the 13 colonies or United States as a whole. Also, when people are described as "settler colonialists", it's usually to condemn them as being evil... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Palestinians laid claim to the Palestine Mandate in its entirety while the Zionists did not, no? If so, why can't what the Zionists did be considered secession? After all, while there was certainly a power vacuum in Palestine, wasn't the Palestine Mandate viewed as one territory before 1947? Futurist110 (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * +1 AnonMoos. Palestine is the name of a geographical area, and never was a political entity that could be associated with a state from which you could secede. Israel is on Palestine just like BRD is on Bavaria and France is on Brittany. So it make no sense to write "secede from Palestine". The political faction calling themselves "Palestinian" are thus claiming for them, and denying others, a right on the land; this is the reason they chose the name, but be aware that "Palestinian" was scornfully used as a slur against Jews in old days (as a way to imply "go back home to your shithole country, you do not belong here").


 * Well, were the Thirteen Colonies ever officially viewed as being part of England? Futurist110 (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not England, but the British Crown (which officially still include Australia, Canada...) Gem fr (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not so. There's a Queen of Australia, a Queen of Canada, a Queen of the United Kingdom, a Queen of Papua New Guinea, etc etc. Despite being the same person in actuality, these are all different crowns. The UK has no legal capacity whatsoever to involve itself in the affairs of Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. If the UK Prime Minister advised the Queen of the UK to do something in relation to Australia, she would reply "Thank you, Prime Minister, but I am advised in Australian matters by my Australian Prime Minister. So nick off". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oupsy. I was wrong, you are right. Gem fr (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Jack accurately describes the situation today, but this wasn't the case even 100 years ago. The 13 colonies weren't part of England and Wales, but they were a leading part of the Empire in its early era.  Of course many of the colonists resented the idea of London legislating for them, and a dispute resulted from the practice, but Loyalist colonists, and inhabitants of other colonies, like the Province of Canada and the New South Wales colony, were subject to legislation and other aspects of government by Westminster.  The idea that one could profess loyalty to the Sovereign, while maintaining independence of London, isn't entirely a new idea, but in real life it's only a recent development that a part of the Sovereign's realm beyond the seas rejecting the authority of London (let alone the idea of advocating the abolition of the monarchy) is seen as acceptable.  Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that settler colonialism is a neutral term. In fact, isn't that why our article about this topic is called that way? Futurist110 (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * considering the heavy implications of colonialism, there is no way "settler colonialism" can be neutral. WP is notoriously not neutral in any political feud; doesn't make it useless, just to be taken with a grain of salt. Gem fr (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Kosovo, Sri Lanka, Cyprus, Ceuta and Melilla, Most of India (Pakistan, Kashmir, ...), South Africa, Myanmar, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Lebanon, Ukraine, Bruxelles, parts of Western countries claiming Sharia Law should be applied in them, etc. Gem fr (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)::
 * I don't understand your list. Are you seriously saying that most inhabitants of India are not descended from pre-1492 inhabitants of India? --49.255.185.235 (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1492 isn't particularly relevant in India. A direct water route to India was discovered in 1495; Westerners were nonexistent in India before then, aside from individuals who made exceptionally long land journeys, and while non-Indian cultures might have an influence, non-Indian states didn't have any influence unless they were neighbors (e.g. the Persians) or had fought their way into the region (e.g. Indian campaign of Alexander the Great).  Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note, regarding "western influence in India;" you're only off by 1700 years. Europeans had established extensive direct contact and cultural exchange with the subcontinent in pre-Christian times.  Such contacts ebbed and flowed throughout history, it didn't start from nothing in 1495; overland contact between Europe and India was difficult, but not non-existent.  -- Jayron 32 01:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I ignored the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Kingdoms because they were the result of a state that had fought its way into the region after making an exceptionally long land journey, because the G-Bs were neighbors and the I-Gs went native (witness Greco-Buddhism, for example), and because as far as I'm aware, they had no significant continuing contact with the Mediterranean. The point is that the post-Da-Gama type of contact was unprecedented: never before did you have plenty of Westerners in India, representing European kingdoms and retaining firm political and cultural roots there rather than adopting south Asian culture and/or founding new independent polities based in the region.  Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why was 1492 would be relevant, as if the practice to move and then rip off power from previous government wasn't immemorial and universal. I was referring both to India moves (pre-1492) and to Partition_of_India (post-1492). The fact that some moving population came from another part of India (not all : Khalaj people for instance) also doesn't seems relevant to me. Gem fr (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. The OP is asking about colonial settlers settling in one part of a country which then leads to that part splitting off from the host country. Who are the colonial settlers in the Indian example and which host country did India split off from? AFAIK Indian independence was supported by actual Indians and its split from the British Empire was nothing to do with non-British colonial settlers settling in India.
 * As for Hong Kong and Taiwan, the fact that both are predominantly populated by migrants from China and now want to split off from China seems to be the opposite of the case the OP is referring to.--49.255.185.235 (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * India as subcontinent, not India as the current Republic. Khalaj people for instance came, and this resulted in split in previous states.
 * Likewise, current event in Kashmir, including people wanting to secede from India, are just in line with the events of 1947 (lots of people moved and demographics changed).
 * British colonization led to the creation of a new people in Hong Kong, with values and ethos quite different from mainland China (for instance, before the handover people in Hong Kong with mostly non-English ancestry seriously considered British citizenship. British nationality law and Hong Kong discuss the matter), hence the current secessionism. Comparable situation in Taiwan.
 * Now, you may be right that these may not be what the OP is asking for, but I fell it interesting to at least consider them. Up to him. Gem fr (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Appropriating famous dead people's names
Seems like a tendency in the tech sector (maybe other places too) for promoters to aggrandize products by associating them with the names of illustrious dead people (I like to think if they did this with living people without permission, they would get pounded). I can understand if there's not much pushback over the Acorn Archimedes computer, or the NVidia Kepler GPU, since those people have been dead for millennia or at least centuries. But what about Tesla cars (Nikola Tesla died in 1943 and may have some living relatives), and that sort of thing? What if SpaceX wants to name a rocket after Neil Armstrong? Is there a waiting period, or is it just a matter of what they think they can get away with? It all seems kind of tasteless to me. Thanks. Added: there is also an NVidia Tesla GPU come to think of it. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There's a whole area of law dealing with this -- see California Celebrities Rights Act, Post-mortem privacy, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * And there's a whole list of things named after Nikola Tesla. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "What if SpaceX wants to name a rocket after Neil Armstrong" - Blue Origin, not SpaceX. Fgf10 (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "Nikola Tesla died in 1943 and may have some living relatives" Nikola Tesla had four siblings (three sisters, one brother), but had no known direct descendants. He never married, considered chastity a requirement for his scientific research (... "explaining that his chastity was very helpful to his scientific abilities"), and was reclusive for most of his life. According to our article, following Tesla's death his estate was inherited by a nephew, Sava Kosanović. Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As noted at the Wikipedia article personality rights, under the civil law and common law jurisdictions section: "Unlike most common law jurisdictions the personality rights in civil law are generally inheritable, thus one can make a claim against someone who invades the privacy of a deceased relative if the memory of their character is besmirched by such publication." so it depends on whether or not such rights are considered inheritable as property of themselves, or if they end at death (as in, being attached to the person), and that will depend on jurisdiction. This article at the National Law Review deals specifically with various US state laws but seems to have some information that directly relates to the discussion at hand.  -- Jayron 32 16:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See Webster's Dictionary for discussion of publishers aggrandizing their dictionaries by associating them with the name of an illustrious dead person, and for discussion of how US courts have handled lawsuits on the question. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That also raises some questions about the difference or ambiguity in how people who died before current intellectual property and personality rights law came into being are treated differently from how people who die today will have their intellectual property and personality rights treated in the future. The cases you cite show how the first is treated; generally courts treat expired rights as expired in perpetuity.  That is the rights of long dead people who's legal IP and personality rights have expired cannot have those rights recovered.  The heirs of Noah Webster cannot reclaim the heritable rights he had, because those rights passed long ago.  However, modern laws on these issues are MUCH different; historic patterns indicate that corporations have consistently, and are prepared to long into the future, create a regime of perpetual copyright, patent, and other IP laws that establish functionally perpetual rights; that is recent legal history has shown that large, wealthy corporations are quite able to get such rights legally extended indefinitely.  See, for example the Copyright Term Extension Act, known derisively as the mickey mouse law, which along with similar laws in the EU, were seen as attempts to do just that.  The question becomes when could we expect the IP and personality rights of a person who dies today to expire; when will their work enter the public domain and when will their name and likeness be unencumbered by restrictions.  The answer is likely "never" given the patterns we have to go on.  -- Jayron 32 01:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Eldred v. Ashcroft was certainly one of the more pathetic decisions in the history of the Supreme Court, with contorted verbal gymnastics to prove that somehow "for limited times" actually meant "for unlimited times". However, there has not been a renewal of the 1998 Sony Bono law, and on January 1st the public domain counter moved from 1923 to 1924 (necessitating the renaming of templates on Commons).  See  etc... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It did, but that counter has not hit the major IP of the Disney Corporation and other similarly large and powerful media empires. They have shown the desire and ability to bribe give campaign contributions to politicians to get what they want to protect that IP many times in the past.  We have no reason to suspect that trend to stop.  This article in particular discusses likely strategies for Disney to use to protect its IP indefinitely; the copyright avenue may be a dead end for them, but it's not the only weapon in their arsenal.  -- Jayron 32 12:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Fgf10 that was amazing about Blue Origin. I wonder if Bezos got any sort of permission for that. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)