Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 January 11

= January 11 =

Which religion came first? Jainism or Hinduism?
I can't find a definitive answer for this, and I am going somewhat paranoid over biases. Can someone answer this (preferably within 2 sentences or just a TL;DR)? — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 11:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (Sorry to give you a four-sentence answer, but merging all my actual answer into a single sentence would make it absurdly long.) See History of Hinduism — it developed partly out of primitive Indo-European religion, and ascertaining a specific starting point really isn't possible, comparable to ascertaining a specific starting point for other manifestations of primitive Indo-European religion, e.g. Greek and Roman religion.  Meanwhile, History of Jainism says that the origins of the religion are obscure and disputed.  I think the answer is that a definitive answer can't be found.  Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But I note that that article does mention that the first historically-attested Jain figure was from the 8th century BCE; the Aryan migration into India, from which Hinduism would have arisen, is held to have occurred six to seven centuries earlier. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 12:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, what was the start of what we'd call Hinduism, as opposed to being one of the generically primitive Indo-European religions? For example, would the Vedic religion be considered Hinduism or something previous?  The introduction to History of Hinduism appears to draw a distinction between the two, noting that the period 800-200 BC was "a turning point between the Vedic religion and Hindu religions".  It's not so much a matter of "this started at some point but we don't know when"; it's a matter of "this didn't start at a specific time".  Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen the religion of the Kalash referred to as a primitive form of Hinduism, even though they, considering their significant steppe ancestry, likely represent a relict Aryan population that would be following Vedic or even pre-Vedic (i.e. traditional Indo-Iranian) beliefs. I accept, though, that "primitive Hinduism" may simply be another way of terming the latter.Admittedly, I was not aware until now that a distinction is drawn between the Vedic and Hindu belief systems, so thank you for enlightening me. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But to answer your other question, I really don't see why we can't use the divergence of the Indo-Aryans from other IE peoples (i.e the Aryan migration into India) as some sort of reference point, given that the variant practiced by this specific group was the one that would primarily contribute to Hinduism. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything points to the conclusion that the question cannot be definitely settled one way or another. "Hinduism is the world’s oldest religion, according to many scholars, with roots and customs dating back more than 4,000 years." Can we believe these "many scholars"? Religions do usually not spring up overnight, so the best we can do is find the earliest attestable clear manifestations of a religion. According to the same article referenced before: "Most scholars believe Hinduism started somewhere between 2300 B.C. and 1500 B.C. in the Indus Valley, near modern-day Pakistan." This would indeed make Hinduism almost certainly older than Jainism. On the other hand, present-day Hindus might not recognize their religion in these pre-Vedic roots. As a religious belief, Judaism is an old root of Christianity, but it would be ridiculous to describe Christianity as dating from the Bronze Age. Pārśvanātha, the 23rd tīrthaṅkara, lived during the late Vedic period in which Brahmanism gradually developed over a period of centuries into a recognizable form of Hinduism. Whether current practitioners of Jainism would recognize Pārśvanātha's teachings as Jainist is anybody's guess; the oldest surviving texts were composed many centuries later. --Lambiam 13:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Huge tangent, but what on Earth does near modern-day Pakistan mean? Either it is in Pakistan or it isn't, and in this case, the IVC most definitely was (see Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro). M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Indus Valley Civilisation occupied land that is part of three modern day countries, not just Pakistan, and the adherents of the early form of/precursor to Hinduism practiced there would have lived in all three, not necessarily just Pakistan. I agree that "near" is a bad word, perhaps "in and around" would be better.  -- Jayron 32 16:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If something evolved gradually and doesn't have a clear date of founding, it's hard to say how old it is. As implied by Lambiam, there have been several somewhat different forms of Hinduism visible in historical texts, such as an early form practiced by animal-herders roaming the Punjab, while some later formulations were based more on an agricultural civilization along the Ganges valley. AnonMoos (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Most logistically challenging military operations?
Other than D-Day, which military operations were the most logistically challenging? Futurist110 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like we have a Military logistics article, but I was wondering if anyone here had anything to add to this topic and question of mine on top of that. Futurist110 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The question doesn't make sense unless you have a way to numerically define "challenging". For example, Washington crossing the Delaware in 1776 was a tiny operation by the standards of 1944, but Washington's army was also tiny by 1944 standards and it was a big deal for them.  --174.95.161.129 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The invasion force deployed in Operation Barbarossa, about three million personnel, was the largest in the history of warfare. It is not clear what delineates an operation; can the Manhattan Project be considered part of a military operation that culminated in the atrocities at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? For the time, the cost (nearly US$2 billion) was staggering. --Lambiam 11:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of long-distance logistics, the 1982 Falklands War broke most of the records, see British logistics in the Falklands War. Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thankfully, Operation Downfall (planned WW2 invasion of Japan) was superseded by the "atrocities at Hiroshima and Nagasaki". The logistics dwarfed even that for the D-day invasion.  107.15.157.44 (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Cases where there were (often irrational) fears of people of a different race or ethnic group invading one's country?
Which cases were there where there were (often irrational) fears of people of a different race or ethnic group invading one's country? So far, I could think of:


 * The "Yellow Peril", the early 20th century fear of the Western world becoming overwhelmed by East Asians. A more recent version of this paranoia has emerged in post-Soviet Russia, which fears that its Far Eastern territories will become flooded with Chinese.
 * The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy, an early 20th century racist book warning that white people are at risk of losing their position of world dominance to people of color.
 * Nazi German references to the mainly East Slavic population of the Soviet Union as "Asiatic hordes" and whatnot.
 * The "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory popular among alt-right types in the Western world nowadays.

There is also a Wikipedia article about demographic threats, of course, but those are internal as opposed to internal. Anyway, though, which additional cases were there of people (often irrationally) fearing an invasion of their country by people of a different race or ethnic group? I especially want to focus on cases that have been prominent enough to generate memes such as "Yellow Peril". Futurist110 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's been an extremely common political strategy for centuries to try to convince the less well informed masses that they are at threat from some "other" people, typically people who look and sound different from the target audience, and then to also convince that audience that you will protect them from this evil, foreign menace. Trump and the Mexican wall leapt to mind as I read the question. My country, Australia, has many forts dotted around its shores, most built to "protect" the citizens from those nasty Russian people back in the 19th century. In more recent times China, despite being our biggest trading partner by far, was chosen by our government to be the bogeyman of the early 21st century. (Muslims, of course, ran a close second for a while.) With extensive help from one of our greatest exports to the United States, Rupert Murdoch, many of our citizens now think a Chinese invasion is imminent. HiLo48 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Australians feared a Russian naval invasion in the 19th century? Futurist110 (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You bet. Right in the middle of Sydney Harbour there is Fort Denison. There's also Point Nepean Fort and Fort Queenscliff defending Melbourne. The latter article tells us "These hostile powers were, at various times, identified as the French, the Russians and, at one stage during the American Civil War, the United States"!! There are many more such fortifications. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a whole genre of Invasion_literature in the late 19th/early 20th century based on fears of being invaded by [insert neighbouring country/people that you don't like]. Typically French or Germans in the case of the British, or Russians in the case of Japan.  (This eventually evolved into the Alien Invasion genre, starting with War of the Worlds).Iapetus (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I checked out that article. Futurist110 (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, what was the last English novel of French peril? —Tamfang (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The absence of fear may also be irrational. In the prelude to World War II, the political leadership of the Netherlands believed that a policy of neutrality would be enough to stave off the threat of invasion by its much larger neighbour. --Lambiam 11:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair to the Dutch, that policy had worked perfectly well only two decades earlier, and it's hard to see what preparations they could have made which would have made a difference to the outcome, beyond delaying it for a few days.
 * To be fair to the Australians, war between Britain and the US was a possibility during the American Civil War, see United Kingdom and the American Civil War and see the much later War Plan Red for US planning against the British Empire. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and si vis pacem, para bellum. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. In the period I wrote about above, Australia wasn't even a country. It was six separate British colonies. So politically part of the United Kingdom anyway. Even at the beginning of WWII, almost forty years after the Federation of Australia, the Australia PM said (I'm paraphrasing) "Britain has just declared war on Germany, so Australia is at war with Germany too." HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The Central American migrant caravans of asylum seekers in 2017-2018 were mischaracterized by U.S. white supremacists and other far right elements as an invasion force. -- Jayron 32 13:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Far-right groups in Germany have used similar language describing Turks in Germany and other ethnic minorities, see for example here or here. -- Jayron 32 13:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When I worked in Nigeria, there were many complaints about illegal immigrants from Niger trying to take over. It wasn't a right-left wing thing that white people complain about. It was a Christian-Muslim thing. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * x2 We see this throughout history.  For example, as the Pax Romana became more and more precarious, citizens feared invasion by hordes of barbarians (the term originally referred to people who did not speak Greek) and this duly happened. 95.148.1.243 (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Plan Andinia and the fears Brazilian nationalists have of having the Amazonia stolen. --Error (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Dude, humans have feared the "other" at least as long as they have been humans. Sometimes rationally, sometimes irrationally. --Khajidha (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but they haven't always wrote extensive literature about this as they did with things such as the "Yellow Peril". Futurist110 (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Eurabia conspiracy theories, and fears about "Islamisation" of Europe (see e.g. Pegida). BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Impeachment playbook?
Is there an anticipated or foreseeable sequence of events for President Trump's second impeachment, in the event that one gets rolling? The House might introduce articles in the next few days, but it seems unlikely that the Senate could complete a trial (or maybe even start one) before Trump leaves office on the 20th. So what happens then? Does the trial just keep going? Would the point just be to prevent Trump from running for POTUS again in 2024, at age 78 if my math is right? I have heard before of the possibility of impeaching someone after they leave office, but if it's really doable, there are quite a few other living and historical ex-presidents who would make good candidates besides Trump. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Constitution says "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." By implication, someone impeached after having left office can still be barred from ever holding a public office again. That would be the reason to impeach Trump, to end his political career. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think he's torpedoed any political future for himself quite thoroughly, unless he wants to move to Russia and run for the Dum(b)a. However, it would be nice to prick the Thin-skinned One as much as possible. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's enough public support to elect Trump again in 2024 then using impeachment to prevent it just seems like a band-aid. Separately, I saw in the paper that he might pardon himself for whatever bad stuff he might have done.  That would set off a legal battle, but let's assume that the self-pardon actually works, so he can't be prosecuted (we'll ignore any state charges that might be in play).  Could he still be impeached for those same charges? 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The president cannot pardon impeachment convictions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In addition to there being an explicit carve-out in the pardon power for impeachment ("he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." U.S. Const. Art II, § 2, Cl. 1 (emphasis supplied)) my understanding of the mechanics of the Presidential pardon is that it (1) establishes a non-rebuttable presumption that the person pardoned is not guilty of either a particular crime or of any crime in connection with some act or omission, and (2) directs the executive branch to implement the pardon by, e.g., dismissing pending charges and releasing the pardoned person from prison. I do not believe a pardon precludes a scenario like we saw in (for instance) the O.J. Simpson civil trial, where someone acquitted of a crime was nonetheless capable of being held civilly liable for the harm to the victims of said crime. And as has been repeatedly stated over the last few years, a federal pardon does not affect criminal prosecutions by the several states.Thus—notwithstanding doubts about the constitutionality of impeachment after leaving office—an effective self-pardon would not preclude impeachment. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's a CRS report saying impeachment after departure from office can happen, though the same report is clear that it only happened once (in 1876), that person was acquitted, many of the senators voting to acquit raised doubts to the jurisdictional soundness of impeachment of someone that was no longer in public office, and that the current sources of congressional precedent raise concerns about the soundness of such an impeachment. In all other cases, and there are several, the impeachment effort was ended when the official left office. In all these cases, the office ended by resignation, not by expiration of the term. As such, despite claims to the contrary in the lay press, it's not a given that impeachment will still take place. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really the only case. William Blount was the first person ever impeached by the House. He was impeached on July 7, 1797 - the House voted to impeach him and asked the Senate to expel him which the Senate did on July 8. The House then set up an investigating committee and present articles of impeachment to the Senate on 25 Jan. 1798. The Senate trial concluded 11 Jan. 1799, a year and a half after he was expelled. (He was already elected Speaker of the Senate of Tennessee by then.) [ [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just like the procedure of the 25th Amendment cannot be started without the cooperation of the vice president, the trial phase following impeachment cannot begin without the cooperation of the Senate Majority Leader. With their – unlikely – cooperation, a speedy trial would be a theoretical possibility, but even so, a conviction would seem to remain an extremely unlikely outcome. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn has floated the possibility of delaying the trial until after the 100th day of President Joseph R. Biden's being in office. --Lambiam 11:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim that a post-inauguration impeachment is constitutionally sound is frankly dubious. Even in the Belknap case—the only post-resignation impeachment in U.S. history—of the 62 Senators voting on whether to convict, 24 of them openly said they didn't believe the Senate had jurisdiction to impeach someone who had resigned. See Hinds’ Precedents of The House of Representatives § 2467. No less an authority than Justice Story argued that the language of the Constitution raised doubt whether disqualification could be pronounced without being coupled with removal from office. 2 Story, Commentaries § 801 (citing a printed copy of the impeachment trial of William Blount, which I have unfortunately been unable to find). While I'm not going to claim the legal scholars who point to Belknap as conclusive proof are completely wrong, I would advise anyone reading about this topic to research the question beyond reading a NBC News article. It's honestly times like this that I wish there was a WP:LAWRS (cf. WP:MEDRS). Thorny constitutional law questions like these simply cannot be answered adequately by reference to a [//www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/can-trump-be-tried-senate-impeachment-charges-even-after-he-n1253544 ~600-word non-scholarly news report]. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * William W. Belknap was impeached after he had resigned and left office. But what about an officer who is impeached while in office, but leaves office before the trial? Even in the Belknap case, the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that Belknap was amenable to trial . So in fact this case is a congressional precedent, but for the opposite of what you appear to assume. --Lambiam 10:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you even read my post beyond where I said the precedent was questionable? Did I ever say it wasn’t a congressional precedent? 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a scenario that is being overshadowed by the impeachment news. Pelosi can start an expulsion from Congress (both the Sentate and House). Anyone who is deemed to be incompatable with public office can be simply removed. First, remove anyone who made social media posts that supported Trump. That is easy. It will reduce the number of Republicans in Congress. Then, with their numbers reduced, it is easy to remove those who have an appearance of supporting Trump in the past. That will reduce the Republican count again. Repeat until there are no Republicans left. Then, you can get a unanimous vote to impeach Trump, even if he is not in office. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Expulsion from the United States Congress is not something the Speaker can simply decree; there is a procedure to follow and a two-thirds majority is required to make expulsion effective. It has historically been extremely rare. Xuxl (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a realistic scenario. It's not even fantasy, really. Maybe if we were talking about a couple people. But enough to shift the balance of power? And on top of that, do you know how long it would take to move through that many congressional expulsions? It'd easily be time for the 2022 midterms by then. And that's even if the entire legislative agenda was thrown out and they solely focused on expulsions. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article linked above also suggests Pelosi would have no official role in any expulsion from the Senate. While technically the House or Senate could change their rules to require less rigmarole for expulsions, they'd still need the 2/3 majority. Also, I assume anyone expelled would simply be replaced the way they normally are, so this doesn't guarantee no Republicans. I don't know why Pelosi would want a unanimous vote anyway. It's not like that guarantees a conviction and as things stand, it looks like the impeachment may happen regardless or what happens after that. (The IP did mention the Senate, but they only mentioned impeachment not conviction.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Charge him with treason or send him to Guantanomo as terroist without trial after he has left office. Really this man has made the US-supporters in all allied countries sad, because nothing was left from what we were told after WWII. He should be named persona non grata in Europe. Bahnmoeller (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The exact same thing was said about Nixon, Reagan, and both Papa and Baby Bush. If you live long enough, You will have a lot of Republican politicians who are the absolute most evil person who ever lived. It sticks until the next one comes along. How many times did you hear the "Bush lied-People died" chant once Trump was elected? Media has no memory. Every time a Republican is elected, it is treated like the first time it has ever happened. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)