Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 January 9

= January 9 =

What age/era came after romantic era?
I saw at some website that I found using google search that after age of enlightment we had the romantic era. My question is, what came after it?

Actually, my question is two questions into one, if this age/era X that came after romantic era ended before some year around 1870 to 1899, tell me the ages that followed X, and then the one that folloed Y and this goes on up to around 1870-1899.2804:7F2:597:51E5:DD32:E774:9DD6:73E1 (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Realism (theatre)? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also more generally for other art forms: Realism (art movement) in painting, and Literary realism. Like Romanticism can be interpreted as a reaction against the harshness of modern life, Realism can be viewed as a reaction to covering it up with a cloying romantic sauce. --Lambiam 09:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And the next one along: Modernism begins in the late 19th century. --Antiquary (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The one after that could be Postmodernism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Romantic" is often used in a specifically musical context – see Dates of classical music eras. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

New-XYZ
History is full of examples of European colonial powers renaming conquered places after their own nation, regions or cities: New South Wales, Nouvelle-France, Nueva Vizcaya, Nova Lisboa, Neumecklenburg, Nouvelle-Anvers / Nieuw-Antwerpen, Nieuw-Holland, Ny Danmark, Nya Sverige, Ny-Ålesund, Novorossiya. Are there examp les of this practice among non-European civilizations such as Japan, China, India, etc...? --79.31.10.126 (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I looked at a list of Wikipedia articles beginning with "Nava", but didn't find much relevant (especially since Nava can mean "nine" as well as "new"). There are several newspapers, such as "Nava Bharat"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * When the Carthaginians founded the colony now known as Cartagena they gave it the same name as their own city: Qart-Hadašt, "New City". --Antiquary (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There are not many examples of non-European colonialism. --Lambiam 21:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Is Carthage European? Temerarius (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * For Chinese look for placenames beginning with "Xin" or "Sin" (specifically "新"). I'm not sure if it's done the same way as in the west though. Xinjiang, for instance, literally translates to "New Borderlands" or "New Frontier", I presume because the places classically considered the frontier in Chinese history are not as far out as Xinjiang. The origin of the name for Xinhui District, I'm not clear on; it may have been called Xinyi at one point, after being called Pingyi. I can't read Chinese Wikipedia well enough to really give any better information. There is also a Xin County in Henan, formerly called Jingfu County until December 1947; I also can't tell exactly why the name changed. I'm sure there are other places but I'm not thinking of them or finding them via basic searches. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Changchun used to be called "Xinjing", "New Capital", but I don't think really fits the criteria of the question... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We just colonised ourselves and called it Naya Pakistan. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess the Indian city of New Delhi was named by British colonizers after the nearby region of Old Delhi. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hawaii (and several other Polynesian islands) are possibly named after the original homeland of the Polynesian people: Hawaii Iapetus (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Trumps children
Although they are not considered to have directly influenced the events of Jan 6/21, Trump's 3 eldest children were present and participated in the "warm up" of the crowd prior to Trump's speech. Could they also be held accountable for their part? Or, some other "criminal" activity related to these events? 70.26.18.240 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This calls for us to share our personal opinions, and we are not supposed to do that. The proper question is whether there are any sources that hold Trump’s children accountable. Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And are there? The OP wasn't asking for our personal opinions. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The words by Giuliani were even more inflammatory. And the investigators are saying no one is off limits. So it's possible they could be held accountable, but there's no way for us to know now. Of the family, Trump is the only one the media are generally talking about, and he's also the only one "eligible" for impeachment; and whether that will happen is likewise unknown at this point. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseba

ll Bugs]] What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * According to this New York Times article, Don Jr. said, regarding members of Congress who would not vote in favor of challenging the electoral college results, "We're coming for you". In context, that's pretty threatening. Other accounts say he spent much of his speech attacking and ridiculing transgender athletes. I am sure that investigators will scour all the communications of the people involved in any way with this failed coup d'état. Those who actually fomented violence may learn the limits of the First Amendment. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  02:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Anybody can be held accountable for having had a part in a crime. Whether, in a specific case, someone will get away with having had a part or not, depends in the US, typically, on (a) the judgement of a prosecutorial office that there is reason to think a crime was committed and that the level of participation rose to a level that itself was criminal, as specified by law, (b) the judgement of the prosecutorial office that prosecution is opportune (the benefits to society outweigh the costs), (c) the judgement of a grand jury (or a judge) concurring with the prosecution that the suspect should be indicted, and finally (d) a jury finding the defendant guilty. You could probably fill an hours-long talking-heads show of legal experts speculating about these issues; just the issue of mens rea might already consume half an hour. So in abstract theory they could; whether they will is an entirely different question. --Lambiam 09:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A hypothetical scenario in which prosecution would become likely is one in which evidence emerges that the chain of events unfolding on Epiphany of 2021 in Washington D.C. along Pennsylvania Avenue was in fact the result of an insane Master Plan concocted by DJT's personal Draculawyer to disrupt the counting by Congress of the Electoral College votes to such an extent that no winner could be declared and the task to elect the President would befall the House, and that, moreover, the defendants were aware of that plan and their role in it. If there was such a Master Plan, the incompetence of some of the main actors even makes it likely its existence will come to light. IMO, though, finding the truth and turning over stones to see what may crawl out, is more important for America now than punishing the guilty. --Lambiam 09:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As with the illustration of a target on Gabby Giffords, the Trumps could claim they were merely speaking metaphorically. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Or they could plead insanity. --Lambiam 11:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean 2021?Sjö (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, corrected. (But 2020 if you let the new year begin on Newroz or Kha b-Nisan.) --Lambiam 11:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Or Lady Day. --Khajidha (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Several people have said it will be hard to criminally charge even Trump for inciting riot, per the 1969 SCOTUS decision Brandenburg v. Ohio. Sharron Angle ran actual campaign ads showing her opponent then-Senator Harry Reid in crosshairs, and babbling about "second amendment remedies" if the election didn't go her way. She lost bigly, but nothing happened to her about the violent imagery, even though some people got freaked out by it. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but we are in a very different age now. While criminal action may have gotten nowhere then, now it might. Also "inciting an insurrection" is different than a (poorly planned!) ad against an opponent. We shall see. 70.26.18.240 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)