Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 September 10

= September 10 =

Genetic & linguistic shift due to mass importation of slaves
Greetings,

In human history in certain geographies and at certain times mass importation of slaves has taken place. I am curious to know are their any studies taken place on genetic & linguistic shift of communities in host geography over the centuries/decades.

That would happened in USA too to an extent but racial divide would have restricted cross racial marriages at least at initial stages. So I am more interested such countries in south America but more on Arab and Ottoman slave trade affected  host (importing) countries of mediterranean, middle east, Turkey and central Asia where large slave imports took place and  chance of marriages of imported slaves, their descendants and host slave importing population is/was very high. For example to what percentage genetic and linguistic make up of Turkey might have changed due to Ottoman time slave importing?


 * Whether any slavery related article on Wikipedia has taken note of any studies if taken place?

Thanks & Regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Bookku, this is an aside to the main point of your query, but you say ". . .in USA too to an extent but racial divide would have restricted cross racial marriages . . . ." Are you not aware that it was very common for white male slaveowners to force sex on female black slaves, with resultant cross-racial slave offspring. "No "marriage" was involved – indeed, it would usually have been illegal. Given human nature, this is likely to have been/be a common phenomenon in all slave-using cultures. I say "be" in the present tense because I understand that numerically there are more people in a state of enslavement today than at any time in the past. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.129.71 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly. Same time there had been a substantial sociological difference between U.S. slavery and Ottoman slavery. I thinks Wikipedia deserves an article explaining similarities and differences. In Muslim world slavery female slave, though sexually exploited, chance of slave to become part of household was much more so master slave association, chances procreation, manumission and may be part of lower economic strata after manumission but that remained a possibility.

Where as US and transatlantic slave trade has been better studied with higher level of introspection and understanding toward mistakes in history and better realisation of responsibility towards past misdeeds. Where as Muslim world remains largely in denial with much lesser introspection and studies and much more silence about misdeeds of enslaving past.

In case of Ottomans importation of slaves and social integration is of such high levels, one wonders how much genetic transformation would have taken place and how much linguistic transformation would have happened?

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * From memory, the genetics of Icelanders have been extensively researched. One of the conclusions is that mitochondrial DNA comes from Celtic (Irish) females (mostly slaves) while Y-chromosomes come from Norse males. See Íslendingabók (genealogical database) and Icelanders. However, I am not aware of significant Celtic influences in Icelandic language. --Error (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've heard it suggested that the Islandic folklore of the huldufólk ("hidden people") derives from tales told by Irish mothers, which should explain why it mirrors the Irish aos sí ("people of the mounds") rather than the elves of Scandinavian Old Norse mythology. I don't know if anything has been published on the topic, and am insufficiently familiar with either folklore to evaluate the suggestion other than that it is not prima facie implausible. --Lambiam 09:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Abstaining from Voting on Issues as a Political Platform
Has any politician ever run with a platform that they pledge to abstain from voting on a certain issue? Not that they just ignore the issue, but that they outright state their decision to abstain.

Presumably, the political benefit would be that they could avoid highly divisive issues, such as abortion or gun control, that would cut down on votes. More altruistically, the reason could be something along the lines of: "I don't know the answer to this issue, so I'm leaving the decision up to others who do."

The closest example I could think of was Lawrence Lessig's plan to be a "referendum president", but that's still significantly different as it involved restricting himself to run on only a few issues, not a full platform with just a few planks taken out and would end with him leaving office if successful. -Noha307 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There's the notorious If-by-whiskey speech. [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I admit that this doesn't directly answer the question, but as an Australian, a certain Albert Langer does spring to mind. He sorta advocated a "vote we hate both sides equally" approach, an was sent to jail for it. I suggest reading his article. Eliyohub (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You might also find this article to be of relevance. The issue in question involved decriminalizing prostitution. The MP in question admitted being "stuck" between his constituency (who were mostly liberal, which would push for a "yes" vote), and his personal moral views (which, as a Muslim, were very conservative, and would encourage him to vote "no"). So he abstained - and the bill passed by a single vote. Had he voted "no", the bill would have probably been defeated. I'm neither praising nor criticising him, though I can appreciate his dilemma. Eliyohub (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of the loosely related practice of Abstentionism, where a candidate or party stands for elections but says they will not to take up their seats (and therefore not vote on anything), a notably modern day example being the Sinn Féin with the House of Commons of the United Kingdom? Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Samael the serpent
who was the first to interpret the serpent in the Genesis Bible account, to be the angel Samael?.and in what year did this belief start Gfigs (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * would like to be able to search for this in the Talmud..if you know of an online searchable or downloadable English translation, (or cheap/free DVD edition)..would be appreciated.. Gfigs (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * If I understand our article Samael correctly, then, in the Talmudic lore, they are not identified with the serpent, but ride it as their steed. An identification is reportedly found in the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, which probably stems from the 2nd century CE. --Lambiam 08:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Correct. Rode it. See . The traditional Jewish view of Satan/Samael is complex and somewhat contradictory and quite different from the Christian. Furthermore, for most Jews, even the most religious, except perhaps that tiny number most deeply involved in authentic Jewish mysticism, Satan is a concept they rarely think about and has little relevance to their day to day life and practice.
 * Some of what Christians think of as 'Satan' sits in traditional Judaism under the umbrella of Yetzer hara, which is something internal to a person, not an external malevolent force. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ok, thank you.. Gfigs (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * if not mistaken, no references to Samael in the Talmud..about 41 references to Satan?. Gfigs (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * for anyone interested here is a Full Talmud ,in English, over 3000 pages, about 11Mb..it is not complete however, has only 2 of 6 Talmudic orders.. Gfigs (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is one reference, see . It's possible there are more references - hidden by inconsistent transliteration. Transliteration of Hebrew names is an inexact science. And even when consistent, it's just so odd how these names render in English. I've been known to whinge about Chava->Eve, Metushelach->Methuselah, Yitzchak->Isaac, Pinchas->Phineas, Yechezkel->Ezekiel, Shimshon->Samson, Moshe->Moses and Bilam->Balaam (just a very small sample!) on these pages before. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ok Dweller, thanks.. Gfigs (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The inconsistency of Yehoshua [Hebrew] /Yeshua [Aramaic] –>Joshua/Jesus also strikes me as obscurantist. {The poster formerly known as 87,81l2390.195} 90.193.129.71 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the "inconsistency" of Ὀδυσσεύς (Odusseús) [Homeric Ancient Greek] /Οὐλίξης (Oulíxēs) [Doric Ancient Greek] → Odysseus/Ulysses also strike you as obscurantist? --Lambiam 09:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because it's not obscuring anything meaningful, whereas dichotomisimg Joshua/Jesus, to a small degree, is. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.67.3 (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 90.193.129.71/{87,81l2390.195} -- Yeshua (i.e. Yēšūʕ ישוע) is a shortened post-exilic name in both Aramaic AND Hebrew. In the Septuagint, Josephus, and the New Testament, people named "Joshua" (Yǝhōshūʕ יהושע) in early Old Testament Hebrew and "Yeshua"/"Jeshua" in the later language all appear as Ιηsους in Greek (see Acts 7:45, Hebrews 4:8).  The only real inconsistency is that people named Yēšūʕ ישוע in the Hebrew of the Old Testament at Ezra 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 8:33; Nehemiah 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 8:17, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7, 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15, and also in Aramaic at Ezra 5:2, had their English names changed from "Jesus" to "Jeshua" by reforming ca. 1600 Protestant translators, while Jesus of Nazareth, who had exactly the same name in Hebrew/Aramaic terms, did not have the English form of his name changed... AnonMoos (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the result of this ca. 1600 change is what I find obscurantist. I feel it would be better to render both as either Jesus or (my preference) Joshua, since the underlying equivalence and meaning of the name(s) was not without significance. That said, I wouldn't really object if Yehoshua and Yeshua respectively were used instead. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.67.3 (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 90.200.67.3/{87.81.230.195} -- You're kind of going to have to get used to the fact that during the ca. 500 B.C. to early A.D. period (during when the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and the Greek New Testament were written -- not to mention the Septuagint and Josephus -- and also when the book of Chronicles achieved its final form), the name "Joshua" (Yǝhōshūʕ יהושע) was archaic, while the shortened version "Jeshua" (Yēšūʕ ישוע) was the form used in actual living speech, and commonly given as a name to babies.    During that time period, Joshua was far more likely to be modified to Jeshua/Jesus, rather than the reverse... AnonMoos (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Gordon West, journalist and Liberal publicist
I would be grateful for information about Gordon West, journalist and Liberal Party publicist. Information I have to date is that he was born in 1896, studied at the LSE, served in the Royal Navy in the First World War, then became a journalist. Editor of Publications for the Liberal Party, toured the USA with presidential candidates Alfred E. Smith and Herbert Hoover while working for David Lloyd George, wrote Lloyd George's Last Fight about the campaign for the 1929 UK General Election. Foreign Correspondent for the Westminster Gazette in the 20's, Foreign Editor of the Daily Sketch in the Second World War. Also wrote Jogging Round Majorca and By Bus to the Sahara. Married to Mary. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've had a search and not found much, but his death was listed in The Times: "On 13th August, 1969, Gordon West, formerly of Greenford Road, Sudbury Hill, Middlesex. Journalist and for many years editor of "Tobacco"." Warofdreams talk 00:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Material for an article here . The website appears to be a treasure trove. 109.156.109.78 (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah splendid, thanks and 109 - I had forgotten The Dinner Puzzle, it's a fascinating website. DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Holman, Pingle, and Peter Fleming's Brazilian Adventure
Peter Fleming's book Brazilian Adventure mentions a British Captain John Holman, and an American Major George Lewy Pingle. Pingle is acknowledged by Fleming to be a pseudonym. There is a persistent suggestion that Holman may also be a pseudonym (his name is that of a Mormon Pioneer), and that Holman and Pingle were in fact two aspects of the same person, perhaps an Australian. I've not been able to come up with anything definate about either of them/him. Can anyone help? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * A bit confusing, but this article (scroll down about one third) says:
 * I read an interesting article in the South American Explorers Magazine (issue 34) by Loren McIntyre which claims Fleming's irascible character Major Pingle was actually an Australian, Captain John Holman (his source was George Dyott, himself a great explorer of South America, who also concluded that Colonel Fawcett was killed by Indians.)
 * I don't kow if this helps or muddies the waters further. Alansplodge (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Extrapolated from a Google Books "snippet view":-
 * We had both enjoyed Peter Fleming's irreverent Brazilian Adventure, an account of the screwball 1933 search led astray by an annoying American, Major Pringle. Dyott explained that "Pringle" was really an Australian, Captain John Holman.
 * South American Explorer, Volumes 43-50 (1996) p. 14. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is indeed confusing, because the book presents Captain J. G. Holman as a real character (a British resident of São Paulo) who is described in a very positive light (an "indispensible", "heaven-sent ally" rendering "invaluable services") and definitely distinct from the insufferable "Major Pingle". --Lambiam 10:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The confusion seems to be on the part of Mr Dyott. Alansplodge (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Independent confirmation that Fleming's Holman is a real person can be seen here. --Lambiam 07:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I can only read a snippet of that, are you able to see more? I've found (some at least) of Fleming's reports to The Times, and he names J. G. Holman in those. I shall go through them to see if he mentions anyone who might be a candidate for Pingle. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * He said the book was certainly diverting and well-written, but how anybody who had made the trip could write such a wild mixture of fact and fancy was beyond him, as hardly a statement in the book followed the facts of the case. [end of column - unknown amount of missing text]
 * Captain Holman was always careful to see that none of the party had more than one day's provisions on leaving camp, as he knew that they were not clever enough to live off the country and that they would come running back to camp as soon as their provisions ran out. It must be remembered that Capt. Holman had to sign a statement with the British Ambassador in Brazil that he would be responsible for the safety of the members of this party, and that if he had not acted in the manner that he did, Mr. Peter Fleming would probably be running circles at the present time through some of the forests here. . . . The trip down the River Pará was a race all right,
 * That's the best I can do. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The next column starts mid-sentence, so the text in the middle column apparently continues below the image of Fawcett following "... the facts of the case." The text in the next column preceding "Captain Holman was always careful ..." is:
 * the year before under the guidance of Capt. Holman, promised Capt. Holman that he was returning to Brazil the following year to hunt with a party of “crazy young Englishmen.” The wonderful and dangerous part of the trip spoken of by Mr. Fleming in looking for Col. Fawcett was less than 16 miles from their base camp.   [In 1925 Col. Percy Harrison Fawcett, British explorer, with two companions (one his son Jack) went into the interior of the Matto Grosso jungles of Brazil to seek traces of a lost civilization. They sent out two messages in May of that year, have never been heard from since.—.]
 * More text in that column, following "The trip down the River Pará was a race all right,":
 * but a race to get out of Brazil before their money ran out, as they were practically broke when they started on this part of the trip. Capt. Holman would always manage to stay a day behind them to prod them on, as he was jolly well fed-up with the whole crowd by this time. . . .   As for Col. Fawcett, the man is as dead as an Egyptian mummy, this in spite of the Royal Geographical Society, the
 * That is all extra text my Google fu managed to unveil. --Lambiam 09:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Using nunchucks, I've managed to extort a few more sentences from the uncooperative snippet monster. The image has the caption
 * A canoe thief?
 * Below, the text continues,
 * The subject was entirely forgotten by me, until I read your rather eulogistic review of Brazilian Adventure by Peter Fleming [, Jan. 8].   Let’s set down a few cold facts about this trip, as Capt. Holman is the “George Lewy Pingle” of the book. In the first place, Capt. Holman is no American, but an upstanding, educated Britisher. I doubt if any man, with the possible exception of General Rondon of the Brazilian army, certainly no English-speaking man, has a more accurate and first0hand knowledge of the interior of Brazil than Capt. Holman. . . . He knows personally many of the chiefs of some of the most dangerous tribes, has lived among them unarmed, speaks their language and, what
 * The text in the third column continues, after "in spite of the Royal Geographical Society, the",
 * Geographic Society and the gentleman explorers who come “rolling down to Rio” annually to hunt for Fawcett. As Capt. Holman very well says, no white man, and especially a man of Fawcett’s temperament (he went into this dangerous region practically unarmed) could live for eight years in that part of the country where Col. Fawcett was last seen. In addition, General Rondon . . . himself part Indian . . . made a special investigation at the request of the British government of the disappearance of Col. Fawcett. He finally ran across an old chief among the Bacaeri Indians in the southern part of the Matto Grosso, who told him that Col. Fawcett was indeed killed by the Indians of a neighboring tribe called the Ianahuquá, who were bitter enemies of the Bacaeri, and he was killed because he took the canoes of these Indians without their permission.
 * Is the writer making the same error as Dyott? The identification "Capt. Holman is the “George Lewy Pingle” of the book" is puzzling, as is the (correct) assertion that Holman is no American but a Britisher, as Brazilian Adventure explicitly calls him British. --Lambiam 12:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the identification of Holman and Pingle is based on the idea that he was playing a double game - being very helpful and knowledgeable when it suited him, while undermining them in other way. Fleming presents two characters in order to avoid being sued, and to account for Holman already being named in his newspaper articles (he could hardly leave him out of the book). Fleming does suggest that Pingle may be some sort of invention. DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I found this, Ice Steel and Fire: British Explorers in Peace and War 1921-45 by Linda Parker which suggests that Holman was far from the stalwart support he has been presented as being. DuncanHill (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Tract Sotah in JVL Talmud

 * hope am not messing up with this, excuse the newbie question..am looking for the word Samael in Tract Sotah of the Jewish Virtual Library Talmud of Michael L. Rodkinson and Rev Isaac M. Wise (11 Mb .pdf) .Sotah is quoted twice, supposedly part of Seder Nashim..why is Nashim and Sotah mentioned, yet missing in above Talmud? Gfigs (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

No idea why it's missing from that, but you can find it here]. It's pretty esoteric, in the main, and even traditional texts discuss the extent to which the events described ever happened or whether it's just teaching a lesson (see for example. A parallel is the Ben sorrer umorrer, the rebellious son, which all authorities agree not only never happened, but intrinsically could not possibly ever happen and is in the texts purely as a lesson. We don't have an article on that, but what we do have is at Ki_Teitzei.  --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you..am unfortunately not too familiar with many Jewish texts.. Gfigs (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the title "Full Talmud" is somewhat misleading..as this .pdf is actually not a complete Talmud according to the structure outlined on Wikipedia. only 2 of 6 Talmudic orders exist in this Talmud, they are : Volumes 1-4 (SEDER MOED), Volume 5-9 (SEDER NEZIKIN), Volume 10 covers (History of the Talmud). the names of some tracts are similar, yet not always the same as those on Sefaria and Wikipedia.. Gfigs (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * considering that Reform Judaism is largest branch of Judaism in North America. and that Rev. Isaac Mayer Wise, a prominent Reform Rabbi, had a beautiful Temple built in his name in the US..it should not be too suprising that this is not a "Full Talmud"..in the words of Abraham Geiger founding father of Reform Judaism..the "Talmud must go"..and followers of Reform leader, Rabbi Samuel Holdheim who declared : "science already demonstrated that the Talmud has no authority either from the dogmatic or practical perspective."..they have said so as part of an effort to break with traditional rabbinic Judaism..they do teach the Talmud in their rabbinical seminaries however.. Gfigs (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * let's not mention Satan, Denise or Margaret.. although the account of his seducing of David, with Bathsheba, is included in this Talmud..Gfigs (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * in the Hebrew The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition, only a few volumes were published in English..would not surprise me if they were learning Hebrew in the US.. Gfigs (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * seems as if Michael Levi Rodkinson was being heavily criticised, and the translation was not completed, for some reason.. Gfigs (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Talmud_(Rodkinson) Gfigs (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * not much to look forwards to, with regards to a free .pdf online English Talmud..am disabled, can't signup on Facebook anymore..and Google Play Store just started downloading another (15mb) update, without permission (Android).xx Gfigs (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)