Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 July 10

= July 10 =

Ode to Joy
Is there a good analysis written in English of the text of Schiller's Ode to Joy, aka the choral part of Beethoven's 9th symphony? One that tries to explain the nuances of the German words. The translation in the wiki article is pretty bad and looks like a touched-up machine translation. Other translations I've found online also seem unsatisfying. I know only rudimentary German so when I read the poem myself, I may be picking up things that aren't really there, but otoh maybe not. The translation I like best is an obscure one by Erwin S. Strauss which is based the disputed "Freiheit" variant, but since it is a verse translation, it has to take some liberties with the semantics. I'd be interested to know if Donald Pippin ever translated it. The poem seems difficult to translate, partly because it is 240 years old and the German language itself has shifted over that much time. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I find the German quite comprehensible, but pompous. The translation in our article is not bad but suboptimal, perhaps also because the translator apparently strove to maintain a strict line-by-line correspondence, causing a problem with the O–V pair eine Seele – nennt in the second stanza split over two lines, while English requires the V–O order. The function of the word auch in these lines is IMO misunderstood. I did not see any critical analyses, but here are two quite acceptable fairly literal translations: and . The last one is true to the poetic spirit and manages to scan.  --Lambiam 05:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I couldn't access the first of those links, but I liked the second one. At the other extreme, Le Ton beau de Marot is a 600 page book about translations of one particular 20-line French poem.  2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm about a quarter of the way through Le Ton beau. I intend to finish it but I may be some time. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Expulsion of Russian ambassadors
It may seem a somewhat naive question, but, as to the ongoing Russian war on Ukraine, and, in this context, Russia's blatant unwillingness to enter into substantial negotiations, how come Russian ambassadors as such (i. e. not just some diplomats) still have not yet been expelled from Western countries? Hildeoc (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it's diplomatically more convenient not to at this stage. Expelling them would remove a conduit of discussion between the expelling countries and Russia (however unsatisfactory it is at the moment), and escalate the official degree of opposition to Russia in the direction of an official declaration of war by one party or the other. It would also make it harder to resume more normal relations (as everyone eventually must) if and when the situation is resolved.
 * Of course, many Western countries are now at war with Russia de facto, but this is currently taking place mostly in the spheres of economic manoeuvres and cyberspace, with ongoing frequent Russian attacks on, to give one example out of many, NHS computer systems. (You didn't think the Ransomware was being inserted by mere private criminals, surely?)
 * The 'shooting war' in Ukraine itself, which involves donated UK and other Western equipment, and soldiers in 'training and advisory' capacities (which have been ongoing for at least 3 years), not to mention all the 'recently retired' ex-soldiers volunteering to join the Ukrainian Army, is an example of a Proxy war: it is a war nonetheless. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.225.65 (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hildeoc -- Diplomatic protocol used to call for the withdrawal of ambassadors between belligerent nations after a formal declaration of war, but this became rather impractical during the 20th century -- for example, any possibility that the U.S. would not have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan was lost due to the very limited channels of communication between the U.S. and Japanese governments during the first part of 1945, when the U.S. government was basically dependent on allusively-worded broadcast radio announcements to understand Japanese intentions, at a time when the U.S. sometimes had enough difficulty understanding basic direct Japanese, and a single poorly-chosen word, such as the infamous "mokusatsu", could jam up the whole thing. And since World War 2, there have been few formal declarations of war involving major powers... AnonMoos (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Although our article says that modern historians take the view that mokusatsu was not mistranslated and the theory that it was is just Japanese historical revisionism. Alansplodge (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not mistranslated as such, but it was apparently chosen to try to shade a meaning so that Japanese military listeners would be reassured that the government was standing firm, while Allied translators hopefully might get the idea that the Japanese government was not 100% opposed to seeking clarification on the proposed terms of surrender -- and it failed in that purpose. There would have been no need for such expedients if there had been a reliable non-public channel of communication between the U.S. and Japanese governments... AnonMoos (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Quick wars with a notable historical impact?
Which quick wars were there with a notable historical impact? I can think of the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, but which other wars would qualify for this? One could think of the Western Front campaign in WWII in 1940, but that was just one campaign in a much larger and longer war.

I want to focus on countries that were roughly peer competitors to one another rather than grossly mismatched, such as with the 1983 US invasion of Grenada or the 1990-1991 Gulf War, where the power mismatch between the warring sides was extraordinarily uneven. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Six-day war? Also the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan immediately after the US withdrawal.  The Afghan army was supposed to be able to defend itself, but instead collapsed with almost no resistance. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good examples; thank you. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course the Battle of Hastings had enormous impact but I don't know if it counts as a "war". Also the Battle on the Ice and doubtless many more. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Battle itself was not a war, but the Norman invasion as a whole was. The English authorities formally surrendered at Berkhamstead in early December (i.e. about 7 weeks after the Battle), and serious regional rebellions occurred for several years until the final defeat of Hereward the Wake in 1070. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.225.65 (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The Anglo-Zanzibar War is considered by some to be the shortest war ever, and put an end to whatever there was of Zanzibar independence. AnonMoos (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't see your clause about roughly even balance of power. It's still interesting... AnonMoos (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "On paper" the Gulf War, (1990-91) was not that lopsided; USA had the 3rd largest army and Iraq was 4th. Especially considering Iraq was fully committed, and the US had commitments elsewhere as well. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:592D:FCB2:7A2D:79BB (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Most successful examples of Pan-nationalism throughout history?
What are the most successful examples of Pan-nationalism throughout history? I can think of:


 * Yugoslavia temporarily uniting most South Slavs into one country
 * Czechoslovakia temporarily uniting the Czechs and Slovaks into one country
 * The Soviet Union temporarily uniting virtually all Eastern Slavs (including western Ukrainians) into one country
 * The European Union uniting most Europeans into a single confederation
 * India uniting most Hindus into one country

What else? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * For a less successful example of this, you can take a look at this attempt to unite most or all East Asians and Southeast Asians into one bloc: Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * According to some, the European Union embodies a sinister agenda along these lines. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It isn't really a sinister agenda. (And FWIW, I have already mentioned the European Union in my original post here. Right above India and right below the Soviet Union.) Wikipedia's "confederation" article explicitly mentions the European Union as being a possible example of a confederation. And not everyone actually views the European Union as being a bad thing. And FWIW, confederation != federation. The countries within the EU still keep a good amount of their sovereignty, after all. For instance, having their own armed forces. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The EU agenda being sinister is of course "according to some" (I'm not advocating the idea, just reporting it). You could also mention the UK and the Confederation Helvetica aka Switzerland.  Also the Ottoman Empire and so on. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and some people believe in QAnon. ;) The UK is certainly interesting; a composite British Isles nationalism, if you will. Switzerland is a confederation or federation of cantons, which makes it interesting, but it really is a smaller, more decentralized, and more pro-direct democracy version of Germany. The Ottoman Empire did aim to unite different groups of people, including different groups of Muslims, under one state, so it does work for this. It had Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Circassians, Berbers, et cetera. Quite a combination of different Muslim peoples! 68.4.99.100 (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can include the Roman Empire and the Umayyad Caliphate here as uniting most or all of the world's Christians and Muslims into a single state, respectively. Of course, then Ancient Israel should be mentioned here as well. Modern Israel wouldn't work as well due to the still-large Jewish diaspora right now. (The Hindu diaspora is much smaller as a share of the global Hindu population. Less than 10% of global Hindus live abroad right now, but over half of global Jews still do.) 68.4.99.100 (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentiment that the EU is a sinister plot was influential in the campaign for Brexit. Of course QAnon has similarly influenced US politics.  That doesn't make either of them right, but it makes them worth noting. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The unification of Italy, forming the Kingdom of Italy
 * The unification of Germany, forming the (second) German Reich
 * The Anschluss, temporarily uniting the (third) German Reich and Austria
 * --Lambiam 14:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Those involved single ethnic groups, not something bigger. If we were talking about uniting all Germanic peoples or Latin peoples or Protestants, then it would be on a larger scale. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They are only "single ethnic groups" for people captured by the pan-nationalist propaganda. The Low German spoken in Lower Saxony and the Austro-Bavarian of South Tyrol are not really mutually intelligible, and before cultural globalization set in the other aspects that make an ethnicity (religion, customs, dress, folklore, cuisine) were quite different. The variety in Italy was equally large. --Lambiam 21:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fascinating analysis. Would you say the same thing about Chinese cultural unity being a recent invention? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Even today it is largely a fantasy. If there was no State enforcing unity, if necessary by military means, China would soon come apart. 08:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC) --Lambiam 08:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And the same argument can be made for many other European countries. France had the Langue d'Oc and the Langue d'Oil, Spain has Catalan and Castilian, and the UK officially has its four countries. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I really don't see how polyglot empires classify as "nationalistic". The Roman empire did not expand to unite all ethnic Romans under its sway, but to extend the city's rule over very diverse populations living on three continents. And in the 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian empire and the Ottoman empire were widely perceived to be enemies of many ethnic nationalisms. AnonMoos (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair point. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Should the USA count, as a national entity unifying the original colonies? 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, especially if both Germany and Switzerland also count for this since they likewise involved uniting different national polities into either a confederation or a federation. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding Germany, before the 2nd Reich there was the Holy Roman Empire. That may count too.  When I mentioned Switzerland though, I think I didn't understand the question.  I thought you wanted unification of groups that were actually ethnically or at least linguistically different from each other, so I thought of CH since it has French, German, and Italian speaking regions.  2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. The Swiss aren't only Germans. I forgot that there are also non-German Swiss. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Non-German Swiss are something like one-third of Switzerland's historical population, IIRC. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Not particularly successful, but the United Arab Republic deserves a mention as an attempt to create a secular pan-Arab state. And the Islamic State, an attempt to create a theocratic pan-Muslim state. — Kpalion(talk) 21:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I remember when some young gullible Western Muslims moved to the ISIS Caliphate (it was in the news) because they wanted to live in a "real" Islamic state. The Muslim version of Zionists, if you will. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a rather offensive comparison. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Many Zionists were not particularly religious, or, if they were, not particularly observant. Theodor Herzl, considered the founder of Zionism, made sure his only son was given a secular upbringing and did not allow him to be circumcised. The driving factor behind Zionism was the desire to escape the ever-present and pervasive antisemitism found throughout Europe's history, too often fueled by Christian fundamentalism. --Lambiam 09:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Historical examples of non-binary people?
Other than (some) eunuchs and perhaps (some) cross-dressers, what historical examples of non-binary people were there? For instance, didn't Roman Emperor Elagabalus wish to have both a penis and a vagina according to Cassius Dio? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see a couple of late 18th century non-binary cases being mentioned here: Non-binary_gender. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The person from the Suontaka grave (late Nordic Iron Age), mentioned in our article on the unrelated sword find. See this fascinating paper: . Cheers ❖hugarheimur 23:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Often historical third gender discussions (say in terms of the social construct of queerness or gender) look at either the well-documented hijra or the range of intermediate gender types described by Western explorers, missionaries, and/or colonialists (see former article). (Otherwise it's more modern.) Obviously there's kind of a split among fields of study as to whether you can take historical and foreign phenomena as decent analogues to anything in the modern Western LGBT movement. The important thing about any analysis of a social construct, however, is that it obviously depends on the nature of the society. If the society agrees to classify all people displaying X trait as having Y identity, then Y is a social construct that can often go on to exist independent of any relationship to X at all.
 * Of course Torana refers to a situation where an intersex condition is suspected, and the IP poster kind of refers to stuff that goes back (in a "modern" sense) at least to Freud (I have Ego and the Id p.28 and Sexuality and the Psychology of Love p.175 listed as citations for quotes from Freud on this). In the former case, the sex (defined distinct from gender in anthropology) is analyzed genetically and the gender (the social construct) is speculated on from combined evidence I suppose. In the latter, Freud was an instrumental part of making the case for the usefulness of gender (and other identities) as a social construct, but in general psychology and medicine have had a rough time of being in a position of some fixed authority in the face of changing sexual norms. It is also an often political tug-of-war between whether medical authority should be used to justify norm A (it is ethically obligated to if you support norm A; if not then doctors have a troubled history of abusing social trust) or instead norm B (of course it must if you support norm B, otherwise medicine is unfounded in this debate). SamuelRiv (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose there are also well-documented cases of historical two-spirited people, but I did not find concrete examples. --Lambiam 08:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)