Humanities desk
< June 1	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 2

What was the relative proportion of Scots to English in the American South?

I have often read about the influence of the Scots and Scots-Irish on the American South. As opposed to the entirely English settlement of early New England. Steven Pinker even traces the blue state North and red state South to this origin.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/why-are-states-so-red-and-blue/

The Confederate flag's St.Andrew's Cross and the Klan's crossburning was also influenced by Scottish tradition.

I was wondering if there was any hard data on the proportion on Scots and Scots-Irish in the American South and how it compared to the rest of the country both in 1860 and today. In 1860 for instance were there more whites of English or Scottish descent in the states of the Confederacy?

--Gary123 (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anybody was as outraged as I was at the suggestion that the Klu Klux Klan had any connection with Scotland, an account written in 1742 describes the preparation of a Fiery Cross during the Dundee's rising of 1689: "A goat was slain, a fire was kindled, the points of a small wooden cross were seared in the flame and then the sparks were extinguished in the blood of the goat... It was a signal for arming and assembling at a given place". [1] Not the same thing really. Alansplodge (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But/And, there's an important distinction to be made between, for example, the KKK being a natural outgrowth of American Scots culture, with its symbolic roots in seventeenth-century Scotland, and such an organization drawing on Scots culture and intentionally transforming (read: perverting) conventional symbols within a novel context. The mid-19th century was, after all, the era of the Celtic Revival, which in many cases was more of a rewriting than a recovery of historical ethnic roots. While I don't know much about the KKK, I'm sure an interesting study could be written comparing it to other (usually less malignant) examples of romantic nationalism in both the US and Europe. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, Malcolm Gladwell has written on the connection between rural feuds in the US (such as that between the Hatfields and the McCoys) and the Scots Highland "culture of honor." I find arguments such as Gladwell's plausible in broad terms, though I for one doubt that any "cultural memory" related to cross burning not part of an ethnically self-conscious reconstruction (= an already polemically oriented ethnic self-conception) persisted among Scots families in the American South. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a map that has been linked to from the ref desk a couple times in the past. It is, as far as I can tell, completely useless, both because it does not contain historical data, and because it seems to think it's okay to count "American" as a valid ethnicity. To establish a correlation like the one you're looking for, you would need to find US Census data from 1860 and 1870, arranged by county, and determine whether or not counties with white inhabitants of a predominantly Scots background were more likely to birth early branches of the KKK than were counties with predominantly German or English populations. I'm not sure even census data will be of much use, though, as "white" has typically been the sole identifier in official records for people in the US answering to that description since (approximately) forever. Prior to 1920 the Census Bureau didn't even distinguish between Anglo-Saxon-Americans and Mexican-Americans, let alone between people of English and Scots descent. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Washington's Business and occupation tax and Boeing

I was reading about Washington's Business_and_occupation_tax#Washington and was wondering whether this tax affects Boeing or not? Most of Boeing's customers are out of state or out of country and the article doesn't say whether the Business and occupation tax affects out of state and out of country sales or not. Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does Lviv hold the record?

I can't find the exact quote, but I remember reading about a man who was born in Country A, married in Country B, had children in Country C, and died in Country D, yet he never left his home town, Lviv, aka Lvov and Lemberg. The key is that international borders changed a lot in that area of the world, and he kept on being told he was now part of a different country.

So, to my question. Which city or town has the record for being part of the most countries, as a result of border changes? It may well be Lviv, but it may be some other place. And not necessarily in Europe. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Gdansk beats that record by a whisker, though not within a single life span. A few places also equate Lviv´s record. One example: Sarajevo (Osman empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, Yugoslavia, now Bosnia-Herzgovina).

Going further back, even London should count (Londinium / Romans, Lundenwic / Mecia / Wessex / Vikings), Normans, England, Great Britain. Possible to be continued in case of a BREXIT. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit (though foolish and idiotic) would not change the nationality of London. It is now, and will remain in either case, a British city, never mind what the Bexiters say. Fgf10 (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to a possible follow on from Brexit, i.e. a separation / the independence of Scotland / possibly Wales. A United Kingdom / Great Britain would cease to exist. --178.191.68.193 (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, not logged in. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Even my late parents top the Lviv record. Born in Vienna (Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1919 Austria / 1st Republic, 1934 Federal State of Austria, 1938 Germany / 3rd Reich, 1945 Austria / 2nd Republic). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The US amusement-park chain Six Flags takes its name from the fact that Texas was at different times controlled by Spain, France, Mexico, the USA, the Confederate States, and was an independent country. It was never actually considered part of Spain or France as far as I know, just colonial territory, but I think it's fair to count all six. And that's only after white people started moving in there, too; I don't know if any native towns or villages from an earlier era still exist. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how you define "country". If the 1919 Austrian Republic and the 1934 Federal State of Austria are regarded as different countries, then there are parts of China that have been ruled by a dozen regimes. For example, starting from the time that the Chinese arrived in the area in about 500BC, Nanjing was successively ruled by the State of Wu, State of Yue, State of Chu, the Qin Empire, the Western Han Empire, the Xin, the Eastern Han Empire, Eastern Wu (capital form 229AD), Western Jin, Eastern Jin, the Liu Song, the Southern Qi, the Liang, the Chen (these six collectively the Six Dynasties), the Sui Empire, the Tang Empire, the state of Wu, the state of Southern Tang, the Northern Song, the Southern Song, the short-lived Jurchen Da Chu, the Mongol Yuan Empire, the Ming Empire, the Qing Empire, briefly the British Empire, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, then back to the Qing Empire, the Republic of China, the Japanese Empire, back to the Republic of China, and now the People's Republic. The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom was defeated in 1864 and the People's Republic established in 1949, so the last 5 changes could have all happened in one lifetime. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly better example also from China for somewhere that has actually changed hands between different nation-states within a lifetime, is Port Arthur in northeast China: until 1894 it was part of the Qing Empire. It was occupied by, then ceded to, Japan from 1894 to 1895. In 1895 it was returned to the Qing Empire. In 1898 it was leased to Russia, until the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, at the end of which it was again taken by Japan (from 1937 nominally held by Manchukuo, though in reality controlled by Japan), until the end of World War II, when it was returned to the Republic of China but immediately leased to the Soviet Union, until 1955 when it was handed over to the People's Republic of China. So that makes at least 6, possibly 7 or 8 changes within a lifetime between different countries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But these responses are about different regimes in more or less one country. Lviv surely takes the cake for being in one spot as different nations' borders swept by.Hayttom (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, is the point that we are talking about four different countries? So in the case of Lviv, Russia, Germany, Poland and Ukraine? So we are looking for a place that has belonged to four or five different nation states? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester, Virginia was captured dozens of times (50-60 I think) in the 4 years of the American Civil War. The Confederate States of America were illegal but they were de facto independent for a few years. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Confederacy ever recognized by any other nation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hayttom would probably object and say that's at most two "different" countries, possibly one.

Here's an obvious one: Singapore was part of the British Empire, conquered by Japan, returned, became part of Malaysia, and then its own independent nation, all comfortably within a lifetime. So that makes four different nations - which is equal to Lviv. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't constrained to a single lifetime, there's lots of places in Europe that have been parts of more than 4 sovereign states. Take the convoluted history of Limbourg, for example. It's been part of a) the Burgundian Netherlands, B) the Holy Roman Empire, c) the Spanish Netherlands, d) the Dutch Republic, e) the Austrian Netherlands d) France, e) Prussia f) the German Confederation g) the Kingdom of the Netherlands h) Belgium. Lots of Europe was like that for a long time, especially in places near the boundaries of various nations; Limbourg, located at the junction of 5 modern nations (and with historical connections to several others) is not atypical. --Jayron 32 03:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to count military occupations that widens the scope considerably. Some areas of Syria must have changed hands dozens of times during the civil war. 151.224.163.159 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthenia was actually independent for one day between its secession from Czechoslovakia and its occupation by Hungary. In the middle ages, Lemberg (Lviv) was the capital of a greater Ruthenia. Paul Magocsi's Atlas is the go-to source for this. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Jerusalem#History.—Wavelength (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who offered suggestions. I'm no clearer about which place holds the record, but there's plenty of fodder for further research. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton will not release her transcripts of speeches on Wall Street. Doesn't anyone else have copies of them?

Hillary Clinton will not release her transcripts of speeches on Wall Street. I have a question about that. Where exactly are these transcripts and who has them? Surely, not Clinton herself. Or -- even if she did have them -- certainly other people out there also have copies. No? Perhaps, for example, some of the people who work on Wall Street or some who attended the speeches, etc. If we can't get these transcripts from Hillary herself, why can't we get them from someone else? And, if they are in the hands of some Wall Street employees, wouldn't they have been leaked by now (by some "rogue" employee or some "whistle-blower" type)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

According to this article, Clinton routinely insisted that a stenographer record her paid private speeches, and maintains personal control of the transcripts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it's all carefully controlled...who can be there, who can record, who creates/controls any transcript, how much she's paid, how many photos she has to pose for etc...a long carefully crafted contract is involved...(Original research but obvious)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, presidential candidates also hold the copyright of their tax returns, but they make them routinely available. 151.224.163.159 (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a ridiculous comparison. I'd like to see you try to stop the government photocopying your tax forms on the basis that you own the copyright. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think copyright would apply there. Politicians release tax forms so they can appear to be "transparent" about their money. Trump won't. Unless he decides it will help get him some votes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly government forms are Crown Copyright but copyright law permits copying for specified purposes. If the government were to publish people's tax returns I guess they would be breaking the law (Data Protection and all that). 151.224.163.159 (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US copyright law is a little different. In the UK there would be crown copyright over the forms but unlikely to be any copyright in the contents filled in by the form filler. It would be quite difficult to argue that filling in some factual numbers satisfies the requirement that the relevant "work" is the expression of the author's own intellectual creation. The situation might be different of course if it is a very creative tax return. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the U.S., some creative expression is required for something to be eligible for copyright (see sweat of the brow). As such I'm pretty sure tax returns aren't copyrightable in the U.S. As for the original forms, U.S. federal government works are public domain. For state government works it's up to each state. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norway, Sweden and Finland are of course famous examples where part of the tax return are made public although not everyone is happy about it [2] [3] [4] [5]. As mentioned there and [6], Italy also tried once but did hit data protection snags. And as mentioned there or [7] in the US initially the data was public and for some brief periods later some info was also public. Incidentally while this isn't legal advice I agree with the IP and PalaceGuard008 that trying to assert copyright over a tax return in a number of jurisdictions including the US seems difficult unless you're trying to tell the government something you probably shouldn't. Even if you aren't simply filling out a form but have some leeway in the way you present the data, at most this would seem to limit direct copies, but not other presentations of the same data. Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on whether or not presidential candidates in the US should make any transcripts they have of speeches they've given available, it's worth considering that while the level of control demanded may be somewhat less common, the lack of other transcripts probably isn't that uncommon. Perhaps the OP is attending different speeches then the kind I've attended or heard people discuss, and I admit my experience doesn't include the sort of speeches you need to pay a many thousands or more to attend, but in a lot of cases you simply go and hear the speech. You don't take a transcript and most of the time you even if there is on it's not the sort of thing you're likely to seek out or expect to be handed out. I guess thousands of dollars speeches may be different but then again if people are willing to pay me thousands of dollars for my speeches I'm not sure if I'm going to be willing to allow access to then willynilly anyway. With cheap small and easy to use digital recordings devices or simply mobile phones, and also similar for video cameras; it may be some people would choose to record the speech and could theoretically make a transcript. But if you did that why not just release the recording? Likewise while some speeches may have some sort of official recording (perhaps including video), whether you'll obtain access to this is often quite variable and again often isn't something people will necessarily consider much since they're going there for the live speech. Definitely it doesn't seem that surprising to me if in many cases no one else would have a transcript or recording even without the rules. (Lectures for university courses are an exception for obvious reasons.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syedlitz

What other spellings exist for the Russian jurisdiction known as "Syedlitz" in the 1909 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia? Virtually all Google hits are misspellings of SMS Seydlitz or of its namesake and his relatives; there isn't a single result when I go to Special:Search/Syedlitz. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blog says: "...the “Syedlitzer” pogrom (ie, taking place in Syedlitz, actually spelled Siedlce)". We have an article, Siedlce (now in Poland but in the Russian Empire in 1909) which also gives "[Polish pronunciation: ['ɕɛdlt͡sɛ] ] ([שעדליץ Shedlits] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help), [Седльце Sedlets] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help))". There are several other places called Siedlce at Siedlce (disambiguation). Seydlitz may be the Germanic name for the town, because it is also used in this account of the 1812 Invasion of Russia by Napoleon. BTW, the successful Google search term was ["Syedlitz" russia town], after several other unsuccessful variants. The inverted commas tell Google to look for that exact term only. PS: Apologies if that last comment was a statement of the bleeding obvious. Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Created that as a redirect. Thanks! No complaints about the final comment; I was already using that technique, but you didn't have a way to know that. Nyttend (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; it sounded rather pompous when I re-read it. Alansplodge (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article is incorrect about the Russian pronunciation. Седльце is not Sedlets but the more awkward Sedltse. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current spelling was introduced by the Soviets. Until the Revolution, the town was officially known as Седлец / Sedlets. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italian units in the Generalgouvernement

The Siedlce article (see previous section) pointed me to Home Army, which article notes that some of its arms were bought clandestinely from Italian and Hungarian soldiers stationed in Poland. Hungarians I understand, since Poland was adjacent to 1940s Hungary, but Italians? Why were Italian soldiers stationed in Poland (rather than being farther south); were they just leftovers of the Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia perhaps, or were they there for unrelated reasons? Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Repubblica Sociale Italiana (RSI) - The post-1943 Italian Fascist forces of WWII describes the Italian troops who joined the pro-Axis Esercito Nazionale Repubblicano after the Armistice of Cassibile in September 1943. Four divisions were "trained in Germany by German instructors" which I suppose could include Poland. One Blackshirt unit "joined the SS-Polizei-Bataillone "Gorice", (Named from the Polish town where they were trained)". Note that the "Polizei" designation only signifies that some Waffen SS units had been originally recruited from the ranks of the national police force in 1939. Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Gorice" is most likely a misspelling of "Gorlice". — Kpalion^(talk) 22:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely. Alansplodge (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]