Humanities desk
< August 20	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 22 >

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.

August 21[edit]

Leaders at China's 1949 Founding[edit]

Could someone help identify who the bearded leader in this photo is?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mao_proclaiming_the_establishment_of_the_PRC_in_1949.jpg

--Gary123 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a description in Painters and Politics in the People's Republic of China, 1949-1979 (p. 81) of the painting of that event: The Founding of the Nation (a clearer reproduction of the painting is here), which lists those present (in the painting at least):

"Behind Mao are ranged in a line directed at Qianmen, the six Vice-Chairmen of the Central People's Government. The row proceeds from General Zhu De at far left to General Gao Gang at far right. Other notables in the front row are the imposing figure of Liu Shaoqi; Madam Song Qingling, widow of Sun Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen); Li Jishen; and the bearded Zhang Lan. Zhou Enlai... is prominent in the second row. Beside him are Dong Biwu... a man whose face is obscured.. an unidentified bearded man... and Guo Moruo ...Lin Boqu.

I'll leave you to sort through that lot. The source above says that the artist probably worked from unpublished photographs, as the published ones only show close-ups of "small groups of men". Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another description of the lineup in the painting is at The Art of Modern China (p. 144) by Julia F. Andrews and Kuiyi Shen.

I think I'm going to vote for Li Jishen, described as "elderly and slightly rumpled" in this account, but I can't find a photo of him that matches his appearance in your 1949 photograph. At least he has the glasses. Alansplodge (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Li Jishen is the man with the short beard visible in some photos from the day (but not the one above). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the one in your photo is Zhang Lan, who was one of the Vice-Chairman (Vice-Presidents). The other long-bearded gentleman often seen in photographs of the founding ceremony is Shen Junru, first Chief Justice, but I think the one in your photo is Zhang Lan. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having looked at a few more photos (and the painting cited above), Zhang Lan was wearing a robe whereas the bearded gentleman in Gary123's photo is wearing a Sun Yat-sen jacket, so I think it must have been Shen Junru. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the "unidentified bearded man" mentioned above"... Alansplodge (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are DC laws subject to presidential pardons?[edit]

The question below was entered on August 15. Thanks DOR (HK) for your reply. Unfortunately, I never got an answer to my final inquiry about pardons so I'm submitting this whole question again so that you'll understand its background. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

District of Columbia Authority

Constitutionally, do the President and/or the Supreme Court have anything to do with the District of Columbia when its engaged in acts that normally would fall on the state's governor and/or the legislature?

I know that DC derives its authority from the US Constitution, Article I "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States", Section 8 "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District..." But does that mean that the President and the Supreme Court are totally cut out?

For example, if someone is about to be prosecuted for simple burglary in DC and the prosecutors office must make a decision on whether or not the case is worth prosecuting, would the prosecutor's authority to make that decision come directly from the Congress, passed down through Washington's mayor, similar to any of the 50 states? Like: Legislature => Governor => Prosecutor is similar to Congress => Mayor => Prosecutor. Wouldn't this allow Congress, if they wanted, to overrule DC's prosecutors in the case of a simple burglary?

Or does the authority flow through the executive branch, so that the President can overrule the prosecutors office? Like this: Congress => President => Mayor => Prosecutors Office. Does this mean that the President has the power to interfere in a non-federal crime? Does he also have the power, for instance, to interfere in DC's budget? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per our Washington, D.C. article, the Attorney General is elected to a four-year term (while not stated in so many words, this implies “by the voting residents of the District”). And, “Congress typically provides additional grants for federal programs such as Medicaid and the operation of the local justice system…” The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 put in place legal system reforms. Adult felon prisoners are under the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The District also runs misdemeanor Detention and Correctional centers. Parole is handled by the United States Parole Commission. As DC is under the authority of Congress, the President would not be involved in any legal decisions. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are Presidential pardons plenary? I believe the President can pardon, even prospectively, anyone in DC convicted of "Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" (USC II.2). See Plenary power#Presidential pardons. Can anyone confirm? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the official stances of the Department of Justice on these matters. --Jayron 32 11:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pertinent to this question, the President can pardon DC offenses if they are "in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court." In other words, it doesn't cover minor violations. Those would never be in the name of the United States and never held in Superior Court. A similar question I had long ago was along the lines of: "Is peeing in the reflecting pool in Washington DC a federal offense?" No. It is not. It is a minor district offense. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the above link from the DOJ, my understanding is a little different. My understanding based on e.g. [1] [2] (see in particularly these links [3] [4]) [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] is that the justice department and president does deal with all violations of the DC Code, felonies or not. It is only municipal or city code violations that the mayor can pardon. Some feel the mayoral powers are wider but the justice department disagrees and AFAICT so far no mayor has actually tried to directly challenge that interpretation by granting pardons the justice department says they can't. (The other possibility would be for someone to ask the mayor, and for the mayor to write back saying the justice department says we can't and for them to then hope they can bring a court case.) And even for those offences the justice department recognises the mayor can pardon, I'm not sure that the justice department is generally of the view that the president cannot pardon such offences, more that the mayor can and they're not going to bother so ask the mayor.

Since this isn't legal advice, I'm obviously nor commenting on the specifics of peeing in the reflecting pool and in particularly how such offences are normally prosecuted but I'd note that [10] § 22–1321. Disorderly conduct says "It is unlawful for a person to urinate or defecate in public, other than in a urinal or toilet."

Practically sources like the earlier ones and [11] [12] (yes not the best sources but they don't seem that bad in these instances) make me think that it's unlikely you'll receive clemency for minor offences although it has happened for "stealing a chicken, joy riding, petite larceny" before so I guess it's not impossible. (This is probably one of the reasons why Justice Department site says what it says above. Just because the president has the power doesn't mean it's exercised and since that site seems to be for people seeking clemency there's little point suggesting to them they should apply for something which is never going to be granted.)

Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But forgetting minor violations and ignoring that the Mayor can also order pardons and disregarding that most pardons go through a thorough application procedure, can the President, acting alone without the US Justice Department or even a lawyer, on a whim, legally pardon a felon in DC? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this source cites the relevant laws, and is rather unambiguous in asking the question about DC residents and the right of the President to pardon them. --Jayron 32 19:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the source earlier but forgot to mention it seems to claim that whatever the mayor's theoretically authority, it's never been exercised at all. (I'm not sure how different this is from other places though. How common is it for someone to receive some sort of clemency for a municipal offence?) It also claims that there's only been on pardon for a DC Code violation since 1990 and no commutations. This seems to contradict with some other sources, at least one of which claims it's confusion arising from the DOJ's poor release of information. But I'm wondering if these sources are simply not differentating between DC Code violations, and convictions in the federal court in DC as the Restoration of Rights Project source does. (It would seem the others sources should too since the reason this generally comes up is because of arguments the current system is unfair to those living in DC since so few pardons or commutations are issued. But this only applies to DC Code violations since "ordinary" federal crimes i.e. crimes which would be federal crimes whatever state they're in aren't the issue since whatever problems exist there should apply to any state and even if they don't, I don't think anyone is suggesting the mayor or whoeever should be allowed to pardon such crimes. One of their key arguments is that local crimes should be handled locally.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's about the subtle differences (or sometimes not so subtle) between practical law and statutory law. I'm pretty sure that by statutory law, at least as I read it (if the President's pardon power in DC is absolute) the President is allowed to pardon parking tickets in DC. As a practical matter, no, he isn't going to. --Jayron 32 11:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW one possible limitation on the president's powers to pardon may be to pardon himself. For obvious reasons this came up a lot recently and it's clear not all legal scholars agree it's possible [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. So I don't think there is a definite answer to the OP's question. Of course, it's hard to imagine any president, and I still mean that, getting into this kerfuffle over something that's solely a DC Code violation. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yin and Yang[edit]

Do the Chinese believe that within Yin is contained some Yang and that within Yang is contained some Yin? The wikipedia states that they're believed to be interdependent complimentary and interconnected. Also are there any similar concepts in Western philosophy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 23:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese people believe a variety of things, including Taoism. People (Chinese or not) who believe in the Tao, Yin and Yang, and so on, believe that Yin and Yang mix, forming the Sixiang (four-phases), which include Taiyang (great yang), Shaoyin (lesser yang, yang with some yin), Shaoyin (lesser yin, yin with some yang), and Taiyin (yin with some yang).

Yin and Yang are usually used in explaining the relationship between the Monad and Dyad in Pythagoreanism (for example).

Western Alchemy, as far back as Geber (Jabir ibn Hayyan) viewed "cold yet hot" sulfur and "wet yet dry" mercury (more properly "philosopher's sulfer" and "philosopher's mercury," of which the earthly elements are spiritually corrupted copies) as the two fundamental forces from which the qualities (hot, wet, cold, dry) that form the Classical elements (hot and dry fire, hot and wet air, cold and wet water, and cold and dry earth). Paracelsus added the stabilizing and material Philosopher's salt to the schema, which appears to fit with the Pythagorean Triad and the Hegelian dialectic.

The Hegelian dialectic has been compared with the interaction of Yin and Yang.

Some forms of Zurvanism held that Ormazd and Ahriman were not so much good and evil but order and chaos, and that their struggle would remain balanced throughout eternity.

Freemasonry's use of the Biblical symbols Boaz and Jachin has drawn comparisons to Yin and Yang, though I must admit I see that comparison more often in sources that UGLE would facepalm at. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that the alchemists believed that the elements had a spiritual element to them (which lead some psychoanalysts, particularly Carl Jung to interpret alchemy as psychological). A human being (body, mind, and soul) was considered a Microcosm or a miniature copy of the universe (the Macrocosm). So, Philosopher's Sulfur and Philosopher's Mercury were regarded by alchemists as universal forces, not scattered and dead chemical substances. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brimstone and quicksilver.
Sleigh (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dualism is in Western philosophy too, but doesn't emphasize the idea that the two opposites are contained within each other and define each other. For example, the Christian concepts of God and the Devil don't hold that God is partially evil and the Devil is partially good, nor that the two need each other. StuRat (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The way up is the way down per Heraclitus. His "dualism" is way more in line with Taoism's -- two halves of a whole. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's turtles all the way down. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best read Tao Te Ching, the "Bible" of Taoism, chapter 2 for the chinese concept of dualism in its original description. Since its a very basic philosophical concept ofcourse you can find it everywhere in philosophy - nomatter culture or place - tho id say no other teaching comes near the description in taoism. So again, best read the original source or to be exact a very close translation of it (unless you are able to read the chinese "letters"). --Kharon (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]