Humanities desk
< February 6	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 8 >

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.

February 7

Wealth, Justice, and Superpowers

If all people are equal before the law, why are rich countries more powerful than poor countries? For example, the reason why America is the superpower is because it is rich. Great Time (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In reality people are not equal before the law; rich people can afford the best lawyers, for example. Also, whereas national law is enforced by the state, international law does not always have such power behind it and if a strong state chooses to conquer a weaker one, then international law remains a scrap of paper with all the power that parchment possesses i.e. none. For example, the states of Europe (including Germany) were bound by treaty to preserve the independence and neutrality of Belgium. This piece of paper was incapable of preventing German troops from crossing the Belgian border. Only force persuaded the Germans to evacuate Belgium and it is force that really governs: it's the eternal law of nature. Wealthier countries can afford to equip their armed forces with more (and better) weaponry and are usually therefore more powerful than poorer states who cannot afford to successfully defend themselves. It's always been this way and will always be so.--Britannicus (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The law, in its majestic impartiality, forbids both rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges"... --- AnonMoos (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about others but I see the question as a non-sequitor. The first half talks about people and the law but then the second is about countries and power. Dismas|^(talk) 13:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the minor premise is false. Is there any jurisdiction where all people are equal in law, even formally? —Tamfang (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the reason why America is the superpower is because it is rich.

Great Time (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't address wealth or justice at length. But, as for superpowers, there are many explanations. Shin Hayata gained his superpowers when he was killed in an accidental collision with an alien who merged with him to become Ultraman. Ka-El's powers as Superman derive from the effect of our sun on a native of Krypton. Batman's superpowers are, in fact, a product of wealth and effort, rather than, say, midi-chlorians, which give the Jedi their power through The Force. Whatever the source of America's superpowers, they may have to do with Captain America. Other nations, like Belgium, may have to look elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of surname

What is the origin of the surname Bagchi in Bengal region of Indian subcontinent.What is the history of this particular surname.Where from the people with this surname originate in ancient and medieval times.Who where their ancestors, where was their original homeland and what was their profession and what was their economic and social status.I want an answer in detail.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.254.109 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a homework assignment? If you want a lot of detail, you should do your own research. Happy to get you started though: have a look at the articles about Kulin Brahmins and Varendra. --Canley (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is nothing to do with homework assignment.I just want to know out of personal curiosity.I could not find much in the web.I wonder that you believe that this kind of things will be asked for homework.The two pages that you mentioned does not shed any light on my query.I expect that give your properly if you can and dont be arrogant.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.230.115 (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! By the way, the article Bengali Brahmins mentions the name, and has more detail—as I alluded to above, the Bagchis are Kulin Brahmans from Varendra. --Canley (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness" origin

MSNBC has been using the phrase "It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness" in it's promos recently, attributing it to JFK, but I'm not convinced this is the right source. It's also the motto of The Christophers who say it's a "Chinese proverb" but this seems more suspect. One site [1] says it's actually from Peter Benenson (founder of Amnesty International) at a 1961 Human Rights Day ceremony, but AI's website also gives "Chinese proverb" as the source. Google also lists sites attributing it to Elenor Roosevelt and Adlai Stevenson. Given all this conflicting information, what I am looking for is a source with some convincing evidence to back it up. It's possible that Kennedy, Benenson, and Stevenson all used the phrase in the early '60's, but did one of them actually make it up or were they all just quoting a phrase that was popular at the time? The problem I have the Chinese proverb source is that it's so difficult to verify; it's easy to say "There's an ancient Chinese saying that ..." when really it's something you just made up. It's the kind of thing the writers of Charlie Chan movies did all the time. Thanks in advance. --RDBury (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This (1998 reprint of a) 1941 book mentions the proverb. Assuming the reprint is a faithful copy, it predates the Benenson usage by quite a way. (As a child, I was always confused by this proverb, because I took it to mean "...than to wish bad things to happen to the darkness" rather than "...to blame the darkness", and lighting a candle seemed to me to be a way to wish bad things to happen to the darkness.) Marnanel (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this from 1907. Marnanel (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wiktionary acknowledges William Lonsdale Watkinson as the first recorded user of the expression in 1907, and that was the conclusion I came to when I researched it a few years ago, though we don't know whether he heard it from someone else. Dbfirs 13:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Biblical expression about not hiding one's lamp under a bushel, which would seem to be at least a cousin to the same idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the Watkinson quote in context is "But denunciatory rhetoric is so much easier and cheaper than good works, and proves a popular temptation. Yet is it far better to light the candle than to curse the darkness." Watkinson tends to use a lot of quotations in his work, some from the Bible and some only vaguely attributed, so it still seems likely that he was getting the expression from somewhere else. But at least we can dismiss the JFK nonsense. It seems more likely that The Christophers got it from the sermon than the Chinese, just speculation on my part though. --RDBury (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this listserv post by a linguist, it actually is a Chinese proverb, but probably derives from Western sources. Nobody seems to have traced it back further than Watkinson. John M Baker (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says the Chinese attribute it to Anna Louise Strong, but since she postdates Watkinson, and from her bio it appears that she would likely have read Watkinson, it seems like she would have gotten it from him. It's interesting how the modern version has the slightly different meaning than Watkinson's. His meaning was more like "Don't sit around criticizing others when you can do something constructive." Now it's more "Don't complain about a problem if there's something you can do to fix it." --RDBury (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you plead?

In most English speaking countries, at least, an accused person is innocent until proven guilty, right? So how come they're required to plead either "Guilty" or "Not guilty" - which makes no mention of the default assumption of innocence - rather than either "Innocent" or "Guilty"? Verdicts are also rendered as either "Guilty" or "Not guilty". No mention of innocence there either.

Is "Not Guilty" qualitatively different from "Innocent"?

Another way of putting it is, why don't we say that a person is considered "not guilty" until proven "guilty"? Either way, why don't these two things match up? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Not guilty" is not perfectly synonymous with "innocent" - a person can be found "non guilty" for many reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with being innocent. A not guilty verdict can be due to insufficient evidence, investigator's misconduct, procedural errors, etc. The expression "freed/got away on a technicality" is commonly used in the media when someone who really did do the deed is found not guilty. Innocent on the other hand means the accused definitely did not do the deed - proving a negative can be extremely difficult if not impossible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Law also has the Not proven verdict, the history of which is relevant to your point. Dalliance (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not confuse the plea with the verdict... defendants in Scotland do not plead "Not Proven". The plea is essentially a question... the judge is essentially asking the defendant: "Are you guilty?" To which the two appropriate answers are: "Yes, I am guilty" or "No, I am not guilty". Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they're blootered they'll likely plead "not proven". Thincat (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The intermediate plea is Nolo contendere... AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One way I've heard it put is, a "not guilty" plea is not an actual assertion of factual innocence. It just says "I don't waive the requirement that the government prove its case before convicting me". --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a slight tangent, it is a very common misnomer that at law a person is "innocent until proven guilty", and it certainly does not help that the popular and constantly rerun American television show, Cops, has announced the expression this way ("all suspects are innocent until...") at the top of every show for the past 25 years. The actual doctrine is that a person is "presumed innocent until proved guilty." It might seem tacit but it leads to real misunderstandings by the public.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Trovatore. Imagine a situation in which everyone knows that the defendant performed the illegal action in question: after a not-guilty plea and subsequent conviction, if "not guilty" were an assertion of innocence, a vengeful prosecutor might attempt to get an indictment for obstruction of justice ("you lied to the court!"), and that kind of thing would be a bigtime chilling effect. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the The Percy Anecdotes?

Is it kind of collection of stories? and if yes, what is it's genre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inloopas (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you hear of it? Marnanel (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[2] , [3] I want to know what kind of book is this?Inloopas (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Joseph Clinton Robertson#Works: 'a collection of "gobbets" suitable for social small-talk, or what in modern parlance would be a bluffer's guide to appearing well read'. See also Thomas Byerley (journalist) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all anyway... but I need more than extant information which available on Wiki...Inloopas (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Percy's anecdotes and pay for Scottish soldiers

A question previously asked on the Ref Desk about "Percy's anecdotes," a collection of moral anecdotes from 1826. I found one volume of it at Google Books at [4] but I have a question about "Scottish loyalty in the American war (Vol 2, 1826, p169 ff)" It says that patriotic nobles ruling Scotland, as well as Scottish tradesmen's associations, raised various regiments and companies to fight in the American Revolution, and the book praises them for giving (the Duke of Athol) not only two guineas to each recruit, but to "maintain the families, if they need support." This sounds like paying soldiers or their families during a war was an exception. Were the recruits not paid anything but the "two guineas" for their overseas service, likely of several years' duration? Did they get periodic pay in the field, where they might spend it on necessities or frolic, but were unlikely to be able to sending a draft of money back home? The Guinea (British coin) was officially worth 21 shillings at the time of the American Revolution per the Wikipedia article, so the enlistment incentive of £2 2s in, say 1776 would amount to £239.00 today using the retail price index. or £3,020.00 using average earnings, per Measuring worth.com, which does not sound like it would support a family very long. What pay did Scottish (or British) soldiers in that war actually get during or after the conflict? Thanks. Edison (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can i find the question in previous archives of Ref Desk? could you help me please?Inloopas (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is immediately above this one. The book can be read at the link provided. Edison (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OH! yes! I had asked that one! and I thought there was another one asked before. :D Inloopas (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See the King's shilling, which was the daily pay (before living expenses) of a British soldier, so 42 shillings was six weeks' pay as a lump sum. I couldn't find information about civilian pay in Scotland, but FARM WAGES AND LIVING STANDARDS IN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: ENGLAND, 1670-1850 by Gregory Clark, Department of Economics, UC-Davis (Table 5, page 17) says that the winter agricultural wage in the north of England in 1780 was 11 pence per day, a penny less than a shilling. Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The conventional approach at the time was to pay soldiers in the field, though possibly at irregular intervals depending on the circumstances. In the late eighteenth century, it was unlikely they would send much if any of this money home, which is why Atholl's offer was seen as unusually generous. (Practically speaking, it might also incentivise married men to join up, which would have been unlikely otherwise - and the landowners would gain esteem and possible military command from the number of men they raised)

The guinea (or two guineas) discussed would be the recruiting bounty, which was also common - it was not pay per se, but a single lump sum paid to a new recruit when they joined up. In some circumstances they'd drink it all, in others - especially if it was at a time of financial hardship - it might go to other family members. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the first female Lutheran pastor?

I found that Elizabeth Platz became the first woman Lutheran pastor in North America when ordained by the Lutheran Church in America in 1970, but the qualifier made me wonder who was the first female Lutheran pastor, period? In Europe, Asia, etc. The article about Ingrid Bjerkås says she was ordained in Norway as a Lutheran pastor in 1961, but the article does not address the question of whether a woman was ordained previously as a Lutheran pastor somewhere besides Norway. It seems important enough to mention in Pastor Bjerkås' article if she was the first femal Lutheran minister to be ordained anywhere, as opposed to just in Norway. A Lutheran Church Missouri Synod book opposed to such ordination says (image 3, of page 90) "Norway permitted the first women pastors in 1938" but that seems to be permission from the government, rather than an ordination. It says "It was not until 1961, or twenty-three years after the law was passed, that a woman was ordained in Norway." It does not mention the name of Pastor Bjerkås. Is it synthesis to state that she was the world's first woman to be ordained a Lutheran pastor? [5] says Bjerkås was "the first female Lutheran priest." Is that a sufficient source to make the claim in the Bjerkås article, or might they mean "the first in Norway?" Edison (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 10th 1960 the first three women were ordained as priests of the Swedish Church, which is a Lutheran church. Elisabeth Djurle , Ingrid Persson and Margit Sahlin according to the article Ämbetsfrågan_i_Svenska_kyrkan in the Swedish wikipedia. I do not know about other countries, nor do I know anything about the difference between a pastor and a priest. DanielDemaret (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ordination of women has a timeline stating the the "Lutheran Protestant Church" (which could be any Lutheran Church in any country) started ordaining women in 1947. It is unverified, since it uses as a reference a deadlink to an old article with no article name, author or date provided which one appeared in "Breaking News" in the Straits Times of Singapore, at http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_634591.html I could not find it in their archives, nor could I find anything like it in Google News archive, either from February 2011 when it was added or from back in the 1940's. That Wikipedia article's timeline also says the Danish Lutheran Church started ordaining women in 1948. The Swedish and Norwegian churches authorized the ordinations years before one actually took place, so I wonder if that factor might be at work. Details are suspiciously lacking for the claimed 1947-1948 ordinations (no name, no city), compared to the details available for the ones from 1960 and 1961. Edison (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference from the Straits Times is preserved here. And, referring to your first question, Dora Winkler-Hermann was ordained in Austria in 1945 (German, Italian). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Historik_kring_ämbetsfrågan_inom_Svenska_kyrkan names the three women ordained in Denmark on April 28th 1948: Johanne Andersen, Ruth Vermehren och Edith Brenneche-Petersen. It also mentions earlier female priests, but it is unclear to me whether these earlier were lutheran. DanielDemaret (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't female priests be called priestesses? μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or priestices, perhaps? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orignin of surname Or Shahar

Can anyone give the meaning or origin of the surname Or Shahar / Orshahar? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's Hebrew, it could mean "light of the dawn", I guess (אור שחר)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool (I had assumed it was Hebrew). Is that literal, AnonMoos? Or in doubt (since you say "could mean")? Might it be a recently assumed name, or would it be one of long standing? The family I know of that bears it is Hasidic. μηδείς (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes from Hebrew and its Hebrew spelling is אור שחר (things which I was guessing about), then it unequivocally means "light of dawn". You can put אור שחר into Google... AnonMoos (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, "the light of dawn" ? Does that mean they're not too bright now, but hopefully will become so, as time passes ? :-) StuRat (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

So, the answer to the question: O say can you see by the dawn's early light, What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming is "Nope. Someone hand me a hurricane lamp". :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

"What light through yon window breaks ? Is it the dawn ?" ... "No, just some damn kids tossed a flashlight through the window". StuRat (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks, AnonMoos. I am coming to think I have to learn the Hebrew Alphabet. Does anybody have a self-teaching tool they can recommend? μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/7_home.html I use this for help with the Quabballah Hotclaws (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The basic info about the shapes of the letters is available in many, many places, both offline and online, but that's just the first step in being able to read or write Hebrew words. Since Hebrew started as a consonant-only writing system, and developed slowly to include partial indication of vowels, and there are effects of various historical sound changes to deal with, relating writing to speech can be a somewhat complex task... AnonMoos (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am very familiar with the fact that yod, vav, and alef are used to indicate vowels, as well as with the concept of matres lectionis. The problem is I don't do well without an external deadline and objective evaluation. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the Hebrew words is as above. This is a highly uncommon surname so evidently was chosen by the present bearers or their immediate forebears. The origin can't be known unequivocally but very likely follows one of the patterns of Hebraicizing a foreign surname from the Diaspora: (a) by meaning, (b) by sound, or (c) abridging. In this case, the original surname might have been (a) "Licht..." or "...licht," (b) a European place name with that string of consonants, (c) e.g. "Shcharansky" which Natan Sharansky chose to simplify thus from the Russian upon his emigration to Israel. Elements from nature are popular as given names or surnames. Also, the individual or family choosing a name, such as in your case, might prefer something unique to distinguish themselves. A survey of the most common surnames in Israel was led by "Tal" (HE: dew), an elegant Hebraic solution for the numerous Rosenthals, Braunthals, et al.

ETA: Shachar is a fairly common surname (and given name), while Or Shachar as a surname is quite unique. It might benefit from hyphenization, though, as Or is a given name, usually masculine (the feminine being Ora or Orit), and very likely there are individuals named "Or Shachar." -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed answer. The name is spelt as one word and stressed on the first syllable, which I assume is for the convenience of English speakers. And I had indeed assumed a name in -licht might be the origin, although I can't find the surname Morgenlicht anywhere. A very interesting topic, thanks. -- Medeis

Two German words for "dawn" are "Morgenröte" and "Morgenrot", literally meaning "morning red" (or, if you like, "morning redness" or "morning flush" in the case of Morgenröte). Light and color are part of these words. "Morgenroth" is a surname (both Jewish and German), so that's one possibility. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

America, Republic and Empire

Is America an empire?

Great Time (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read our article on Empire, and decide for yourself - it is a matter of opinion, and we don't answer requests for opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American imperialism is a pretty decent article on the issues. The question is always what you mean by Empire. One can use the term to refer to a specific form of government and state organization; or one can use it metaphorically to describe how a state behaves towards other states. How you define your term determines what the answer to your question is. --Jayron32 17:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, don't forget that America did have an Emperor at one point. He even has a Bridge named after him. --Jayron32 17:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the premise of A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

America is an empire? America is not an empire. America is a republic. America has always been a republic. America is the world's oldest republic. America is a republic, not an empire.

Empires usually form from wars of conquest. But this is not how America was founded. America was founded by a war of independence, which is the opposite.

Great Time (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you are asking a question or just trying to make a point of some sort, but perhaps you could read Empire and American imperialism. The US might not be the kind of empire you are thinking of, and it isn't a traditional one either, but these articles might help explain to to you why some might call it one anyway. Mingmingla (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no contradiction between being a republic and an empire. Rome had an empire ("imperium") before it had an emperor. The French Third Republic had an empire. Paul B (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

America was also founded by a series of many wars of conquest waged against Native Americans. However, it looks like you asked a question and then, after a few people replied, proceeded to answer it yourself. Why did you ask in the first place? Pfly (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a hugely misleading or mistaken statement, Pfly. There certainly were wars, battles, and horrible ethnic cleansings at some points. Jackson was an evil man, and Custer got what he deserved. But almost the entirety of settlement was peaceful, and enabled by the fact that diseases and alcohol killed off the natives. And the natives were not always innocent either, or chose the wrong side in wars external to them. But don't let facts get in the way of POV. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order, settlement was peaceful because the wars, diseases, and ethnic cleansing by the government did the hard work ahead of time. The fact that the natives were systematically rounded up and cleared out of any land that the White settlers wanted to use before the settlers showed up doesn't make it all happy-happy for everyone involved. The most famous example was the Indian Removal Act, but the practice of deliberately displacing Natives to clear the way for white settlement dates back to the 17th century, see King Philip's War#Aftermath and Plymouth Colony#Native Americans. Estimates range as high as 80% of the Native American population was forcibly removed from southern New England as a result of that particular war. Certainly, the settlers that came in the following decades didn't have to fight, but that's because someone cleared the land for them ahead of time. That pattern continued for almost 200 years. --Jayron32 03:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you have ignored the fact that many of the natives had already died before the settlement occurred due to contact with diseases from fishermen and traders which allowed the Pilgrims, for instance, to settle in abandoned native village lands. So the population forcibly removed was only a fraction of a fraction of the original. Rmhermen (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't ignore that. It is true that disease (some of which was NOT intentionally spread) did kill a large number of Native Americans. It doesn't give the white settlers a "pass" for the ethnic cleansing they did against those that remained. The Americas, though somewhat depopulated by diseases, was not a terra nullius free for the taking. It was easier to take, as there were less people remaining with a claim to said territory. But it wasn't like there was nobody. --Jayron32 14:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"America is the world's oldest republic." Not really. According to List of countries by date of transition to republican system of government that San Marino is the oldest. Followed by the Netherlands, Switzerland and England. Of course only San Marino and Switzerland are still republics today. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. could be considered the oldest broadly-based democratic polity which was not a city-state or ministate, and currently has the oldest still-functioning constitution... AnonMoos (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close, Iceland's Althing is the oldest extant representative parliamentary assembly, founded in 930CE. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added the qualification "not a city-state or ministate" above (to cover classical Athens etc.). By the percentage of the island which is habitable and its population relative to that of European realms, Iceland is functionally pretty much a ministate. AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a parliament is not a constitution. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was challenging the claim that the US is "the oldest broadly-based democratic polity" - the exact form of the polity is not particularly relevant. Even the UK had a parliamentary system long before the US existed. The only part of the claim that might stand up to scrutiny is the "oldest still-functioning constitution", provided one defines "still-functioning" rather loosely. ;) -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67 -- Historically, it was a lot easier to have a democracy in a city-state or ministate than across a large area. The United States was pretty much a proof of concept that democracy could exist throughout a large country (something which was by no means obvious to many in the 18th century). And the UK was really not what anyone would call a "broadly-based democratic polity" until 1867, and the majority of British elites were not even in favor of the idea of democracy until around that time... AnonMoos (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I cannot ask Medeis what she meant by "a parliament is not a constitution". If a constitution is the body of laws (and other norms?) that define the structure and procedures of the state, Iceland had that; what ruling parliament ever lacked it? —Tamfang (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps it is allowable to answer this request with an opinion - "These States are constituent parts of the United States. They are members of one great empire — for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate." - Cohens v. Virginia.John Z (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about U.S's influence and control around the world through its soft power and even hard power, wouldn't that make it an empire? Willminator (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me restate what I said above. "One can use the term to refer to a specific form of government and state organization; or one can use it metaphorically to describe how a state behaves towards other states. How you define your term determines what the answer to your question is." Until you define which specific meaning of "empire" you are working from, we have no way to tell you if you are correct or incorrect in your assertions. --Jayron32 14:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]