Humanities desk
< January 22	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 24 >

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

January 23[edit]

Megxit[edit]

hello there, I've still don't understand about the whole Megxit thing, could you explained it for me?

--the special girl is me (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex publicly announced earlier this month that they decided to take a step back from their royal duties and spend some of their time in Canada instead of their usual home at Windsor Castle in the UK. There were a lot of speculation on the reasons for this sudden decision from Prince Charles's plans to slim down the monarchy to their ridiculously hostile and racist treatment by the British tabloid press but it was most likely the latter. Apparently they did not consult with HM the Queen about this decision first and were criticized for it. In any case Harry met up with HM the Queen and other royals at Sandringham House to talk about his and Meghan's future. The resulting agreement is that the Sussexes will no longer be senior royals, no longer take part in their former duties, no longer use HRH title, and are free to settle down permanently in Canada (most likely Vancouver Island, BC). Harry is still a Prince of the United Kingdom and keeps his noble titles however. His father the Prince of Wales will also be sending some money from the Duchy of Cornwall financial holding. To become financially independent, the Sussexes will patent the brand Sussex Royal. Some people bash them for this even though the Cambridges did the same thing with their brand. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a fuller insight see Megxit.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you cannot patent a brand - only inventions. The Sussexes have applied for a trademark for various branded items (e.g. diaries, calendars). This is unlikely to be determined soon, as the brand is "Sussex Royal" and the Sussexes are no longer fully royal (although the Duke keeps his title he has agreed not to use it). 81.148.191.222 (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are Royal, they just have agreed to stop using the HRH form of address. --Jayron 32 16:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omg, I didn't know about the merchandising aspect. That makes it seem even more like a money grab. Do they have an app? Will they have action figures? I thought this was interesting though biased. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:4FFF (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On that link, the music I'd like to leave the country for a month of Sundays is the theme of the event involved in the ceremony. I was unsure what a baby shower was until I just looked it up. I only came across the term recently - who coined it? 81.148.191.222 (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been around for a while. Presumably from "bridal shower", a term which dates to at least 1904.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick survey of Newspapers.com (pay site) indicates the term used in that way has also been around since the early 1900s. Before that, the term "baby shower" turns up from time to time in reference to a small rainstorm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion here, but I believe that either "shower" term was unknown (or at least not accepted custom) in the UK before about 20 years ago. Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Newspapers.com for just British newspapers, I'm seeing the term "bridal shower" as far back as 1848, although at that time it appears to have been more about literally showering the bride with bouquets of flowers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Norwegian" Cruise Line?[edit]

Even though Holland America Line is now very different from back when it operated ocean liners, it still flies Dutch flags and its ships have Dutch decor iirc. Similar situation applies to P&O Cruises and the UK. Does anyone know if Norwegian Cruise Line still maintain any type of cultural connection with Norway besides the facts that its name and that it was found by Norwegians entrepreneurs? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the parent company Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings is worth reading. That holding company was founded by Hong Kong, Malaysian and American venture capital groups and is now traded on the New York Stock Exchange. In the spirit of full disclosure, I took an inter-island Hawaiian cruise on their Pride of America a few years ago, and detected no Norwegian culture onboard. It was otherwise wonderful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Cruise Ship Flags of Registry, NCL sail under the flag of the Bahamas, presumably a flag of convenience. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading that link, the exception in the NCL fleet is Pride of America which sails under the US flag. Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Pride of America was built in the United States and is the first major U.S. flagged cruise ship in 50 years. That is because it serves only five ports, all in the Hawaiian islands. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taoist monk Xu Xun in the 3rd century[edit]

The Kau chim article mentions the famous Taoist monk Xu Xun in the 3rd century AD. Would that be Xun Xu? I'm not familiar enough with Chinese/English naming conventions, etc. to make a decision as to whether or not to link him from the article. Thx in advance. —107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The monk and Xun Xu, whose family name is Xun, appear to be different people. The monk's family name is placed first in the passage in Kau chim; from a cursory search, it appears that the Xu Xun the article talks about is 许逊

Okay, thanks -- [OP]:2606:A000:1126:28D:B10C:26A0:A0FF:5576 (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Watching House Impeachment Testimony[edit]

Is there a free way to watch the House Impeachment testimony that has already happened? I'm mostly interested in the week where Ambassador Sundland testified. OldTimeNESter (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OldTimeNESter: C-SPAN [2] has both live and previously recorded videos available. RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The effects of the Holocaust and mass Jewish emigration on economic advancements for Eastern European gentiles?[edit]

Just how much did the Holocaust and mass Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe provide opportunities for economic advancement for Eastern European gentiles? In his 1922 book Letters on Polish affairs, Charles Sarolea argues that the large presence of Jews as traders, merchants, and businessmen in Polish towns prevents (as of 1922--please remember that this book was written back in 1922!) the emergence of a large Polish middle class since apparently it's harder for urban Poles to advance economically when they have to face stiff competition from urban Jews:

https://archive.org/details/lettersonpolisha00sarouoft/page/96

In turn, this made me wonder if Sarolea was actually telling the truth about this and, if so, what the effects of the Holocaust and mass Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe were in regards to this. As in, did it become significantly easier for urban Eastern European gentiles to economically advance once they no longer had to worry about Jewish competition?

Anyway, any thoughts on all of this? Futurist110 (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your presumption that one particular group of people has more right to economic prosperity than another seems misplaced. By what right did the Gentiles in those areas have the expectation that their economic prosperity was dependent on the Jews not being there? --Jayron 32 02:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I never actually said that removing an entire group of people in order to achieve greater economic prosperity for another group is acceptable. It certainly isn't acceptable! Rather, I was asking and wondering if there is any way to objectively measure the effect of the Jews no longer being in Eastern Europe on the economic prosperity of Eastern European gentiles. Futurist110 (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that be a question? What is special about the "Jews" being removed and leaving the "Gentiles" behind. What about their Jewishness makes this an important aspect of your question? --Jayron 32 12:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be a Good Faith question, albeit one that may not actually be answerable. It might in principle even be possible to show that 'Gentile' prosperity actually went down as a result of the ethnic cleansing, thus refuting a racist argument in favour of it.

It is well known that long-standing discrimination in Europe excluded Jews from many occupations and forced them to specialise in a restricted range of professions, ironically including banking and moneylending due to Christian interpretations of biblical edicts about usury. It seems at least a plausible conjecture that the relatively abrupt removal of many expert practitioners in those and other fields might have adversely affected economic activities that depended on them. (As disclosure, I mention that I have both bankers and Jews in my ancestry and extended family.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.58.107 (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the general sense, social and cultural diversity are strongly correlated with economic prosperity, here for an overview with links to numerous other studies and reliable sources. So, the OPs question (without regard for the specific identities of the groups involved) can clearly be answered in the negative; by eradicating one of their predominant minorities, the region was harmed economically. --Jayron 32 16:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may have forgotten that the Commies took over Poland after World War II, and Communism is not known for economic advancement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about after the end of Communism, though? Futurist110 (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

45 years after WWII. Apples and oranges. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably too hard to tell the impact due to the effect of communism and war, but you could look at other times and places to get a possible idea; the Expulsion of Asians from Uganda is the closest I can think of where a very small but rich and powerful ethnic group was quickly gotten rid of. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:40BC:E46C:D6D4:1283:6047 (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 5-10% of an economy’s population. Eliminate, at a stroke, all of their investment and consumption. Replace it with nothing. The result is highly likely to be a decline of at least 5-10% of GDP. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]