Humanities desk
< December 10	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 12 >

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.

December 11

Grand OLD Party?

I followed the links suggested in the section above, and immediately found "The (Democratic) party has the lengthiest record of continuous operation..." This surprised me, because I was aware of the Republican Party being known as the Grand OLD Party. I don't really expect logic in politics, but why? HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, really, but note that the Dems have a tendency to claim a bit longer heritage than they're really entitled to. They claim a connection to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, which I don't really see. Still, even if you start them with Andrew Jackson (my personal most hated president; even if you ignore the whole genocide thing, creating the imperial presidency was a horrific offense), I guess they do predate the GOP. --Trovatore (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the "Old" in "the GOP"? Where does that come from? HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they've been around since the middle of the 19th century. Isn't that pretty old? I don't know how old they were when they got the moniker, though. --Trovatore (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After Google Books trawling, I found a surprisingly earlier 1864 usage of "grand old party" by Clement Vallandigham for Democrats, in a speech about carpetbagging practices in the south by the Union. And an even earlier 1862 usage, again for the Democrats.

And more surprisingly, despite the claims that the original usage of GOP was for "Gallant old party" first applied to the Republicans in 1875, an 1851 source used this, again for the Democrats.

The oldest usage I can find of GOP in Google Books referring to the Republicans was in 1892.

"Grand old party" in this case probably has more to do with whichever party was the entrenched authority (with a certain amount of venerability thrown in). It also must be stressed that during the period that the Republicans received this appellation, they were more or less the "liberals" (the Union) and not the conservatives. Reinforcing the earlier observation about the lack of logic in politics. The conservatives were the Democrats back then, the people against the abolition of slavery and consisted primarily of the Confederate southern US states. So when the Union won, it was naturally the Republicans who rose into prominence. And yes, the Democrats (in name only) were the older party. The Republicans were a splinter group.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're speculating, keep in mind that "old" doesn't always mean "extant for a very long time". "Old chaps" are not always literally old, the "big old fish" that I caught is likely just a few years in age, and an "old hand" at something has just done it longer than most. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interest on gold accounts?

Some banks offer saving accounts denominated in gold. Do these accounts earn interest? If so, what would be the interest rate for those accounts? Would it follow the same interest rate as the local currency? 99.245.35.136 (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you get returns on those accounts by the price of gold going up (or, you lose money by it going down). --Tango (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gold is a non-interest bearing currency. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

....Principally because it's not created by a central bank, but exits in reality.... 80.39.16.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

However, bear in mind that gold can earn a return, through lending. I lend you gold, you sell it (in anticipation that the value will drop), and then -- if you're right -- you buy cheaper gold to repay me, with a margin paid for having borrowed my gold. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peru/Fujimori bio

According to the heading in the Wiki Fujimori bio:

"... This name uses Spanish naming customs; the first or paternal family name is Fujimori and the second or maternal family name is Fujimori.

According to government records, Fujimori was born on 28 July 1938, in Miraflores, a district of Lima.[24] His parents, Naoichi Fujimori (1897–1971) and Mutsue Inomoto de Fujimori (1913–2009), were natives of Kumamoto, Japan who immigrated to Peru in 1934.[25][26] He holds dual Peruvian and Japanese citizenship, his parents having secured the latter through the Japanese Consulate. ..."

According to Spanish naming conventions, as stated in your article, his mother's name is Mutsue Inomoto de Fujimori. "de Fujimori" in Spanish naming conventions means "wife of Fujimori". Her last name then has to be Inomoto.

His name then needs to be : Alberto Fujimori Inomoto. (personal name, paternal name, maternal name).

I think you'll find that to be true if you see a copy of his birth certificate, or other official records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.228.175 (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is a reference desk. Suggestions for improvements of articles are more appropriately brought to their respective talk pages, in this case: "Talk:Alberto Fujimori". Gabbe (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the two factors 1) What he is most commonly-called in English-language sources and 2) What he calls himself are both more relevant to this specific case than generalized Spanish-language naming conventions... AnonMoos (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have an article on Peruvian naming customs, but Hispanic American naming customs indicates there is wide variation in Latin America, and they don't necessarily follow the Castilian Spanish naming customs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Nast and His Terrifying Santa

Why does Thomas Nast get so much credit for the modern image of Santa Claus? The image always cited is this one:

But if you look at Santa he has neither the modern outfit, isn't that fat and, more importantly, if you zoom in on his face looks more like a money than a man. Why then does every article list him as drawing Santa as we know him today? --CGPGrey (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The picture at the top of Santa Claus is by him and looks more like the modern image. --Tango (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant a "monkey". Note that Santa's face is rarely drawn in profile like this, so we don't have much to compare with. He is fat, compared with the people of the time, although due to American obesity that might be the norm, now. He also has a beard and gaudy clothing, although there are no colors to compare with the modern Santa. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading today in Smithsonian about a pre-Clement Moore, pre-Nash painting of Saint Nick. See here: he is more an elf that would fit down your chimney than later "jolly" old soul. Rmhermen (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santa wearing red white and blue like the flag smacks of Uncle Sam. Bizarre political image utterly unlike the modern Coca-Cola ad and greeting card Santa. Is that a little Jeff Davis who Santa is hanging from a little rope around his neck in the Union Army camp? Edison (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think in that one Santa is indeed dressed in an American flag, and the puppet is indeed Davis, though I'm not sure if he's hanging or not. (You can see that it says "Jeff" on the puppet if you zoom in on the full res one.) --Mr.98 (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santa holds Jeff as a Jumping jack (toy). If you zoom in at the camp you see three poles. I understand the middle pole with the man climbing, but what are the left and right poles? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gender of Indian River Names

Brahmaputra page claims that "It is the only Indian river that is attributed the masculine gender and thus referred to as a नद 'nada in Indo-Aryan languages and languages with Indo-Aryan influence. All other Indian rivers are referred to as नदी 'nadī'". My question is about the river name Damodar, is it masculine or feminine? Gulielmus estavius (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our Damodar River article says "नदी" in the Hindi name (but then, so does the Hindi article on the Brahmaputra...). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damodar name is masculine. There are few other major rivers in India that have masculine name like Krishna River, Bhima River. manya (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, even if names of these rivers are based on masculine characters, these rivers are referred to as feminine. manya (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even Krishna , Bhima may be masculine names but all of them are referred to as Nadis only (feminine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.20 (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Johnson and overthrow plot

I have read that President Andrew Johnson was attempting to overthrow Radical congress and put in Southern Congressmen. Grant had to remove weapons from a military arsenal to prevent Johnson from overtaking Congress. Is this true? Badeau (1887), Grant in peace: From Appomattox to Mount McGregor, pp. 50-52 Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book you cited, from the 1880's, is viewable at Google Books. It may not represent modern scholarship. It shows that Grant gave an order to move weapons from some Southern arsenals to the North in 1866 while Johnson was at odds with the radical Congress. Grant was suspicious of Johnson, per this book written by an associate of Grant, and the move of weapons may have seemed like a good precaution. It does not prove that Johnson was "attempting to overthrow Congress," while Congress was taking measures to undermine the power of the Presidency. History has treated Johnson better than the radicals in Congress. A modern parallel is news reports that during the Watergate crisis in 1974, White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig directed that any instructions for troop movements in the Washington DC area issued by President Nixon should go through his office, which also may have seemed like a sensible precaution, but similarly does not in any way prove that Nixon was attempting a military coup to avoid being removed from office. Haig was just heading off any such possibility, and Grant may have been doing a similar action. Edison (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I know there is just one source for this allegation, however, Badeau, was an insider to information concerning Grant. According to your comment, Edison, I take it that there has yet to be found any secondary source to back up this information. Both Nixon and Andrew Johnson were definately at odds with Congress. However, the nation during Andrew Johnson's presidency was under Reconstruction at the time after a costly American Civil War. Andrew Johnson had southern roots. Johnson was also opposed to African American civil rights and citizenship (slavery excepted), whereas Nixon supported anti-racist legislation. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

biography of an artist

I have two watercolour paintings signed by J Aberdein Simson. The subject of both is open water with boats. I would guess they date from the early 19th century. Although I am judge of art, both seem to have been painted by someone with considerable skill and therefore may have been relatively well known. However, I cannot find any information about a person of that name. If anyone could help I would be most grateful.

Thank you. John Adams Smadajf (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there can't be many people with that name. One of them appears here in the London Gazette as follows; "5th Forfarshire Rifle Volunteer Corps. John Aberdein Simson to be Lieutenant, vice Ross, resigned. Dated 6th July, 1871." and here; "5th Forfarshire Rifle Volunteer Corps. Lieutenant John Aberdein Simson to be Captain, and to bear the title of Captain-Commandant- Dated 16th August, 1873" See the Volunteer Force (Great Britain) article, they were a sort of militia or home guard. Google Books gives two tantalising "snippet views" of The Exhibition of the Royal Scottish Academy of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture, Issue 79, 1905 and The Year's Art 1908; both have the same details, "Simson, John Aberdein, 9 Eton-terrace, Edinburgh". I found mention of the will of John Aberdein Simson, possibly the same person, who died on the Channel Island of Jersey in the parish of Grouville in 1930. "Wonganella" is the name of a house there[1]; it is a nice place to live if you want to paint seascapes. He was cremated. Alansplodge (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention that (if it's the same person) he was apparently the secretary of the Montrose Royal Albert golf club in 1880. Montrose, Angus, was another nice place for maritime subjects. Deor (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book title came up on my Google Books search, but it said "No preview available" (and still does). It seems to be a bit of a lottery. Montrose Beach looks very bracing. Alansplodge (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me again; I found J A Simson - Racing Yachts Off The Coast but can't see other details without signing up. Same story for Shipping Off The Coast Near The Dunbartonshire Also (not maritime) Still life of flowers by J.A. Simson but again no details except "English". He'd be turning in his grave if he had one! Alansplodge (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, $331 for the Shipping . . . Dunbartonshire painting isn't in the Van Gogh or Picasso range, but it's not peanuts, either. Suddenly, I feel like one of the "experts" on Antiques Roadshow, who also seem to get a lot of their information off the Intertubes. Deor (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of DC Voting Rights

Reading District of Columbia voting rights, the history jumps from the formation of the District of Columbia to the 1960s. Was the issue of DC residents' unequal voting rights relative to the rest of the United States before the 1960s never raised, and if not, why not? After all, weren't the people who were living on the territory of the District (for instance, in the then-city of Georgetown) effectively disenfranchised when it was established? Voikya (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I once saw a book from around 1870 or 1880 that brought up the lack of congressional representation for DC and said it was an obvious oversight of the framers of the Constitution and would likely be redressed soon. Can't remember the title, unfortunately. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "From the foundation of the District in 1790 until the passage of the Organic Act of 1801, citizens living in D.C. continued to vote for members of Congress in Maryland or Virginia" is tucked away towards the bottom of the article... Before WW2 (and especially in the 19th century), D.C. was not really a major city by population (note the jump in population from 486,869 in 1930 to 802,178 in 1950), and many people around the U.S. would have been opposed to entrenching a permanently-resident political-bureaucratic elite in Washington more than it already was. Since the 1960s, the matter has been caught up in partisan politics with racially-tinged overtones. Things were probably not helped by Theodore G. Bilbo having de facto authority over District matters for about ten years... AnonMoos (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]