Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 July 19

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.

July 19

Letter from Birmingham Jail

Per the article, MLK wrote the letter in 1963 while locked up for breaking a wide injunction against "parading, demonstrating, boycotting, trespassing and picketing". He later got bailed out with $100,000 that supporters raised, equivalent to a heck of a lot more in today's dollars.

By today's standards that injunction sounds ridiculous on 1A grounds. My main question: Did the case ever go to trial? What happened? Today I'd like to imagine the city having to pay a big settlement for locking him up in the first place, but back then, who knows. I also wonder how long he was actually in jail, and what the charge was. If it was civil contempt of court, I didn't realize posting bail was possible, but I guess it makes sense. IANAL and not seeking legal advice. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Quoting a bit longer passage from Why We Can't Wait, pp. 90–91 in the 2000 Signet Classic edition (ISBN 9780451527530):

    One more factor helped to encourage us in the belief that our goals were coming within reach. We had demonstrated in defiance of a civil injunction. For this act of disobedience, we had been cited for contempt. In Alabama, if you are cited for criminal contempt, you serve five days and that is the end of it. If you are cited for civil contempt, however, you figuratively hold the jailhouse keys in the palm of your hand. At any time, if you are willing to recant, you can earn release. If you do not recant, you can be held for the rest of your natural life.
    Most of the demonstrators had been cited for criminal contempt. About ten of us, however, all leaders of the movement, had been cited for civil contempt. When we were first placed under this charge, I am certain that the Birmingham authorities believed we would back down rather than face the threat of indefinite imprisonment. But by the time we appeared in court late in April to answer the charges, all of Birmingham knew that we would never recant, even if we had to rot away in their jails. The city thus faced the prospect of putting us into jail for life. Confronted with the certain knowledge that we would not give in, the city attorney undoubtedly realized that he would be sentencing us to a martyrdom which must eventually turn the full force of national public opinion against Birmingham.
    Abruptly the tactics were reversed. The civil-contempt charge was changed to the less stringent criminal-contempt charge, under which we were swiftly convicted on April 26. In addition, the judge announced that he would delay sentence and give us about twenty days to file an appeal. At this point there was little doubt in our minds that Birmingham's bastions of segregation were weakening.

I hope this is still fair use; it explains all, including how blindfolded Lady Justice can be used for oppression.  --Lambiam 07:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, that mostly explains. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Citations for the legendary love story of Anarkali

On WP we do have this long standing article Anarkali which was probably sourced in most portions but without citing those sources. Over the years multiple edits have been made and it's bit tough to search back content for a single user (me) to identify the sources, though I have updated some of them some still remain.

For those who love historical fiction of love, task would be interesting enough. In this legendary love story from South Asian history, historical or not popular belief has been a lady named Anarkali in the life of an Emperor was also loved by his son.

I looking for help in citations needed in subsections of the section Prominent guesses about who the Anarkali was namely:

• 1. Jahangir ordered the body of the tomb to be wrought in gold.
• 2. Dara also mentions the existence of a tomb in the garden but does not give it a name.
• 3. According to Akbar Nama, Jahangir "became violently enamoured of the daughter of Zain Khan Koka. H.M. (Akbar) was displeased at the impropriety, but he saw that his heart was immoderately affected, he, of necessity, gave his consent
• 4. The translator of Akbar Nama, H. Beveridge, said Akbar objected to the marriage because the Prince was already married "to Zain Khan’s niece" (actually the daughter of paternal uncle of Zain Khan, and hence Zain Khan's cousin). Akbar objected to marrying near relations.
• 5. The accounts of the British travellers, and consequently the presumption of Eraly, is unlikely because Prince Daniyal's mother died in 1596, which does not match the dates inscribed on the sarcophagus.
• 6. According to other accounts, after Akbar's death, Salim (Jahangir) recalled Anarkali and they married. She was given a new name, Nur Jahan.
• 7. Nur Jehan, died in 1645, 16 years after Jahangir's death
• 8. Opinion of historian Ram Nath
• 9. The article Akbar does not give date/ years when Akbar was personally gone out for Deccan campaign, possible help for finding that

Thanks for the help.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I at least searched the article history, and there is basically zero history of sourcing to the sections you are looking for. The sources to the table are mostly as they are now, with one earlier row (sourced to Jahangir 1829 p. 26, still in bibliography) removed. There was also some pseudohistory posted then removed about Nur Jahan. (I was also about to tell you who the bulk of content was added by, but I just realized that it was you!)

There's a lot of direct quotations unsourced, so that should be an easy Google search, right? Yeah, no. Real person doesn't say what article they read, plus two slightly different blogs at least one of which is for sure algorithmically generated and mixes up sources (it has repeated or incorrectly matched names and dates, for example). However, this old blog cites DAWN (1 May 2005) possibly for the whole thing, which is something, but it's not the source of any quotation. Finally I found Ram Nath's quote "reliably" sourced to Tribune India (8 April 2000). (Nath may also be cited for related content in Lal (2001) (jstor=4410400), but I didn't read the article). And I really need to do other stuff today, so that's where I'm stopping for now. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks @SamuelRiv for info and support. Over all it seems the additions previous to mine may be coming from tertiary sources, and I was trying to search in secondary RS. It did not cross my mind to make search the way you did. So it seems at least little more search work to find related RS and rewriting a little more.

Warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Why you numbered the points I do not know, but be aware that you can have automatic numbering by replacing '*' with '#'. —Tamfang (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Politicization of Supreme Courts

If you were to take a sample of the general Canadian population, I'd wager that virtually none of them could name a single Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, past or present. On the other hand, there are castaways on desert islands who nevertheless know the members of the US court because each appointment there is endlessly scrutinized by the media and - I think - because the appointments there are clearly done for political purposes. The questions I have are:

1. If we take these as two extremes, how would the rest of the world break down? That's maybe unanswerable, but do most countries intimately know every single one of their SC Justices (or equivalent) and their political leanings?
2. Even if we just stick with the US and Canada, has anyone examined why the two are so different? I mean, we have different political systems, so there's bound to be some differences, but I think we otherwise typically regard more or less equivalent government bodies in the same sort of way: the US has infamous Governors, we have infamous Premiers, etc. etc. Or, maybe I'm wrong altogether?
3. Is there a relationship between how political the SC appointments of a country are versus how divided the populace is politically? Like, maybe it doesn't matter so much in Canada because our geographic differences overshadow the left-right continuum?

Matt Deres (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

These are big questions so I'll just do #3: Yes and No (in the U.S.). Starting with the current/recent docket, there are a few notable decisions way out of line with public opinion. Of course, as recently as 2020 (a 2-Trump-seated GOP-nominated majority bench) rulings were largely in sync with the public. Simultaneously, however, it has been known for years that judicial nominations have become more polarized, as have U.S. politics in general. (The latter article is a review -- there are tons of individual articles either saying by 2016 the USSC was irrevocably partisan or was the only true beacon of moderation or was even too elitist and uniform of ideology. There's no shortage of opinions.) This is not the first time the court has become politicized -- the common comparison is the New Deal court (look, I heard it in some news podcast, and I'm not reading another article for this answer but it probably gets the jist of the point across). The polarization in the U.S. comes from many things, but it is at least in part driven by party leaders (a million poli sci papers and secondaries on this -- it's well-known). One thing that's true though is that the American public still believes the Supreme Court should be independent of politics -- they just seem to disagree on what that looks like (and maybe part of that is in how their media and social bubble portrays how the the country "ought" to be versus how it "is"?).

For #1/2, I'll say quickly, sourceless, that in theory the nine SC justices should have about as about as much power as the U.S. president. So an individual justice in theory has 1/9 the power, which is still a lot of power since the U.S. president is arguably many times more powerful/influential on the world stage than most other chief executives. If the USSC chose to wield original jurisdiction like a sledgehammer they may even supersede the domestic power of the other branches. But back to reality, the main reason the world cares about our Supreme Court is because its membership has been the central motivation of an enormous segment of the U.S. conservative movement for the last 40 years, and U.S. politics seems to be a global spectacle for many more reasons. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

As to question 1: In Germany, half of the judges of the Federal Constitutional Court are elected by the Bundestag (Federal Parliament) and the other half by the Bundesrat (representing the 16 Federal States). In each case, a two-thirds majority is required, so the major political parties have to find a consensus on the potential appointees. This results in much less polarization than in the USA, therefore to much less media attention. The politically interested part of the general population might know perhaps the name of the president of the court, but certainly not all the members. --Morinox (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Two things that Germany (and apparently France and the UK) have over the U.S. in federal judicial appointments: mandatory retirement age, and (I don't know if this is in theory possible in Europe still, because we didn't think it was true in the U.S. until they did it) the other branches of U.S. government can simply not appoint/confirm judges for as long as they like, if nobody has full control. Those factors have played a major role in how the parties have strategized court appointments. But to compare the effectiveness and independence of the highest courts in Germany, France, and the U.S., there's a really interesting examination in Brouard and Honnige 2017 (no free link, but Wiley's in the Library). The main takeaway is that the USSC, despite having the appearance of being a big deal in the U.S., is in reality about as influential on the political sphere as the German or French S.C.. All such courts fluctuate in terms of influence, however, in reflection of the effectiveness of the other branches of government. Germany had the most complex inter-body interaction. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

In the UK, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is a relatively new thing (2009), replacing the law lords as the highest court of appeal. The appointments to the court are non-political so far, although governments can find their judgments hard to cope with - see R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, referred to by one member of the current government as a "constitutional coup". The only political control on appointments to the court is that the Lord Chancellor has a right of veto on proposed appointments prepared by an independent selection commission, although they can only use that right for one suggested appointee. Another important difference to SCOTUS is that there is mandatory retirement age of 75 years (in common with all UK judges - recently increased from 70). Mikenorton (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• It's not possible for a decision at any level of government to be "apolitical". The term "apolitical" only ever meant "agrees with my politics". Either the judges in question are expected to make decisions you agree with, or not. The Supreme Court has always been a political body, and anyone that tells you differently is just revealing what they believe to be the "correct" decisions for the court to make, and only that the current court doesn't decide in that direction. --Jayron32 11:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- Maybe, but "political" in that sense doesn't necessarily mean "overtly partisan". Back in the 1950s through 1970s, even many of the controversial U.S. Supreme Court decisions were decided unanimously (Brown v. Board of Education) or by a wide majority (Roe v. Wade), and even in later decades, justices didn't always follow the politics of presidents who appointed them. In 2022, there's now a solid 5-justice phalanx (with Roberts as an appendage) bent on forcing a very narrowly partisan agenda (not even supported by all Republican voters) onto the United States. AnonMoos (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong about the current state of the court, I only take exception at the assertion that decisions that were made unanimously or with large majorities were apolitical. They are an organ of the government; by definition they are political. Whether you consider their actions to be political or not is only a reflection on how much their actions agree with your own politics. --Jayron32 18:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

If you're trying to use the word "political" to obscure the difference between the fact that there are losers and winners from just about every decision of every court, vs. the fact the U.S. Supreme Court is currently dominated by a cadre of self-conscious ideologues who are trying to impose on the United States a religious and partisan political agenda only supported by a definite minority of U.S. citizens, then I don't see what purpose that serves... AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thing is, the Supreme Court is not supposed to make decisions based on popular opinion. They base their decisions on existing law and the Constitution. If “We, The People” don’t like a SCOTUS ruling, our remedy is to elect legislators who pass new laws (or, if necessary, to amend the Constitution). Blueboar (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Words, including the words that are written down in laws, only have the meaning we give to them. Insofar as the court decides what the words mean, they will make their decisions based on their own understanding and background, exactly like everyone else does in every situation. If the words didn't require interpretation, the court wouldn't need to exist. --Jayron32 11:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the thoughts and links. Matt Deres (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Do we really regard more or less equivalent government bodies in the same sort of way? Canadians claim to play football as they claim a Supreme Court. I grant your infamous Governors...infamous Premiers, etc. etc and a long line of infamous ministers from our shared heritage, but can you match the infamy of Dred Scott? Marbury v. Madison was 1803, and by the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms we had seen Plessy, Korematsu, Griswold, Brown, Loving, Roe and the start of "a half-century of disciplined, persistent, and prudent political, legal, and religious effort". Our "least dangerous branch" is—perhaps not enviably—the world's most powerful and dangerous, and has been playing prime-time for years. Do they even televise CFL? fiveby(zero) 14:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

General comment possibly relevant to the original question: Canada inherits the notion of parliamentary sovereignty from England. The United States on the other hand has a rather unusual conception of separation of powers. That's not to say that other countries don't have branches of government with separate powers, but they typically try to maintain the idea that there is a single central font of authority. The United States rejected that notion from the start except occasionally placing it with "the people" for rhetorical purposes, both within the federal government and between the federal government and the several states.

Robust judicial review in Canada seems to be a rather new thing. --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As to the OP's point 1 - I would doubt that one in a thousand people in the UK knows the name of any supreme court judge, perhaps not even one in ten thousand. Appointments to the judiciary are not political and have nothing to do with the government of the day. That's why only thing a UK government that doesn't like the supreme court's judgments is to pass laws which restrict the power of the entire judiciary; they cannot pack it with political appointees. In the past, a very few names like Tom Denning were known outside legal circles, but in general I would say the names of such judges are almost entirely unknown in the UK. For example (saving their honours' presence), almost all of the names in Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, List of judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, and List of High Court judges of England and Wales would tend to draw a complete blank with most people unconnected with the legal profession. It simply isn't a thing, as they say. 90.252.183.121 (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

During the Brexit case, everyone knew the name of the President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, and admired her brooch. I have corresponded with her and she is a very nice lady. 2A00:23C5:E148:1D01:4945:3810:F476:9E4C (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)