Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 September 6

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.

September 6

Genre painter "Aimé Dalleizette" of Switzerland.

The second version (1980. First, and significantly different, was 1978.) of the very obscure science documentary film "Target...Earth?" includes, among other things, gentle spoofs of a number of old genre paintings. Over the last 45 years or so, I've seen at least four, in books and magazines, but of course had no need, at those times, to pay close attention. After much trouble, I recovered the name of one of the painters, Aimé Dalleizette, who has an entry in Benezit, but none in Wikipedia, and neither does the movie have an entry here. I am requesting that knowledgeable, well-placed persons correct these lacunae in Wikipedia.C.s.auaeginal (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Google books turns up a little bit. This book here: [1] has a brief biographical sketch in French. As does this one. These are all really short, all saying basically the same thing "A Geneva-born Swiss genre painter born in 1799" and not much else. Here is the google books search I used to find the above. I can't find much else besides that. Probably not enough to hang a Wikipedia article on. --Jayron32 03:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Grass hula skirts

When was the grass skirt introduced to Hawaiian hula? Traditional Hawaiian hula dancer wore kapa dresses, I remember reading somewhere that it was introduced from Tahiti or another island in the modern era.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

These two sources[2][3] claim it was first seen (along with the ukulele) when King Kalākaua revived the hula in the 1870s. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a link between no photography policies and freedom of panorama (or lack thereof)?

Hope this isn't asking for legal advice, as I'm just asking for general observations. Here in the Philippines, we currently don't have any freedom of panorama provisions in our copyright laws. I've also noticed that here, many museums prohibit photography, usually for security reasons, but also for either copyright reasons or preservation (but if the latter is the reason, can't they just ban flash photography?) Even concerts and theater shows (like the Saltimbanco show that came last month) frequently have the same policies. Are countries which don't have freedom of panorama provisions more likely to have places which prohibit photography, or is this just a coincidence? And a related question: aside from Area 51, what are notable examples of places where photography is prohibited but the reason is officially a state/company/trade secret? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama really has to do with buildings and public sculpture. They probably figure they get no benefit from private pictures of their collection out there on the web. As for concerts, in my (extensive) experience, what they usually care about is filming, and only some places get hyper about it, because you're not going to have a good film unless you are in the photo pit with a quality camera (a tripod would be helpful), and no one is slamming your back in time to the music. Thus, if you would like a photo pass, they usually limit you to the first three songs and no more than 30 seconds of video.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In the United States, all security sites have restrictions on photography. It's actually enshrined in one of our toughest laws — the Espionage Act of 1917. In general, though, it is worth drawing a distinction between legal restrictions and private restrictions on photography. I can put a sign on the door of my house that says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY." What can I do if you violate it? I can kick you out of my house. I can't put you in jail or sue you. It has as much legal force as me saying, "please take off your shoes before stepping on the carpet." The "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" signs on security sites in the US are not private restrictions — they are legal ones (they can put you in jail). The "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" signs in museums or concerts are private ones, not legal ones — it's not actually against the law for you to take photographs in those places, but they can probably kick you out if you do it. (What you then later DO with the photographs you've taken may or may not be against the law — in terms of copyright violations — but that's a separate question from just taking the photograph in the first place, and depends on the copyright laws in question.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Museums have photo restrictions, possibly not so much due to concerns over copyright as due to wanting you to spend lots of money in their gift shop. If you can take pictures of all the art they are exhibiting, why would you buy the postcards or posters of that same artwork? I recall that when I visited the Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion last year, the guide made a big deal out of their 'no photo' policy, and specified that it was to prevent professional photographers coming in on the tour and selling their pictures afterwards. They were, however, open to organising specific photo shoots - indicating that the motive for the policy was economic (you'd probably have to pay for the photo shoot) and didn't have anything to do with preserving the art or protecting the copyright of what was on display. V85 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue of copyrights in museums can be tricky. If it's old art, then the copyright is expired — so if you take a good photo of the Mona Lisa, you can do whatever you want with it, and the museum can't do anything about it. The museum doesn't want that, obviously — part of the perk of having an old master is getting money from people who want copies of it. (In the US, it doesn't really matter, because even the museum's photographs of paintings are in the public domain.) So copyright is related to the motivation, but not so much that taking a photograph violates copyright. Saying it is about control, generally speaking, from an economic standpoint, is probably more on par. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't the U.S. send drones to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities?

I see a war approaching and the first thing that comes to my mind is acting before it's too late. Wouldn't that be a solution? Can drones be sent without trouble to countries like Iran? Thank you. Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The physical possibility of committing any action is rarely the barrier to a country committing it. For example, I am capable of punching a random police officer in the face. It would be outrageously stupid of me to do so; the thing keeping me from punching a cop in the face is not that I am physically unable to make my fist make contact with his face. That is, the U.S. could actually do as you describe, but for several fairly obvious reasons, it may not be a great idea to do so. The U.S. is known to use drone strikes in other nations with which it is not in a state of war, such as Pakistan and Yemen. However, Pakistan has a government which is generally friendly to the U.S., and so (after a public display of being outraged) tends to overlook such incursions, as does Yemen to some extent. With Iran, with a government that is publicly hostile to the U.S., such an action would have a terrible effect on the U.S. standing in the world, and could likely spark reprocussions that would make it a bad idea. Part of what allows a country like the U.S. to do such things is they have a sort of "moral currency" built up, both with the target country and with the international community. Attacking Iran unilaterally as you describe would cause serious damage to that, and for that reason, plus the fact that domestically the U.S. population has little interest in getting involved in yet another protacted ground war in Asia, which would likely result from your proposal, means that it isn't going to happen. --Jayron32 13:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Drones don't help too much in destroying things buried deep underground... AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, they would if you strapped a hydrogen bomb to one... --Jayron32 13:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Among other counterfactual hypotheticals. AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Even then, I'm unsure. For very deep facilities you need a bomb that will penetrate significantly before exploding — even H-bombs. Could a B61 be dropped by a drone from a significant enough height to have the correct amount of penetration? I'm honestly just not sure. It's probably not what any drone currently available is designed to do. Again, this is kind of silly, because if we wanted to drop B61s on Iran, we'd just use B-2s or some such, not drones. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the best way to avoid a war is to avoid committing acts of war. Bombing Iran would be an act of war. So, frankly, your idea is terrible and counterproductive. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The United States has the military capability to hit sites in Iran. This is not controversial. They have the military capability to drop very large (conventional or nuclear) bombs pretty much anywhere on the planet, and have had that capability for decades and decades.

The controversial questions are:

1. Does Israel have this ability, without US help? (Probably not. Israeli air capabilities are not as advanced, and getting from Israel to Iran requires going over the territory of a lot of other nations who may not be so happy about this sort of activity, plus Iran has a reasonably sophisticated series of air defenses of its own. This is significant because a lot of the debates are along the lines of, if Israel tries to attack Iran, will the US have to bail them out?)
2. Does the US have the ability to penetrate deeply into Iranian underground sites? (Depends on who you ask. Some military guys say yes, no problem. Others say it would be difficult, presuming you're not talking about dropping "bunker busting" nuclear weapons on them. I'm unsure but I doubt that drones could be used for this purpose; you probably need something larger to drop the really deep-penetrating bombs. If you are thinking about using nuclear weapons, that introduces lots of other considerations. It isn't very likely, for obvious P.R. reasons.)
3. What happens after you bomb Iranian facilities? Nobody knows. Most people think that Iran will retaliate against Israel (either directly or through its proxy, Hezbollah), that they will withdraw from the NPT (thus ending all inspections), and that they will engage in a crash program to develop a nuclear deterrent. The only way to avert this would then be a war of "regime change," which would be exceedingly costly on all sides and could lead to wider outbreak of war in the Middle East, and might not even be successful. The other position — that Iran will just give up on nuclear things — is not held by very many people, though they would point to Israel's bombing of the Osirak reactor as the template here. Even that didn't stop Saddam's nuclear ambitions — in fact, he intensified his program. He shelved the ambitions only after the 1991 Gulf War. But it may have delayed him to that point.

So these are the really tricky issues. These are separate from the question of whether Iran is actually trying to make a nuclear weapon, which itself is controversial (most analysts, including the US intelligence community — see NIE 2007 — think that this is a long-term goal of theirs, but not something they are trying to do in the next few years — that they want to be nuclear capable, not nuclear armed), or whether Iran having a bomb would necessarily be a bad thing (lots of folks argue that nuclear weapons tend to stabilize regions, rather than destabilize them, but making guesses about this requires guessing Iranian intentions and also the reactions of other states in the region, all of which are hard things to gauge). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just remember everyone that there is another issue involved here. Russia. Russia would be outraged by a U.S. intervention in Iran, and it would risk starting another Cold War with them perhaps if we were to do so. That's the biggest practical issue that I can think of that hasn't already been brought up. Rabuve (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Mostly because relationships with Russia are frosty enough, but neither Russia nor the USA think one another plans to nuke each other anytime soon. Another Cold War — where both superpowers thought that they were in an existential crisis with regards to one another — isn't very likely. (Russia knows that US or Israeli interest in Iran has nothing to do with trying to hurt Russia. The worst accusations on those front are that US plans for missile defense — now fairly scaled back — might also be aimed at Russia while ostensibly being about Iran, but again, that's only a minor part of the whole Iran situation.) Frosty relations, sure. But they're already frosty, and frostiness is not the same thing as a Cold War. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But Russia certainly won't like the possibility of the United States possibly expanding its sphere of influence in the region around central Asia. I don't think the conflict would be nuclear, but neither do I think the Russians would just accept it. Rabuve (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think most analysts think that the Russians would just accept it, practically speaking. What are you suspecting they'd do, start a war? I don't see it. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And, practically speaking, they really don't want a nation ruled by Islamists, near their underbelly, armed with nukes. Thus, they may well use the event for propaganda gains, but aren't likely to help protect Iran's nuclear program. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure if Russia is that worried about a nuclear-armed Iran. Iran has no qualms with modern Russia to my knowledge. They are a different brand of Islam than the Muslims that give the Russians trouble. You use the term "underbelly" as if it makes metaphorical sense, but Russia is not an animal and its southern border is not some sort of highly vulnerable area. Russia does not border Iran; at the moment, I don't think it has major interests that Iran would infringe upon (such was not the case in the 1970s). This is just speculation, but I suspect they aren't unduly worried about a nuclear Iran — it doesn't affect them much more than a nuclear Israel does. It has been suggested as a general rule that countries are most annoyed by other countries getting nuclear weapons if 1. they have a long history of animosity with the nuke-acquiring country or 2. the country has big aspirations for asserting power in the region near the nuke-acquiring country. The US has big aspirations everywhere so they are generally opposed to proliferation even by allies (they were against the Israeli bomb when it was still a question, they were against a Taiwanese bomb, they were against a South Korean bomb); the Russian ambition has receded since the end of the Cold War. They might even welcome an Iranian bomb — it would complicate Middle Eastern relations in ways they might be able to play to their advantage. But this is just speculation; I've no real evidence of what the Russians are thinking. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Think of how the US would react if Mexico decided it wanted the bomb (or Guatemala, if you want a nation which doesn't border the US). There is currently no animosity, but any nuclear weapons near the border do incur an additional risk. There's the possibility of those nations setting one off accidentally, or in testing, that releases radiation into your nation. Then there's the possibility of them (or rogue elements within that nation) selling it to somebody who uses it against you. Then there's the potential for relations to sour in the future. There's also the possibility of a revolution bringing to power somebody more antagonistic (Iran seems ripe for a "Persian spring"). Then there is the nuclear arms race it could trigger, greatly expanding the risk to all in the region. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the US being against Israel getting nuclear weapons? The general understanding (which has never been officially confirmed, of course, but I'm not sure anyone doubts it any more) is that the US supplied Israel with nuclear weapons... I don't think destabilising the Middle East is in anyone's interests (it puts oil supply lines in danger, more than anything), although it is possible a nuclear armed Iran would actually stabilise the region by causing a cold war and making everyone too scared to act. --Tango (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The US government didn't supply Israel with nuclear weapons; the Kennedy and Johnston administrations both put pressure on Israel not to go nuclear. Once they were nuclear, which was known by the Nixon administration, the pressure was not to announce it or test a weapon. Any good book on the Israeli nuclear program discusses this in depth, but for quick internet references, the documents here are instructive, and the account here, while critical of Kennedy's lack of real oomph on the issue, discusses his attempt to pressure the Israelis against the bomb. The Americans supplied Israel with many other weapons, including nuclear-capable fighters and things of that nature. But they didn't help them get the bomb early on, and were very opposed to it — mainly because they feared Israel might actually use it, and because it limited their own freedom of action in the region. The country that was most helpful for Israel to get the bomb was France. Their explicit reason for doing this (as revealed in French archival documents) is that they felt that a nuclear Israel would distract Egypt, which would keep them from helping out the Algerians; in this case, it was in French interests to somewhat destabilize the Middle East, in the 1960s. This is discussed in some depth in this interesting book. The account in Nuclear weapons and Israel is pretty good though it lacks any discussion of the Algerian motivation (which is pretty well-documented). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

To all those wondering what a possible preventative strike would look like... This is perhaps the most detailed report released yet (very recently released) and has amazing diagrams and pictures. It presents various scenarios depending on which country is performing the strike, and also analyzes the impact of such a strike. A very good report, I'd say. --Activism1234 18:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it still needs some work, to me. It has numerous typos, and the contents of the page "Iranian Counter Vulnerabilities:" are identical to the page "Israeli Strike:". I hope the info isn't as sloppy as the writing. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the only Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle in general use by the US is the MQ-9 Reaper. It has a payload capacity of 1400kg according to our article. So it physically could carry a B61 (would probably have to modify the mounting points though). However, Iran's air defence systems include the SA-5, which is more than capable of shooting down a relatively slow-moving aircraft like an UAV.i.m.canadian (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources of Law

I recently watched a video of a discussion between Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Breyer, and found it very interesting that Breyer mentioned six sources of law (Text, precedent, historical development, tradition, purpose, and consequences) and was wondering if he came up with that classification himself or whether or not that was developed by some other legal scholar.

Also, could anyone recommend a good treatise on the sources of law in common law jurisdictions? I find the subject to be something which isn't looked at in that much detail in the scholarly literature of common law countries, and would be very grateful to find something on the subject. Thanks in advance. Rabuve (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Those 6 items so thoroughly overlap as to not be a very useful method of classification, IMHO. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Jurisprudence is a good starting point for answering the initial question. The short answer is there is no short answer. The study of the "source of the law" is a deep and varied topic, and you can (and people do) spend their whole lives doing nothing but studying and thinking about just some small aspect of this question. But start at the Juurisprudence article, read that, and then follow the links to see where it takes you. --Jayron32 17:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that there is obviously no short answer and different people are going to disagree quite a bit about the inclusion of some and their role in the legal process, but I am mostly surprised at the lack of writing on the subject. I would have thought that the great legal minds of the Common Law Tradition such as Coke or Blackstone would have discussed the matters in some detail, but to my knowledge (by skimming the tables of contents of some of their works) they do not spend much effort on questions of the principles of legal reasoning, and instead focus on the substantive law of whatever subject they were discussing. Are there any treatises by such figures which at least discuss the subject in some detail? Rabuve (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was going to suggest Blackstone. I can't name offhand any modern treatises about it because the ones I know tend to be very specific to an area of law. You might look at The Common Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.. If you want to get into more specific areas of law there's plenty on those of course. Also check Origins of the Common Law by Arthur R. Hogue. I've not read it, but it seems to be on topic. Shadowjams (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with StuRat, even moreso, Breyer's answer was ridiculous. You might as well say Airplanes are explained by The Wright Bothers, Howard Hughes, Boeing, Airbus, Lift, Vacations and War.

An excellent introduction to law is Law: Its Nature, Functions and Limits, read the reviews. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Good airplane example. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In his defense, when he defined the terms in more detail, they were quite distinct in meaning, and the term sources of law doesn't answer the question "where does the law come from" but "when answering legal questions, what things should we turn to for answers". Rabuve (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I found Richard Posner's The Problems of Jurisprudence an interesting read, twenty years ago. (After all this time I can't say why.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A question about the Westroads Mall shooting

I just read above a question about the difference between "massacre" and "shooting spree", and the asker mentioned the Westroads Mall shooting. My question is, the gunman Robert A. Hawkins entered the mall heavily armed. Aren't there metal-detecting devices in such large malls? AmericanMarinee (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are any, I've never seen them. What you're much more likely to see, in individual stores, are detectors of those little magnetized thingies they put into some products. And, frankly, shoplifting is a much more likely crime in a mall than a shooting spree is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Here's an article explaining why: Malls face difficult test of balancing safety and access. Mingmingla (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How many people don't have cellphones or keys? Besides, it wouldn't have stopped the guy from shooting. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What Bugs is referring to is discussed at Electronic article surveillance. Dismas|^(talk) 01:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Did Queen Victoria ever wear a Crinoline?

The question may seem odd, but in a book about fashion, I once read that Queen Victoria of Great Britain did not approve of the fashion of the crinoline, and that those critical to the crinoline used her example in their statements. It mentioned a contemporary saying: "God save our gracious queen, who does not wear crinoline". It this true? Did she in fact not wear a crinoline during the crinoline-era? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a photograph of her wearing one here: [4] 83.104.128.107 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It does indeed look like one, though it is hard to tell. --Aciram (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Depends whether by "crinoline" you mean the skirt style, the steel cage structure, or just the crinoline fabric itself. I have found a few hints, none of them unfortunately reliably sourced, that suggest Victoria was indeed a conservative dresser who disapproved of the crinoline. As our article Crinoline notes, "the first crinolines were petticoats starched for extra stiffness, made out of the new crinoline fabric". Wide skirts were held out by layer upon layer of these, which would have been hot, heavy and unwieldy. Stiffened hoop skirts followed (and even inflatable ones!), and eventually the steel and fabric cage crinoline. A number of online sources describe the cage as lighter and more comfortable than petticoats, but with a much increased risk of embarrassing public exposure if you tripped and fell, or a sudden gust of wind arose, hence the sudden increased interest in wearing drawers from the 1850s onward. Victoria is certainly pictured in wide skirts of the era, although not the insanely wide ones at the cutting edge of fashion, but your fashion book may perhaps mean that she preferred layers of petticoats to support them, rather than a racier cage crinoline. - Karenjc 17:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the steel cage crinoline structure. I have seen many images of her, but have found it hard to determine whether her skirts did conceal a crinoline structure. Has anyone heard of the saying mentioned above? --Aciram (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The post of early modern spies

In the early modern era - say the 18th-century - what means would a spy use to receive and post messages from his/her employer? Letters I assume (?), but how where they sent? By special, private couriers, perhaps? Thank you very much!--Aciram (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Letters were often sent by regular post, and sent in cypher. And it wasn't just spies, sensitive information was often sent in cypher, even regular diplomatic posts could be sent this way: I've just finished reading David McCulloch's biography of John Adams, and it mentions serval times cyphers being used for sensitive communications. Sometimes, the cyphers could take weeks or months to decode, and that was by the intended recipient. The XYZ Affair was one such diplomatic disaster which involved coded letters. The disadvantage of using private couriers is that, if they are caught, it is obvious that their private correspondance is more important, which could lead to increased suspicion. A coded message sent by regular post is easy to get mixed in with the rest of the mail, and wouldn't attract suspicion. --Jayron32 02:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon post? Of course the message would be in pidgin. This article says that if the message were important enough, the courier might memorize it. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

An example of message concealment by a courier was at the Siege of Derry; a small boy was able to get through the besiegers lines and into the city with a message concealed in his garter, and a second time sewn into a cloth covered button (presumably rather a large one). To make reply, the defenders took no chances and the answer was put into "a piece of bladder, in the shape of a suppositor, and the same was applied to the boy".[5] Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

First Indian reservation in the United States

I've encountered a Northwestern University document (details later) discussing what may have been the first Indian reservation in what's now the USA: created by the French in 1720, it was established for the Mitchigamea and was located near Fort de Chartres in southwestern Illinois, near the Mississippi River. Do we have any information on this reservation? Or can you point me to an online document or a book that might be in my university's library system? I've searched online but found nothing at all. Our Indian reservation article is woefully short in its history; it begins the historical account after the Civil War, but I know that there were federal reservations before that — for example, the Treaty of Lewistown, signed in 1829, abolished a reservation near where I grew up. As for the document: it's the National Register of Historic Places nomination form for the Kolmer Site, an archaeological site where the Michigamea established their first village after moving to the reservation. It's possibly online, but I can't link it: I downloaded it some time back from the website of the Illinois SHPO, but since then they've removed a lot of features, and I can't figure out how to return to it. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Colonial Carolina (later South Carolina) established a reservation for the Yamasee in 1707; [6]. In Virginia the Powhatan were forced onto reservations in the early 1600s; [7], which says two of these reservations, for the Pamunkey and Mattaponi, are the oldest reservations in the country, still existing today. I wonder though about places like Taos Pueblo, which goes back to even earlier colonial times (and before, obviously). Perhaps the status of such places in early Spanish colonial New Mexico stretch the meaning of "reservation", even if Taos and other ancient pueblos are reservations today. I don't know about the reservation you're trying to find out more about though. Pfly (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

One could argue that so-called Praying towns may have been the earliest Indian reservations, and these existed from the 1660s. The idea was to establish towns of Christianized Indians (see Praying Indian) so that such Indians would not be tempted to revert back to their Native belief systems. --Jayron32 05:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You may run into a problem defining a reservation. Essentially it's a system where certain areas are reserved for Native Americans and others are denied to them. However, early on, the areas available to Native Americans were much larger than the areas denied to them, so it was more like the colonists were the ones living in "reservations". StuRat (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The land was divided more along the lines of "The stuff that white people haven't got a chance to settle yet" vs. "The stuff they had". Reservations are more like what had been white land that was redesignated to segregate native Americans on is different than what had occured before, which was simply that there were vast tracts of land that White people hadn't yet settled. --Jayron32 23:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Successive treaties typically granted Native Americans exclusive use of a portion of their former lands (not land occupied by whites), and the reservations were then shrunken with each subsequent revision. In some cases they were actually moved to new locations, but the new locations were either unoccupied (unfortunately, because they were uninhabitable), or occupied by other Native Americans, not whites. StuRat (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I know this is off topic, sorry Nyttend, but on this point—up until the middle 19th century or so treaties between imperial/colonial powers and non-defeated natives often defined boundaries, but land that remained in native control was not usually called "reservation". That term typically referred to blocks of land set aside for natives within a larger region controlled by a colonial power. That "control" may have at times been fairly weak, and sometimes, as with the Yamasee, the natives may have been important allies whose position had grown hard due to indebtedness and settler encroachment. It made little sense to use a term like reservation for lands far beyond the frontier of control or sphere of influence (terms like Indian Reserve (1763) are modern inventions used by historians). The Yamasee reserve was called a reserve back then, but the native lands beyond the relatively small area under Carolina's control were not—they were called things like "Indian land", or "Cherokee country", and such. In the early 19th century the US control rapidly began sweeping across the continent. Natives in the east, like the Cherokee, became surrounded by American settlements. So surrounded and defined by treaty lines, they came to resemble reservations in the old sense of the word. By the middle to late 19th century the US effectively "controlled" the whole country—many tribes resisted, of course, but the power imbalance made the notion of two sovereign powers making treaty a bit of a farce. The few examples of notable resistance (Battle of the Little Bighorn, Seminole Wars, etc) were rare exceptions to the general rule. And in the end all natives in the US were forced to submit to US sovereignty (eg, the Dawes Act applied to most Indians, without their consent; the 13th Amendment applied to the Tlingit, etc). The popular image of Native American history is distorted, I think, by the fact that the most well-known history—mainly that of the 19th century—is also the very end of the last pretense of true native sovereignty. There were three or so centuries of previous history, when the power relationships were very different. Sorry for continuing off topic, I will see if I can find anything about the 1720 Mitchigamea reservation. And I agree that our Indian reservation's history section is very much in need of expansion! Pfly (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this relates to my comment that very early on, when Native Americans controlled most of the land, and granted colonists the use of a small portion of their land in a treaty, we can think of the colonists as being the ones living on reservations. StuRat (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Restating the question

Question wasn't clear enough, but you've provided useful information that I hadn't thought to ask about — thanks for the details on previous reservations. However, my primary question was: do we have any information on this specific reservation? Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This source, [8], suggests alternate spellings, Michigamea and Kohlmer site (Michigamea and Kolmer seem most common). Browsing the Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History shows three early 18th century "large villages" on the Mississippi River near Fort Chartres (the Atlas spells it without the de), but labels all three as simply "Illinois" villages. All three are on the east bank. One is shown at the mouth of the Kaskaskia River (apparently the Michigamea were absorded into the Kaskaskia tribe in the early to middle 18th century), another is shown just north of Fort de Chartres. The third north of the fort, about 2/3rds of the way to the Missouri River. These must be the three mentioned in that link—one being a Kaskaskia village (Guebert site), one a Michigamea (Kohlmer site), and one a mixed Kaskaskia-Michigamea village (the Waterman site). Other sources refer to the village just north of the fort as the "Michigamea village", but point out that Kaskaskia people joined the village soon after 1720.

It's hard to imagine the French establishing a reservation at or attached to one of these villages. Fort de Chartres was a tiny remote outpost deep in Indian country. This makes me think it wasn't a reservation in the modern sense.

There's a dissertation called The Kolmer Site: An Eighteenth Century Michigamea Village, but it doesn't appear to be easily available online. Snippet view of [9] shows us "KOLMER SITE (MICHIGAMEA VILLAGE), N of Fort Chartres Island and W of Fort Chartres State Park...". And this one, [10], "(NHL, HABS, 1966) Kolmer Site (Michigamea Village) North of Kaskaskia Island and west of Fort de Chartres State Park (1974)..."

Sorry that is all I can find right now. There's a bit about the Waterman Site here. Pfly (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Are serial killers smart or just lucky?

I mean, Jeffrey Dahmer was pulled over by police when he committed his first murder and the police did not check the bags he had in his back seats, which contained human remains. In 1991, when the Laotian boy escaped from his apartment, the police believed him and returned him to the apartment. Ted Bundy escaped from custody and remained at large for years while killing people. Gary Ridgway killed over 50 people and never got caught. Dennis Rader committed murders over a span of more than 10 years and got away with the murders. Are they smart or just lucky? Thank you. AmericanMarinee (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've read so many books about serial killers that I can't single out a resource to point you to, but from my readings on the subject, they are generally more lucky than smart. We imagine them to be very intelligent, but that doesn't bear out. After all, Dennis Rader was caught when he sent a floppy disk to a newspaper when he asked the police if it could be traced to his computer. They told him it couldn't (a lie), he believed them, and was promptly caught. Not exactly a rocket scientist. Our own article agrees: "Generally being described as possessing IQs in the "bright normal" range, although they are more likely to have low/average intelligence. A sample of 174 IQs of serial killers had a median IQ of 93. Only serial killers who used bombs had an average IQ above the population mean." I conclude this to mean that they are just lucky. Mingmingla (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, exactly how did they trace the floppy; was that explained? Did he re-use one that had had earlier files on it, which perhaps he "deleted", not understanding what that means in most filesystems? Or did he use some program like Word that encodes the registered licensee of the program into the file itself? Or something else? --Trovatore (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Our article has the answers: "Rader then sent his message and floppy to the police department, which quickly checked the metadata of the Microsoft Word document. In the metadata, they found that the document had been made by a man who called himself Dennis. They also found a link to the Lutheran Church." The police did not lie; there really is no way to trace a floppy to a computer. Of course if you decide to register Word with your real name and real organization, that information would be in the file, but that's hardly tracing a disk. --99.227.95.108 (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There is the issue that, happily, most people simply cannot comprehend such evil. We have an article on the banality of evil. We should have an article on the reality of evil, but we don't. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read all the studies, but it would seem the sampling is skewed as only serial killers who are identified and caught can be studied/given an IQ test. I would guess that "serial killers" are no more or less smart or lucky than "non-serial-killers". Maybe the more intelligent ones just don't get caught (as often).--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. I think Medeis is suggesting that we are ascribing intelligence to something else entirely that we (hopefully) are incapable of understanding. If that's the case, I agree. They aren't the same thing. But that's neither here nor there. Mingmingla (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the dumber ones got caught after the first murder and never got the chance to make it serial. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

With the case of Rader, it might be argued that his own arrogance got the best of him. Therefore it was his attitude and not intelligence that tripped him up. After all, the case was unsolved and pretty much dormant until he resurfaced. Dismas|^(talk) 01:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That could be, but the books I read indicated average intelligence. Not super smart, not super dumb. Mingmingla (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

As with any kind of criminal conduct, if the perp has several successes, he may begin to think he's smarter than he is, and may get complacent and careless. On the other hand, it might be relatively easy to get away with a single random killing, if there are no witnesses and nothing to tie the murderer to the victim. If you've ever watched some of those cold-case TV shows, a murder case may never be solved, or it may be solved years later due to some quirk of fate. The serial killer's achilles heel is that he can't stop. If Rader had resisted the urge to resume his "hobby", he might have gone to his grave with his secret. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not all serial killers get caught. For the first, there may be a string of murders that never gets connected. Secondly, there are many known serial killers who have never been identified. Despite many hypotheses, Jack the Ripper has never been positively identified; and likely never will be given the temporal distance to the original case. There are a half-dozen pet theories, and everyone has their favorite, though nothing conclusive has ever come up. For a more modern case, the Zodiac Killer was never caught. Category:Unidentified serial killers has quite a few such cases. --Jayron32 05:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Or they might get caught for something else. (I'm thinking of a plot element in The Green Mile.) Since they don't get identified, anything's possible. If a serial killer stops, they might well be dead or disabled due to something unrelated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Mingmingla, my point was that even cops don't think like serial killers, or, unless they are specialists, probably even think about serial killers without some really overt evidence. Gay kid running down the street with Dahmer running after him? The first thing you think as a benevolent human is "domestic dispute", not "cannibalism interrupted". Nobody notices the unimaginable. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Willie Pickton is a prime example: a single Vancouver police officer pegged that a serial killer was likely operating in Vancouver, but none of superiors believed it. Mingmingla (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's likely it. Often it's only in retrospect that something turns out to be sinister. In a vague sort of way, this relates to the question about metal detectors at shopping malls. The fact is that there's always shoplifting going on, but shooting sprees are extremely rare. No one expects it to happen. However, they do use metal detectors and court houses where it's reasonable to suppose that someone might try to bring a gun in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, both are a clear example of security theater, which is to say that their greatest effect is to make people feel safe or feel as though something is being done to stop shoplifting. A metal detector does nothing to stop someone who is determined enough to bypass them (which are rediculously easy to do), nor does a store's security scanners at the doors stop a determined shoplifter. At best, they deter crimes of convenience: they may stop someone from making a snap decision or something like that. But if you have half a brain and want to cause a problem, doing so is not hard. --Jayron32 13:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The most important reason serial killers are so successful at evading police is that their victims tend to be random. This deprives police of one of their most powerful tools, looking at who had a reason to kill the victim. Thus, if there are no witnesses, all they have to go on is evidence left behind. Even fingerprints and DNA are not useful if the perp's fingerprints and DNA are not already in the system (although they are later useful at trial). StuRat (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Not so much "random", as they fit a profile, but personally unrelated. See Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy. Nowadaays we even have TV shows called Profiler (TV series). μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the Cleveland Torso Murderer who by some accounts outwitted Eliot Ness and had some help from some highly placed politicians. Marketdiamond (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)