Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< February 16 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 18 > |
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. |
This question arises from a seemingly never-resolvable discussion about whether or not Sidney Poitier is entitled to be known as "Sir Sidney" post his 1974 knighthood.
I was reasonably persuaded that he was an American citizen from birth and has never held Bahamian, British or any other citizenship. Case closed. He's plain "Sidney Poitier KBE". That was until I reminded myself that he was the Bahamian Ambassador to Japan for 10 years 1997-2007, and Bahamian Ambassador to UNESCO for five years 2002-2007. As I said on Poitier's talk page, I know that non-citizens are sometimes appointed honorary consuls, but I've never heard of a non-citizen being appointed a country's ambassador. If so, why wouldn't he have been referred to as "honorary ambassador", in line with the "honorary consul" designation?
I checked at Ambassador, and it seems the only instance of an "honorary ambassador" is in the case of Kosovo.
So, are there any other cases of a non-citizen being appointed a country's ambassador to another country? Or even an honorary ambassador?
Also, I have searched fruitlessly for the official announcement of his (honorary) knighthood, so if anyone here can help in tracking that down, I'd be most grateful. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
First to be clear, this is in no way a comment on Sidney Poitier's appointment since he clearly had a strong connection to the Bahamas. Anyway people with no real connection the the country can be appointed ambassador although most or all of them are given citizenship first. And it happens a fair amount with Caribbean countries although I think it may be more common now than in 1997. Funnily enough I just watched this video yesterday which describes the controversial and almost definitely corrupt practice [2] [3] [4].
While often these seem to be to some UN body or maybe an ambassador-at-large, with the obvious advantage that you don't have to convince some country to accept them and the UN bodies just accept them; one of the examples given there is Ali Reza Monfared who is said to have nominally became Dominica's ambassador to Malaysia. Although to be clear, I'm not saying Ali Reza Monfared's appointment was almost definitely corrupt, rather the practice is at least some times. It is possible some of these people are just using the term loosely and are really honorary consuls or ambassador-at-large or something. (There was initially mention of this.) But I don't believe there's such a thing as an honorary consul to UNESCO (as opposed to an honorary ambassador of UNESCO) etc. And I'm sure some country has convinced some other country to accept some such ambassador.
As mentioned in that story, and also [5], despite these people nominally representing the country in some fashion, evidently the people they represent aren't entitled to know who they all are. I guess this may make sense if the person is an intelligence agent working in the appointed countries signals base, provided they or their spouse doesn't drive on the wrong side of the road and kill someone. But I think it's clear most of these case aren't like that. Also to be clear, and the DW article mentions this, the practice isn't just with Caribbean countries but other generally poorer countries with high levels of corruption. [6] may be of interest.
For an alternative view, see [7]. Maybe also [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].
Were there any significant communities in China that retained the Queue (hairstyle) after 1911? Also when did the queue fell out of favor in the Chinese American community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.14.47 ( talk) 01:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there a name or recognized general characteristics of a condition where someone is more respectful of or impressed by money than situational logic supports? I don't mean greed, which implies that the person is trying to get the money for themselves. I mean someone who thinks that since e.g. Donald Trump (or a typical tech tycoon etc.) is rich, they must be smart and worth listening to. I'm sure we've all seen this. Such people are typically not greedy or dishonest or stupid, but I might consider them slightly gullible. It leads to weird consequences sometimes. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 ( talk) 04:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Regarding my original question: "plutolatry" is close to what I was looking for, and the Adam Smith chapter looks interesting. Prosperity theology is kind of a different thing. I think my description missed the mark I was aiming at: it's less about admiration of rich people, than excessive respect for money and well-financed institutions per se, and treating a lack of respect for such things as a kind of deviance. E.g. I make a decent living as a techie and I like what I do and want to keep doing it, but (by the logic I'm describing), that makes me a degenerate since I'm not trying to become an executive and play golf with Jeff Bezos, if that makes any sense. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 ( talk) 18:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Um ok, I haven't watched that show so don't recognize any of the names. Separately, it's not lost on me that we may be heading into a US presidential election between a 70-something New York billionaire ex-Republican who became a Democrat, and a 70-something New York billionaire ex-Democrat who became a Republican. Is that Kang and Kodos twirling towards freedom? I have no idea why people fall for this stuff. That's part of what I'm trying to figure out. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 ( talk) 19:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Life expectancy is only one measure though. By 70 [14] a US man in 2016 has a death probability of 0.023122, in other words a ~2.3% chance if dying in 1 year. By 78, it's up to 0.047720 or ~4.8% i.e. nearly 1 in 20. (A term is 4 years, but the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution and modern party politics seems to mean that especially those who are only likely to support one candidate expect and assume they are choosing someone for 8 years if they haven't yet been president.)
At 70, a US man has as 13.27% probability of dying within 5 years and 30.85% probability if dying with 10 years. [15] Yes, different source, but the data roughly tallies with the government ones for 1 year so they're likely good enough for our purposes. And yes 10 years is a little long, I'm sure you could calculate or find 8 year probabilities if you really want, IMO it's enough to give a decent idea anyway.
Of course we're talking averages here, so a wealthy US man with no known significant diseases may have a a lower probability. Still, the average is quite different from a 50 year old at 0.005007 for 1 year, 2.98% for 5 years and 7.35% for 10 years. The 8 year probability is probably not far off the 78 year old 1 year probability.
I'd also note that someone doesn't have to die to be sufficiently incapacitated to be unable to serve as president. There is of course the case of Woodrow Wilson#Ratification debate and incapacity, which probably wouldn't happen in the modern era. (There are persistent questions about Ronald Reagan but as our article says, medical professionals who worked with him say they do not believe there was anything [16].)
Whether any of this should factor into someone's voting, I make no comment.
Sycophancy is probably a more general example of what you are talking about, although not specifically related to wealth. The Class sketch, and the concept of Kiss up kick down may also be relevent. Iapetus ( talk) 10:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
So far I know that Dan McTeague was anti-same-sex marriage and anti-abortion politician who was a Liberal Party MP in the federal government. Who else was a Liberal Party MP that was against same-sex marriage and abortion? Donmust90 ( talk) 17:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< February 16 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 18 > |
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. |
This question arises from a seemingly never-resolvable discussion about whether or not Sidney Poitier is entitled to be known as "Sir Sidney" post his 1974 knighthood.
I was reasonably persuaded that he was an American citizen from birth and has never held Bahamian, British or any other citizenship. Case closed. He's plain "Sidney Poitier KBE". That was until I reminded myself that he was the Bahamian Ambassador to Japan for 10 years 1997-2007, and Bahamian Ambassador to UNESCO for five years 2002-2007. As I said on Poitier's talk page, I know that non-citizens are sometimes appointed honorary consuls, but I've never heard of a non-citizen being appointed a country's ambassador. If so, why wouldn't he have been referred to as "honorary ambassador", in line with the "honorary consul" designation?
I checked at Ambassador, and it seems the only instance of an "honorary ambassador" is in the case of Kosovo.
So, are there any other cases of a non-citizen being appointed a country's ambassador to another country? Or even an honorary ambassador?
Also, I have searched fruitlessly for the official announcement of his (honorary) knighthood, so if anyone here can help in tracking that down, I'd be most grateful. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
First to be clear, this is in no way a comment on Sidney Poitier's appointment since he clearly had a strong connection to the Bahamas. Anyway people with no real connection the the country can be appointed ambassador although most or all of them are given citizenship first. And it happens a fair amount with Caribbean countries although I think it may be more common now than in 1997. Funnily enough I just watched this video yesterday which describes the controversial and almost definitely corrupt practice [2] [3] [4].
While often these seem to be to some UN body or maybe an ambassador-at-large, with the obvious advantage that you don't have to convince some country to accept them and the UN bodies just accept them; one of the examples given there is Ali Reza Monfared who is said to have nominally became Dominica's ambassador to Malaysia. Although to be clear, I'm not saying Ali Reza Monfared's appointment was almost definitely corrupt, rather the practice is at least some times. It is possible some of these people are just using the term loosely and are really honorary consuls or ambassador-at-large or something. (There was initially mention of this.) But I don't believe there's such a thing as an honorary consul to UNESCO (as opposed to an honorary ambassador of UNESCO) etc. And I'm sure some country has convinced some other country to accept some such ambassador.
As mentioned in that story, and also [5], despite these people nominally representing the country in some fashion, evidently the people they represent aren't entitled to know who they all are. I guess this may make sense if the person is an intelligence agent working in the appointed countries signals base, provided they or their spouse doesn't drive on the wrong side of the road and kill someone. But I think it's clear most of these case aren't like that. Also to be clear, and the DW article mentions this, the practice isn't just with Caribbean countries but other generally poorer countries with high levels of corruption. [6] may be of interest.
For an alternative view, see [7]. Maybe also [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].
Were there any significant communities in China that retained the Queue (hairstyle) after 1911? Also when did the queue fell out of favor in the Chinese American community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.14.47 ( talk) 01:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there a name or recognized general characteristics of a condition where someone is more respectful of or impressed by money than situational logic supports? I don't mean greed, which implies that the person is trying to get the money for themselves. I mean someone who thinks that since e.g. Donald Trump (or a typical tech tycoon etc.) is rich, they must be smart and worth listening to. I'm sure we've all seen this. Such people are typically not greedy or dishonest or stupid, but I might consider them slightly gullible. It leads to weird consequences sometimes. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 ( talk) 04:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Regarding my original question: "plutolatry" is close to what I was looking for, and the Adam Smith chapter looks interesting. Prosperity theology is kind of a different thing. I think my description missed the mark I was aiming at: it's less about admiration of rich people, than excessive respect for money and well-financed institutions per se, and treating a lack of respect for such things as a kind of deviance. E.g. I make a decent living as a techie and I like what I do and want to keep doing it, but (by the logic I'm describing), that makes me a degenerate since I'm not trying to become an executive and play golf with Jeff Bezos, if that makes any sense. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 ( talk) 18:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Um ok, I haven't watched that show so don't recognize any of the names. Separately, it's not lost on me that we may be heading into a US presidential election between a 70-something New York billionaire ex-Republican who became a Democrat, and a 70-something New York billionaire ex-Democrat who became a Republican. Is that Kang and Kodos twirling towards freedom? I have no idea why people fall for this stuff. That's part of what I'm trying to figure out. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 ( talk) 19:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Life expectancy is only one measure though. By 70 [14] a US man in 2016 has a death probability of 0.023122, in other words a ~2.3% chance if dying in 1 year. By 78, it's up to 0.047720 or ~4.8% i.e. nearly 1 in 20. (A term is 4 years, but the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution and modern party politics seems to mean that especially those who are only likely to support one candidate expect and assume they are choosing someone for 8 years if they haven't yet been president.)
At 70, a US man has as 13.27% probability of dying within 5 years and 30.85% probability if dying with 10 years. [15] Yes, different source, but the data roughly tallies with the government ones for 1 year so they're likely good enough for our purposes. And yes 10 years is a little long, I'm sure you could calculate or find 8 year probabilities if you really want, IMO it's enough to give a decent idea anyway.
Of course we're talking averages here, so a wealthy US man with no known significant diseases may have a a lower probability. Still, the average is quite different from a 50 year old at 0.005007 for 1 year, 2.98% for 5 years and 7.35% for 10 years. The 8 year probability is probably not far off the 78 year old 1 year probability.
I'd also note that someone doesn't have to die to be sufficiently incapacitated to be unable to serve as president. There is of course the case of Woodrow Wilson#Ratification debate and incapacity, which probably wouldn't happen in the modern era. (There are persistent questions about Ronald Reagan but as our article says, medical professionals who worked with him say they do not believe there was anything [16].)
Whether any of this should factor into someone's voting, I make no comment.
Sycophancy is probably a more general example of what you are talking about, although not specifically related to wealth. The Class sketch, and the concept of Kiss up kick down may also be relevent. Iapetus ( talk) 10:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
So far I know that Dan McTeague was anti-same-sex marriage and anti-abortion politician who was a Liberal Party MP in the federal government. Who else was a Liberal Party MP that was against same-sex marriage and abortion? Donmust90 ( talk) 17:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)