Word(s) of the Day: Suzerainty and Tianxia

Suzerainty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suzerainty (pron.: /ˈsjzərənti/ or /ˈsjzərɛnti/) occurs where a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which controls its foreign affairs while allowing the tributary vassal statesome limited domestic autonomy.[1] The dominant entity in the suzerainty relationship, or the more powerful entity itself, is called a suzerain. The term suzerainty was originally used to describe the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and its surrounding regions. It differs from sovereignty in that the tributary enjoys some (often limited) self-rule.

A suzerain can also refer to a feudal lord, to whom vassals must pay tribute. Although it is a concept which has existed in a number of historical empires, it is a concept that is very difficult to describe using 20th- or 21st-century theories of international law, in which sovereignty either exists or does not. While a sovereign nation can agree by treaty to become a protectorate of a stronger power, modern international law does not recognize any way of making this relationship compulsory on the weaker power.

[edit]Imperial China

Historically, the Emperor of China saw himself as the center of the entire civilized world, and diplomatic relations in East Asia were based on the theory that all rulers of the world derived their authority from the Emperor. The degree to which this authority existed in fact changed from dynasty to dynasty. However, even during periods when political power was distributed evenly across several political entities, Chinese political theory recognized only one emperor and asserted that his authority was paramount throughout the world. Diplomatic relations with the Chinese emperor were made on the theory of tributary states, although in practice tributary relations would often result in a form of trade under the theory that the emperor in his kindness would reward the tributary state with gifts of equal or greater value.

This system broke down in the 18th and 19th centuries in two ways. First during the 17th century, China was ruled by the ethnically Manchu Qing dynasty which ruled a multi-ethnic empire and justified their rule through different theories of rulership. While not contradicting traditional Han Chinese theories of the emperor as universal ruler, the Qing did begin to make a distinction between areas of the world which they ruled and areas which they did not.[citation needed] The system also broke down as China faced European powers whose theories of sovereignty were based on international law and relations between separate states.

One way European states attempted to describe the relations between the Qing Dynasty and its outlying regions was in terms of suzerainty, although this did not completely match the traditional Chinese diplomatic theory. Since the Great Game, the British Empire has regarded strategic Tibet under Chinese “suzerainty”. But in 2008 British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in a statement called that word an “anachronism”, and joined the European Union and the United States in recognizing Tibet as a part of China.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzerainty

Tianxia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TianXiaWeiGong.png

Tianxia (Chinese天下; literally “under heaven”) is a phrase in the Chinese language and an ancient Chinese cultural concept that denoted either the entire geographical world or the metaphysical realm of mortals, and later became associated with political sovereignty.

In ancient Chinatianxia denoted the lands, space, and area divinely appointed to the Emperor by universal and well-defined principles of order. The center of this land that was directly apportioned to the Imperial court was called Huaxia (Chinese: 華夏), Xia (Chinese: 夏), Hua (Chinese: 華),Zhongxia (Chinese: 中夏), Zhonghua (Chinese: 中華), or Zhongguo (Chinese: 中國), among other names, forming the center of a world view that centered on the Imperial court and went concentrically outward to major and minor officials and then the common citizens, and finally ending with the fringe “barbarians“. The center of this world view was not exclusionary in nature, and outer groups, such as ethnic minorities, that accepted the mandate of the Chinese Emperor were themselves received and included into the Chinese tianxia.

In classical Chinese political thought, the Emperor of China (Chinese: 天子; pinyintiānzǐ), having received the Mandate of Heaven, would nominally be the ruler of the entire world. Although in practice there would be areas of the known world which were not under the control of the Emperor, in Chinese political theory the rulers of those areas derived their power from the Emperor (皇權).

The larger concept of tianxia is closely associated with civilization and order in classical Chinese philosophy, and has formed the basis for the world view of the Chinese people and nations influenced by them since at least the first millennium BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_under_heaven

tumblr_inline_mj8v3cDoPb1qz4rgp

Word of the Day: Surfeit

Surfeit - Noun
An excessive amount of something: “a surfeit of food and drink”.
Surfeit – Verb
Cause (someone) to desire no more of something as a result of having consumed or done it to excess.
Synonyms

noun.satiety – glut – excess – redundance
verb.overfeed – satiate

From:

Indentured Servitude, Money Laundering, and Piles of Money: The Crazy Secrets of Internet Cam Girls (NSFW)

tumblr_mi2s26zVGX1qbgyx2o2_250

Word of the Day: Psephology

Psephology play /sɨˈfɒləi/ (from Greek psephos ψῆφος, ‘pebble’, which the Greeks used as ballots) is a branch of political science which deals with the study and scientific analysis of elections. Psephology uses historical precinct voting data, public opinion pollscampaign finance information and similar statistical data. The term was coined in the United Kingdom in 1952 by historian R. B. McCallum to describe the scientific analysis of past elections.

from The Wikipedia

from a somewhat bitter article by a dude that I’m not even going to link to.

Word of the Day: Doggerel

Doggerel
 \ˈdȯ-g(ə-)rəl, ˈdä-\: loosely styled and irregular in measure especially for burlesque or comic effect; also : marked by triviality or inferiority

“What was ornate on the page becomes doggerel in translation.”
– From Ed Whitfield’s review of Cloud Atlas via Rotten Tomatoes which gives the film a 72%

also

There is a great deal of humbug about art and love in Cloud Atlas, but it is decidedly unlovable, and if you want to learn something about feeling, you’re at the wrong movie.

A bloated, pseudo-intellectual, self-indulgent slog through some notions that are really rather facile.

It is so full of passion and heart and empathy that it feels completely unlike any other modern film in its range either measured through scope of budget or sweep of action.

Rapturously grand in scope and ambition, if not emotional effect.

Word of the Day: Aporia

a·po·ri·a noun

1. Rhetoric, placing a claim in doubt by developing arguments on both sides of an issue. In the terminology of deconstruction, aporia is a final impasse or paradox–the site at which the text most obviously undermines its own rhetorical structure, dismantles, or deconstructs itself.
2. Logic, Philosophy . a difficulty encountered in establishing the theoretical truth of a proposition, created by the presence of evidence both for and against it. A figure of speech in which the speaker expresses real or simulated doubt or perplexity about where to begin or what to do or say.

 

Etymology: The separation of aporia into its two morphemes a- and poros (‘without’ and ‘passage’) reveals the word’s rich etymological background as well as its connection to Platonic mythology ….. the myth of Poros, Penia, and Eros in Plato’s Symposium especially reveals the concept’s untranslatability. Penia, the “child of poverty,” decides to forcefully impregnate herself with the inebriated Poros, the personification of plenty, who is always in opposition with aporia and thus defining aporia. The result of this union is Eros, who inherits the disparate characteristics of his parents (25). The perplexing aspect of the myth is revealed as one realizes that Penia is acting out of resourcefulness, a quality normally attributed to Poros, and Poros’ inaction reveals his own passivity, a poverty of agency or poros. Such a relationship intensely affects not only the context of aporia but its meaning as well.
:: via The Wikipedia ::

The word is from a recent NYTimes op-ed from a NY state supreme court judge asking for the legalization of MJ.  It’s the same article we’ve seen before but notable for the characters involved and the general eloquence.  The real question, of course, is when will we finally legalize smoking scorpion tail?!?!?