Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< December 8 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 10 >
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.


December 9[edit]

Countries that got severely screwed over during the 20th century?[edit]

Which countries got severely screwed over during the 20th century, including by themselves and their own actions and decisions? So far, I can think of:

Anyway, which additional examples of this have there been? Futurist110 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you're avoiding the question of which countries were the aggressors in WW1 and WW2, and committed conspicuous crimes. The Soviet Union took back after WW2 most of what Russia had lost in WW1... AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to World War II, I explicitly blamed Nazi Germany for this. In regards to WWI, I spread the blame around between Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Serbia. As for crimes, where exactly did I deny the existence of war crimes here? As for the Soviet Union, Yes, it regained a lot of territories as a result of World War II but World War II also caused it to suffer extremely massive demographic losses--27 million, and the impact would be even greater over multiple generations since those 27 million could have had kids, grandkids, et cetera of their own, et cetera. The Soviet Union lost 20% of its total men in World War II, and for some of its young male cohorts (such as for those Soviet men who were born in 1923) the figure might have literally been as high as 40%! Futurist110 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
China, certainly from the very beginning of the century up through the 1970s, and arguably continuously throughout. The end of the Boxer Rebellion and the reparations that had to be paid to the treaty powers (though much of this was reinvested in development in China), bloody revolutions, Japanese occupation during the war and the atrocities they committed, population transfers as the nationalists retreated to Taiwan, the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the effects of the Sino-Soviet split, isolationism, and a variety of other indignities suffered from without and within. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, excellent example! (Though I would personally refer to the Great Leap Forward as the Great Leap Backward instead! ;) ) Futurist110 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that your list is all or mostly countries that screwed themselves over. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was hoping for a specific focus on self-screwing countries here. I guess that I should have made this clearer in my OP here in hindsight. Futurist110 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vietnam had a pretty rough time at the hands of firstly the French, then the USA and a bunch of its friends. HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But their demographics don't actually appear to have suffered too badly as a result of this--and neither did their territorial integrity in the long(er)-run! Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got a source for that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Britain: entered WWII as the world's largest empire, only to lose most of its colonies and dominions despite being on the winning side. Then later screwed itself over and lost much of its remaining power and influence in the Suez Crisis. Iapetus (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the empire was sustainable for much longer and it was obviously right to enter WW2 but I fear we are now screwing ourselves with Brexit and the current lack of negotiations.Spinney Hill (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the Empire was unsustainable, and ending it was a good thing (certainly for the colonies, and probably for Britain too in the long run). But it was presumably contrary to the desires and interests of the people running the Empire at the time, so from their perspective, losing the Empire despite winning the war would probably count as either "getting screwed over" or "screwing ourselves over", depending on how much they blamed events on external factors or their own decisions. Iapetus (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine and Kurdistan did not fare so well in the 20th century. Armenia was reduced to a rump state, lost a huge section of its population to a genocide and was under either non-benign Ottoman or Soviet domination for most of the period. Xuxl (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine and Kurdistan weren't independent countries during the 20th century, though. As for Armenia, the Armenian genocide occurred before Armenia actually became independent. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine was a separate political entity early in the century, before being carved up. Kurdistan was granted status as a separate political entity in the Treaty of Sèvres, but that was rescinded only a couple of years later by the Treaty of Lausanne and things have been downhill ever since for the Kurds. It seems strange to exclude them from your list when they've had a worst bargain than just about anyone else on it. And even if you discount the genocide (and why should you?), Armenia did not have a very good century. Xuxl (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Futurist110 (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little early but buffer state Paraguay's leader decided to force Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay to cry and give land by fighting them simultaneously (edit: still overly optimistic but it was more complicated than that) and if I remember right they lost about half their land and 90% of the males born in a large number of years completely wrecking their age vs. sex distribution and males slightly too young to fight and not too in love with one girl to stay loyal had an AMAZING consolation prize if they liked older women, they had up to like 2 digits of wives (4:1 women to men ratio, and some were old men) and the country was only allowed to continue existing cause Argentina and Brazil were rivals and the north bump of today's Paraguay has very low economic potential. The elongated 2-bump shape of today's Paraguay reduces their common border by interposition without leaving much good land in the buffer so the two biggest South American powers preferred that to complete annexation. And holy crap, their immediate territorial losses were massive, though only if much of the disputed mostly wilderness areas are considered theirs, i.e. their modern borders are much bigger, making it seem like they lost tons of undisputed land to the careless map reader when the reality is not that simple. i.e. Bolivia claimed the north bump.
Yep, I'm well-aware of the War of the Triple Alliance fucking Paraguay over. I specifically declined to include this example here because it was pre-20th century. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Chaco War did not go so well for Paraguay either. Xuxl (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they certainly suffered a lot, but at least they actually won this war, no? Futurist110 (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finland had no real option but to side with Germany in 1941 but then ended up on the losing side. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa seemed to be on a fairly positive path after it was established in 1910, at least until the Second World War, then came apartheid. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Equatorial Guinea. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the countries listed in Failed_state#Examples are worth considering. Also, I don't think that North Korea has been mentioned yet.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian celebration of Christmas in Scotland[edit]

Christmas was banned in Scotland in 1640. how is Christmas in Scotland celebrated today, is it a happy occasion ? can you remember how you used to celebrate Christmas, during your childhood, in Scotland ? did you attend Presbyterian or Church of Scotland services ? are there Christmas lights and decorations on the streets ? did you have a Christmas tree, or do you recall visiting Santa, or Christmas grotto's ? Gfigs (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical feast has some theological background, and something on the social aspect at Christmas in Scotland. I don't live in Scotland but I have the impression that nowadays it's a rather watered-down version of Christmas in England. Alansplodge (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
interesting..thanks Gfigs (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is Santa as big as in America? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (a small fundamentalist sect) doesn't even celebrate Christmas as a religious festival. From their FAQ page: Q. Do you have Christmas, Easter and other special services according to the church calendar? A. No. We do not recognise these festivals at all, on the grounds that God has never commanded His Church to keep them. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas in US is huge..Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, oh really, I never knew this.. Gfigs (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
surprisingly, the Vatican Christmas Tree was only installed in 1982. I wonder if Jenners promoted Christmas, or any department store in Scotland has a Santa's Workshop ?Gfigs (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meet Father Christmas at Hamleys! (in Glasgow). That was last year; things are a bit different with Covid this time around. Alansplodge (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
rather interesting.. Gfigs (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cases of mass diaspora migration back to the homeland/motherland?[edit]

Which cases of mass diaspora migration back to the homeland/motherland have there been throughout history? So, far, I can think of:

Anyway, though, which additional examples of this have there been throughout history? Futurist110 (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, between the Slavic migrations of the early 7th-century (which resulted in Slavic-speaking peoples as far south as the Peloponnese) and the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, the center of gravity of the Greek-speaking world (i.e. the largest and most populous Greek-speaking area) was actually in Anatolia, not really what we think of today as "Greece"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, Greece was historically the origin of the Greek world, then stopped being the center of the Greek world for a time, and then once again started being the center of the Greek world due to the Islamization and the Turkification of Anatolia starting from the late 11th century? Futurist110 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the Greek populations that went "back" to Greece after World War I did not originate there in anything but an extremely distant way. Xuxl (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, one might wonder whether the ancestors of Anatolian Greeks indeed came to Anatolia from Greece centuries or millenniums ago or whether they were simply Hellenized (indigenous) Anatolians. Futurist110 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was a Back-to-Africa movement for freed slaves from the Americas in the 19th century that resulted in a non-trivial number of persons being relocated. There have also been various movements of refugee groups back to their original countries following conflicts; see Voluntary return. Xuxl (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting; thank you! I'll go take a look at it! Futurist110 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a "slippery slope" problem when dealing with the concept of "homeland". What makes the modern borders of Germany the "German Homeland" any more than other areas? Germany as a distinct nation-state is younger than the United States, German-speaking peoples have historically, going back centuries, occupied lands that have never been part of any German state. Really, what defines a place as a homeland is that there is leadership that decides it needs the people who live under their governance that needs those people to get really worked up about supporting the leadership's agenda. Concepts like "defending the homeland" or "recapturing the lost homeland" is a convenient way to do that. While ethnic groups do need a safe place to exist and grow and survive without threat from other groups, and there can be a healthy pride in one's ethnic history, the line is fine where a healthy pride in one's own ethnic history becomes an unhealthy pride... --Jayron32 16:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Germany is called the German homeland because all ethnic Germans originated from there sufficiently long ago, no? Even extremely old diaspora German communities such as the Transylvanian Saxons had their origins in the territories of present-day Germany, no? Of course, Austria and Switzerland–both being German-majority–should also be viewed as being a part of the German homeland. As for unhealthy ethnic pride, one country that has too much of it is Israel; you can trust me from personal experience in regards to this considering that I and my family have previously lived in Israel (as patrilineal Jews, other than my mom, who isn't actually Jewish at all) and considering that I have closely followed Israeli news and Israeli politics through the Internet (including Israeli news websites such as Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post, and the Times of Israel) for the last 13.5 years–ever since mid-2007! Futurist110 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But they didn't. Proto-germanic people originated (depending on your definition of "proto" and "Germanic") in either Scandinavia or the northern Black Sea area. Most modern theories place the origin of the Germanic peoples as the Nordic Bronze Age culture of what is today Scandinavia, much of what is today Germany was dominated by the Hallstatt culture which is largely recognized as a proto-Celtic culture. Those people arrived from elsewhere and displaced prior settlements of Finno-Ugric peoples who were pushed to the north and became groups like the Sami people. Where did they come from? Likely from the Yamnaya culture. Even as late as the early AD period, there were large Germanic populations in the area of the Black Sea, like the Ostrogoths, though these were settlements from Scandinavian peoples moving back southeast again. They were a fairly migratory people, but didn't settle in what we now call Germany until fairly late in the game. There were Germanic peoples from Iberia to North Africa throughout the migratory periods during the Roman Empire period, and the spoke Germanic languages all over those areas. There's a myth that there's some land that a group of people has a right to because they have always lived on that land. Looking at the breadth of history, until fairly recently, all people groups were fairly migratory, and wandered widely and cultures have grown and dispersed and morphed and changed and merged and split in bewildering ways. Homeland just means "land the leadership finds it convenient to claim as their homeland based on it's own definitions". Again, a settled culture needs a place to call "home" and to feel safe from violence and from loss of cultural identity, but that's different than claiming some culture "has always existed" in some place, or has some "homeland". It's rather arbitrary and based on political expedience. --Jayron32 19:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Germanic people is not the same as German people.  --Lambiam 23:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, but there is also not a clear dividing line from when "Germanic people" became "German people" unless you count from 1871 and the formation of the first German state. And neither did that state include all ethnic Germans. The point is, we speak as though these things are perfectly binary and immutable and from time immemorial "That's our land because we've always lived there". That's not how culture works. --Jayron32 14:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, the ethnic group having German as a shared mother tongue, largely descendants of the German-speaking population of the Holy Roman Empire, is a much more restricted group than the Germanic peoples in general, speaking any Germanic language, which includes most Scandinavians.  --Lambiam 01:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but at no point was the land now defined as "Germany" co-extensive with the places those people lived. --Jayron32 13:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. So, should I replace the term "homeland/motherland" with the term "ethnic nation-state" here? Germany is an ethnic German nation-state, after all. Futurist110 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to go that far back then Germanic peoples occupied England and the south eastern part of Scotland and therefter USA,Canada,Australia etc etc.Ethnicity is a bit of a construct anyway. Language and culture are more real and we should concentrate on that aspect if this discussion is to continue. I would have thought however that the discussion has rather burnt itself out anyway Spinney Hill (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2020_December_9&oldid=1000891088"