Humanities desk
< April 2	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 4 >

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.

April 3[edit]

Black Jesus[edit]

I've been reading The Hate U Give. Throughout the book, it makes reference to Black Jesus. Is this just Jesus with black skin? †dismas†|^(talk) 01:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the articles linked at Black Jesus (disambiguation), do any of them seem to fit with what is mentioned in the book? Blueboar (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have. And they do not. There was a mention of the Black Panthers' Ten Points along with one mention of Black Jesus. But Bobby Seal and the rest of those folks don't seem to be called Black Jesus. †dismas†|^(talk) 02:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The term clearly refers to the central person of Christianity. Black Jesus has the power to save the narrator, and there is a mention of Black Jesus hanging from the cross in a painting on a hallway wall. Just as "blackness" in American culture is more than skin deep, so the blackness ascribed to Jesus is more than a matter of skin tone – it is the antithesis of the white appropriation of Jesus. See also Race and appearance of Jesus, Black liberation theology, and the article "Theory of the Black Christ" in the Spring 2010 issue of Drake University Social Science Journal. --Lambiam 10:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lambiam! †dismas†|^(talk) 12:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ho Chi Minh Trail and Laos's neutrality[edit]

Wasn't the construction and use of the Ho Chi Minh Trail by North Vietnam a violation of Laos's neutrality? If so, why exactly did no one ever actually call out both North Vietnam and Laos in regards to this? Futurist110 (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Warning: speculation based on memories of the era . . . .] The Laotian government probably had no means of preventing it, and may not have complained for fear of reprisals from the Viet Cong, besides which many Laotians (an identity that barely existed, Laos being a rather artificial creation) sided with and aided the North Vietnamese as part of the more general Indo-Chinese anti-colonialist struggle.

The USA may not have wanted to call attention to their own extensive and equally treaty-violating operations against the Viet Cong in Laotian territory, which they initially kept secret from their own populace and which had not (as I understand it) been sanctioned by Congress.

Other countries aligned with one side or the other who knew about it might have wanted to avoid unresolvable and pointless diplomatic wrangles. After all, who other than the actual protagonists (including North Vietnam's tacit backers China and the USSR) could have actually changed anything? Overt complaints to and by the UN would have merely underlined that body's effective helplessness. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.35.136 (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OP’s statement of Lao neutrality may be unsupported, as per our History of Laos article, which says North Vietnam invaded Laos and supported the Pathet Lao insurrection against the government. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of Laos was a well-documented international agreement;^[1] I do not understand how the statement may be "unsupported". The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was one of the signatories, so it is a perfectly reasonable question whether their actions constituted a violation of the agreement. The North Vietnamese invasion of Laos preceded the agreement by several years, so it cannot have been a violation of the agreement. This also holds for the related initial construction of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. But, as our article on the International Agreement on the Neutrality of Laos (linked to above by the OP themselves!) states: "However, the agreement was contravened almost immediately by the United States, the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China, North Vietnam and the Pathet Lao themselves. Contrary to the agreement, North Vietnam continued to garrison 7000 soldiers in Laos, the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China provided military support to the Pathet Lao, and the United States began a bombing campaign that supported both the Royal Laotian Government and their efforts in South Vietnam." The US indeed kept their operations in Laos secret, which were not reported by the mainstream media, although they were documented at the time in I. F. Stone's Weekly. --Lambiam 23:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was giving Kaliningrad Oblast to the Belarusian SSR ever seriously considered?[edit]

Was giving Kaliningrad Oblast to the Belarusian SSR ever seriously considered? After all, proportionately speaking, Belarus (the Belarusian SSR) suffered the most out of all of the Soviet SSRs in World War II by a large margin and thus one might have thought that Belarus was the SSR that was most deserving of acquiring Kaliningrad Oblast after the end of World War II--along with a land corridor connecting it to the rest of Belarus, of course. Acquiring Kaliningrad Oblast would have given Belarus access to the sea, which wasn't particularly crucial so long as Belarus remained part of the USSR but would have still been nice to have considering that all of the Baltic SSRs along with both the Russian and Ukrainian SSRs all already had access to the sea. Plus, giving Kaliningrad Oblast along with a land corridor to Belarus would have completely cut off the Baltic SSRs (former Baltic states) from Poland and the rest of Europe, thus ensuring that having them ever regain their independence would become much more difficult than it was in real life.

Does anyone here know if this idea was ever actually serious considered by anyone? As in, giving Kaliningrad Oblast along with a land corridor to the Belarusian SSR after the end of World War II to compensate Belarus for the extremely massive devastation (human, economic, and material) that the Nazis inflicted upon Belarus during World War II. Futurist110 (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book The Kaliningrad Question (Richard J. Krickus, 2002) contains a historic overview and discusses several issues related to Belarus, but does not mention this as a possibility. --Lambiam 09:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The very idea of a land corridor suggests that you take the SSR boundaries within the USSR as seriously as true international boundaries, but for Stalin, they were just lines on the map which he could reshuffle at will. Very few people ever thought they would become international boundaries until around 1990... AnonMoos (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That raises the question, though, why the then Comrade General Secretary of the CC of the CPSU chose to annex the territory as an exclave of the RSFSR, instead of the administratively, logistically and cartographically simpler approach of adding the oblast to the territory of the adjacent Lithuanian SSR. --Lambiam 09:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That one is easy -- the Lithuanians were incorporated into the USSR extremely unwillingly as part of the Hitler-Stalin pact, and could only be kept in the USSR by means of constant NKVD violence and threats of violence, with deportations to Central Asia and Siberia. In any case, the WW2 years saw a resurgence of Russian nationalism in the USSR. Stalin seems to have been less bothered by enclaves and exclaves than you are. Some of the lower-level autonomous entities in the USSR (the ASSRs and such, often influenced by Stalin when he was Nationalities Commissar, before he attained supreme power) had a lot of enclaves/exclaves. AnonMoos (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that, but this is entirely speculative, it had been given to Belorussian SSR, this could be construed as appeasement of Belorussian nationalism, if it was given to Lithuanian SSR it would be construed as appeasement of Lithuanian nationalism, if Kaliningrad would have been made into its own SSR then the question of titular nationality would have emerged. By including it in RSFSR Kaliningrad was (re)created from scratch with almost an entirely new population, eliminating all linkages to historical ethnic/national claims. --Soman (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution of Perry Barr Urban District, England, 1928[edit]

In 1928, Perry Barr Urban District, "largely became part of Birmingham... At that time, small parts of the district were granted to the Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield... and to West Bromwich". Where can I find precisely which parts of PBUD went to Sutton Coldfield and which to West Bromwich? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The usual standby for this sort of thing is the Victoria County Histories, some of which have been digitised.

The City of Birmingham has an outline map of the post-1928 Perry Barr boundary. Alansplodge (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Growth of the City has some text about Perry Barr at the bottom of the page, but doesn't directly address your question. Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Offlow hundred: West Bromwich - Introduction: "In 1928 645 a. at Hamstead were added from the urban district of Perry Barr".

Research is not helped by Parry Barr having moved from Staffordshire to Warwickshire at some stage, according to this. Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Ordnance Survey Maps - Six-inch England and Wales, 1842 - 1952 - Staffordshire and Warwickshire. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come late to this. The standard way to look this stuff up is the website A Vision of Britain Through Time. You can compare through the maps https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10002825/boundary Itsmejudith (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsmejudith: Well worth waiting for! That's just the job thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it was helpful. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 taxes and procrastination[edit]

The deadline for filling out the 2020 taxes has been extended from April 15 to May 17. Does that mean that tax fillers could continue to procrastinate for another month? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeoffreyT2000, I can't see how this question can be answered other than as "opinion, prediction or debate" (see the top of the page). If there is a question you have which can be answered by references, please make it clear what that question is. --17:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what taxing authority you're talking about. --184.147.181.129 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, they can procrastinate for another month and two days (woo hoo!). The IRS giveth before it taketh away: "Individual taxpayers can also postpone federal income tax payments for the 2020 tax year due on April 15, 2021, to May 17, 2021, without penalties and interest, regardless of the amount owed."[2] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They can procrastinate in any year, by filing a request for extension. That can cost more, though. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 00:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A request for extension is an easy and simple way to get extra months to fill out and submit some tax forms -- but it doesn't delay in any way the date on which payments to the IRS (if any) are due, and if you're owed a refund, it can delay the refund payment. AnonMoos (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Internal Revenue Service has extended the deadline for filing federal tax forms for 2020. This does not necessarily mean that tax boards at the state level in the United States have extended their deadlines. FreeKresge (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]