Humanities desk
< November 28	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 30 >

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.

November 29

Did the Soviet Union lay/press any claims on southern Sakhalin before 1945?

Did the Soviet Union lay/press any claims on southern Sakhalin before 1945? Futurist110 (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not know this for certain, it appears unlikely. In general, the Soviet Union respected the treaties signed by its predecessor, the Russian Empire, and maintained a policy of neutrality in Asia. In the Treaty of Portsmouth, Russia had agreed to the division of Sakhalin. Although there were several Soviet–Japanese border conflicts, these clashes were small-scale undeclared wars provoked by Japan and fought on the borders of Manchukuo or Mongolia, not involving Sakhalin. They were concluded by the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact of 1941. This policy of neutrality in Asia ended with the invasion by the Soviet Union of Manchukuo on August 9, 1945, as agreed between the Allied powers in the Yalta Conference earlier that year. --Lambiam 10:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Soviet policy toward Japan during World War II by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, the decision to recover southern Sakhalin was initially suggested by "both the Deputy Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Ivan Maiskii, in January [1944] and the Ambassador to Tokyo, Iakov Malik, in June 1944, in separate memoranda [that] advocated obtaining Soviet borders that would assure the future security of the Soviet Union". Prior to that, the Soviets had been careful not to provoke a war in the east. Alansplodge (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; thank you very much! I wonder if the conquest of southern Sakhalin really made the Soviet Union that much more secure against Japan. Futurist110 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Japan has given up military force as a policy, the question does not arise. However, if US (etc) forces were to base on the Southern Sakhalin, that would be a very different matter.DOR (HK) (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point! Futurist110 (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although the US stationed 350,000 troops in Japan after the war, together with 40,000 Commonwealth forces (see Occupation of Japan); probably enough to worry the Soviets. I think the US still has active military bases in mainland Japan and Okinawa. Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I believe that it does! Futurist110 (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the earliest sources that mention Saint Nicholas?

No writings of Saint Nicholas remain, but what are the earliest primary sources that mention Saint Nicholas? I am trying to research Saint Nicholas' life for an essay I am writing. Thanks! Félix An (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following should be helpful: "Early Evidence". St. Nicholas Center.

And according to the following, "The earliest written reference to St. Nicholas of Myra surfaces about 250 years after the saint’s probable death, in an account of another man named Nicholas." -- Hurt, Carla (24 December 2013). "Saint Nicholas through the Ages". Found in Antiquity.

--107.15.157.44 (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans culture

Native Americans obviously had massive differences in their cultures and ideals, at least as much as Europeans did, and this would very likely shape their societies in various ways. I've found practically no information on these differences in ideals though. Does the information even exist, or is it just not on Wikipedia? I'm looking for is a way to *compare* the cultures of the various Native Americans with each other. There's plenty of information that compares "Native Americans vs. Europeans". 68.192.250.10 (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the information simply doesn't exist. No written records from the cultures themselves. Many of the cultures had been irrevocably changed or even destroyed before Europeans and European derived peoples started to become interested in the native cultures.--Khajidha (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ideals" are a rather abstract thing -- you would have to study a society very intensively to understand its ideals. Clyde Kluckhohn apparently studied the differences between the Zuni and the Navajo... AnonMoos (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Native American cultures in the United States has shortcomings but it includes 46 references, and presumably many of them are useful for your quest for a better understanding of this broad topic. Deep understanding of these cultures before 1492 is complicated by the absence of written records, and the cultures of settled agricultural communities are obviously radically different than the cultures of nomadic hunter-gatherer societies with dominant warrior traditions. When considering iconic Plains Indian warrior cultures like the Comanche, the Cheyenne and the Souix peoples, it is impossible to disregard the fact that these were entirely horse-centered cultures, and that it was European peoples who introduced horses to North America, thereby inadvertently making those warrior cultures possible. There are many similar intellectual pitfalls when studying the complex and tragic history of these cultures since 1492. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, still I have looked at the sources you mentioned and I find they have gone very far towards answering my question. Thank you. 68.192.250.10 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A fantastic resource in this regard may be the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. I highly recommend it. It fits in well with other landmark works in this field such as The Columbian Exchange and Guns, Germs, and Steel, which would be the three most important works in the area of comparing Native American vs. Old World cultures. The 1491 book does much more to compare, and deal with, individual Native American culture groups as distinct. --Jayron 32 17:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! 68.192.250.10 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A group having a huge diaspora population in a particular place in spite of having no history of territorial control over this place?

Which cases were there of a group having a huge diaspora population in a particular place in spite of having no history of territorial control over this place? I could think of the Russian Germans, various groups (Germans, Italians, Poles, Ukrainians, et cetera) in the Americas, Jews in much of the world (including the Americas), Romani people in Europe, Chinese people in Southeast Asia, the Western world, and elsewhere, Indian people and other South Asians in Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, the Western world, and elsewhere, black people in the Americas and the Western world, Latin Americans (Hispanics and Latinos) in the United States and the rest of the non-Hispanophone Western world, Koreans in Central Asia (Koryo-Saram), Sakhalin (Sakhalin Koreans), the Western world (example: Korean-Americans), and elsewhere, et cetera. However, exactly which cases of this am I missing here? Futurist110 (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese in Brazil and other parts of South America for one. Armenians are also scattered all over the world, with some notable concentrations in places like California, Canada, Argentina, Australia and so on. Lebanese communities are just as far flung. There are also large Indian (from India) populations in the Caribbean, Eastern and southern Africa, and various islands like Fiji, Mauritius etc. Xuxl (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I mentioned Indians in my OP here (though I could have been more explicit about places such as Fiji in regards to this), but the Japanese and Lebanese are certainly nice additions to my list here! You can also find both Japanese and Chinese people in places such as Hawaii even nowadays. Futurist110 (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Lebanese diaspora is huge. There are more Lebanese living abroad than within Lebanon, and they've had a significant impact in a variety of places. Mexican al pastor is said to be an adaptation of shawarma brought by the Lebanese. Probably the best hospital in South America is Hospital Sírio-Libanês (that is, Syrian-Lebanese Hospital). Brazilians also enjoy Lebanese-Syrian sfiha as a street food, and they have a sandwich called a Beirute. And this is just stuff I know off the top of my head. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good example! Futurist110 (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanics did have control over large parts of the current US, though.--Khajidha (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Southwestern US and Florida, Yes. (Though it's worth noting that most Hispanic migration to these places likely occurred after–in some cases, long after–these places already came under US rule.) To other parts of the US, either No or nowhere near to the same extent. Futurist110 (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's really only (undisputably) true of Florida, though (the diaspora of Cuba's upper class which fled the 1959 revolution). The case of Mexicans in the border states cannot in my mind properly be called a 'diaspora', because as was noted the border states were Mexico previously (including Nevada and Utah, which had been part of the Mexican state of Alta California's territory), and most of the Mexican inhabitants living in those places remained. As for the rest of the states - are there really huge numbers of Hispanic/Latino people those states? Other than Puerto Ricans in some of the northeastern cities and such? (And Puerto Rico being a US territory and all Puerto Ricans being US citizens anyway, Puerto Ricans living in the States (per se) wouldn't really count either. Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, though, a lot of the Hispanics even in the Southwestern US don't have deep roots in that region but instead only moved here after 1850 or so. Yes, there was an indigenous Hispanic community here in 1848, but its size wasn't very large (several hundred thousand in all of the Mexican Cession at the very most in 1848, I believe), and I just can't believe that natural growth alone could account for the extremely massive growth in the Hispanic population in the Southwestern US over the last 170 years (1850 to 2020). Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How huge is huge? Britain has substantial immigrant and post-imigrant populations from the former empire (Ireland, India and various other South Asian countries,the Caribbean, Cyprus and Africa) and other parts of Europe and Asia (Poland and other Eastern European countries who came during and after World War 2 and more recently, and Turkey.) The Chinese are perhaps between the two types-some came from Hong Kong and Malaysia as well as possibly mainland China) Going further back there were other immigrants who have become assimilated completely from France, Belgium and Holland. France has substantial populations of African and South East Asian origin. There are also Turks in Germany, Africans in Portugal and various others in Holland etc etc.Spinney Hill (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting information! Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you count places like Quebec with the French? --Jayron 32 12:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The French had a "history of territorial control" over Quebec until relieved of it by James Wolfe. Alansplodge (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although small in absolute size, the Javanese Surinamese form a substantial fraction of the population of Suriname. --Lambiam 13:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because they were both Dutch colonial possessions. The situation is similar with the Asian communities in the formerly British east Africa countries (eg Kenya, Uganda). Those would technically satisfy the conditions of the OP, in that the countries in question did not have territorial control of the countries of origin of their immigrant populations. However, I'd think that violates the spirit of the question. Fgf10 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; correct! Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Futurist110: I'm trying to understand your yep. Fgf10 said "countries in question did not have territorial control of the countries of their immigrant populations". However in your original question you said "were there of a group having a huge diaspora population in a particular place in spite of having no history of territorial control over this place". The latter seems to require the diaspora population had territorial control over the place where they settled. So your original question seemed to preclude British migrants in South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, India, Malaysia etc. However it didn't preclude Indians in the UK since the UK controlled parts of India but India never controlled the UK. By the same token, Americans in the Philippines would be excluded per History of the Philippines (1898–1946) but Filipinos in the US would not be.

Anyway assuming you do wish to preclude most South Asians in the UK and Filipinos in the US; and you also you wish to exclude Javanese Surinamese and Indians populations in the former British east Africa countries for the reason give my Fgf10, I'm not sure it makes sense to include many of the other Indian and other South Asian populations you've included. As articles like Malaysian Indians mention, many of these migrations came over during colonial rule e.g. under the Kangani system. I believe it's the same for Indo-Caribbeans.

The situation in Australia and New Zealand is similarly interesting. While technically these countries never had control over any part of South Asia, and most of their South Asian migrants are recent, they were part of the British Empire which did include India and Ceylon. (You get a similar situation for the Cape Malays.) The situation in Australia is a complicated by it being a penal colony and other factors, definitely in NZ I'm fairly sure that historically a large proportion of their settler population considered themselves a proud part of the British Empire e.g. Anno Domini 2000, or, Woman's Destiny or to some extent Australian and New Zealand Army Corps.

While things are very different now, this IMO reflects why NZ and Australia never colonised India or Ceylon may be true but complicated. I think there may be some similarities in Canada. The situation int he US is different since the parts which were British colonies were long gone by the time of India or Ceylon although there is the period of Company rule in India which overlapped. Of course the histories here do raise another issue namely they are a significant factor in the significance of English in all these areas, and that's one factor in making immigration more favourable. You get the same thing for most ethnic Chinese migrants from Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore who were a reasonable percentage of Chinese migrants to NZ and Australia at one stage, now generally overtaken by Chinese from mainland China.

When you look into the Philippines things get even more complicated since the colonial history has meant both Spanish language in the Philippines and Philippine English with the latter now taking on far greater importance significantly influenced by US, not British, colonial history. English is again one factor in favourable migration to English dominant places outside the US like Australia, New Zealand and much of Canada.

Yet in the modern world, the earlier success of the British Empire followed by the rise of the US has meant English has become the lingua franca so it's now becoming a factor even in places with no colonial history.)

Nil Einne (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How granular are we getting? What about places like Dearborn, Michigan with its high Arab American population, or Morrisville, North Carolina, with its large South Asian (primarily Indian and Pakistani) population? Lowell, Massachusetts is well known for a high population of Cambodian descent, as well as the many Cuban-Americans in Miami, Florida and environs. There's a huge Filipino American population in the LA area, so much so that Tagalog is the fourth most spoken language in the state of California, and the fifth most spoken in the U.S. at large.--Jayron 32 20:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can go as granular as we like here! :) Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Han Chinese in Taiwan? The dynasties knew of the island, but did not administer it directly until shortly before Japan made it a colony in 1895. Mainlanders again ruled it from the Mainland in 1945-49, and thereafter from the island itself, until 1987. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, who ruled Taiwan before 1895? As in, which Chinese? Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Y Wladfa, a Welsh settlement in Argentina. 208.127.199.76 (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've heard of them! Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese people in Jamaica. (This is a subset of 'elsewhere'.) Hayttom (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are either several thousand or several tens of thousands Chinese Jamaicans in total. Futurist110 (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to UNRWA, Palestinians had about 3 millions refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan as of December 2015. 2003:F5:6F09:B100:7185:8061:156A:2E5 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Marco Pagliero[reply]