Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 February 4

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 4

Were there any other countries where the Communists supported ethnic federalization?

I know that the Communists who were in charge of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia largely supported ethnic federalization--which is why they partitioned their countries into various federal units in large part based on ethnic lines. (This also helps explain why these countries broke up after the fall of Communism in these countries.)

Meanwhile, my question here is this--were and/or are there any other countries where the Communist Party (of these countries) either supported (in the past) or currently supports ethnic federalization along the lines of what the Communists previously did in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia? If so, which countries have Communist parties who currently advocate in favor of this or who have advocated in favor of this in the past? Futurist110 (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Futurist110 -- I think that in Yugoslavia, the federalism arose naturally from the history and the ethnic identities of the people living there, and was not mainly due to any centralized plan or ideology handed down from Moscow (and Yugoslavia quite quickly started to differentiate itself from Moscow after WW2). -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, some of this ethnic federalization preceded the Communists; for instance, the Cvetković–Maček Agreement for an autonomous Croatia within Yugoslavia. Still, the Yugoslav Communists appear to have continued this process and created either federal or autonomous units for the various other ethnic groups in Yugoslavia as well. Maybe it would have been better if Bosnia and Herzegovina would have been divided based on ethnic lines by the Yugoslav authorities, though; that way, maybe the bloodshed of the 1990s there would have been avoided. Futurist110 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There were no ethnic lines by which Bosnia and Herzegovina could have been divided before the bloodshed of the 1990s. Surtsicna (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it's hard, but it's not necessarily impossible. Serbia could have been given the Serb-majority areas of Bosnia near the border with Montenegro and also the Serb-majority areas in northwestern Bosnia and the parts of Croatia next to northwestern Bosnia. Obviously corridors would be required to connect these regions to Serbia, but this appears to have been doable. Meanwhile, Croatia would have been given the Croat-majority parts of southern Bosnia (or at least most of these parts) while the Bosniaks would have had a small state made up of the Muslim-majority parts of eastern Bosnia as well as the Muslim-majority territory near the Croatian border. The Bosniaks would have had to rely on either Serbia or Croatia for transportation between the two non-connected parts of their significantly reduced state, though. Also, as this map shows, there would have still been some members of various ethnic groups who would have ended up in a country different from the one that they would have preferred, but in the grand scheme of things, my plan here might have been the best one possible:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Yugoslavia_ethnic_map.jpg

Or, alternatively, you could simply partition Bosnia between Serbia and Croatia and not give the Bosniaks anything. This was essentially what the Cvetković–Maček Agreement did--albeit within the framework of a unified Yugoslavia. Still, such a solution would have been much less fair to the Bosniaks than my proposed solution above here. Futurist110 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the problem is there are two kinds of "multi-ethnic states". First, you have multiethnic states where each state has a definable and distinct geography. Belgium is like that. French speakers live in Wallonia, Dutch speakers live in Flanders. Thus, you can create a nice ethnically-delineated state. Secondly, you have multi-ethnic state where ethnicities of various backgrounds are inherently intermingled and interwoven, without a clearly defined geography. The U.S. is like that to a sense, as is Bosnia & Herzegovina. You have clear different ethnicities with distinct cultures which may or may not be in conflict, but there is no line you can draw on the ground to divide them up into different homelands. They're all living side-by-side in the same homeland. You can't really create an ethnic federation in that sort of place. --Jayron32 00:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Completely agreed with you about the US, but I disagree with you about Bosnia. A partition of Bosnia could have been done in the way that I explained above--though the resulting borders would have not been pretty and the resulting and greatly shrunken Bosnian state would have been non-contiguous. Still, if it could have prevented the violence of the 1990s, it would have been worth it. Futurist110 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It could not have been done the way you described it. Each time it was tried the way you described it, none of the ethnic groups was satisfied and a civil war began. The map you presented shows a lot of "no majority present" areas, including all of central Bosnia. It also fails to show that much of the land marked as being populated by one group is actually populated mainly by boars and bears, while only a handful of the scattered cities and towns had any clear majority. The fault in your idea is that the Serbs were never going to agree to Croats controlling the Sava river or to the Bosniaks controlling virtually all the major cities and the western bank of the Drina river. The violence of the 1990s was the result of another attempted partition, not of the lack of a partition. Surtsicna (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

China has "autonomous regions" in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, and Tibet, for whatever that's worth (nowadays it seems to mean even less than ever before...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but that isn't quite when I'm looking for. I mean, it's certainly interesting, but China is still a unitary state whereas I want national Communist parties which advocate in favor of ethnic federalization. Futurist110 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course, Stalin was the nationalities commissar from 1917 to 1923, and thought he was quite the authority on the subject... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Indeed, Stalin was the one who created separate SSRs for both the Kazakhs and the Kyrgyz in 1936. Before 1936, both Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were autonomous parts of the Russian SFSR, if I recall correctly. Futurist110 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is an easily answerable question, since we have a limited number of Communist countries in all of history, we just have to check all of them and see which ones meet the OP's criteria. It doesn't actually require any guessing, or even deep research. Wikipedia has an article titled List of socialist states, which has a subsection on current and former Marxist-Leninist socialist states. Just check each one, see which ones meet your requirements for a federal state divided on ethnic lines. --Jayron32 12:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I was also curious about countries where the Communists advocated ethnic federalization and yet never came to power. Futurist110 (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the premise is wrong, or at least questionable. Communism has a strong internationalist background - see Communist International. The Communist manifesto famously says Workers of the world, unite! (or in the original, "Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!"). Federalization was an intermediate step to combine existing ethnic states (or groups) into a larger superstate, not an end in itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely! Communists (or at least many of them) believed that nationalism was only a temporary fad and that it is not going to have permanent staying power. Thus, their ethnic federalization should be viewed as a supposedly temporary concession to nationalists in order to get their support for the global Communist struggle--with the ultimate goal being the elimination of nationalism and unified global worker solidarity. Ultimately, though, nationalism ended up having more staying power than Communism did and thus the results of Communists' ethnic federalization often became permanent and resulted in the creation of various newly independent countries (ethnicity-based nation-states, to be more precise). Futurist110 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Easier to control that way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

More like When life gives you lemons... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the discussion farther down the page, I must ask: If life gives you something, does that mean life is "alive"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, when I go down a mountain on my snowboard, and don't pay proper attention, the mountain sometimes gives me a real kick in the behind. Since the mountain is (probably) not alive, not any giver needs to be alive.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

A geologist might say that the earth is alive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I think a more interesting question is if The Mountain is alive.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The national question was one of the most hotly debated questions of the socialist movement in the days of the 2nd and 3rd Internationals. There weretendencies seeking to deny any expressions of national identities (which is a position, to some extend, carried on by left communists and some Trotskyists until today), but that line faded away with time. Within the reformist camp, there was a tendency to organize the movement on ethnic lines (for example, by having separate Czech and German social democratic parties in Austria and Czechoslovakia). Among the reformists one found ideas of 'national personal autonomy'. The communist movement as it emerged through the Bolshevik Party rejected such notions. Stalin was the main architect of the line on the national question, as stated in Marxism and the National Question, which emphasizes that when a community shares a common language, territory and economic life, they can claim to be a nation and demand national self-determination. This was the party line of the Communist International, and remains as key doctrine of many communist parties until today.

The short answer to your question is Yes. There are tons of examples of communist parties seeking to build federal systems on the lines of the Soviet Union. Spain, India and Ethiopia are just some examples. In fact the programme of the Communist Party of China did argue in favour of self-determination of national minorities (such as Tibetans, Mongols, etc.) in the 1930s, a policy that was phased out as the party got closer to capturing state power. --Soman (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Execution of Hebrews by Pagans

This file has been used on 10 pages (fortunately not on en.wikipedia.org) : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Execution_of_Hebrews_by_Pagans.jpg

Does someone know who are these Pagans and how does it come that the picture is used to illustrate articles about the Crusades ? I'm afraid it has nothing to do with this historical event.

Christians persecuted Jews during the Crusades ; at what time did "Pagans" persecute Jews ?

Thank you for your answer.--2A01:CB00:980:7A00:C049:B449:EA17:28A4 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

- based on a quick internet search, it appears that the picture has been mis-named. It should say "crusaders" rather than "pagans", refering to the Rhineland massacres of Jews by crusaders in 1096. But I did not find a source for the image itself, where it's from or what date. - Epinoia (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

In the Spanish Wikipedia, it indicates massacre by the Crusaders.[1] More info on Crusaders killing Jews is in Rhineland massacres. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone asked the original uploader, but he didn't have much info.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The image page claims that it's from a bible moralisée from the year 1250, which suggests that it might be specifically "Codex Vindobonensis 2554". It looks like you can view it in person if you go to Vienna, but I haven't been able to find a digitized version online.

I'm sort of skeptical that an image from the Crusades would be found in a Bible. You'd think that they would show actual Bible stories. But it's a question very far outside my expertise.

If it is a Bible story, can we figure out which one? Seems to be after the crucifixion, if I'm correct that the figure in the upper left is Jesus. The two sword-wielders seem to be wearing crowns, and the figure in the lower left (who seems to be awaiting execution, or perhaps begging for the lives of the victims?) is apparently a saint. Something from Acts? I'm drawing a blank. --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Searching tineye for the earliest results, it seems the earliest non-wikipedia link might be this book written by this professor. I can't see a picture credit in the front matter but you might ask her for her source. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If it is indeed from the Crusades I would be interested to understand what is actually going on. I can't work out how it makes sense, assuming that it's meant to be approving of the Crusades. There seems to be a parallelism among the four kneeling figures, and one of them clearly has a halo, and the front two appear to be about to lose their heads. Unless the swordsmen are actually about to behead the guy in the gray cap? But that seems like overkill, and he doesn't appear concerned at all, just thoughtful. --Trovatore (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It could theoretically be an illustration of "Execution of Hebrews by Pagans" if it's an illuminated initial from a manuscript of the Book of Maccabees. I don't know how probable that really is... AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Codex Vindobonensis 2554 is indeed online but I don't see this image in there. It definitely looks like a Bible moralisée though. I'm sure this has come up before, maybe not on the RD but in some crusade-related article, where it was argued that these are Jews (wearing Jewish hats). Maybe Medieval Twitter can help... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Aha, Medieval Twitter knows all - it is BNF MS Latin 11560, f. 6r. An illustration from the Psalms. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Great sleuthing! So which Psalm? Is it Nebuchadnezzar attacking Jerusalem? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be the start of Psalm 16 to the left of the image (Oratio David. Exaudi, Domine, justitiam meam; intende deprecationem meam.) and the start of Psalm 17 at the top of the second column. But in between doesn't seem to me to match Psalm 16. The images may refer to the commentary. Part of one section near the image seems to say "...justicium suam et ut liberetur ab infidiis iudeox. et rogat ut deus pater retribuat iudeis nequitua eox ut perdam locu et gentem pro quibi..." The words I missed at the beginning and end could change the meaning. Rmhermen (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Very nice! I also came up with Psalm 16 but then couldn't make it fit. Very hard to read the fraktur text with odd linebreaks.

So is it still consistent with having a picture of the Crusades? I don't understand the Bible moralisée idea well enough to be sure. But on any theory it's a hard picture to figure out what's happening. (I suppose the thing I'm calling a halo could be a "Jewish hat" seen from below, but to me it really still looks like a halo, especially counterposed with the cruciform halo above Jesus's head.) --Trovatore (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The title of that section is a quote from Psalm 16 (or 17 depending your Bible tradition). The rest of the text is not from a Psalm, it says: "Precatur, Christe, non pro sua utilitate sed pro nostro negocio, quia oratio Christi stabilimentum est fidelium. Orat ergo ut reddatur ei secundum iusticiam suam et ut liberetur ab infidiis iudeorum, et rogat ut deus pater retribuat iudeis nequitiam eorum ut perdant locum et gentem pro quibus retinendis occiderunt Christum." Basically, pray that the Jews will be punished for killing Christ, for their wickedness, etc. So it's a re-imagining of Psalm 16/17, where David asks to be saved from his enemies, among other things.

The people being attacked are wearing Judenhuts (maybe), so presumably they're Jews, being attacked by a king, presumably Louis IX of France since this Bible was produced during his reign. He was certainly not a friend to the Jews of France. The Disputation of Paris took place in 1240, around the same time this Bible was made. Eventually, his grandson Philip IV expelled all the Jews from France in 1306, but there were other expulsions that took place during Louis' reign (they were expelled from Brittany in 1236, for example). This Bible was produced before Louis went on crusade, but whenever there was a crusade movement in the 12th and 13th centuries, it was always accompanied by attacks on Jewish communities. There were the famous Rhineland massacres on the First Crusade, but similar events happened on every other crusade, including the Barons' Crusade, also in 1236. During Louis' crusade, he was taken prisoner in 1250. When news reached France, there was a "Shepherds' Crusade", which, of course, blamed local French Jews for Louis being captured by Muslims in Egypt.

So, it's probably not a depiction of the Rhineland massacres, as is being claimed on other Wikipedias (and, as I mentioned, I'm sure this image has been discussed before on English Wikipedia, so it was probably being used here at some point as well). But it looks like it's a reimagining of King David as King Louis, praying for protection from his enemies, who were reimagined as the Jews, even though David was Jewish! Attacks on Jewish communities would be fresh in everyone's mind and everyone would have agreed that the Jews were the enemy of the very saintly and Christian King Louis.

The Institut de recherche et d'histoire des textes has a lengthy bibliography of works mentioning this manuscript. Some of them look like they might discuss this image in particular. Another useful source not listed there is ""Kingship and Crusade in the First Four Moralized Bibles" by Cecilia Gaposchkin (a chapter in The Capetian Century, 1214-1314, ed. J. R. Phillips and W.C. Jordan, p. 71-112). I haven't had a chance to read that yet but I'm sure she talks about this. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Similar to the text in the psalm commentaries of Petrus Lombardus (here Psalmus XVI,14 Exsurge, Domine). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help and your scholarship ! I have copied this exciting discussion on Wikimedia commons and completed the image information. The principle of the moralized Bible is more complex than I imagined. Very good evening--2A01:CB00:980:7A00:B517:38FD:72AC:17C5 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Contradictory (?) information on Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

In History of the Encyclopædia Britannica#Eleventh edition, 1910, it says: "The renowned eleventh edition of Encyclopædia Britannica was begun in 1903, and published in 1910–1911". In the second paragraph of that same section, it is stated that "it was licensed to Sears Roebuck and Co. of Chicago who issued a physically smaller but complete version known as the "handy edition,"" and that this edition "was successful in 1915–1916". However, as opposed to this, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.#Sears Roebuck states: "In 1920, the trademark and publication rights were sold to Sears Roebuck, which held them until 1943" (cf. correspondingly Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition as well as Encyclopædia Britannica#1901–1973: "When Hooper fell into financial difficulties, the Britannica was managed by Sears Roebuck for 18 years (1920–1923, 1928–1943).").—Now which is correct?

Moreover, in Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.#Sears Roebuck, it says: "By the mid-1930s, the company headquarters had moved to Chicago". This in turn seems to be in contradiction with the relevant passage in History of the Encyclopædia Britannica#Twelfth and thirteenth editions (competing supplements to the eleventh): "The CEO of Sears Roebuck, philanthropist Julius Rosenwald, was devoted to the mission of the Britannica and bought its rights on 24 February 1920 from his friend Horace Everett Hooper for $1.25 million. The Britannica's headquarters were moved to Chicago, where they have remained. In 1922 [...]"—Can anybody help resolve this confusion?--Hildeoc (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

With regard to your first paragraph, there's nothing necessarily contradictory between Sears publishing a special Britannica edition with permission in 1915–1916, but only acquiring Britannica as a whole a few years later... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Per AnonMoos, there are different things happening in different years. In 1915-1916, Sears paid for a license to publish their own edition; that would have been a single use license, just to make a single edition. In 1920, the publication rights as a whole were sold to Sears, which means they would have had the full rights to publish as they saw fit. They had those rights, according to the text you quoted, between 1920-1943. You'll notice that the "Mid 1930s" falls within that range. So no contradiction. Also, the headquarters of Sears is different than the headquarters of Britannica. They are still independent companies which have a relationship: Britannica creates the encyclopedia (does research, writes text, etc.) and Sears publishes and distributes it (edits it down into different sized editions, binds, prints, markets, and sells it). There's no reason they have to be in the same city at the same time. Though, Britannica appears to have moved their headquarters to Chicago at some point, (I speculate) to be closer physically to their largest business partners. --Jayron32 17:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

According to this source, the Britannica editorial offices moved to Chicago in 1932. Marco polo (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@AnonMoos, Jayron32, and Marco polo: Thank you very much indeed for your comments and clarifications! Considering these, I thought the best I could do was this. Any further opinions?--Hildeoc (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Need help in identifying a painting

Hello. I'm trying to find the name and author of a painting used as the cover of a classical music CD (Bach's Trauerode, conducted by Philippe Herreweghe, published by Harmonia Mundi), but no luck. Here it is. It looks like a Flemish painting. Would someone know more about it? Thanks in advance. 81.11.163.30 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It's from the right side panel of Gerard David's Baptism of Christ. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice find! --Trovatore (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!! 81.11.163.30 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)