Humanities desk
< March 30	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	April 1 >

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.

March 31

Reasons for Italy's Unification

What were some of the reasons that Italy wanted to unite? I read that they wanted to immediately after the Napoleonic Wars, but what were the reasons for it? 64.229.204.143 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't imagine their reasons are any different than anyone else (United States, EU, Germany, Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, NATO, etc.). That is, unification helps ensure common defense, improves trade, reduces internal strife, etc. This balances against the desire of each group to remain independent. StuRat (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic nationalism was very strong in the mid-19th century... AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination of tolls and reduction of taxes. To have a high status king but the Pope and the Emperor of Austria would have a higher status. To have a king who spoke Italian.
Sleigh (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Italy already have several heads of state who spoke Italian? I imagine that some of them spoke the local language better than any of their successors! —Tamfang (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italian unification may be helpful. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italy is not a person, and is not capable of wanting to do anything. There were people in Italy who wanted to bring the whole Boot under one ~~boot~~ regime, just as in various times there have been people who wanted to do the same to other regions. What's special about Italy in 186x is that such a faction won. —Tamfang (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

before the merger with Delta Air Lines

Did Northwest Airlines do something for the relief efforts following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, or both disasters?24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for the Tsunami, according to [1] RudolfRed (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyamdorj, Mongolia

I met a Nyamdorj in a so called Consulate of Mongolia in Jakarta, Indonesia, whre I wwanted to apply for a Visa for Mongolia. However, althought the Mr Nyamdorj I spoke to in this office pretended it was a consulate, it appeared that Mongolia has no Consulate in Indonesia. I would be interested to know if the Nyamdorj I met is the same as the one referred in Wikipedia as being former Minister in Mongolia, and forced to resign in 2007.

Does this [2] look like him? Anonymous.translator (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is he perhaps an honorary consul? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American penny magazine

Who is the author of this [3]? It says Messrs. Editors of the American penny magazine. Is it Theodore Dwight? And what is the American penny magazine?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not Theodore Dwight. The report is presented as a letter to the editors of the American Penny Magazine, which like most such publications consisted of contents that were picked up from all over the place—mainly snippets reprinted from other published works but also poems sent in by readers, correspondence, etc. The "Messrs. Editors" at the beginning is the salutation of the letter, not a byline. I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the "Best. Atlas." at the end of the piece; if one assumes that the first period is a typo for (or a bad printing of) a comma, it would be the letter's complimentary close, with the author being someone writing under the pseudonym "Atlas". If you want to reference it here, I'd suggest treating it as you would an anonymous newspaper article. Deor (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Dwight is the editor of the American Penny Magazine, not the author of the article. I tend to agree with Deor that "Atlas" would be a pseudonym, although it could also be an acknowledgment that the article is a reprint from another magazine, where "Best." is a shortening of a word and "Atlas" is the second word of the title of the magazine. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on further consideration I think that it's almost certainly an acknowledgment that the letter was picked up from the Boston Daily Atlas or Boston Weekly Atlas, which were published in the 1840s–1850s (later becoming the Boston Atlas and Bee). The letter following the B, which I was assuming to be a broken-type e, is probably rather a broken-type o. The italicization should have been a dead giveaway—cf. "Boston Post." near the top of column 1 on page 5 of the same issue—but I was set on the wrong track by the use of the pseudonym "CYPRIAN" in column 1 of page 6 (and because the reading in this Internet Archive uncorrected scan of the text is "Best"). In any event, if Kavebear wants to cite the piece, he'll still have to treat it as an anonymous reprint in the A.P.M. unless he wants to try tracking down the original in some 1845 issue of the Atlas (apparently avalable on microfilm in the Boston Public Library). Deor (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of lynch mob

Throughout the history, we have seen examples of lynching incidents where a person is victimized in a kangaroo court and then murdered by a mob. I want to know what motivates those perverted people in a sadistic act like lynching? What is the psychology of the persons who take part in an organized homicide? Is there any article available on this topic? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Crowd psychology. Dru of Id (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The usual motivation is the feeling that the government/courts won't mete out "justice". In some cases, this is actually a correct assessment, in that the accused has some form of protection from prosecution. For example, some courts have granted so many protections to criminals, like with the exclusionary rule and insanity defense, that a suspect who obviously committed the act can still get away with it. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while I do agree that is true for dictators, their are numerous incidents where the crowd get pleasure by murdering someone. In India, where I live, it is an established mob culture to brutally assault a driver whenever they hit someone in road. in Kolkata, even there is incident where a taxi driver was beaten to death by a mob after he accidentally ran over a street dog. Lynching of Jesse Washington was a kind of celebration to the onlookers. It was certainly not similar to the death of a dictator like Gaddafi. The way Washington was killed clearly shows the crowd got pleasure by killing him. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dru is right, crowd psychology is the article you need. A crowd will often do things that none of the individual members would even consider doing. The fact that you are in a group gives you a feeling of reduced personal responsibility. We have also evolved to enjoy being part of a group as our main defence mechanism (safety in numbers). --Tango (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just hang out on the internet for about 5 minutes and I'm sure you'll see something comparable. Shadowjams (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is internet flaming comparable to a lynch mob killing people? That's a ridiculous claim. Plenty of people will happily insult other people without being part of a crowd. Very few would kill someone. --Tango (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for seizing on some ambiguity to make a ridiculous point. Very courageous stand you're taking against lynching. Seriously... wtf. Are you actually claiming that was my point? Is that actually how you read it? I know it's fun to seize on some little turn of phrase, but next time you feel inclined to slander... why don't you pause for a minute. Shadowjams (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO: The internet - as does an immersion in a mob - hides the individual responsibility. Being faceless and traceless may allow a person to "execute" aggresive traits which are blocked when you are identifiable. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Now, if there was a biblical SMITE button on you keyboard, which would promptly cause total organ failure to <insert name of EVIL Wikipedians here>, would you never be tempted to use it? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heard Kim Jong-un is quite internet savvy, I wonder whether he uses WP? Anonymous.translator (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this what we have video games for, particularly violent first-person shooters? One can spend an hour or two wiping out wave after wave of monsters/aliens/nazis, then turn it off and go back to a normal, quiet life without the need to go out and lynch somebody. Astronaut (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is exhilaration experienced in overriding one's fears. Our fears keep in check violent impulses, but we are emboldened by the presence of supporters. SupernovaExplosion asks about the apparent "pleasure" of those participating in such acts. I think it is exhilaration or "release" that may be experienced by shunting aside those fears that have kept our behavior in check for so long. I'm just trying to explain why "pleasure" may be seen as a state of mind in someone committing mob violence. Bus stop (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]