Humanities desk
< August 22	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 24 >

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.

August 23

Do Russian immigrants living in the United States have a different, neutral or no real viewpoint on Putin, 2014 Crimea annexation and the War in Donbass?

Now do not get me wrong, I do not expect Russians living in the United States to oppose Russia just because the United States government opposes Russia. However, I would certainly hope that they would come up with either a neutral point of view on the matter may it be on Crimea, the war in Ukraine or Putin or better yet, I hope that they would be smart enough to come up with their own unbiased point of view rather than the point of view that Russian media outlets give them. Especially considering that if they live in the United States, I would think that many of them would be either pro-American or simply have no opinion on politics and do not care to have one for that matter. At least I hope this is the case when it comes to the young Russians in the United States aged 18-31 that is as most of them probably have been living in the United States for years after all.

That being said, are Russians living in the United States, namely the young ones, different from Russians who live over in Russia? Kirby (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups don't hold single points of view; I'm sure you could find individuals within the US of any background who are anti-Russian or pro-Crimean. As a twelth generation North American I find my government's (Canada's) response to the events in the Ukraine area to be aggressive and unhelpful. I'm sure others in my community disagree with me. 99.224.193.148 (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unhappy with the assumption that the US media position on these things is somehow the default and everything else is a deviation. Our position is the default and it's true and if you only were smart enough you'd see for yourself that it is so, how is this different from "everyone is a Muslim, not to be a Muslim takes some form of corruption". There is nothing about American media that makes their narrative better comport with reality. They push the American agenda, the Russian ones push the Russian Asmrulz (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most media outlets push their own interests. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say their owners'. Asmrulz (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my intended meaning. I come from a country where Rupert Murdoch owns most of the newspapers. He takes very obvious political positions at election times, usually on the conservative side. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's Chairman of News Corp Australia, which owns The Australian + one of the two main dailies in 5 state capitals + some smaller papers, which is probably more than any other owner, but is not even half of the majors and overall a lot less than "most of the newspapers". That doesn't take into account sales figures, which may reveal a somewhat different picture. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only way to properly answer the OP's question would be to find or take an opinion poll amongst the Americans of Russian descent, to gauge their attitudes regarding Putin and Russia across the different age groups and sexes. I'm not aware of any such polls on this particular subject and population, though maybe someone could try to dig something up from some research institute? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A poll would be a good answer. The first question would have something to do with "Why did you move to America?" The typical answer, as with most any immigrant, is going to have something to with a better chance for a better life, in terms of both economics and freedom in general. Then ask some carefully-worded questions about Russia's foreign policy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pure OR, but my experience in NYC has been that even if they are pro-Russian nationalists, they fear Putin to the point of telling me not to make jokes, that I might be overheard. The sample population in my case would be middle-aged businessmen here since the 90's, not children or recent immigrants. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting comment --- but what is the basis of their fear? Despite Viktor Yushchenko and Alexander Litvinenko I assume you're not saying that Putin has agents attacking ordinary people for their opinions in the U.S.; could this just be businessmen trying not to take political sides to avoid ticking off customers, which though unfortunate is not limited to this issue? Wnt (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of two specific situations where I made a joking comment about Putin in Russian, once in downtown Manhattan, and once in Brooklyn. The latter, especially, has a large expatriate settlement. I was told by the people who heard what I said it was funny but that I should not say such things in public. My assumption was it might bring me to the attention of organized crime or Putin allies. If I lived in such neighborhoods or regularly worked there I would see such advice as wise. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrational fears, that's what it is. In private, people make all kinds of jokes about Putin here in Russia. It's their publication that may get you into trouble. Putin's government does not give a damn what you do in private. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are addressing me, rather than the OP, I am not sure how irrational a culturally learned fear of saying derogatory things about a dictator/gangster in public is. It might be more of a habit than a statistically justified fear when it happens among emigrants. One Russian living alone among "Americans" in North Carolina might have a lot less to fear than A Russian running a Yukos gas station in Brooklyn. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Fox News tells you that Putin is a gangster/dictator, it does not mean he is. All polls show Putin's approval rating in Russia is close to 85%. If nobody is afraid of Putin in Russia, I don't see why should anyone be afraid of him in the USA. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tsar Bomba? I know the whole nuke thing has been done to death, but if you look past the gamesmanship, nuclear ICBMs are still objectively threatening and powerful. Even holding a pistol makes most people scarier. Same goes for the other nuclear commanders, of course. But yeah, it's hard to stay scared in peacetime. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember, if you fear someone, you're more likely to approve of anything they do. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary people admire Putin rather than fear him. As a populist politician, Putin is not unique. Hugo Chávez and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan are similar in many respects. I don't think either qualifies as a dictator. The major prop of Putin's power is his control over the nationwide media, though. Much of his popularity would disappear as soon as this prop is gone. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely possible (both points). To be clearer, I wasn't saying Russians do fear Putin. But if they do, they'll approve. Low approval ratings are generally for the ones we see as inferior to us, for whichever reason. He's definitely charismatic, like Vince McMahon meets Rasputin. It's hard to stay mad at the guy, until it's your particular "terrorist" family that dies. And then (to paraphrase an Irish-American ambassador), love won't make a lick of difference, because he's got the bombs. He's in a good spot, politically. And if it ever comes back down to kings fighting each other with rocks, he's probably the physically fittest world leader (even in his current unradiated state). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not so sure about the fitness thing. It's just that you don't see most, possibly fitter, leaders with their shirts off in global news. Still, he looks tough. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Better be careful, Ghirlandajo, Rupert Murdoch now has you on his list. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up :) --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria

Who was Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld named after?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not directly, but at some point probably Victoria (mythology). The name, in various forms, had been used in Europe for centuries. --Jayron32 02:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in German she is called Victoire, the French word for victory.--Cam (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria (name) might help. And (though this may go without saying) Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld gave her the last part. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human behaviour and instincts

Unlike most members of the animal kingdom, humans don't appear to be primarily instinct driven. However, what traits and behaviours are instinct driven. I'm not looking for any cultural norms or stands. Just instincts that are the same across all humans. Whether that be an affluent suburban family, or a remote uncontacted tribe.

Scholar references appreciated, not just answers like the need to masterbate, or whatever. -- 10:28, 23 August 2014 92.236.100.51

List of reflexes has a lot, though they might not all qualify as instincts depending on exactly what you mean. Unsurprisingly there are several for infants- for example suckling reflex which probably does qualify as an instinct. Staecker (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Children seem to have instincts to respond to danger by hiding, running away, screaming, or fighting the threat. Unfortunately the instinct doesn't seem to include when to use each response, that part has to be learned. Therefore, you will get small children hiding under the bed from a fire, for example. This is similar to kittens, which seem to have the instinct to scratch the ground after they defecate, but don't know to put that instinct to work to bury their feces until trained by mom. StuRat (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The TV series Brain Games, on National Geographic Channel, frequently talks about what could be called instinctive behaviors. A recurring theme is the ability to mentally fill in gaps in what we're seeing, i.e. pattern recognition. This is by no means limited to humans, of course. But there are many such hard-wired abilities, typically connect with the fight-or-flight decision. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

92.236.100.51 -- there's a popularizing book, The Human Instinct by Robert Winston (ISBN 0-553-81492-3) which is about this subject. Some would say that the de-emphasizing of the sense of smell in humans goes hand in hand with the de-emphasizing of instincts (or the ability to override instinctual responses)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article on Human nature touches on some perspectives on native human behavior, or "instinct". --Jayron32 03:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a question about smell a short while ago on the science desk and surprising humans probably have a better sense of smell than most monkeys and apes. Dmcq (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, young children can recognise each other (and adults) by smell alone, but most cultures discourage this ability, so we stop using it (consciously). Dbfirs 20:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Just instincts that are the same across all humans. Whether that be an affluent suburban family, or a remote uncontacted tribe." - I think cultural universals is what you're looking for. Calling them "instincts" however is assuming too much, as there are some who deny the universals' existence, or their universality, or there being an evo-bio basis for their existence. I personally think there most certainly is, but still Asmrulz (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the works of Desmond Morris. This is exactly the kind of stuff he tackles in his books and TV series. Matt Deres (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eating and chewing in response to hunger are surely instinctual. Another of the key instincts has to be the drive to learn to walk in infants. Also, the drive to learn to talk. Sexual arousal and the basics of sexual behavior surely both have strong instinctive components, though the specific triggers to arousal and details like sexual positions are influenced by culture. There is probably a lot more to it than this. For example, having traveled a bit and experienced a wide range of cultures, I've found that age- and gender-related behavior patterns tend to be similar across cultures, with some cultural overlay. For example, the behavior of teenage boys not under adult supervision looks surprisingly similar worldwide. Marco polo (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying "Instinct driven" you should use "chemically driven." By that I mean that our behavior is driven by genes which in turn generate bio chemicals that control us. Behavioral studies on identical twins reared apart left little room for environment influence. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]