Humanities desk
< December 29	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 31 >

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.

December 30

Dravidian secession from India?

How much there was never a huge Dravidian secession movement from India like there was with Muslims in the form of the Pakistan Movement? Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikipedia article about this topic here: Dravida Nadu. However, it still doesn't fully explain why there wasn't a huge fear of Indo-Aryan domination among Dravidians similar to how there was a huge fear of Hindu domination among Muslims in British India. Futurist110 (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- There's a long history of Muslims conquering Hindu-populated regions, and Islamic doctrines meant that Muslims kept themselves distinct from Hindus (most of the time). Ordinary people in India have been aware of differences between Hindu and Muslim for many centuries. By contrast, pan-Dravidianism only emerged from relatively recent linguistic analysis. During most of Indian history, people knew something about the language they spoke and the languages their immediate neighbors spoke, but generally didn't know or care too much about higher-level linguistic groupings. The main thing that modern Dravidian-speakers have united around, as far as I'm aware, is opposing plans to drop English as a national language of India, which would leave Hindi as the sole national language. The article that you linked to explains that Pan-Dravidianism didn't get too far as a political movement because other Dravidian-speakers thought it was a cover for Tamil domination. AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! That makes sense! So, there wasn't really that much to rally the different Dravidian-speakers in India around, eh? No fears among Dravidians that Indo-Aryans were going to oppress them and whatnot, et cetera. Futurist110 (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the prevalent (but not universally accepted) theories about the Indo-European migrations into the sub-continent, such oppression did happen – beginning thousands of years ago, before written records: the Vedic scriptures are later transcriptions of the oral traditions passed down from that iron age Vedic period, comparable to Hesiod and Homer's accounts of Bronze Age Greece. By the time we get into reliable recorded history, the Indo-Aryan peoples had already come to a degree of domination over the earlier established Dravidians via conquest (see the Maurya Empire) and culture with the developing Caste system which, by the time India began to transition from a huge patchwork of independent states towards greater unity under the influence of more recent invaders (e.g. the Mughals and the British, was so ingrained that few questioned it.

Note that this is an over-simplified, and in places doubtless misleading, overview by someone external to the cultures concerned about an extremely wide subject. You might usefully devote some time (days or weeks) to reading the article History of India and following up its many links. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking identity of artist

Several years ago I saw a YouTube video of a TED Talk (or so I recall) by a female artist who made kinetic picture frames where simple silhouette figures ran around a track built into the frame. For some, the figures would appear to interact with each other; for others, they would interact with the observer -- I recall one in particular with a proximity sensor where "shy" figures would move about, exploring the frame, until an observer approached when they would scoot out of view into the sides of the frame. Does this ring a bell with anyone here? I just searched Google and YouTube for about an hour to no avail. -- ToE 01:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled videos for figures interacting exploring frame ted and it came up with this. The thing you refer to starts at around the 7:15 mark. --Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it! Ms. Aparna Rao. (Not the German anthropologist of the same name.)

Aparna Rao's TED Speaker page.

Her studio: Pors & Rao.

Thanks, Shantavira! You're my hero! -- ToE 16:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mariupol and Donbass War question

Why do you think that the Donbass separatists never conquered Mariupol during the Donbass War? Futurist110 (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to tell people what we think. We provide references to published material, which in general will tell you what those authors think. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK; so, can this please be done in this specific case? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110, this conflict is still ongoing, so it's premature to talk in terms of x outcome "never happening." More generally, the answer to many such diverse questions of yours (with which you bombard the Desks daily), is for you to read into the given subject more deeply. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you've read Battle of Mariupol (May–June 2014) and Offensive on Mariupol (September 2014)? Alansplodge (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Futurist110 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Congress?

Is it correct to refer to Louisianas State House and State Senate as "Congress"? Or is it only one Congress in the United States? Geschichte (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more common to refer to the combination of House and Senate as the Louisiana State Legislature, but here you can see in the same paragraph both "Louisiana Legislature" and "Louisiana Congress" being used. This document with a plan for a high-school history lesson also refers to the legislature in joint session during the Governor's State of the State address as "the Louisiana Congress". While I hate to say that they are incorrect, such references are rare and may not be understood. Wiktionary gives this sense for the term congress: "(often capitalized: Congress) A legislative body of a state, originally the bicameral legislature of the United States of America." Just "Congress", with a capital latter and no attribute, is defined only at the federal level. --Lambiam 16:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know about Louisiana (except that our article is called Louisiana State Legislature), but in other states it’s usually not called “congress”. In Illinois, for example, it’s the “General Assembly”, while the houses are the Illinois House of Representatives and Illinois Senate. As Lambiam indicates, “Congress” on its own means the federal legislature. I’d also assume someone just saying “the House” or “the Senate” was referring to the federal bodies. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also in everyday speech—to the extent people even have everyday conversations about their state legislatures—they’d usually refer to it as “the state legislature,” or where applicable “the general assembly” or (e.g., in MA, NH) “the general court”. Or they might refer to the whole state government collectively by the capital (e.g., “Representatives in Springfield opened the new legislative session on Monday.”). While I would understand the phrase “state Congress” or “Illinois Congress” I would personally consider it incorrect and probably correct whoever said it. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the law ever deter a serial killer from starting in the first place?

On TV they can't resist their urge forever, is this just an artificial effect of TV only showing biographies if they're impulsive and/or ballsy and/or legally insane and/or evil enough to technically become a serial killer? And if any have enough willpower to not "graduate" to humans is it always the illegally torturing and killing animals cliche or are there humans who would start serial killing in a heartbeat if some genie made them uncatchable but they have enough cautiousness and self-control to stay inside the law of advanced democracies forever? Presumably they would blend in with troops, slaughtererhousemen or maybe executioners so they could kill and watch or masturbate to legal content at home? Like their favorite horror movies. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Temerarius (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Just answering the question in the title, didn't even bother to read the rest of whatever you've made up. Nanonic (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but deterrence isn’t the sole, or necessarily even the primary goal of the criminalization of murder. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The purpose is to remove them from society. (In the case of capital punishment, the removal is permanent.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The canonical justifications for criminal liability are retribution (that wrongdoers get their just deserts, and thus there is no need for feuding/vigilantism), deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. In modern criminal justice these are all at play, which is something a lot of people regrettably miss. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the various emotional justifications, the practical side is that it removes them from society, at least for a while. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cause deterrence failed. So not just removal (and minimizing feuds and rehabilitating) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see retribution as being far more practical than emotional. In fact, at its core, it’s much the same idea behind having a state-run judiciary—when the outcome isn’t what you like, the response more often than not is to blame the state rather than the opponent, thus minimizing the likelihood that someone tries to resort to self-help. This applies to criminal and civil disputes.

Anyway, the beauty of today’s criminal justice being so oddly holistic (in terms of embracing so many different motivations) is that there’s something for everyone. You can see a prison sentence for a violent person as incapacitating him and protecting society for a time. Others can see it as a chance for him to receive supervision, treatment, and education in how to live a socially acceptable life. Still others can see it as a bad man getting what he deserves. And people on the edge can look at it and say, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” It’s very interesting. I would strongly recommend anyone interested in this look for Wayne LaFave’s Substantive Criminal Law at your local law library. Or really any hornbook on the subject. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another argument for anarchy not working in very large groups. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed ways to channel ones perversions into something useful to society. In the verbal intro to one of his songs, Tom Lehrer spoke of a friend of his who wrote a "heartwarming" novel about a young necrophiliac who finally achieves his lifelong ambition by becoming coroner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deterrence has been known to have its limits since 1747 when William Hogarth noticed pickpockets at work amongst a crowd watching the hanging of a thief. [1] See also The Deterrence Hypothesis and Picking Pockets at the Pickpocket's Hanging: "The tenet that harsher penalties could substantially reduce crime rates rests on the assumption that currently active criminals weigh the costs and benefits of their contemplated acts... This study examines the premise that criminals make informed and calculated decisions. The findings suggest that 76% of active criminals and 89% of the most violent criminals either perceive no risk of apprehension or are incognizant of the likely punishments for their crimes". Alansplodge (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So they're usually over-optimistic or insane? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe just impulsive; read this. Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah didn't know you included that in perceive no risk or incognizant of the punishments, so being so impulsive that you temporarily forget those is an argument to try to rehabilitate impulse control and not give a slap on the wrist if that fails. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just quoting the sources; I believe that impulsiveness implies a lack forethought. Alansplodge (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I wouldn't expect people to be able to think 2 things exactly simultaneously as I could only do that after I learned to internal monologue without language well enough to think 2 things at once and that taxes my brain. Maybe a genius could think 2 things at once without taxing their brain but not regular people. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial killers seem to plan their escapades. And they often get away with it, at least for a while. As the old saying goes, they may be crazy, but they're not necessarily stupid. As to the original question, how could anyone know whether it's a deterrent? Like, "Gee, I really want to be a serial killer, but it's against the law." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More like "I lust for keeel but I'd be low status in prison and that priest was beat to death in protective custody so I'mma not take my chances if I can help it". And maybe someone confessed late in life to brag about no one suspecting so long or whatever, if he really didn't do nothin' they can't prosecute for admitting he would've if his chances were good enough. Maybe being committed for life would be worst-case scenario for confessing that which isn't as bad as prison plus you get "free nursing home". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah basically this. The deterrence isn’t necessarily the mere illegality, but the punishment and loss of freedoms, time, pleasures, or life associated with the punishment. Now, one of the problems with deterrence is that it’s difficult to do effectively in our modern society. For deterrence to be effective the penalty for criminality must be, as my criminal law professor put it, “swift, sure, and severe.” Swiftness is needed so the association between the crime and punishment are clear in people’s minds, and sureness so that would-be offenders can’t say with confidence that they won’t be caught. Severity is needed for obvious reasons. A failure to achieve these demands, particularly the swiftness, is likely why we see the above claims about serial killers not being deterred because they don’t believe they’ll be caught. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]