Humanities desk
< January 18	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 20 >

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.

January 19

Full text of Albert Speer's letter to Helene Jeanty about Holocaust Knowledge

The articles which refer to Speer's having known about the Holocaust (e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/13/secondworldwar.kateconnolly) only quote the "Confession" bits, and I haven't been able to find the full text anywhere. Does anyone know where I could find it? Is it publicly available? Dingsuntil (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bonham's auction site has fuller summary, background, quotes, and even a photo of Albert Speer's December 23, 1971 letter to Helene Jeanty. Question will likely be far more authoritatively answered if you simply Ask a Research Question of expert curatorial staff at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd seen Bonham's, but I'll try a research question to USHMM. Thanks for the idea. Dingsuntil (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty in ancient and medieval times

How did the ancient and medieval people maintain their beauty? For example Cleopatra of ancient Egypt. There was no fairness cream, no sunscreen at that time. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pale skin seemed to be desirable then, and staying out of the sunlight is the easiest way to get that. For a queen, that could be accomplished by having a covered carriage when travelling, or having servants/slaves hold up large fronds to provide shade when sitting or walking outside. To prevent dry skin, pretty much any oil will work, and they would have had a wide assortment of animal and vegetable oils to choose from (such as palm oil and lanolin). For lipstick and other makeup, a number of mineral, vegetable, and animal products could be used, such as cochineal, carbon black, ochre and indigo. (Note that these examples are not specifically for ancient Egypt.) Combs can be made out of a fish ribs or carved out of wood, ivory, etc. Soap also dates to ancient times. Ancient Greeks, however, applied oil to the skin, which then diluted the oils and dirt on their skin, then scraped it off, removing most of the dirt. Public baths were common in ancient times, at least in areas where the wealthy lived. The poor would have to settle for a stream, lake, shore, etc., or not bath at all when conditions didn't allow it. Pumice stone could be used then, as now, to remove callouses.

For commoners in ancient times, they wouldn't have had the money to buy products for beauty, perhaps with exceptions for special occasions, like their wedding day. There are some tricks for those with no products, too, like biting and licking lips to make them wet and red, or pinching cheeks to make them look like blush has been applied.

I'm not sure if you are interested in how men shaved, but before the safety razor there was the straight razor, and before that a sharp knife would have been used. Effective, but dangerous (especially in the hands of Sweeney Todd).

Spring scissors were available in ancient times, for cutting hair.

Antiperspirants weren't widely available in ancient times, but deodorants were. Alcohol could be used to kill bacteria in the armpits, too, although before distillation was invented the alcohol wasn't very pure. StuRat (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Cosmetics#History. Since you ask about "preserving" beauty, you might also be interested in the history of embalming.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Donkey milk#Cosmetic use. Contact Basemetal here 09:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We know quite a lot about this topic. Here's one article on what we learned just from Pompeii: ([1]) --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth reading Kohl (cosmetics). Wnt (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal jelly, octopus brain and goat tears are all well and good, but for eternal beauty, nothing beats generations of people telling their kids you were unimaginably gorgeous. Without a photograph or proper painting, they'll have to imagine something and whatever it is will appeal precisely to whoever's doing the thinking. People living (or living on) in the age of portraits don't have that luxury. Eleanor Roosevelt had Colgate and not pig-bristled toothsticks, like I picture Helen of Troy may have used. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some still say the Fountain of Youth used to be a thing. And they're serious. But probably wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"liberal academic former governor from New England"

I was watching Westwing S02E01 and this conversation came up:

   JOSH: Leo, the-the Democrats aren't gonna nominate another liberal academic former governor from New England. I mean, we're dumb, but we're not that dumb.
   LEO: [beat] Nah. I think we're exactly that dumb.[2]

And I wondering who this "liberal academic former governor from New England" is referring to. I checked out the List of Presidents of the United States by previous experience article and found no former president who fits that description, so I'm assuming that the said former governor received the Democratic Party nomination but lost in the general election? 731Butai (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

President Jed Bartlet was governor of New Hampshire.
Sleigh (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "another liberal academic former governor from New England" would be referring to Governor Jed Bartlet (he wasn't president yet when this conversation took place). I'm asking who the first "liberal academic former governor from New England" was if Governor Jed Bartlet is "another" one of them. 731Butai (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the reference is to Michael Dukakis, who served as governor of Massachusetts and lost the presidential election in 1988. His credentials as a "academic" were rather thin, but he did spend the time between his two nonconsecutive gubernatorial terms teaching at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Deor (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's obviously referring to Dukakis. The episode is from October 2000, before Al Gore lost the November 2000 election. Bill Clinton won in 1996 and 1992 so at the time, 1988 was the latest Democratic loss and that was Dukakis. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the help, you two. 731Butai (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Philip Morris International and US corporate ownership

I was reading the article on Philip Morris International and this sentence caught my attention:

   Altria explained the spin-off, arguing PMI would have more "freedom" outside the constraints of US corporate ownership in terms of potential litigation and legislative restrictions to "pursue sales growth in emerging markets.", while Altria focuses on the United States.

Since PMI is still an American corporation, wouldn't it be still subject to US "legislative restrictions"? And wouldn't it still be open to potential litigation in US courts? What was the sentence trying to convey here? 731Butai (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except describing it as an American corporation is complicated. It's holding company is in US and it is listed in the NY, but it's headquartered in Switzerland and all the companies actually making and selling the little sticks of death are outside US. They don't sell anything in US. Thus whether or not PMI can be sued in US is not straightforward.No longer a penguin (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Are there two companies involved here, a parent company and a subsidiary company? Sounds like one of them is in the US and the other one outside.731Butai (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is likely to be a whole bunch of companies involved here. Take a look at their annual report . One example is: "Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia holding company incorporated in 1987. Our subsidiaries and affiliates and their licensees are engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes, other tobacco products and other nicotine-containing products in markets outside of the United States of America" and "We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our direct and indirect subsidiaries.<..> As a holding company, our principal sources of funds, including funds to make payment on our debt securities, are from the receipt of dividends and repayment of debt from our subsidiaries". It does not include a list of subsidiaries (excepts some unconsolidated subsidiaries), but there are probably dozens of them, all legally distinct but ultimately owned by PMI. The one in Switzerland seems to be Philip Morris International Management SA.No longer a penguin (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great. Thanks again. 731Butai (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They may not be paying taxes, but they're paying dividends long-term, by helping to kill off our competition for the earth's resources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Etymology of Triaenops

Hi, everyone. What is the etymology of the bat genus name Triaenops? I'm guessing tri means "three" and 'ops' means "face", but what about the third element? Thanks. Leptictidium (mt) 11:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gr. τρίαινα and ὤψ · trident face. –George Edward Dobson, 1871 from [3]. Btw, I think this is a Language RD question. Contact Basemetal here 12:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unenforced laws

After reading about Syracuse's sledding ban, I wanted to find out more about unenforced or rarely enforced laws, besides the obvious like mild speeding or jaywalking. Unfortunately, I can't find anything online that isn't just listicles like "10 craziest laws!!" that are all obviously just regurgitated from countless unverifiable sources. Where can I find a place that would do more that just state something like "OMG it's illegal for women to wear body-hugging clothing in NYC" and actually discuss the validity and history behind such a claim? —Akrabbim^talk 16:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes --Dweller (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of Snopes too but unfortunately I have not been able to find any info on these kinds of laws there, or even about any of the specific ones floating around the listicles. —Akrabbim^talk 17:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine that would be a hard thing to pull together since there wouldn't be any news about them. You sometimes see articles about "Such and such got fined for a little known law...". Until something happens with it though, most people don't know it's there. Someone would have to go through every law and then go through court/police records to see when that law was last referenced. That's a LOT of work. Even for Snopes. Dismas|^(talk) 18:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're also largely apocryphal; every government has a department (in Britain the Law Commission Statute Law Repeals Reports) whose job is to periodically go through the full statute book, make a note of those laws which are no longer serving a useful purpose, and draft a "The following laws are repealed" bill for the relevant parliament/senate/legislature/council to rubber-stamp. ‑ Iridescent 18:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would like more examples than one to support "every government". —Tamfang (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. After all, I think it was just a few years ago that one of the Southern US states (Mississippi comes to mind) finally signed the anti-slavery amendment or some such thing. I'd check into the particulars if I had more time. It made a few national headlines at the time. Dismas|^(talk) 15:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi in 1995 was a purely symbolic action (passed to tie in with the release of Spielberg's Lincoln movie); the 13th Amendment was federal law, which automatically became law in every state in 1865 whether they liked it or not. ‑ Iridescent 15:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From my post: "... or some such thing". I don't recall the exact state or law. I do remember it being mentioned on The Daily Show in the last 2-3 years though. Dismas|^(talk) 15:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, often the interpretation of the law is in question. For example, the "sledding ban" might very well be a ban on "unsafe modes of transport", and whether that includes sledding would depend on the police officer, judge, etc. In a case like that, perhaps sledding down a hill is fine, but pulling a sled with kids on it behind a car on the highway will get you in trouble. Of course, there's always the risk that for "revenue enhancement" or to suppress some minority group, the police and courts will start interpreting such a law too broadly. The inherent conflict of interest of those who enforce the law benefiting from it's misuse is to blame here. StuRat (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source quoted by the OP actually says as much; the supposed "sledding ban" is actually the Common Council approved an ordinance outlawing any device on “wheelers or runners” from city parks, along with skating, snowshoeing and skiing “except at such times and upon such places as may be designated.”, which is pretty clearly just a generic anti-nuisance law aimed at rollerskaters hogging narrow pathways, of the type one finds regarding pretty much every public park. ‑ Iridescent 19:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The blog Lowering the Bar covers (among other things) surprising/funny laws, and is written by a lawyer who researches each post and often includes an interesting legal analysis. As a starting point, there's an entry about Dubuque's sledding ban. He also wrote a book, The Emergency Sasquatch Ordinance (ISBN 1627222693), that covers some laws that aren't in the blog. -- BenRG (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange to me that some countries have Compulsory voting which is not enforced. Presumably, citizens in these countries who don't vote face no sanctions. --TrogWoolley (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One favorite unenforced law is that it is illegal to throw a cigarette butt on the street in Paris, with the fine being 68 euros. A quick look around any of the city's streets or sidewalks will convince observers that the law is not strictly enforced. But, once in a while, the municipal government launches a public campaign claiming it is going to crack down, and a few smokers get tagged with the fine as a show of force [4] [5]. This has little or no effect, however, as you're more likely to be hit by lightning than to be fined for littering. --Xuxl (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck did they come up with a figure of 68 Euros? --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

450 francs converted to the new money, I imagine. ‑ Iridescent 15:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some fines and penalties are automatically indexed to some predetermined formula such as a CPI increase. They typically start out as, say, 50 Euros, then just gradually creep up. They would rarely end up as a whole number of dollars, so they're rounded down. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unenforced laws still have a use - just not the use they say they're for. I wouldn't want to hold up a "Je Suis Dieudonne" sign and throw that cigarette butt... Wnt (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might look at the background for the famous US Supreme Court decision on Georgia's sodomy law, which no one actually seemed to want to enforce Bowers_v._Hardwick#Background. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In India, flying a kite (or "playing the line") is much the same as flying a plane. As far as regulation goes, anyway. I'll bet geese greatly prefer being smoked by an errant kite. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably several examples of ignored case law (as opposed to statute law) - for example, in the UK "in re Parrott", the judge decided that it was not possible to change a person's given/christian/first name by deed poll, and so all deed polls which do so should contain the phrase "Notwithstanding the decision of Mr Justice Vaisey in re Parrott, Cox v Parrott, the applicant wishes the enrolment to proceed" Deed of change of name. MChesterMC (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a related article: Desuetude. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]