Humanities desk
< December 24	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 26 >

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 25

Norwood

From April 25, 1866 to August 11, 1866, a ship named Norwood sailed from London to Auckland. Any source on this ship and where it stopped over along this journey? This ship would have taken William Hoapili Kaʻauwai and Kiliwehi from Europe to New Zealand. KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THE SMART SHIP NORWOOD says: "The Norwood's third trip, still in command of Captain Bristow, was made in 1866. She left Gravesend on April 28, and reached Auckland on August 11. She brought out cargo and 65 passengers. In the Southern Ocean she struck a hurricane, which carried away the quarter galley and top-gallant bulwark besides doing other damage".

Also the passenger list which doesn't seem to include your Hawaiians (unless they were working their passage as part of the crew).

For the route taken, see clipper route (presumably it was non-stop). Alansplodge (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No they are there as Mr. and Mrs. Hospili [sic] as Saloon Passengers. Where would ships during this period stop off between destinations? Presumably South Africa and Australia (maybe also India)? I can't imagine they would be on the open ocean for 3.5 months KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind saw your second comment. KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The sailing ships had also refined the skill of sailing non-stop between England and New Zealand or Australia by taking a course that made use of prevailing winds and followed an approximation of the shortest 'Great Circle' route". [1] Alansplodge (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

interesting that he was an aide to King Kamehameha IV, who declared Christmas an official holiday in Hawaii, in 1862. Gfigs (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what makes a city monumental

Whenever I visit a monumental city, meaning that is a tourist attraction and has a beauty, I always ask my self what makes city monumental.
Usually old but planned city gets a lot of attraction. So what makes city look good, and what makes city look bad?
--Exx8 (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Define "good" and "bad". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Exx8 and Baseball Bugs, here is one source that came up with criteria and made a list: World's Most Beautiful Cities. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "monumental city" is a widely used term (according to this, Baltimore is known as "The Monumental City", or at least it was in 1850). I don't know if London would fit into your definition; it certainly has more monuments than you could shake a stick at, but is also free from the slightest trace of planning, with the possible exception of Regent Street and the London squares. It just grow'd like Topsy. Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's still in use, and here's where it came from.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries". What's the gist? Alansplodge (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was first used in a DC newspaper in 1823, in reference to the city's under-construction George Washington monument, and was later repeated by President John Q. Adams, to whom it is sometimes erroneously attributed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what does it mean now? Outside of Baltimore that is. Alansplodge (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to wait for the OP to come back and answer that. He only edits sporadically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could reread the question, where the phrase was explained: "a monumental city, meaning that is a tourist attraction and has a beauty". --174.95.161.129 (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most every city fits that broad description. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecuting nazis

I watched a doc, The Devil Next Door, about one John Demjaniuk who was supposedly a Nazi war criminal called Ivan the Terrible. The USA claimed they didn't have jurisdiction over crimes in Ukraine, so they just sent him to Israel to be tried there. Then later he was tried in Germany. I have a feeling that the US could have tried him if they really wanted to. How is jurisdiction decided in cases like this? Crimes that happened elsewhere, long ago? Some crimes were committed in countries that don't even exist any more. Temerarius (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In recent years there's an International Criminal Court which is supposed to try high-level genociders. And special UN things for specific geographic areas have tried genociders. If a major Nazi showed up hopefully they would do a better job trying than they do with stopping African wars and stuff. Edit: However neither the US nor Ukraine has ratified.

Technically most United States laws do not have jurisdiction on non-Americans in other countries (besides embassies maybe) so who knows what's the best justification for trying him they could've come up with if they wanted the trial harder, I am not a lawyer. Maybe something similar to the any country can try pirates thing? In the biggest case of this type (at least after Nuremberg)Adolf Eichmann ended up being tried by Israel cause they were the first unsympathizing* country to know where he was and were worried the country he hid in might neither extradite him nor punish him sufficiently if they told them they knew. And there's no more powerful Jewish-majority country to send him to like how a British court is the top court of some independent Commonwealth countries. So for such a big fish they snuck him out of the country to Israel, changed the law to allow non-Israelis to defend people charged with capital crimes and tried him on 15 charges including crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes against the Jewish people and membership in a criminal organisation. German defense lawyers and "I was just following orders" didn't beat the evidence and after appealing to the top he was hung. *technically true whether his hosts had no idea or not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This is a beautifully complex issue, to which one could dedicate many books. But as a preliminary matter, I suggest reading about extraterritorial jurisdiction and universal jurisdiction. The specific fact pattern you articulate: A person in the United States accused of being a Nazi war criminal would not likely be subject to the criminal law jurisdiction of the United States. Universal jurisdiction is not well accepted in the United States. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As our article on John Demjanjuk explains, Demjanjuk was almost definitely not Ivan the Terrible. He was innocent of that. He went home to the US, then later was accused of being a different guard at a different camp, and on the basis of that was denaturalized and deported to Germany, where he was convicted, but died before his appeal could be finalized, which according to German law makes him technically innocent.

I am not familiar with the details of the evidence on the second charge. But I do tend to find myself a bit more skeptical than I might have been if he hadn't been first prosecuted for being an entirely different guard. --Trovatore (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, though, that the allegation of Demjanjuk having been a guard at the Sobibor camp was first made in the US in 1975 and predated the 1976 identification by Treblinka survivors as Ivan the Terrible. Details are presented in the book The Right Wrong Man: John Demjanjuk and the Last Great Nazi War Crimes Trial. --Lambiam 14:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was not Ivan, a witness at the Israel trial said he was and they declined to prosecute for being a different camp's guard when the Ivanness was sorted out. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was a terrible Ivan, only not the Terrible Ivan. --Lambiam 14:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]