Humanities desk
< December 14	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 16 >

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.

December 15

Did she really have the office?

Did Claude Catherine de Clermont really have the office of Governess to the Children of France? Her article as well as the article of the office say so, but does not cite any sources, nor do Google seem to offer much. She seem to be too young to have the office of governess to the children of Catherine de Medici, as she was only one year older than the eldest, and such an office was normally only given to widows: if not, when exactly was she royal governess? Is this perhaps in fact a mix up with her mother-in-law, Marie-Catherine Gondi (who did have the office)?--Aciram (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aciram: Yes, she really did. Interesting Anecdotes of the Heroic Conduct of Women Previous to and During the French Revolution page 237. Screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/AJu1SYh.png I am not sure when she held the office exactly, so I'll claim it was between 1986 and 1989 and someone will come along and correct this error. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also supported by the Dictionnaire historique de la France p. 543 (in French), although no dates either. Alansplodge (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thank you very much, @The Quixotic Potato: and @Alansplodge: ! But that still leaves the frustrating question as to when, because the marginals seem to be so slim, because of her age... she was only ten years older than the youngest of the royal children! And such an office seems to have been given only to widows or married women. I suppose it would be reasonable to suppose that she succeeded her mother-in-law, who was made royal governess in 1550 and then given another office in 1559? It was not possible for an unmarried woman to have such an office, but she married in 1561, so she might have became governess then and functioned as such for the youngest of the royal children (Margaret) until 1569? I suppose that would be reasonable ...--Aciram (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pure guesswork, but it is theoretically possible that she was helping her mom at an early age, and then took over the role. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless people sleeping in the United States

Where are homeless people legally aloud to sleep at night? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

allowed. Cars (until they can no longer afford them, or sleeping in cars is no longer allowed). Shelters (which do not have space for them). On strangers couches (but no one cares). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to a NLCHP report last year that surveyed 187 cities between 2011 and 2014, 34 percent had citywide laws banning camping in public. Another 43 percent prohibited sleeping in vehicles, and 53 percent banned sitting or lying down in certain public places. All of these laws criminalize the kind of activities — sitting, resting, sleeping — that are arguably fundamental to human existence. And they've criminalized that behavior in an environment where most cities have far more homeless than shelter beds. In 2014, the federal government estimates, there were about 153,000 unsheltered homeless on the street in the U.S. on any given night.
— It’s unconstitutional to ban the homeless from sleeping outside, the federal government says - Washington Post

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it will differ by state, and perhaps by county (especially in regards to panhandling laws). See Homelessness in the United States and Homelessness in the United States by state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadfium (talk • contribs)

The links posted by Gadfium are incredibly depressing. Quote: "In February 2013, Marlene Baldwin, a woman in her late 70s was arrested and jailed for asking a plain clothed officer for $1.25.". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's one way to get some free lodging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. "Allowed", of course. My hands betrayed me. I assure you my brain was working but my brain had other ideas. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your hands had other ideas. Want some coffee? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Some coffee"? I need a five-gallon drum of coffee. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I am shocked. I am reading that most places allow sleeping in public, but many do not. "...Clearwater [Florida] has nearly half of its homeless population (42%), without access to emergency housing or affordable housing and like other cities such as Orlando, punishes heavily sleeping or sitting in public..." And there is the matter of showering and going to the loo. This is quite upsetting.

Thank you for the responses. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic isn't it. A phase associated with the statue of liberty is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” during the time when America needed cheap labor from Europe. Now, the US ignores their very own born, who are poor and live in huddled masses, yearning to breathe free. Rather giving Green Card to foreigners who take their jobs away. On the bright side, all they have to do whilst laying on their backs in the gutter, is to look up into the sky, view the stars and realize, that they are in the land of opportunity with the street still paved with gold. All they have to do to realize the dream is to get off their lazy backsides, inherit a fortune (a common day requirement), get to know the right people (money and attending the right collage helps), and maybe bribe a few politicians on the way. Aspro (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D'you have any suggestions about collages? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Blaim the college dropout bill gates for creating such an awfull spell checker ! Aspro (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Aspro, ironic indeed. A crueler irony than inviting cheap European labour is forcibly bringing Africans to help build the country and then, when no longer needed, locking them in cages to enrich the white, private prison owners and the corporations who use dollar-an-hour prison call center workers. Outrageous. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A phase associated with the statue of liberty is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” "

I am not American, but I am familiar with that phrase. I have heard it used sarcastically in so many works. It is a line from The New Colossus (1883) by Emma Lazarus. The poem reads:

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

It contrasts a lot with the history of Nativism in the United States, anti-immigration policies, and exclusion acts. In fact the poem was written a year following the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), which prohibited all immigration of Chinese laborers. The Act stayed in force until 1943.

Lazarus was out of step with the politics of her time. She wanted the United States to open its gates to victims of then ongoing anti-Semitic pogroms in the Russian Empire, and tried to ensure that destitute Jewish immigrants would receive vocational training. Politically she believed in Georgism and supported reforms against economic inequality. Dimadick (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the Guardian series about a UN special monitor going round AMerica, e.g. A journey through a land of extreme poverty: welcome to America. As to Baseball Bugs remark about getting lodging in jail - that is a a route to even more dire poverty accompanied by fines which can never be paid off. Dmcq (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The government of Western Australia is taking action after this: [1]. See Death of Ms Dhu. 92.5.85.128 (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate czars

Shuman Ghosemajumder is called "the former click fraud czar at Google", without further explanation. It's not exactly self-explanatory what a "czar" in a corporation is supposed to be. Czar (political term) helps in understanding; but then, can the political and the corporate use of the term really be identified? Should the article maybe be broadened, or another one created? --KnightMove (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can link to wiktionary? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tsar#English

An emperor of Russia (1547 to 1917) and of some South Slavic kingdoms.
A person with great power; an autocrat.
An appointed official tasked to regulate or oversee a specific area.

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been cases of developed-country airlines using passenger blacklists for discrimination?

I'm Russian. About a week ago Vladimir Putin signed a federal law allowing airlines to blacklist any passenger prosecuted for criminal or administrative offences commited on board for up to one year after the court ruling against that passenger comes into force.

So, I googled as hard as I could, but haven't been able to find any cases of developed-country airlines using passenger blacklists for discrimination (e.g. for saying you're LGBT or childfree on a Deep South flight full of blue-collar Republicans). Is it that there have been no such publicly-documented cases, or that I'm bad at googling? --185.147.82.205 (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putin khuilo! Would you consider Kuwait to be a developed country? Kuwait Airways guilty of discrimination for not flying Israelis. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being ambiguous, by "developed" I meant not only advanced in terms of economy but also of human rights. Moreover, also this is part of the more general trend of the Anti-Israeli discrimination which is also practiced by Muslim-majority countries' governmental customs and border control officers. Thanks anyway. Do you happen to know of any other such cases in politically developed countries? --185.147.82.205 (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait doesn't recognize the State of Israel. Thus an Israeli passport is not a valid ID document to board a Kuwaiti flight. Try boarding a US plane with a ID issued by the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan or another entity not recognized by the US and see the reaction. --Soman (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your answer is extremely inadequate at best, disingenuous or dishonest at worst. The United States doesn't recognize Taiwan, but it permits people from Taiwan to enter the United States. The U.S. has also permitted some people with a variety of Travel documents, laissez-passers, Nansen passports etc. etc. to enter the country from time to time. Furthermore, traditionally Arab states didn't only bar Israeli nationals from entering, but ALSO third-party nationals for which there was evidence that they had ever travelled to Israel, in the form of Israeli visa stamps in their passports. Some Arab countries still do this. Kuwait made its attitude towards Israelis (and Jews) perfectly clear in 1985, when The National Assembly of Kuwait on Saturday called on Egypt to free a policeman sentenced to life imprisonment for killing seven Israeli tourists and honor him as a hero of the Arab people. The National Assembly asked Egypt to release Sgt. Suleiman Khater immediately and honor him because he has "restored to the Arab people some of its dignity."December 29, 1985 Los Angeles Times Frankly, most people on all sides would have been better off if a large number of Arab politicians hadn't had a pathological fixation with destroying Israel and throwing the Jews into the sea for so many decades... AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The media backlash that a major airline like Delta or American Airlines would receive for even one of their agents refusing to board someone on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, would be so enormous in this climate that it simply does not happen that often. There was a huge kerfuffle earlier this year when United refused to board two girls for wearing leggings. You can imagine what the response would be like if an agent were more overt in their discrimination.--WaltCip (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be made clear here that those "girls" refused seating were actually employees using the free travel perk which has a published dress code which they were violating. These were not random paying customers, but employees breaking the rules. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digressing on top of a digression, if I recall correctly, they weren't employees themselves, but rather family members of an employee, using a perk that extended to family members. The airline's claim was that they "represented" the airline and therefore should be dressed better.

My feeling at the time was that the airline was, formally, completely within its rights, but that it handled the situation idiotically. Who the hell cared, or even knew, that these girls were traveling on an employee benefit? They made them pull clothes out of their luggage and cover up the leggings while in line. Other customers saw them and concluded that they too had to change — not unreasonably, because, again, how were they to know that the girls were flying on an employee benefit? Or how were they to know that that mattered?

So certainly the segment of the public reaction that treated the airline as enforcing some sort of 1950s sensibility on the general public was misinformed. But it was a self-inflicted wound on the part of the airline. --Trovatore (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Further proving my point that U.S. airline companies have very little room to leverage in the eyes of the media when it comes to denying boarding to passengers.--WaltCip (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears they were the daughters of an employee flying on his pass. From Glamour, quoting United's spokesperson

"Our regular passengers are not going to be denied boarding because they are wearing leggings or yoga pants,” Guerin said. “But when flying as a pass traveler, we require pass travelers to follow rules, and that is one of those rules. They were not compliant with the dress policy with the benefit." The Washington Post also noted that he said that the girls were aware of the internal rule.

Guerin added that they won't be making their internal policies public at this time, but flyzed.com, which details internal policies involving check-in, baggage, and dress code for passengers flying on employee passes for a number of airlines, has what it says is United Airline's flight benefit dress code on their site. It specifically prohibits "formfitting Lycra/spandex tops, pants, and dresses" for any gender (and, well, age). It does allow shorts for all genders and ages so long as they don't hit more than three inches above the knee "when in a standing position."

μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No_Fly_List#Notable_cases may be of interest to you, although it is not an answer to your question. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it answers the question OK. There are plenty of cases of the US no-fly list used thus. To quote from Salon in 2002, quoted in the article: the No-Fly program seemed "to be netting mostly priests, elderly nuns, Green Party campaign operatives, left-wing journalists, right-wing activists and people affiliated with Arab or Arab-American groups."John Z (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are no countries that allow everyone and anyone to enter without Travel visa. Most countries also have blacklists and other lists and strict regulations like you need to prove you have enough money to finance your visit, which is usually time restricted, even with a visa. Its probably not well known because in most cases the checks start running in the background the moment you book a flight in your home country, apply for a visa etc. --Kharon (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless shelter cost

I was surprised to learn that homeless shelters in Zurich, Switzerland charge the homeless approximately $5 / day to stay. Are such fees common? I've never heard of such a thing before. Dragons flight (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The homeless in NYC often scrounge over $100/day in panhandling and can deposits. I once got politely told off by a homelss peson for crushing a soda can as I through it in the corner trash can. He explained that the automated can-return machine would accept whole cans and bottles and give a 5¢ return per can, but not if it was crushed. This policy is one reason why you don't see cans and bottles littering the streets of NYC. The homeless also go through the trash bags that building superintendents leave out lightly bound and retrieve the bottles, and then they retie the bags tightly. It's a mutually beneficial truce (tightly bound bags will be ripped open) since the buildings avoid fines for having recyclable material in their garbage. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine if they put Metrocard recycling machines in out-of-the-way corners of some subway stations and reduced the new Metrocard fee from a dollar to 5 or 10 cents..

If they're making $100 a day why are they still homeless? Addicted to something? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland is a Welfare state that gives its subjects a (in comparison) high welfare provision of over 900€ per month if they are in need. Of course this is in relation to the local cost of living, which is certainly very expensive in Zurich. I also remember a documentation about a Soup kitchen for the poor in Germany which demanded a symbolic fee. So it seems common in welfare states where subjects are provisioned. One reason to demand fees is probably to prevent illegal immigrants from taking advantage and stay or to even encourage them to come, which is a big problem for all rich countries with very poor neighbors at or near their border. --Kharon (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, SMW, there are all sorts of homeless, it is a symptom, not a thing in itself. So there are the mentally ill, the down-on-their-luck, and the drug addicts. I knew a heroin addict who slept in my stairwell where I eventually found him dead. He was sane and could have sought help. There was also a totally incoherent lady who walked the Six Trains looking for quarters. I gave her food, money, and even the occasional beer in exchange for some handwaving and a blessing only Jesus understood. She should have been forcibly committed, but it was before the Giuliani era. I found her body on the train platform after a blizzard by the smell in a cave she had made by tearing out crumbling brickwork from under a leaky street grating.

From what I could tell, many stayed out of shelters due to the shakedowns and violence that occurred there and because they couldn't do drugs. When I was first in the emergency room with diverticulitis there was a junky who came in complaining of foot pain (gangrene I guess) and I heard the nurse ask "You back for your two hots and a cot?" NYC is not the woods or the desert, it's a huge overflowing pile of excess, and just like the bell curve has its billionaires at one tail, it's got another tail at or less than zero.

Violence in homeless shelters gets you this: NYC homeless prefer streets to violent shelters - NY Daily News Mar 14, 2016 - A review of shelter records by the Daily News reveals a system where violence is an everyday event.

But you also hear stories like this: Panhandling is so lucrative, Andersen said he now rents a room in Inwood after being homeless for three years. He said he’s on the street only to collect handouts. “I have gotten $80 or $100 from a single person. And they will say, ‘Just do something good tonight.’ They mean go to a hotel or a hostel, he said. “I get people who give me five bucks each day. Five bucks each day, that’s five days a week, two people — that’s $50 a week right there. I get dog food. I put away for rent. I pay $300 a month, that’s nothing.”

μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis is quite right to note that homelessness is not merely a product of lack of a job or lack of income, per se. It's not as simple as "not having enough money to pay for an apartment". Many people, who would otherwise have the money for an apartment can't rent one because they fail either a credit check or a criminal background check which are often prerequisites for both a job and a rental agreement. The naive view that "homeless = poor = lazy" is basically bullshit. There are a thousand different reasons for a person to be homeless, and basically none of them are so simple as "too lazy to get a real job" or "does too much drugs". --Jayron 32 05:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not as simple as "not having enough money to pay for an apartment"." Well it depends on where you live. In Greece, either owning or renting a house or apartment comes with ever increasing taxation, and many people can no longer afford it. This is combined with the yearly reductions of pensions, low wages in most jobs, high unemployment, and price increases on many products. There is a reason the population of homeless people is increasing. Dimadick (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could they afford just over the Greek border? Are there enough Greek speakers there to not have to learn a different language? Would there be discrimination? They did all fight each other not too long ago. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the above discussion is interesting, especially Medeis's experiences in NYC, it mostly doesn't directly address my question. How common is it for homeless shelters to charge a fee, even if it is a fairly nominal one? Does NYC? Other major US cities? Or maybe it is, as Kharon sort of suggests, a practice that is more common in certain countries rather than others. By personal observation, there are very few people sleeping rough or begging for money in Zurich. I know that both activities are illegal here, and I suspect vigorously enforced. (I've heard rumors that homeless people are subtly, or not-so-subtly, encouraged to take trains or buses to other countries, but I don't know how true that is.) However, the enforcement situation in Zurich is sort of beside the point. Mostly, I am just curious how common it is to charge fees for services to the homeless. Dragons flight (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Homeless shelter" is not a universally definable thing. You have the spectrum in the US from Section 8 housing (i.e., subsidized, with the remainder often paid by some other form of public income, like cash assistance or social security disability and flat out public housing to halfway houses where the residents may reside on charity with the expectation of eventually paying nominal rent, to state run emergency shelters for the homeless and battered wives, or Churches that open their doors during heatwaves and blizzards.

You are looking at short and long-term and public and private solutions on a municipality by municipality basis with various state and federal programs as well as charities providing help. It is not unusual for residents to pay a nominal fee (about %10 of the total the landlord gets from the state as in section 8) or to be required by the charity to do chores or to seek employment or be engaged in some rehabilitation activity. I know someone who got a month's rent and utilities paid by the Red Cross with the requirement of writing an application essay, being interviewed, and promising to pay the money back within a year.

The US tends to leave such matters to local authorities and institutions in a federal system with state and local authority rather than a homogenous, centralized, Napoleonic, one-botte-fits-all command economy. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is is common to charge fees? According to Shelter, the main UK charity for all forms of homelessness and poor housing: "Many [night shelters] are free but some cost between £2 and £5 per night."[2] Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]