Humanities desk
< January 14	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 15

Presidents and curse words

When was the first time the sitting POTUS used the word fuck and the general public found out during his presidency?

What was the first word you can't currently say on TV to be used that way? (scripted US broadcast television, not cable obviously).

If that word was a racial slur (some presidents were literally slaveowners after all), what was the first that wasn't?

What about using damn and hell in a way that has been considered religiously objectionable? (like damn the torpedoes, go to hell, or after stubbing your toe) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first time it became a big issue in modern times was when the transcriptions of the Watergate tapes were released with frequent "expletive deleted" substitutions. See article Expletive deleted... AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Truman was famous for using relatively mild (by today's standards) vulgarisms to refer to his political opponents. LBJ was known for his colorful language too. But those guys had some discretion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. It's like you guys aren't even trying. That's only a short smattering of presidential curse words, but we have a quote of Lincoln saying "shit" publicly, and one of Andrew Jackson's parrot trained to curse, and often having to be removed from places because of that. So take your pick. It's either as early as Lincoln, or Andrew Jackson's parrot. --Jayron 32 15:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson's parrot wasn't the POTUS, although it would have been a substantial improvement over the current one. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, Jackson had to teach the parrot to curse; so he would have had to curse himself. In some odd way, it's a precursor to the Nixon tapes, in biological form. --Jayron 32 15:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson owned the one parrot, while the current guy has surrounded himself with parrots. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The hard part of this question is the "found out during his presidency" part. Because they have ALL used foul language, all the way back to Washington. --M @r ē ino 19:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a tape of Trump cussing, enjoy. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aOhzJTk2eJo déhanchements (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which national movements were very weak before WWI but got their own state later on?

Which national movements were very weak before World War I but got their own state later on?

For instance, I can think of Belarus and the various countries of Central Asia eventually acquiring independence in spite of the fact that their people don't appear to have had much of a national consciousness in the pre-WWI era. Likewise, the Zionist movement doesn't appear to have been a particularly large one before WWI--with most Jews who left Eastern Europe before WWI moving to places other than Palestine. Still, the Zionist movement ultimately succeeded--as did the Muslim nationalist movement in British India with the creation of Pakistan.

Which other national movements didn't have much strength in the pre-WWI era but were ultimately successful later on--either as a result of their own efforts or as a result of external forces/actors intervening and supporting their cause (whether on purpose or accidentally)? Futurist110 (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many former Ottoman states, especial countries like Iraq, only exist today at their current borders because of the way the remnants of the Ottoman Empire were carved up by European powers as League of Nations mandates. The concept of an "Iraqi nation" only exists because that land, and those people, were put together after WWI, just as one example. You could also look at some other post-colonial states, who's borders were arbitrarily based on European colonial borders, and who are in the process of forging a single national identity, to various degrees of success. --Jayron 32 14:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some countries--such as Iraq--were indeed creations of Western colonial powers. I was well-aware of this. The reason that I didn't mention this in my OP was that while ideas such as Iraqi nationalism, Jordanian nationalism, et cetera didn't exist before World War I, the broader idea of Arab nationalism did, in fact, exist even before World War I. Our article about Arab nationalism talks about this--as does our article about the Arab Congress of 1913.

It's probably a similar story for Africa. While specific nationalism--such as Nigerian nationalism--might not have existed in the pre-World War I era, there were nevertheless nationalistic movements in Africa which resisted the European conquest of their lands. For instance, you could take a look at the Sokoto Caliphate's unsuccessful war against the British to preserve their independence.

What I am looking for here are nationalist movements for future nation-states--as in, states which are meant for a specific ethnic or ethno-religious group. The multi-ethnic states of the Middle East and Africa often wouldn't qualify for this. Futurist110 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe East Timor? It's national identity is tied to having been a Portuguese colony among a bunch of Dutch colonies, and its nationalist movement really only got started until the 1970s. See Carnation Revolution, the Portuguese coup after which East Timor became functionally independent, and the Indonesian invasion of East Timor which came a year and a half later. These events sparked the East Timorese nationalism movement, which only became a really independent country in 2002. I am not aware of any East Timorese national identity as such prior to the events of the mid 1970s. --Jayron 32 13:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, though, if you actually wanted an answer, and are only looking for nation states, there are only about 200ish sovereign states listed at List of sovereign states, you can simply research the history of likely candidates there. It's a small, finite number of such places. --Jayron 32 13:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]