Humanities desk
< December 28	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 30 >

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 29

Alcoholic or drug addicted First Ladies

The article on Betty Ford states: "She also raised awareness of addiction when in the 1970s, she announced her long-running battle with alcoholism and substance abuse, being the first First Lady to do so."

Has there been a second First Lady, I assume of the United States, to admit the same? --†dismas†|^(talk) 02:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "first ladies who went to rehab", Betty Ford is the only name I'm seeing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We could insert, ", and, {{as of|lc=y|December 29, 2020}}, the only,{{citation needed|date=December 2020|reason=How do you know?}}" :). --Lambiam 14:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least cry, at least shoot yourself ...

Sorry to bother wikipedians, but I have an unsolvable problem. Recently I went to https://ilostat.ilo.org/topics/informality/ and downloaded the table "informal employment and informal sector" there, and there was a layout specifically for informal employment in the formal sector and informal employment in the informal sector. Today I go there to clarify links and there is no indicator. Just cry, even shoot, well, there is none in nature at all! Moreover, there is a description of the indicator, but it is generally absent in nature. Please, who knows where he is, please help! --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it being updated? Are other parts of the site available? DOR (HK) (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The site you visited is the ILO (International Labour Organization)'s display of United Nations labour statistics. At the bottom of that page is "Need help? Click here to email us." I suggest you ask your question there. 84.209.119.241 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ОК. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WWII Southern Rhodesia

Were there pro-German parties/movements/notable people in Southern Rhodesia during WWII? Thanks. --79.31.10.126 (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were pro-Hitler Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging in South Africa during apartheid and some white Southern Rhodesians were at least as racist as them so probably. The AWB logo is basically the Nazi eagle holding a 3-swastika instead of a 4-swastika and in a red ring so it's not subtle. And of course the flag is a black 3-swastika in a white disc on a red flag. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think some conclusions may have been jumped to. In South Africa, at least some, if not many Afrikaners have had a strong antipathy to the British Empire after two Boer Wars in which they were not treated with traditional British fair-play (see Second Boer War concentration camps for example). Germany supported the Boer cause during these wars, both morally and supplying arms. A majority of white settlers in Southern Rhodesia were of British or Irish origin and Afrikaners were in a minority, so the two countries were not analogous in that respect.

The linked article says that the colony of Southern Rhodesia declared war before any of the Dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa) in 1939; "This stand was almost unanimously supported by the white populace, as well as most of the coloured community [i.e. mixed-race and Indian], though with World War I a recent memory this was more out ]]. of a sense of patriotic duty than enthusiasm for war in itself". I haven't been able to find any reference for pro-German movements in Rhodesia. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So that's why I can't find anything. The Boer War is barely mentioned in the States much less how far the Dutch>Brit zone got so I defer to your expertise. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our Fascism in Africa article does say, with a reference, that "Other white settlers organised pro-Nazi groups in Rhodesia during the Second World War", though the passage Alan quotes strongly suggests they had little support. --Antiquary (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more digging finds the case of Henry Hamilton Beamish, founder of The Britons, a member of the Imperial Fascist League and the Nordic League and attended Nazi Party conferences in Germany. He emigrated to Southern Rhodesia in 1938 and was elected to parliament as an independent. He lost his seat in 1940 and was interned for the rest of the war. I'm not sure if Defence Regulation 18B (internment of known fascists without trial) applied in the colonies, or if the Rhodesians adopted a similar measure, but it would certainly have curbed any openly fascist activities. Alansplodge (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pets in the German Democratic Republic

Were people in the GDR allowed to own pets and if so did they have small animal veterinarians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6831:A0A0:78EA:9313:6C71:5583 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course (just as long as they weren't capitalist running dogs). See for example the Los Angeles Times article "Much Ado About Dogs in Former East Berlin : The Hundemuseum, with its 20,000 dog-related artifacts, testifies to Germany’s love of canines.": "For 24 years the Laskes served as co-organizers of the biggest kennel show in the Soviet states, drawing 40,000 to 50,000 visitors every May to the grounds of industrialist Werner von Siemens’ villa in Brandenburg. The kennel shows, which drew as many as 25,000 entries, were one of the few major competitions not under government control, the curator said. The accent on improving canine bloodlines was so strong that retirees over 60 were permitted to take winning dogs outside East Germany to compete in international shows." Clarityfiend (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What part of Syria did King Baldwin IV rule?

I got so confused when I heared that Baldwin IV was ruling a part of Syria, how come?

I know that Sultan Salahuddin Ayyubi tried to not make that happen.

If you know that I am wrong of what I am saying, please correct me because I am just curious to find out the truth about this.

I will thank you for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Shaheenbaz Faizi (talk • contribs) 21:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not present-day Syria but Kingdom of Jerusalem#Geographic boundaries says: "in the mid-12th century, the kingdom encompassed roughly the territory of modern-day Israel, Palestine and the southern parts of Lebanon". Alansplodge (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also our article Syria (region) about the historical uses of the term "Syria". In the Gospel of Luke, chapter 2, we read in the story of the nativity of Jesus that Caesar Augustus ordered a census of the Roman Empire while "Kurēnios (Quirinius) was governor of Syria". In the context, this clearly included historical Judea with the city of Bethlehem. --Lambiam 17:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of these events in 1182:

King Baldwin, accompanied by the Patriarch and the True Cross, thereupon led a raid through the Hauran, which sacked Ezra and reached Bosra, while Raymond of Tripoli recaptured Habis Jaldak. Early in December 1182 Raymond led a cavalry raid that again penetrated to Bosra; and a few days later the royal army set out against Damascus and encamped at Dareiya in the suburbs...The King did not try to attack the city itself, and soon retired laden with booty, to spend Christmas at Tyre.

That was quoted from Steven Runciman A History of the Crusades (1971 [1952]), vol. 2, pp. 434–435. These raids – because that is all they were, not an attempted conquest – could only happen because Salahuddin Ayyubi (Saladin) was much further north in Aleppo at the time, and because the governor of Damascus had just died, doubtless leading to confusion in the city. --Antiquary (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Syria" for medieval Europeans could mean the entire Mediterranean coast, what we might now call the "Levant" or even all of the "Near East". The crusaders actually sometimes called their kingdom the "Kingdom of Syria", even though, as mentioned, they didn't really control very much of the modern country of Syria. The "Kingdom of Syria" could also refer to the Ayyubid emirates in Kerak, Homs, Damascus, Aleppo, etc. (as opposed to the "Kingdom of Egypt", the sultanate ruled from Cairo). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]