Youtube comments of (@TheHistoryGuyChannel).
-
2000
-
1900
-
Some have complained that I spend time discussing the Yom Kippur War and the consequent oil embargo. However, I believe that that context is critical to understanding the national climate that brought us the Dale.
Others imply that I have taken sides in the Arab Israeli conflict. To be clear, the reason I included the brief discussion here was the provide background on the decisions of the Nixon Administration that led to the US inclusion in the oil embargo.
One purpose of History is to help inform us about the future. But, at times, I do think that viewers impress their conclusions on the story that I tell. In this case, I was making no attempt to make judgments on the motivations of parties to events.
Some viewers have taken issue with my description of the gull-winged DeLorean DMC-12 as an American design. The DeLorean Motor Company was an American company, and the prototype for the DMC-12 was created by American engineer William T Collins. But the design was significantly re-engineered by British engineer Colin Chapman and the body design was the work of Italian engineer Giorgetto Giugiaro. And, of course, the cars were manufactured in Ireland. Suffice to say that my comment in the introduction was not intended to insult any of the international parties who were involved in the design and manufacture of the DMC-12.
Some have complained that I refer to Carmichael as “she” after she was identified as transgender. Seriously, no matter what I did there someone was going to complain, putting me in the situation where there is no correct answer, or, rather, where different people were going to insist that their answer was the only good and correct one. I am not foisting my opinions about current debates on anyone, I am following normal journalistic practice and trying not to unnecessarily choose fights that will turn people off of history. I can not help it that some will choose to be offended. Viewers are free to have their own opinions, and refer to Carmichael in your own conversations however you please. This is not an episode prosecuting current cultural debates, this is a channel about history, so please don’t impress that on me, and have that conversation elsewhere.
1100
-
1000
-
1000
-
902
-
874
-
802
-
779
-
756
-
Near the end I say "Great comet of 1911," which, of course, should have been "1811." I apologize for the error. I also mentioned John Reynolds family feeling the shock. As several viewers have noted, Vincennes is in Indiana, not Illinois. However, while his autobiography says he had travelled from Vincennes, the family cabin was actually in Goshen Settlement, near Kaskaskia, Illinois, considerably closer to New Madrid than Vincennes. Again, I apologize for the error.
666
-
638
-
600
-
563
-
561
-
555
-
526
-
510
-
510
-
506
-
505
-
490
-
482
-
475
-
472
-
469
-
457
-
433
-
416
-
410
-
406
-
405
-
404
-
402
-
381
-
378
-
378
-
373
-
373
-
367
-
359
-
353
-
351
-
350
-
344
-
343
-
341
-
339
-
336
-
333
-
333
-
333
-
332
-
332
-
330
-
329
-
328
-
327
-
326
-
326
-
325
-
324
-
323
-
316
-
309
-
308
-
307
-
306
-
303
-
A few viewers have taken issue with the fact that I used the term "CE" rather than "AD." I emphatically am not making any political statement using the abbreviation, nor do I wish to. The "controversy" truly rankles a historian, as no matter which term you use will drawn someone's ire. I do not wish to be drawn into that catch-22.
There is an interesting conversation going on in professional literature regarding the best practice. As for me, I use the terms interchangeably, and see no point or value in finding acrimony over the distinction. If you are offended, I am sorry, but I am here to tell stories, not to serve political ends. I neither claim to nor wish to be the one who adjudicates that controversy.
This is a good discussion of the history and use of the abbreviations from another historian writing on the web: https://www.dailywritingtips.com/ce-vs-ad/
Other's have found offense that I used a sarcastic tone with reference to Marquette's use of the word "savage." I do find his tone somewhat ironic. My mild point there was that, throughout history, all sides seemed to think the others were "savages." Again, I am sorry if you found offense, but I wish that people were willing to enjoy the story rather than manufacturing reasons to be offended.
299
-
Some people have mentioned that we use the spelling "City Bank" while the bank today is called "Citibank." The bank was incorporated as the "City Bank of New York, " and that was the name in 1831. The "Citibank" spelling was based on an eight letter wire code address used by the bank starting in the 1860s. The bank name, however, was not officially changed to "Citibank" until 1976.
Many are noting that this heist was actually a burglary as opposed to a robbery. But theft from banks have always been characterized as “bank robbery” in the press, and it was commonly called a robbery in the contemporary press. The term “bank burglary” is simply not commonly used. Both types of theft- whether by force or “penalties for anyone who takes and carries away, with the intent to steal or purloin, any property or money or any thing of value in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of any bank, credit union, or savings and loan.” are covered under the Federal Bank Robbery statute, Title 18, section 2113 of the United States Code.
299
-
296
-
295
-
286
-
284
-
278
-
272
-
272
-
271
-
270
-
267
-
262
-
260
-
257
-
256
-
247
-
246
-
242
-
242
-
234
-
229
-
There are many comments on Harburg’s politics. As usual, we are making no judgements, simply presenting history. But, as I say in the conclusion, Harburg’s talent was an inspiration independent of politics. “Brother, can you spare a dime?” Is a good example- some wanted it taken off the air until it was recorded by Bing Crosby, a notable Republican. Crosby realized that music was universal.
It is difficult to see “Somewhere over the rainbow” as particularly ideological. And Harburg’s own description of his philosophy shown at the end of the episode hardly seems like some extremist ideology. At the risk of jumping into politics, I think that Yip Harburg offered no ideas so dangerous that the Republic was under threat.
As to the blacklisting, I humbly suggest that it is a practice that, once justified, can be turned against any idea. -THG
228
-
227
-
226
-
224
-
221
-
220
-
216
-
215
-
210
-
210
-
209
-
206
-
205
-
203
-
202
-
198
-
197
-
194
-
Some viewers have commented on the phrase “Nero fiddled while Rome burned,” noting, of course that fiddles and violins were not developed until the sixteenth century. First, the word “fiddle” derives from the Latin “fides,” which means “string.” Thus, the use of the word would have applied to other stringed instruments. In the time of Nero, the “fiddling “ would have likely been a stringed instrument called a cithara. Second, there is no evidence that Nero, who was at his villa thirty five miles from Rome when the fire started, actually played music while Rome burned. The phrase, if uttered at the time, would have been a rumor or insult spread by Nero’s enemies. Further, it is not clear whether the phrase was actually uttered at the time or was a later invention of people writing history. In any case, there is evidence to suggest that Nero’s enemies used the suggestion that he was either complicit in starting the fire or ineffective in responding to it to attack the emperor. There is a wonderful analysis provided here: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/CJ/42/4/Nero_Fiddled*.html
193
-
191
-
188
-
188
-
187
-
187
-
182
-
182
-
181
-
181
-
178
-
177
-
174
-
171
-
168
-
167
-
Lt. Commander Roope's story is certainly an amazing one. His was the earliest action of the Second World War for which a Victoria Cross was awarded. But his was not the only awarded on the recommendation of the enemy.
Sgt. Thomas Frank Durrant of No. 1 Commando was awarded a Victoria Cross for the raid on St Nazarie, 28 March, 1942 upon the recommendation and with evidence provided by the commander of the German destroyer Jaguar. His was the only Victoria Cross awarded to a soldier in a naval action.
However, while Lt. Commander Roope and Sgt. Durrant's awards were based partially on the testimony of the enemy, in both cases there were surviving allied witness to corroborate the story.
There has been, to my knowledge, only one Victoria Cross awarded solely on the recommendation of the enemy with no surviving allied witnesses.
Flying Officer Lloyd Trigg of the Royal New Zealand Air Force was awarded the Victoria Cross for an action on 11 August, 1943 where he and the crew of his badly crippled bomber sunk U-boat 468. The U-boat captain, Klemens Schamong, was picked up by the RN, and the Victoria Cross was awarded on his recommendation.
165
-
161
-
161
-
157
-
157
-
155
-
154
-
145
-
143
-
142
-
141
-
141
-
140
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
138
-
138
-
136
-
134
-
133
-
The date of the sinking of the Warrimoo was May 17 1918, not 1914. I am sorry for the error.
Of course many are arguing that the new century began on January 1, 1901, rather then 1900. In fact, popular celebrations and perception have historically focused on when the significant digits in the date change, that is when the year begins with "19" rather than "18", and it is as entirely proper to utilize that commonly recognized convention as it is to recognize imaginary lines around the planet.
There has been some great discussion here, but I do feel that some seem to be missing the point. The story is not so much about the exact position of the ship, but about what is possible. Regardless of whether the Warrimoo could actually find a coordinate, stay on position on that coordinate, or whether the century starts at 00 or 01, the unique confluence of arbitrarily created conventions offers an interesting thought experiment on possibilities. If you are worried about exactitude, you might be missing that the entire story is about whimsy, and demonstrates the idea that we may take all of our made up conventions all too seriously.
133
-
131
-
It was my pleasure! Thank you for the question. I have wanted to do an episode on Flight Officer Trigg, but haven't been able to put it all together yet.
I agree about Hollywood. There are so many compelling stories, and yet so much of what we get is fictionalized. I sincerely do not understand why big budget films like Saving Private Ryan or Red Tails or Fury, all of whom aimed, with varying success, for historical accuracy, chose fictional story-lines when there are so many great completely real stories of the Second World War to tell. Ken Taylor was on record with his very low opinion of Jerry Bruckheimer's Pearl Harbor, which, honestly, I found nearly unwatchable. And, occasionally, there are egregious Hollywood crimes against history like the 2000 film U-571. I do certainly wish that entertainment would strive to help people become more informed about history, rather than more misinformed.
Education is decentralized in America, and very much affected by political agendas and budgets.There is some excellent curricula provided by a non-for-profit organization called the College Board, but relatively few students take the courses, and many do not have access to them. To be honest, even US college graduates struggle to name the US Vice President, more or less show an understanding of Historical events. We are frequently embarrassed by on the street interviews where Americans can't name the opponents in the U.S..Civil War.
The study of history has always been impacted by politics. There is a brief discussion of that in my Mary Seacole episode, where there has been a lengthy discussion among British educators of how to present Mary Seacole versus Florence Nightingale, or even whether that time would be better spent on Winston Churchill and Oliver Cromwell. I largely try to avoid, or, at least, present from a neutral stance, topics that are historically controversial, but am not always successful at avoiding controversy. I can simply say that I am happy to be a "hobby historian" who can go where my passion takes me.
129
-
128
-
A couple of viewers have noted that I mention antibiotics when referencing a 2006 study in the conclusion. Antibiotics do not treat nor prevent viral infections like influenza.
The reason that they are mentioned is that viral infections can, in a number of ways, reduce the body’s defenses and allow a secondary bacterial infection. In the case of the 1918 pandemic, the H1N1 virus often resulted in a secondary infection of bacterial pneumonia that was often the actual cause of death. As the pandemic occurred a decade before the discovery of antibiotics, many people died who might be saved today. However, the conclusion of the US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology analysis is that even with modern antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections, a new pandemic could still be very deadly.
Today we have antiviral medications, which are frequently prescribed to lesson the severity of an influenza infection. As with antibiotics, if those are prescribed by your doctor, take them according to instructions. Although antiviral medications work differently than antibiotics, there is a similar medical concern that not taking a full course may encourage the occurrence of viral strains that are resistant to the medication. Doctors emphasize that you should take the entire course of the medication as prescribed.
128
-
126
-
124
-
123
-
121
-
121
-
120
-
119
-
118
-
118
-
116
-
115
-
115
-
114
-
114
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
A viewer noticed that the name of Lt. Thomas O'Hagan, 43, was not on the scroll at the end. According to a memorial in the New York Times, Lt O'Hagen, who came from a family of Police Officers, decided to become a firefighter when he attempted to stamp out a fire at age 7. He left behind his wife, Andrea, who described him in a memorial as "a true gentleman, a very warm, giving person," and twin sons, Patrick and Pierce. I apologize to Andrea, Patrick and Pierce, that his name was missing from the list I used, and it has been added for when we next post the video.
Also left off the list was Battalion Chief Orio Joseph Palmer, age 45. Palmer was a marathon runner and, according to the 9/11 memorial museum, "was considered to be one of the most knowledgeable men in the FDNY." His wife Debbie, said that he “loved goofing around with his three children and nieces and nephews.” He was on the 78th floor of the South Tower when it collapsed. I sincerely apologize that his name was exclude from the scroll.
If anyone notices any other names missing, please let me know either in a comment or at THG@TheHistoryGuy.net.
I would also like to recognize these 27 FDNY heroes who the Department recognized this year as having since died of 9/11 related illnesses:
Firefighter Owen T. Carlock of Ladder Company 122, Brooklyn.
Firefighter Robert M. Gless of Engine Company 329, Rockaway, Queens.
Firefighter John B. O’Brien of Engine Company 329, Rockaway, Queens.
Firefighter James J. Hurson of Engine Company 318, Brooklyn.
Captain Robert E. Collis of Engine Company 304, Queens Village, Queens.
Firefighter Joseph Walsh of Ladder Company 32, Bronx.
Auto Mechanic James J. Sottile, FDNY Shops Bureau.
Firefighter Joseph R. Losinno of Engine Company 302, Jamaica, Queens.
Firefighter Robert B. Fitzgibbon of Engine Company 47, Morningside Heights.
Firefighter Walter E. McKee of Battalion 39, Brooklyn.
Firefighter John W. Boyle of Rescue 1, Manhattan.
Firefighter Roger Espinal of Engine Company 320, Auburndale, Queens.
Firefighter Richard J. Tanagretta of Rescue 5, Staten Island.
Firefighter Andrew S. Gargiulo of Engine Company 160, Staten Island.
Lieutenant Richard G. Estreicher of Engine Company 248, Brooklyn.
Firefighter Clifford R. DiMuro of Ladder Company 137, Rockaway Park, Queens.
Captain Dennis M. Gilhooly of Engine Company 67, Washington Heights.
Firefighter Brian W. Casse of Engine Company 294, Richmond Hill, Queens.
Firefighter Michael L. Feldman of Ladder Company 161, Brooklyn.
Firefighter Richard B. Jones of Ladder Company 25, Upper West Side.
Lieutenant Paul W. Deo Jr. of Engine Company 317, St. Albans, Queens.
Firefighter Joseph A. Hatzelman of Engine Company 218, Brooklyn.
Firefighter Daniel R. Foley of Rescue 3, Bronx.
Battalion Chief of Dennis J. Moynihan of Battalion 18, Bronx.
Firefighter John H. Marr of Engine Company 34, Midtown Manhattan.
Lieutenant Kevin C. Dunn of Engine Company 251, Glen Oaks, Queens.
Firefighter Paul J. Greco of Squad Company 270, Richmond Hill, Queens.
111
-
110
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
108
-
108
-
107
-
106
-
105
-
105
-
102
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
98
-
97
-
95
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
91
-
91
-
90
-
90
-
89
-
88
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
83
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
As some have noted, I say that Mary was James II only child, when, in fact, he had another daughter, Anne. Anne reigned after the death of William from 1702 - 1714. However, as both of James II's surviving daughters were protestant when he was crowned, and it seemed unlikely that James would father another child, the reasoning was the same. The birth of James Francis Edward Stuart, otherwise known as "the old pretender" changed the perception. I am sorry for the error.
A few have mentioned that William and Mary were not of the House of Hanover. That is correct. After the death of Queen Anne in 1714 the crown went to the descendants of William's cousin, Sophia, Electress of Hanover. At the time of the Order of the Pug the English crown had been with the House of Hanover for 22 years, and it was, in fact, the Hanoverians that the Jacobites were opposing.
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
@harlech2 Respectfully, the 88 had a sight specifically designed for direct fire. The US Army technical manual explains: “The sighting and fire control equipment for the 8.8 cm Flak 18 or 36 varies depending on the use to which the weapon is put. The weapon can be used for direct fire as for antitank work, for indirect fire, or for anti aircraft fire.”
The Zielfernrohr 20 telescopic gun sight was developed for direct fire.
While the Allies had AA guns of comparable quality, they were not designed like the 8.8 to be used in the ground fire role. When eventually adapted to armor, they had to be heavily modified. The distinction of the 8.8 was not that it was an AA gun, but that it was designed- from weight, to carriage, to sights, to barrel design (barrels have to be replaced more often in the antitank role-hence the three part barrel) to crew training to be effective for both AA and direct fire. Allied guns were not. If the reason was “a gun with mechanics and optics designed to shoot down fast, high flying aircraft,” then the US 90 mm gun would have been used similarly.
The KWK 36 used on the Tiger I really only modified the gun to fit the turret. Otherwise it was the same as the 8.8 cm Flak.
The KWK 43 was an entirely different late war weapon built in competition with the larger 8.8 cm Flak 41.
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
@bledsoej101 that seems an odd reason to stop listening to someone, and I simply cannot be held responsible for your dogma. It is perplexing to me that people who draw such lines in the sand often complain, without understanding the irony, about "political correctness."
To be clear, I am not advocating that B.C/A.D be replaced by BCE/CE. I use the terms interchangeably, as they both reference the same actual point in time. I am making no statement as to the historical basis for the dating system, nor denying the Christian impact on the calendar. It is meaningful that the calendar was based on an attempt to calculate the year of the birth of Christ, and that is an undeniable part of the history of the development of the calendar that I am, in no way, trying to deny. I am making no political statement whatsoever, seek to ignore the controversy as fabricated, and intend to continue interchangeably use the numerically equivalent terms. If patronizing my channel means that I am required to stick to terminology with which you approve, I do not agree to those conditions.
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
Respectfully, the only person who seems to be making a political connection here is you. I see no indication anywhere that the term has a "trans movement connotation," nor why that would make the term inaccurate. The use of the term by a respected medial clinic supports the claim that it is the accepted medical term. Intersex is is also clearly the preferred term used by people who are intersex. And, again, I have no idea what alternative term would somehow make you more comfortable.
I do not have a citation for a scientific article on the testing. The expense for the testing was borne by the Smithsonian Institution, which stated the results in a 2019 documentary in season 1, episode six of a Smithsonian Channel series called America's Hidden Stories. The only place I could find the documentary streaming is on Paramount +.The testing on both the remains from Savanna and those of an exhumed 19th century grand niece of Pulaski's were done by the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University.
I understand skepticism without peer-reviewed publication. But the conclusion is clearly supported by numerous credible scientists and is consistent with the historical record as well. If that is unconvincing to you, that is fine. History, being history, is often ambiguous. We cannot go back and ask Casimir Pulaski.
But I am confident that I have presented the most credible story available today, and presented that as clearly and carefully as I could to allow listeners to make their own conclusions.
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
TensileStrength absolutely. For many episodes, collecting media is more difficult than writing the script. As a general rule, anything published before 1924 or taken by a US government employee as part of their job is in the Public Domain. Outside those rules, rights can be difficult. Newspapers, understandably, protect photos taken by their employees. People who own the rights to a Picasso, understandably, move to protect the image to preserve its value. Where we can, we directly request rights, but our production schedule doesn’t allow for a lot of time for that discussion. I understand that some content producers on YouTube are less scrupulous, assuming rights holders won’t act. But I want people to respect my content rights, and so work hard to respect the rights of others.
In this case, Picasso’s muses were mostly not public figures. Their photos are either theirs or were taken for interviews published recently enough that they are still under copyright.
Note, though, that the fact that I could not use an image in a monetized video does not prevent viewers from doing a web search and viewing images online.
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
levitating octahedron I am sorry that you take tragic historical facts as some sort of bias. The episode is correct, and conclusions well document even at the time. No, sorry, the fact that I put a stop to people commenting that even innocent Chinese people deserved to be murdered is not me “preventing discourse,” it is me choosing not to let a historical episode be leveraged by racists. I believe in discourse, but disagree that I am obligated to allow a historical episode become a channel for fringe racists. This is my house, and I have the right to very occasionally say "not in my house." Your comments say far more about your "brazen biases" than mine.
Of over four hundred episodes, comments have been disabled on two. Both times the comments were disabled more than a year after the production of the episode, allowing ample time for discourse.
And, for the record, I stand by the episode on the Los Angeles Chinese Massacre.
https://youtu.be/nauaIbOXaYo
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
Doug Anway the stereotype likely stems from Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel Treasure Island, in which the character Long John Silver, from whom the stereotype of a Caribbean pirate is largely derived, has a pet parrot.
But there is truth to the stereotype. Several parrot species are endemic to Jamaica, although much less common (in fact many extinct) today. The drunken parrots of Port Royal were probably locals. These were pirates of the Caribbean, and it is no surprise that they kept local animals as pets.
There was also a significant international trade in exotic birds, which could fetch a high price in Europe. They were a luxury status item that Pirates with extra disposable income could afford. They also may have been cargo taken from ships engaging in the trade.
There is little real historical evidence of their widespread presence on pirate ships. But, as they were relatively small, don’t eat much, and their diet consists of things like seeds that could be easily stored, they would have been a good pet on a ship. They also can’t fall overboard, and training them would relieve boredom. And, in a port, they might fetch a good price.
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
Upcycle Electronics And, ironically, Wall Drug is in South Dakota.
Actually the greater Grand Forks area, including the University of North Dakota, the twin city of East Grand Forks, which is across the border in Minnesota, and, of course, the 10,000 then stationed at GFAFB represented a population of about 75,000 in 1980, and 98,000 as of the 2010 census.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
No Static you are crossing a line, sir. Again, I omitted nothing, and you have offered no explanation of what you think should be included that fits the facts. I tried to explain, looking at the political affiliation of the politicians involved, you do not see the Republican/Democrat divide your biases imagine. Just in the examples provided we saw Georgia, Arkansas, D.C., Chicago and Omaha- that is a diverse geography that demonstrates that this was a national issue (frequently described in period press as “the negro problem,”) not just the reactions of a single political party. I am sorry that it is inconvenient to your narrative that a Democrat Mayor in Omaha risked his life to protect a man from lynching and a Republican Mayor in Chicago stood idly by while police allowed gangs to burn the south side. But history is history, and you are the one desperately seeking to impose a bias to fit your worldview.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
You touch on some of the most interesting challenges for historians, who, by their nature, operate by hindsight. I agree that it is unfair and inaccurate to judge the past by the standards of the present. In Bullard's case, though, it is certainly possible to see the decision as flawed even by contemporary terms. The brilliant performance of the 93rd infantry division in the Great War was ample evidence that the US military segregation policy was both flawed and contrary to the interests of the nation. Bullard was an experienced and capable pilot, and the US had precious few of those. It was foolish, even by 1917 standards, to ignore that, and the decision endangered American lives.
It is notable that Bullard was more forgiving in his attitudes than much of the nation. It is fair to say, though, that much of the nation did not share the attitudes that kept him from flying in American service. And the incident of racism on the part of a French officer that stripped Bullard of flight service in France amply supports your point about racism in Europe as well.
I do not, in my channel, actively seek out controversy. Nor, however, do I actively avoid it. My goal is to present a case in factual terms and leave most moral decisions to the audience. I admit, though, that it is nearly impossible for a historian to escape their own bias. In this case, I readily admit supporting the case of a person I consider to be an underappreciated hero.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
dave jacobsen in general the MoH was awarded for an act of bravery.
It was not commonly awarded for re-enlisting, but the members of the 27th Maine were awarded the medal for re-enlisting to defend Washington as all available men were being sent to Gettysburg. Those medals were later rescinded with the 1916 review commission,
As for the woman, that was Doctor Mary Edwards Walker. While her award is still controversial, she was awarded it for actions in the face of the enemy, placing herself at risk to go behind enemy lines.
The standards have changed significantly, and we, of course, now have a hierarchy of awards for valor. But the vast majority of the Civil War era awards did represent an act of gallantry, and those that were not were rescinded by the 1916 commission under General Nelson Miles.
Both of Thomas Ward Custer’s awards were acts of valor. While there is no real modern equivalent to capturing a unit standard, his acts would likely be enough to receive an award for valor under modern standards. They were very fitting with the standards of the day.
Dr Walker’s story is here:
https://youtu.be/VzObHsRsOx0
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I think, frankly, that you have a tenuous relationship with history. No, England did not somehow coerce Germany into invading Tsingtao.
This video cannot fairly be described as being anti-German. It is history. Trying to blindly absolve the German empire of culpability for their historical errors is not history.
It is an entirely fair criticism that Germany expended more resources to build their “empire” than they gained for it. And, as colonialists go, Germany choose to act in all the ways that have made colonialism such a bad word. Germany emphatically cannot claim victimhood in their colonial pursuits.
There was no noble cause, and Germany cannot blame their choices on other nations.
Germany was “pushed into conflict?” That is, frankly, historical drivel. Don’t criticize my history and offer such nonsense.
The comment about vanity is no joke, nor is it in any way disrespectful to the men who died because Germany wanted to appear important. Spee and his men were left in a hopeless situation, left to “defend” colonial territories of dubious value, that, in the end, he was powerless to protect anyway. If there was a joke, it was on him.
My comment fits the historical facts. I stand by it. Make your own video if you want to spin historical fiction.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
I think that you offer a very fair position. Certainly we need to have historical perspective when judging acts of the past.
But, on the other hand, there were millions of people who recognized that slavery was wrong at the time, and that perspective is also history. In general, I don't try to make history about right or wrong (although, as with any historian, my own biases do seep in) but I also try to strike a balance. Justices Murphy, Roberts and Jackson certainly saw the obvious flaws in the Korematsu decision. Yes, I can see the decision in context, but yes, I can see how, from both the perspective of people at the time and from those who have followed, it was a flawed decision. Those flaws should not be ignored in the name of history.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The NWMP were a very interesting force with a very interesting history. I may well do an episode on them. I don't think, though, that a concern of trapping across the border was a primary driver for their creation. While some trappers or fur hunters may have been involved in the 1873 Cypress Hills Massacre, the more immediate concern was whiskey-traders, which were seen as a driving force behind hostilities with the First Nations. If there were Americans to eject, it would have been the whiskey traders, not fur trappers. In reality, the whiskey traders wanted no confrontation with an armed unit, and moved on without any significant confrontation with the NWMP.
There was even greater concern that any particular hostility might drive US involvement across the border. The NWMP were more involved, for example, in enforcing against horse raiding south across the border, for fear that would draw in the US Army.
In a real sense, the NWMP were created because the Dominion needed some sort of police force in the territory when it was acquired from the Hudson's Bay Company in 1870. Respectfully, I haven't seen any evidence that conflict over fur trapping was any siginifcant part of their early history. But, understand, the NWMP were formed nearly forty years after the Rocky Mountain Fur Company folded.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Thomas Conrow of course historians make conclusions. That is, in fact, a fundamental purpose of studying history.
I understand the complaints about the conclusion. But I disagree, and actually find your position disturbing. No matter what someone thinks of themselves, there are objective measures of right and wrong. If we do not consider those, how do we learn from history?
The issue here is a valid and important point, as it raises a fair question in terms of treatment of the Andamanese, who literally ask no more than to be let alone. If everyone occupies a place in society, aren’t these tiny islands their place? Or does the cultural relativist assumption that “no one considers themselves to be a savage” offer a catch all excuse for taking whatever you wish?
I did not intend to insult the British empire, the 24 th foot, or the men who risked their lives to rescue their comrades. My point is that coming to their island and shooting at them is a poor choice when we could simply let them keep their small part of the world to themselves. This is, I think, a fair lesson of history. I am somewhat surprised that it is so controversial.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The stop cocks were one of the theories proposed- they might have been turned off when the fuel pump was replaced. But, like other theories, there is no way to tell without evidence. The headwinds seem unsatisfying to me- it was an experienced crew, they had alternate landing options, and if it was a simple fuel issue there would have been ample time for an SOS. Moreover, another plane flew the same route just an hour ahead, and not only survived, but the Star Tiger was receiving regular updates from them. The weather conditions were simply not extraordinary. Your position is consistent with the Ministry accident report- there are a number of things that might have happened, but no way to prove any. Still, to simply disappear without and SOS and no sign of wreckage is not normal by any means, and two such wrecks in such s brief period has to be seen as extraordinary.
I agree (and made the point in the conclusion) that there is no evidence that mysterious disappearances are more common in the "Bermuda triangle" than other well traveled lanes. Still, MH 370 strikes home the point that Jones made 74 years ago that "It is the same big world the ancients knew, into which men and their machines and ships can disappear without a trace.”
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
That is a fair comment. I should not have implied that European cars are less safe, but, rather, that safety standards differ. The Smart Car, for example, was on sale in Europe for nine years before it came to the US because Daimler had to redesign the car, including making it longer, to meet US crash safety standards.
For front crash testing, for example, Europe uses a deformable barrier and the US uses a fixed barrier. Those two operate from different principles, and that means that significant redesign may be necessary.
There are some that argue that the automakers press some of these regulations to protect profit margins rather than actual passenger safety. I won't take a stand on that, as that is not my area of expertise. But it is true that there are differences in safety standards that do preclude some European models from coming to the US, even if for no other reason than that automakers don't believe they will market well in the US, and so don't want to put in the effort to do the testing needed to have them approved.
There are other regulatory hurdles as well. Many of the high mileage European models are diesel, and the US tax system does not favor diesel fuel.
it is a fact that some of the higher mileage European models are simply not sold in the US, and there are many reasons for that.
But it is also true that the measures for fuel efficiency differ, and the same car model sold in the US will show a lower MPG than it would under European standards. Aside from electric cars, even high mileage European diesel models are not getting EPA ratings anywhere near 70 MPG.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
In 1945 23 battleships were in service: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
ian turpin and you still seem to misunderstand the war. It was a war fought between South Vietnam and North Vietnam, and was a bonafide war. The illegal invasion came not from the United States, but from North Vietnam. I understand that there are complex issues involved with the French and then US involvement in Southeast Asia. Per usual, I am not attempting a political stance, and certainly not attempting to pass judgement on anti-war protesters. I am advocating on behalf of history. The war predated US involvement, and continued after the US withdrew. Yes, it was an actual war in Vietnam, even is the US involvement was undeclared, and thus a “Police Action” for the United States. Even that claim is dubious given that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was the equivalent of a declaration of war. By nearly any common understanding of the word, it was a war. And no, there is no fair description as a US invasion.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The way that European monarchies evolved themselves was via the reforms of the enlightenment that la Reforma represented. It is unreasonable to argue that the side opposed to such reforms would have evolved into them. A central position of the conservatives was that only Catholics would be allowed citizenship. That is exactly the thinking that drove the seventeenth century European wars of religion, and backlash to that thinking had driven the enlightenment. Yes, it was an antiquated idea already by the time of the Reform War.
I am not trying to take sides in the Reform War, but the liberals were demonstrably seeking a more modern form of government that far more represents Mexico, and the modern world, today. The fact that conservatives backed the installation of a European monarch in the War of the French Intervention discredited them with the people and allowed the implementation of the laws of the Reform embodied in the 1857 Constitution. the irony was, as one Historian at the Jesuit-run Iberoamerican University notes “A church that supported independence, then invited an empire to invade Mexico.” Again, you oddly fault Juarez for accepting American support in the reform war, but ignore that his opponents encouraged literally a European invasion and domination of Mexico.
Diaz is certainly an interesting person, and he took a less radical view of the church than Juarez and Lerdo, he maintained the Constitutional separations. It is not accurate to describe him as a conservative as they were during the reform war. In fact, he was most of all a pragmatist. But it is strange that you seem to fault Juarez for his affiliation with he US and ignore the fact that the way that Diaz "modernized" the country was to sell most of its economy to the United States, which had almost exclusive control of Mexican mines, railroads and oil and held a significant amount of the land under Diaz.
I am still not sure where you are going with your argument, but regardless of your preference for what might have been, the liberals did win the War of the Reform, the War of The French Intervention, The Mexican Revolution, and the Cristero War. The Constitutions of 1857 and 1917 represented liberal positions.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I suspect that Woodworth was just modeling after regular military uniforms of the day. They would be honor blades, not actual weapons. But I agree, it seems oddly out of place.
As the corps has its own awards that, essentially, represent deployments, a Surgeon General will receive awards over their tenure. Given the mission of the corps, they may receive these awards more often than regular branches, especially in peace time. For example, in 2015 President Obama recognized the PHS with a Presidential Unit Citation for their work combating Ebola in Africa. As with other members of the Corps, the then Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy was entitled to that award.
In terms of ribbons of the Surgeon general, the current surgeon general, Dr. Jerome M Adams, wears two decorations, the Public Health Service Regular Corps Ribbon, which merely denotes that he is a member of the PHSCC, and the Commissioned Corps Training Ribbon, which means that he has completed Officer Training School. There is an additional badge that represents the Surgeon General.
But Sylvia Trent-Adams, who was only the second Surgeon general not to be a medical doctor, was the acting surgeon general in between Murthy and Adams. As she had been in the corps for more than fifteen years, she had qualified for a number of awards in her career.
Surgeons General are also entitled to wear awards earned in other branches, including civilian awards for agencies like the federal bureau of prisons. So some Surgeons General have a fuller rack than you might expect.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I respectfully disagree - battle reports do not clearly support your narrative. There is, at least, no confirmation that the damage was all from West Virginia. Moreover, Yamashiro was hit by at least two, and as many as four torpedoes, after West Virginia’s salvos, which likely caused her sinking.
Unfortunately, the condition of the wreck did not allow a clear analysis of the damage or cause of her sinking.
Still, West Virginia performed proudly, clearly scored hits, and news reports at the time credited her with sinking Yamashiro. I do not deny any credit to the crew of the We Vee, they did the Navy proud.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
It is a type of hawk. It is a fairly typical name for a small RN vessel. She was a Cruizer-class brig-sloop, whose class also included HMS Osprey, Swallow, Raven, Redwing, Ring Dove, Peacock, Sparrowhawk, Crane, Herron, Gannet and Penguin.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The war of Breton succession is not as complex as it sounds, as there were only two claimants for most of the conflict. The claimants were John Of Montfort, half brother of John III, and Charles of Blois, husband of Joan of Penthièvre, who was the daughter of John III's younger brother Guy de Penthièvre, who died in 1331. The war ended after the deaths of both John and Charles, and went to John's son, also named John, who became John IV, Duke of Birttany.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Josep Sankhill the British army included millions of Commonwealth troops, as well as many thousands of volunteers from outside the commonwealth. There were some two million volunteers in Southeast Asia alone in what has been called "the largest volunteer army in history." Although English was commonly taught throughout the Commonwealth, certainly not all of these millions in service spoke English. While that complicates command and coordination, it is not an impossible barrier, and the British had relatively more experience leading diverse troops than other nations. The contributions of the millions who who volunteered, both from inside and outside the empire, are under-appreciated. Many played a role in the decolonization that occurred after WWII.
Too, there were many who fought against the allies largely because of their dissatisfaction with colonialism. The Indian National Army was comprised largely of British-Indian POWs who had been captured in the Southeast Asia campaigns. Their cause was Indian independence, but they allied with the Japanese in order to serve that goal. The INA was an active participant in the battles of Imphal and Kohima, and their role, and the fact that they allied with Japan, is still a matter of controversy.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
It is an honor granted by the sovereign. The honor may be granted because of a royal connection, distinction in a specific battle or period of service. Such regiments will have the title "Royal" or "The King's (or Queens) own" in the regimental name. For example, the Tank Corps was created by royal warrant in 1917, given the title "Royal" by George V in 1923, and is now the Royal Tank Regiment.
Many regiments today are the result of various periods of amalgamation- or combining historical regiments into a single regiment. If any of the legacy regiments bore the Royal title, that goes with the amalgamated regiment. In other cases, the title was granted upon amalgamation.
For example, the 18th regiment of foot was given the title Royal by William III after service in the Nine Years War, becoming the Royal Irish Regiment of foot. After the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922 the unit was disbanded. But, in 1992 the Ulster defense Regiment was amalgamated with the Royal Irish Rangers, thus keeping the title "Royal" to become the Royal Irish Regiment.
In fact, the Royal Irish Rangers had the title as a legacy, having been amalgamated from the the North Irish Brigade: the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, the Royal Ulster Rifles and the Royal Irish Fusiliers.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Dean Stuart that is an interesting counterfactual, and just as interesting is that there was an Attempt by Britain to get America to join the alliance. My guess, though, is that competing interests is China and throughout the pacific would have caused a spilt absent the US demand. Relations between Japan and Britain were already strained before the Washington Naval Conference, and the Commonwealth, notably Canada, were clearly wary of Japan at the 1921 Imperial conference. The alliance was really about opposition to Russian influence, and that concern was fading, undercutting the entire rationale. The rise of militarism and ultranationalism during the Shōwa period was driven by a number of factors, including the Great Depression, and not primarily by the lack of allies. It just seems unlikely that the alliance would have survived.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@UC1wvXJGSL2bGESf9m3uFOZw the noxious ideology and horrendous human toll of the Nazi party are not in historical dispute. The “cultural impact” of “Americanization” was certainly far less violent and destructive than Nazi occupation.
Estimates vary, but the number killed by genocide, the murder of hostages, reprisal raids, forced labor, "euthanasia," starvation, exposure, medical experiments, terror bombing, and in the concentration and death camps of the Nazis ranged between 15,003,000 to 31,595,000 people. That is not combat casualties- military or civilian- it is people murdered in Nazi occupation.
German restrictions on pro-Nazi speech are not because the ideology is alluring to good people, but because it is dangerously seductive to bad ones.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Respectfully, it is a stretch to call the Confederate government of Missouri the "legitimate elected government," since the group only represented a pro-confederate minority and the vote to secede was apparently done without a quorum. The Missouri Constitutional Convention was elected, and voted overwhelmingly to oppose secession. Neither body could really be said to represent a legitimate, elected state government. However, the point is moot, as during the war military control was all that mattered, and, except for a part of the southwest early in the war, the Confederate Government of Missouri never exercised any real authority in the state.
I do not believe we misrepresented the body in any way in this episode. Whatever "common theme" you imagine, after Pea Ridge the Confederate Government of Missouri was a government in name only, with no authority.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
None of what you just said seems to be an even vaguely accurate description of what I say in the episode. No, de Villiers was not being magnanimous, he was being practical. I don't know, nor do I suggest, duplicity in the translation, but Washington certainly did. Without question, though, the French were playing a game in which they were willing to portray Jumonville as a diplomat or as a soldier, depending on how it served them. He was at best a spy, and quite possibly sent to attack if he had advantage. All of that would have been common for the time, and does not represent the French unfairly. No one suggested they were "cowards." I am not sure if you have some "interesting" agenda to portray Washington in a bad light, but I think that I fairly present the facts and motivations of the principal participants in the episode.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I am sorry that you choose to be insulting and unpleasant.
The Republic or Ireland did not exist until the Republic of Ireland Act came into effect in 1949. Between 1937 an 1949 the name of the nation was "Ireland," and the term "Southern Ireland" was commonly used to distinguish the state from Northern Ireland.
While Ireland stopped participating in Commonwealth Events after the passage of the Constitution of 1937, there was still a vestigial role for the king under the Irish External Relations Act of 1936, making Ireland nominally a Dominion. Those powers were moved to the president under the Republic of Ireland Act after the events described in the episode.
The Statute of Westminster 1931 gave the Dominions parliamentary autonomy. The Dominions were independent nations in 1940, and none were obligated to go to war.
I apologize at my pronunciation. I am an American.
Wing Commander Finucane was called "Paddy" by his comrades in the RAF. Take your complaint up with them.
If you are attempting to claim that the UK was worse than the Third Reich, I strongly disagree. The comment about ignoring German atrocities has nothing to do with British treatment of the Irish. The criticisms I mention at the end are commonly argued within Ireland, and I am offering no insult by mentioning them.
I believe the episode to be accurate, and did not intend, nor do I think it can be reasonably inferred, to pass judgement on Ireland's choice of neutrality. If you have chosen to take offense for some reason, I cannot help that.
I can say that at least tens of thousands of Irishmen found the cause to be just enough that they chose to fight on the side of the allies.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Research suggests that 34 of the 56 signers signed on July 4. August 2nd is somewhat misunderstood, as it represented the slightly amended version after the New York delegation received permission from the legislature to approve. Even then, delegates signed essentially as they came in. There was never a single mass-signing.
Actually, the celebration was called 'the Fourth of July" as opposed to 'Independence Day" from the start. Reporting on the first celebration in 1777 in Philadelphia, for example, the Virginia Gazette wrote "Thus may the Fourth of July, that glorious and ever memorable day, be celebrated through America, by fans of freedom, from age to age, till time shall be no more." While it says 'the Fourth of July, being the anniversary of the independence of the United States of America, was celebrated" nowhere does the report use the term "Independence Day."
While the federal holiday is officially 'Independence Day," the distinction was apparently unimportant to the founders. Jefferson's letters frequently mention the Fourth of July, and often note it being "the anniversary of the country's liberty" or "the anniversary of American independence." However, he never seems to have actually called it "independence day."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Richard McCaig I can make my channel about whatever I wish. Don’t presume to tell me what you opine I am obligated to discuss and then bluster about censorship. That is a rank hypocrisy.
Of course the purpose of learning history is because it informs us about the present. But if history is told with a political motive, that pollutes the history. I work, as well as I am able, to tell the facts of history without skewing them to fit some view of the political present. I leave it to those who view the history to make their own conclusions. If you think the job of a historian is to write history to fit the present, I simply disagree. I believe a historian should not be taking a political stance, and, if they do, that suggests the history they tell is suspect. It is difficult to walk the line of telling history without bias, and I have not always been successful. But it remains my ideal, and I will strive for it.
You are incorrect that I “want no discussion of a political nature.” Viewers are free to have those discussions, so long as they remain civil and do not violate YouTube policy. What I strive for is not to impress my political opinions on the telling of the history, and thus foist them on the viewer.
And if you seek the typical vitriol of political argument, I do suggest that you choose one of literally billions of places online where that is the expectation. If you call that censorship, fine. I am not the government. This is my channel, and I have an absolute right to set limits on what we discuss in my house. If you don’t like it, make your own channel. That is the meaning of freedom of expression.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Sparky they are described in the histories written by Diodorus Siculus, but only vaguely so, and the history was written more than 250 years after the battle. His description is: “Against the projectiles from the catapults they made wheels with many spokes, and, setting these to rotate by a certain device, they destroyed some of the missiles and deflected others, and broke the force of all.” And “the Tyrians rigged marble wheels in front of the walls, and causing them to rotate by some mechanism they shattered the flying missiles of the catapults, and, deflecting them from their course, rendered their fire ineffective.” I think that these are the only two existing references to the devices.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
That is an interesting discussion. Actually, the vast majority of those who got their medals revoked were not ever in combat. The largest number were the members of the 27th Maine who never saw combat, and whose only exceptional service was extending their enlistment four days to stand picket duty in Washington while other troops fought at Gettysburg. The next largest number were the members of the guard for Lincoln's funeral procession.
There were six civilians who got their medals revoked including Dr Walker. Five of those were army scouts (including William Cody.) The scouts likewise had their medals reinstated.
As to Dr. Walker, the argument made when her's was reinstated was that she would have been in the army had she been a male. She served as much as any member of the medical corps. As she risked her life to go behind enemy lines, and was captured there at risk of her life, she did do her service in the face of the enemy.
While she was headstrong, she was not known to disobey orders, and her recommendation came from George Henry Thomas and William Sherman, both of whom apparently respected her service. Personally, in the context of how the medal was awarded at the time, I think she was as deserving as some. But I respect the opposite side- General Miles' commission was careful in its decision.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
There are many “Great fires.” Seriously, almost any large city has had one- Paris in 1897, Constantinople in 1660, Moscow in 1547, Edo in 1657, Toronto in 1849 and 1904, Sydney in 1890, Seattle in 1889, Amsterdam in 1452, Atlanta in 1917, St Louis in 1849, Denver in 1863, Dublin in 1190, Edinburgh in 1824, Copenhagen in 1728, the list goes on and on. The Great Fire of London in 1666 is maybe the most remembered, but here in the US the Great Chicago Fire is probably most well known.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The word "patriot" has an interesting history. In brief, while the word always meant a person loyal to their country and willing to defend it, sometime near the end of the seventeenth century it began to be used ironically. That is, a "patriot" was a person who claimed devotion to government as an excuse to attack it. "Patriots" were those rabble rousers that were stirred up by politicians.
By the time of the American revolution, the term had come to be used to mean the opposite of its original intent. Lexicographer Samuel Johnson gave is meaning to be "ironically for a factious disturber of the government."
The term "patriot" was actually first used as a pejorative regarding the rebellious Americans, who at the time saw themselves as defenders of natural law. (One of the most common complaints about the taxes is that they were unconstitutional under the Magna Carta.) Some of the early American rebels rejected the term because of its negative connotations, and were more likely to call themselves Whigs, supporting the British Whig party. But the rebels started to embrace the term, which then morphed to mean advocating for independence of a person's native soil against a foreign power.
I think very few started out calling for independence. That notion evolved, largely driven by the Intolerable Acts.
While a conservative loyal to the crown might actually have met the traditional definition of a "patriot," they would never have used the term, calling themselves instead "Loyalists."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ronunderwood5771 hermaphrodite assume a person has both functional male and female organs. That occurs in some species,, but not in humans, and so is an obvious misnomer. In this case, and this is simply a theory that fits the available evidence but cannot currently be proven, Pulaski was genetically female, but suffered from a condition that affected the release of androgens in vitro, causing the external genitalia to appear male. The result was a person with internal female organs but apparently male external genitalia. Given the theory, he lived his life as a man, but his skeletal remains are female. What we know for certain is that the skeletal remains appear female by accepted anthropological standards, but the remains are those of General Pulaski.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
They were only briefly used- by the turn of the century, developments in high explosives made them more suitable for regular artillery and the dynamite gun became obsolete. They were deployed in early Endicott forts, including Fort Hancock and Fort Winfield Scott, but also on ships, and a smaller version was developed for field artillery. We even built a "Dynamite gun cruiser," USS Vesuvius, and armed a submarine, USS Holland, with dynamite guns. The field gun, called the Sims-Dudley Dynamite gun- used a charge of smokeless powder to compress the air, and was famously used by the Rough Riders during the siege of Santiago.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
TubeChat absurd. The British camps were not built with chambers to execute the internees. Your comparison is mere hyperbole.
I am not excusing the camps, which shocked the British themselves. Conditions were horrible, there was not enough food, and tens of thousands of women and mostly children died. These are facts that we know because of a commission appointed by the British government- something that itself delineates a stark difference from the Nazis.
But they were not death camps. They were not built for the same purpose, and did not play the same role, and most of the internees survived.
And you ignore the role that the Boer guerrillas, no longer with the excuse of behaving like a legitimate army and committing acts of barbarity themselves, played in the prosecution of that conflict.
And, to be blunt on the history, the Boers were fighting over land that they had taken from Africans, largely to escape the British ban on them owning African slaves.
The Second Boer war brought a number of horrors and proved the adage that “war is hell.” It causes included naked greed and the acts of administrators who paid little attention to the human consequences of their decisions. The war included stunning acts of inhumanity. But the war was not so simple as “British bad, Boer good.”
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Vern Etzel I simply disagree. He was certainly not a hero, and I do not present him as such. However, his life was interesting, represented a unique period in history, and touched some important events and figures. Society, and history, is more complex than good versus bad, and characters, especially colorful, complex characters like Titanic Thompson, are the proof that history is real.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The photo is not photo-shopped- it is actually a very famous photo. He, alone among them having served in the infantry, is in the uniform of the 170 infantry. He was proud of being a veteran of an elite unit.
There were many French colonial units and the FFL with Black soldiers, but, very few Black men in the metropolitan regiments. He was, literally, the only black man in the 170th regiment- the only Black swallow of Death. I've never heard of him being offended by the title.
He was the first known Black fighter pilot- why is there offense in mentioning that? It was a period when Black men were not usually given that opportunity. Certainly his record was amazing by any standard, but he left America because of race, went to France because of race, was excluded from serving with the AEF because of race, and not recognized for his accomplishments in the country of his birth because of race. Arguablt he was pused out of the French flying corps because of race. What kind of sensibility have we moved to if race is removed from that story?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
cpmenninga the fundamental right to criticize institutions of power is the very heart of the protection. No, it is not comparable to shouting fire when no fire exists. Virtually every executive has an adversarial relationship with the press, many far worse than the current executive (look at actions by Wilson.) In fact, the consequence of not holding the press to scrutiny can be extreme- with the classic example being the war with Spain. Respectfully, I disagree with the assertion that a politician questioning the power and motives of the press amounts to press restriction. Such an attitude smacks of censorship, and sets a dangerous precedent. The defense of the press is in truth, and truth need not fear criticism. It is right and proper that editors and publications, as well as individuals, can criticize the executive. It is just as right and proper that the executive, as well as individuals can criticize the press. It is those places where the two do not criticize each-other that concern me. I dearly wish that this nation avoid that trap. Lovejoy did not die for the cause of not allowing others to criticize his positions, he died for the cause of not letting anyone dictate what we are allowed to discuss, and criticize.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Neil Dahlgaard-Sigsworth please be civil all. Years are astronomical events. Centuries, on the other hand, are made-up human constructs. We could have picked any random year as year one, and year 100 is, therefore, just as random. In fact, it is even more random because we could count base eight or base twelve. As centuries are made up, the point of counting is random, and the dateline (and even, for practical purposes the equator) is as real as Sasquatch, exactitude is a fairy tale. All that counts here is where and when the people on the boat thought they were. This story is not about whether 100 or 101 starts the century. In fact, the whole argument proves that that is an obtuse question. It is about the crazy kinks that come from these fabricated human conventions that we have created.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Not at all- although just with a brief mention at the end. There are many more stories to tell, and, of course, no way to tell them all in fifteen minutes. I meant no denigration of the New Zealanders, nor, for that matter, the Canadians, South Africans, Poles, and others, who served nobly in the battle, by focusing this episode on a few Australians.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It is an enjoyable film. its depiction of the draft riots is not particularly accurate. It certainly implies a far higher number of fatalities than is generally accepted, and implies that the bulk of the fatalities were inflicted by the federal troops, while in fact the vast majority were caused by the mob.
Despite the climatic scene of the movie, The Bowery Boys were not involved in the riots, and Five Points was actually relatively quiet. The navy never fired on the city, although some sailors were part of the federal force used to quell the riots.
One interesting question was the participation of the volunteer fire departments in the riots. The movie portrays them centrally, essentially leading the attack. That is apparently based on a history written some twenty years after the event, which suggested that the fire departments were upset, as they were immune for militia conscription, but not federal conscription. But most historians disagree, as there is ample record of the volunteer departments trying to fight the fires in the midst of the rioting.
Again, it is a fine movie, but not an accurate portrayal of the events of the draft riots.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I have seen that conclusion questioned, and have seen primary sources that don’t seem to support the claim that cowboy was uniquely used to refer to Black cowherds. In Arizona it was certainly not the case, as “cowboy” meant a type pf outlaw and was simply not used to refer to cowhands. Too, in Texas, the term “Buckaroo,” derived from vaquero, was more commonly used, and appeared to be used to refer to cowherds regardless of whether they were Black, Mexican, or White.
It is certainly true that the role of Black cowboys, no matter which term is used, has been hidden due to inaccurate representation in western film. I do plan to highlight some of those men in future episodes.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There were several, but all short lived. They tended to be coastal, and used for sending shipping news from ports to cities.
The first was between Martha’s Vineyard and Boston, and operated from 1801-1807. Its legacy is the no less than seven hills between Falmouth and Dorchester named “telegraph hill.”
In a twist, when, in 1837, congress called for proposals for the construction of a telegraph system in the US, they meant an optical system. All the proposals were for optical systems save for one. A man known as a portrait artist came with an outlandish idea for an “electromagnetic telegraph.” While congress did not appropriate money at the time, they did get a demonstration of the device. They finally funded the artist-turned-inventor’s idea in 1844. He was, of course, Samuel F.B. Morse.
Small article on the Boston system here: https://www.mvtimes.com/2020/07/15/10-minutes-boston/
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dominik36127 again, my opinion after the research. The anthropologists were careful in their assessments, and the final conclusions of the paleo-DNA lab convincing. Too, the suggestion is the only explanation that really fits the evidence. The odds of finding the remains of a female of the same age, height, and injuries documented for Pulaski, in addition to evidence of an equestrian lifestyle, yet no evidence of childbirth, in a grave attributed to General Pulaski seems more ridiculous than a 1 in 20,000 genetic abnormality that would likely leave skeletal remains exactly as were found.
Some seem to see some agenda, but the theory of Congenital adrenal hyperplasia actually was advanced in the original 1990s recovery by a Georgia Deputy Coroner who recalled a notation in a medical journal. That hardly sounds like some politically motivated stunt..
I simply find the entire story compelling, and really see no alternative explanation that seems credible.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Canada is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, and the Queen is the head of the Commonwealth. But, moreover, under the terms of the 1931 Statute of Westminster, each country’s monarchy is separate and distinct. Thus, Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada. She plays a constitutional role as sovereign and head of state, enshrined in the Constitution of Canada. While the role is largely symbolic in a constitutional monarchy, it is described as being “both legal and practical, but not political.” She is on currency because, as sovereign, she is regarded as the personification of the Canadian state.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That claim was suggested by Brock Yates, the former editor of Car and Driver magazine, and a respected automotive historian. His exact comment was: "The single most successful car ever to run at Indianapolis, and possibly anywhere in the history of motor sports." But, of course, even he qualifies the claim, and such claims will always be controversial. No matter your opinion, the Indy 500 represents premier racing, and that one car ran competitively for a whopping fourteen years. While there are many racing teams that can claim great success and make an argument for being the best in motorsports, they usually represent multiple actual automobiles. By any standard, the record of the Boyle Special is remarkable.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ahh, so the entire point is that you assume that you are mentally superior and, thus, have the right to slaughter them? Well, how primitive of them to defend themselves.
Again, I am not trying to take sides, but I do question your assessment of their intellectual capacity. Moreover, and as I try to point out in the episode, they might well think the same of you. Respectfully, I am wary of the claim that anyone has "brought destruction on themselves," especially given that they were not the ones bringing an armed force into someone else's territory.
2
-
And your argument is still perplexing to me. If they lived, quite ably, for 1700 generations without fire, isn't that proof that they didn't need to make fire? Couldn't anyone simply choose whatever standard they wish and, in the end, make it acceptable to slaughter any they deem inferior?
Your ancestors had fire. But, when Europeans arrived, the indigenous peoples of America were a stone age culture. All those generations, and the culture did not know how to work metal, and had not invented gunpowder? Clearly, they were inbred beasts who brought their destruction on themselves. It brings to mind comedian Eddie Izzard's line about "no flag, no country." Merely not having a technology that others have is a dangerous standard for which to say they "brought their destruction on themselves." Hypothetically, if an advanced alien civilization were to discover Earth, I hope they would not use the same reasoning.
Unlike the Onge, the North Sentinelese are still isolated, and, by all appearance, happy and healthy. There is no reason to think they can't last another 1700 generations. So who has the moral authority to say that their culture is without value?
The Onge were victims of people who came to their home and took what they wanted because they could. There is no judgement there- that is how most people have acted since forever. But, in the face of that, the Onge chose to defend themselves. That is also how people have acted since forever.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
gareth Croson while lionesses are primary hunters in a pride, males are larger and stronger, do hunt, and do become maneaters. Moreover, many do not realize that not all male lions have manes. A notable example is the Tsavo Lions, mane-less male hunters who killed and ate men. In this case, it is the line down the back and spots- typically darker on juvenile males than females- and the size, that likely drives the assumption of a juvenile male. But, admittedly, as the argument for a lion goes, there is no reason the beast could not have been a female.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Respectful, I generally disagree as to how the term came to be applied, and think I describe it correctly.
The term coxswain was not derived from the officer being "cocky," but because the small boat was called a "cock," which was derived from the french word coque, which means canoe. The word "cocky," incidentally, is generally accepted to have derived from a cockatoo, not a rooster.
I do stand by my description- the word was derived from the physical resemblance of a small and confined space below decks to the cockpit used in cock fighting. It was applied to airplanes and race cars because the space was, at least sometimes, used as the location to control the vessel. Young officers can certainly appear to be cocky, as can pilots and race car drivers, but that is not the etymology of the term.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DidMyGrandfatherMakeThis lol they herd live pigs into a burning mine. That isn’t how it worked at all.
I can enjoy a movie without it being entirely accurate, I appreciate storytelling. But I am often disappointed, as the actual story is often better than the parts they change. I do enjoy a number of history based movies that I find are close enough not to cause a history buff to cringe: Glory, Gettysburg, Apollo 13, the Band of Brothers series, Full Metal Jacket, Zulu Dawn, the King’s Speech, Greyhound, Das Boot, Kursk, Deepwater Horizon.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MisterUnicornFL it is the standard throughout academia and most publication guides, and very commonly used in all circles of publishing history. The terminology has been in use since the 17th century, and so does not appear to be related to modern concepts of the political left and right. I certainly am making no political statement, and any attempt to derive political meaning from my use of the terms is misguided.
I have used both BC/AD and BCE/CE on the channel, with no deliberate meaning intended, often simply based on what ever is used in the references being researched. I have had a handful of viewer complaints whichever I use, which merely drives frustration since the argument offers a no-win choice for the historian.
In reality, the two terms have the exact same meaning, and if some others are attempting to make some point by choosing one term or another, I assure you that I am not.
If the term continues to bother you, I can merely say that I have no control over by what you choose to be bothered by, and, reiterate, I am intending no political, religious, philosophical, or epistemological point.
2
-
orcasea59 Robert was certainly a supporter of capitol over labor in the period of labor unrest. His role in the Pullman strike has been under-studied, and there was also labor unrest under his tenure as president, although not nearly as contentious. I am careful about carrying over too much blame to Lincoln, as his reputation even among labor was not such that his casket had to be encased in concrete and steel.
As to the Pullman strike, Pullman’s tendency towards autocracy in his company predates his association with Robert Todd Lincoln. And the creation of Pullman town was, apparently, not done with malicious intent. Selling Pullman town, in the end, did not improve the lot of Pullman workers generally.
Respectfully, the Pullman strike was not as one sided as you suggest. Both public opinion and the other railroad unions largely opposed the strike. Pullman was as intransigent as usual, but the violence can not be said to be all his fault. Lincoln’s reputation, both then and now, has largely been unaffected and he has not generally been connected to the violence.
I did leave the Pullman strike out of the episode, despite connections, including the connection between Abraham Lincoln’s funereal train and the success of the Company. But such a complex issue that was tangential to Robert Todd Lincoln would certainly have distracted from the main theme of the episode. I may do an episode on the Pullman strike in the future, perhaps closer to Labor Day.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, the term "ship" has nothing to do with sails. There are plenty of ships today- very few have sails. And many boats do have sails- called, literally, "Sailboats." Boats are distinct from ships- the Royal Navy, for example, teaches its cadets that a boat leans IN to a turn, while a ship leans OUT. The difference between the two is usually seen in size. In fact, most define a ship as being 200 feet or longer, making the Eagle boats, at 200.8 feet long, nearly the line between the two. Traditionally, though, submarines are referred to as boats no matter their size.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bill Schauer Koch did not see them as dogma, but, then again, Koch did not actually suggest their use beyond his own research. But, regardless of his apparent understanding that the postulates were flexible, they began to be applied dogmatically to the point that the scientific community would not accept a casual connection if the microbe could not be isolated. You are correct that they only needed to be applied more flexibly, but they weren’t, and that stymied researchers for decades. My understanding is that Koch’s postulates have, in fact, been superseded by other criteria today. I did not mean to suggest the postulates did not still have value, and apologize if you took that meaning.
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(12)00119-1/fulltext
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
While Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz married George III in 1761, the legend that she brought the first Christmas tree to England refers to a tree at Queen’s Lodge, Windsor, in December, 1800.
Baroness Riedesel zu Eisenbach is credited by some as popularizing the Christmas tree in the Americas. But that tree was set up in 1781, not 1776, and was most likely not the first Christmas tree in the Americas. There are competing stories, but the first was likely set up by a Hessian POW in Connecticut in 1777.
Even the claim that the Baroness popularized the trees is dubious, as the tradition in Canada followed much the same pattern as the UK and US, and Christmas trees did not become widely popular until the Victorian era and into the twentieth century.
Still, the Riedesels represent early German traditions in the Americas, and Charlotte's letters are a fascinating read and unique insight into the era. She was certainly an extraordinary woman.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
US Navy and Marine peaked caps are commonly referred to as a combination cover (and, in the US military, any hat is generally referred to as a cover.) However, it is actually rare to find one where the cover can be replaced. My collection is far from complete, but I do have World War II vintage combination covers in all five colors that were used by the navy during the war- Khaki, White, Navy Blue, Battleship Grey, and Aviator Green.
The three hats over my shoulder in the video are a US Navy Officer Combination Cap, A US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps Combination Cap, and a United States Merchant Marine Officer Combination Cap.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
kel horton Panama was interesting, in that there were some 800 female troops present, but women were still prohibited by policy from combat roles. Two female Blackhawk helicopter pilots, a Lieutenant and a Warrant Officer, were flying what was supposed to be a transportation mission that ended up in a combat area. They received air medals for the operation.
But my brief comments at the end referred to US policy. Those two pilots were not assigned combat roles and the mission was not supposed to be a combat mission. Rather, they were accidentally put into a combat environment. The difference is more than semantic, since the point of the discussion was military acceptance of female combat pilots. The distinction, of course, does not denigrate the two officers’ service. The restriction on women in combat was not lifted until 1991, and the Air Force did not commission a female fighter pilot until 1993.
As a side note, since the episode was produced Russia has also changed its policy, and is now training female military pilots.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The seventeen provinces were the imperial states of the Habsburg Netherlands. Yes, there were seventeen:
the County of Artois
the County of Flanders, including the burgraviates of Lille, Douai, Orchies,
the Lordship of Tournai and the Tournaisis
the Lordship of Mechelen
the County of Namur
the County of Hainaut
the County of Zeeland
the County of Holland
the Duchy of Brabant, including the Lordship of Breda, the counties of Leuven and of Brussels, and the advocacy of the Abbey of Nivelles and of Gembloux, and the "Overmaas" lands of Brabant (Dalhem, Valkenburg and Herzogenrath)
the Margraviate of Antwerp
the Duchy of Luxembourg
the Lordship of Utrecht
the Lordship of Frisia
the Duchy of Limburg
the Lordship of Groningen (including the Ommelanden)
the Lordship of Overijssel
the Duchy of Guelders with the Lordship of Drenthe, Lingen, Wedde, and Westerwolde
the County of Zutphen
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh please. The British don’t routinely rewrite history? It is the national hobby.
And no, the crown never treated him as a hero. And Canada literally burned him in effigy and ran him and his son out of town. You comically rewrote history in your own comment.
I challenge the entire narrative. England tacitly supported the confederacy because its mills needed the cotton. Had the colonies not rebelled, the English quite possibly would never have abolished slavery, an institution they gleefully benefited from long after they “banned” it themselves. There is every reason to believe that the institution would have continued longer under British rule. And there is no reason to think that the British had the stomach to fight a war to abolish it.
It is an interesting rewrite of history for the mother country to try to pretend itself apart from the triangle trade, what with all three points of the triangle under British rule at the time.
It is certainly questionable whether the US would have wandered into commonwealth as eventually happened in Canada and Australia. And it is as questionable whether they would have been better served doing so. Certainly there is reason to wonder where the world might have gone in the 20th century without the arsenal of democracy.
Yes, I am American. I always find the combination of Canadian jingoism and complaint to be ironic. Some Canadians seem happy to openly, and largely ignorantly, insult American history even while imagining themselves to be the focus of insults. I humbly submit that Americans are not the ones obsessed by the comparison.
In fact, Arnold is not touted as a hero anywhere except, possibly, upstate New York. Such is the burden of a turncoat, regardless of motive. But I am able to present his story as a historian without the bias of judgement. He was both hero and traitor, neither and both. I strive to tell rather than “rewrite.” I don’t care if I am judged by those only peddling preferred narratives, even as they, rather ironically, accuse me of what they are doing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Nudnik1 again, with respect, I simply disagree that BC/AD is any more disrespectful to non-Christians than the use of the word “Saturday,” derived from the Roman Pagan pantheon, is disrespectful to non-Pagans. The term is an artifact of history, not a statement of theology.
And, again, pretending away the Christian genesis of the term doesn’t change how it was derived. Literally 1200 AD and 1200 CE refer to the same year calculated by the same method. Dionysius Exiguus was not calculating when he thought the era became common.
I don’t claim to be an academic historian, I am a storyteller, and choose to tell the story in the way most accessible to my audience. Were I to publish an academic piece, I would respect the conventions and rules of academia.
Personally, I find it silly for academicians to attempt to obfuscate the actual history of the derivation of the method for calculating the commonly used system of dating based on the specious argument that the use of the term suggests personal religious conviction. That is hiding history for the purpose of serving subjective sensibilities.
I say that with no disrespect, and fully appreciate historians who choose to use BCE/CE. Again, I am making no political nor religious point by using the term still most commonly used and understood outside of academia.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 I appreciate there are disagreements over the number or continents. But the various disagreements have never historically placed Central America and Northern America on different continents. That is historical fact, not a function of politicians. I guarantee, based on my own schooling, that the general agreement that Central America is a region of North America predates by centuries, and is in no way connected to, a trade agreement from the 1990s. I can find no indication that there has ever been a convention that placed Central America in South America. The dividing line is not the canal, but the isthmus.
Again, Columbus was within 100 miles of the continental US. He was not unaware of North America. And, again, the point made in the very brief mention of Columbus in the episode was that it was he who brought news of the new world back to Europe. That certainly predates Ponce De Leon’s expedition to Florida.
I was not intending to make a political statement about Columbus or the nature of continents, but the history in the episode is correct.
2
-
@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 again, I don’t mean to be cantankerous, but if Central America is a continent, how many continents do you think there are? 25? 30? If all that separates land masses is a river that runs part of a distance, Africa must be at least five continents. Certainly the Arabian peninsula and India must be continents. New Guinea, New Zealand, Greenland and Madagascar must be continents. In fact, given that the Rio Grande runs more North to South than East to West, wouldn’t the continental US be at least three continents? (East coast to Mississippi river, Mississippi to the Rio Grande, Rio Grande to West coast.)
The Rio Grande is the nineteenth largest river in the world. It the Rio Grande creates a continental boundary, then there must be many more continents.
Again, this is all to somehow claim that Columbus accomplished nothing getting to Cuba, but that Ponce de Leon was the discoverer by making it 90ish more miles to Florida?
I respect your work and expertise as a pilot. But Central America as a continent doesn’t fit any model I can find in literature, even considering continental fragments and micro-continents. Even by the confusing standard where even geologists disagree whether there are four, five, or seven continents, I am missing how Central America could meet the definition.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
dynd the horses were originally taken to Austria, but the country was in ruin and hardly able to feed it’s people. The decision to take some back to the US was made because of concern that the horses would otherwise be lost to the horse community. That decision was only made after a tribunal declared them, legally, spoils of war. The horses were only sold after the Army decided to stop maintaining stock. It is not, as you seem to present it, that the US stole the horses for money.
The US risked troops, and expended considerable effort and expense, to save these animals and preserve the tradition. All other outcomes, including leaving them in Czechoslovakia or Austria, were considered to offer far more dangerous outcomes for the animals. You truncate the story in ridiculous ways, ignoring the fact that there was never a better option available than the one taken. The Lipizzans survived because of actions taken by the US. It is historically dubious to assert otherwise, and intellectually dishonest to call the process “looting.”
I am not an apologist. I endeavor to present history without bias. The description here is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. There was no point where any of the officers involved stood to receive any personal gain. If the US Army were behaving selfishly, they would have left the horse to their fate. They did not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Andro mache well, I can say without reservation that I was making no statement about PETA, nor, for that matter, about Mandela or Ghandi. Black Tom was certainly a massive explosion whose significance seems to exceed writing off the response as that of “cry babies.” I am not sure what emotion you think is appropriate for such an event, nor why the emotional response would be different if we used another term such as “sabotage” or simply “massive explosion.”
Seriously, that you conflate the Black Tom explosion with PETA seems ample evidence that you are the one who is putting emotion ahead of reason. If the actual complaint is simply the insistence that people apply current political biases to past historical events, I would suggest that you change your filters.
In this case, I gave clear context, explained in detail the nature and size of the explosion, and any emotional response would be informed by the actual facts. The idea that the impact of this explosion is grounded in the term “terrorism” rather than by the actual explosion is difficult to support.
2
-
Mac Mcleod causing the Black Tom explosion was certainly illegal, and, given that the action was done in secret by spies, was even clearly recognized by the perpetrators as “underhanded.” Germany later acknowledged that it was an illegal act. It was not carried out by uniformed soldiers against a nation at war, but by spies in a neutral nation. And, again, it could not have been an act of war, as we were not only not at war, but also Germany emphatically did not want for us to be at war.
As the US was a non-combatant, casualties could only have been civilians.
Certainly at least some part of the goal (likely the greater part) of the entire program was to cause a change in US public attitudes so as to curtail shipping war supplies.
But if it was “sabotage,” it was an attack on a military target before a declaration of war. What is the important legal, moral, or emotional difference between Black Tom and the outrage that two decades later was described as “a date which will live in infamy?” Again, your answer doesn’t explain how this act was materially different, legally, morally, or practically from any other act of terrorism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As the episode states, the earliest known playing cards in Europe date back to the thirteen hundreds. More precisely, the playing of cards was described as "new" in the 1370s. They likely came via multiple channels. This isn't a singular historical event where a single date or person has been identified. The record that the first known cards in Europe were used to play what was described as a "Saracen's game" suggests a Middle eastern origin, and some scholars think the most likely origin was Mameluke Egypt. Marco Polo has generally been ruled out, since the earliest known examples came more than 200 years after his death. However, the same timeline admittedly makes the era largely after the crusades as well, as the fall of Acre was in 1291. But minor crusading efforts continued in the middle east through the fourteenth century, and may have been the means by which the playing of cards was brought to Europe.
Papyrus is different than paper in substantial ways, including durability, stiffness, and expense. It is more likely that cards came from China to the Middle East from via Persia.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The flight and accident are well documented, with both a report by the department of transportation and the civil aeronautics board. The accident report says that the engine began to overspeed, was disabled by cutting off the supply of lubricating oil, the prop failed to feather, and continued to windmill in the airstream causing drag. I am not a mechanic, but I am accurately representing what was in the official accident reports and news sources at the time, and has been repeated in multiple sources by people who are experts in airline mechanics.
if it helps, the report from the Civil Aeronautics Board says: "01:24 HST… The flight crew notices a momentary decrease in the RPM , then a heavy thud, followed immediately by an increase in the prop RPM. The crew decided the engine had frozen and the propeller had uncoupled through a failure in the propeller drive mechanism, and was wind milling in the airstream."
it was that "uncoupling,' which is described as "prop governor failure" that allowed the propeller to continue to windmill.
one of the findings from the CAB investigation was:
"5. The engine was frozen, however. the propeller became decoupled from the engine and continued to windmill."
The text of the CAB report is included here: http://propspistonsandoldairliners.blogspot.com/2011/08/amazing-ditching-of-pan-am-flight.html
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Chris Holman this is a history of English translations of the Bible. Clearly a coverage of all Bible history would be far too large for an episode here.
The Deuterocanonical books are an interesting discussion. However, it is more a discussion of theology than translation, and that was not the intent of the episode. I think, because of your interest, you wanted for this episode to have a much larger scope than would fit the format.
In terms of the dating of the Gospel of Mark, respectfully, you are stating as fact an answer that is of significant dispute among biblical historians. Too, there is no apparent consensus as to when the book of Acts was written. “We know when Acts was written” is not an accurate summary of current thought by Biblical historians.
With this channel we always have the issue that a topic we cover as one of many will be someone else’s life work. I have no doubt that every episode we have ever made has been viewed by someone with more expertise than us. I do not question your knowledge.
However, respectfully, I am confident, in terms of the issues you have mentioned, our statements are consistent with the most accepted current consensus.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That is why I included the discussion at the end. While the rebellion is now seen as an early move for independence, there did not seem to be a coherent move for self-rule among the mutineers, and, of course, a great portion of the sepoys and Princely states at the time remained loyal to the British. Personally, I think the evidence is more compelling that it was a class uprising rather than a proto-nationalist movement. “Freedom fighters fighting for independence of their nation” ignores that there was no vision of a united India at the time politically or culturally. And, interestingly, to the extent that a rival government was created it was to restore the Mughal emperor- a legacy foreign imperial dynasty. The rebellion was a complex event wrapped up in political, class and cultural tensions of the time, and I think it is somewhat of a stretch (although not incredibly so) to connect it to the modern independence movement. Still, it is an absolutely fair point that the uprising was both more complex and broader than a military rebellion. It is also completely fair to say that the Sepoys were not acting without cause, and the uprising can fairly be seen as heroic from the Indian perspective.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Many, including, for example, Canada, realized that this was a crisis at the time. The criticism is not hindsight, it was noted then as well. I did not intend the narrative to blame Britain, but, rather, to offer a balanced description of events. Others complain that I have not faulted Churchill enough, many thinking the famine was deliberate. I do not personally think the evidence supports that point. But War Council records do show a shocking racism and callous disregard for the lives of Indian subjects of the empire for which disgust does not require hindsight.
As to your criticism, there used to be people in Britain who were grateful to the US for the sacrifices made during wars far from our shores, as shown in the American Memorial Chapel at St Paul's cathedral. I am always sorry to hear that so many from the UK have lost their understanding of history to the point where, like you, they derisively attack allies who came to their aid.
I am, in many ways, an Anglophile, and do not intend to portray Great Britain as anything other than a creature of their times. But, as Oliver Cromwell said, paintings should include warts and all. I hope that I treat all nations similarly. But I feel compelled to comment here. I rarely, if ever, hear Americans choosing to insult Britons. I do not understand why Britons such as yourself find it proper to go out of your way to insult us. We came "late" to two wars. But had we not come, I suspect that things would be far worse in the UK today. Asserting otherwise is "rubbish."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
James Jacocks I respectfully disagree. In fact, I can’t find a single definition that requires a fatal outcome. Standard definitions tend to focus on things like “bravery, courage, valor.” All would be fitting terms for the conduct of people who rise in the face of danger.
From the perspective of the Greek heroic age, a fatal outcome was certainly not required. Perseus survived his adventures and married Andromeda. Odysseus completed his odyssey.
The Greek heroes were usually born of Gods with powers beyond humans. Obviously no living human is the son of Zeus or slays mythical monsters. But even by that perspective, one could still argue the Ogg and Sullenberger were favored of the Gods based on their achieving unlikely positive outcomes.
I can see the perspective that heroism requires a degree of self-sacrifice, and landing these planes was self preservation. But both captains refused to abandon their sinking aircraft until all passengers were accounted for.
Personally I think they meet the definition. But, I would say, heroism is in the eye of the beholder. By any standard, though, Ogg and his crew acquitted themselves very well in extraordinary circumstances, and innocent lives were saved as a result. That is history that deserves to be remembered.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
nocalsteve Aloha was doing the required checks, but the NTSB identified numerous problems with the timing of the checks (mostly done at night,) the training and supervision of maintenance personnel, and the equipment. There was a dissenter on the review board who argued that the report was too critical of Aloha since the cracks would have been too difficult to identify.
The panels were laminated with epoxy, which was supposed to bear the brunt of stresses. But the cold bonding process that had been used ended up trapping water, which caused corrosion, and eventually caused the panels to delaminate. This put the stress on the rivets, which had micro-fractures due to corrosion.
The airworthiness directives addressed inspections, crew training and supervision, equipment, and various types of preventative alterations on panel joints on aging aircraft.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That is an interesting question. However, the passenger pigeons preferred mast, and only ate invertebrates as a secondary food source. There were documented locust plagues at the time when the pigeons may have been at greatest numbers. While some were voicing concern about pigeon numbers by the 1870s, even in 1874 the species was still widespread. While they had distribution across the continent, the passenger pigeon primary nesting areas were eastern forests, and the grasshoppers rarely spread that far. The pigeons preferred forests, the locusts preferred plains. Having researched episodes on both, I don't think that the pigeons would have much affected the locust plagues. Despite their stunningly similar stories- massive, prolific species driven quickly to extinction,- the causes were somewhat different, although both related to habitat destruction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Again, I am unconvinced of the consequences of abusing a term Terrorism is notoriously difficult to define (one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.) In this case, it was unquestionably an illegal act of violence. The question is political motivation, which I think is rather obvious merely by the fact that is was being conducted out of the embassy at a time when the German government was very much trying to impact US policy.
I disagree with your distinction between a successful military op or terrorism. I don't see why an act intended to have a political impact can't also have a military purpose. In fact, that distinction is often used by obvious terrorists, who attempt to claim their violence was against legitimate targets. That claim has been specifically made in terms of 9/11.
There is a definition in Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code. The term is not in the criminal code, but has to do with State department reporting on foreign countries. The definition states: "T]he term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." The definition does not seem to exclude military targets so long as there is a political motivation. In this case, the act certainly seems to have been both premeditated and the work of clandestine agents. The only question was whether there was political motivation, and, again, I think that is rather obvious here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I do apologize, as some do take exception to the term "won" the medal. It is, though, a commonly used phrase, and certainly I did not intend to suggest the medal was not earned. I think that I used the more accepted "was awarded" in the rest of the video.
And again, you are correct that there are virtually no extant photographs from the period, and no known photograph or portrait of Cochise. The photos are not even all from the Apache wars, as a few of the army photos are just from the frontier (one is from Fort Laramie, and includes Caspar Collins, for whom Casper Wyoming is named.) The media used for the channel is all in the Public Domain, and should be seen as illustrative rather than an exact record, as many historical events did not conveniently include a photographer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LogCap4Jobs neither pronunciation quite matches the Greek, and both are acceptable pronunciations of the word.
The pronunciation YOU-reh-nuss that I used has most always been that preferred by astronomers, but it has more commonly been pronounced your-RAY-nuss in the US, probably because that more closely matches the phonetic spelling, despite sounding like “your anus.”
If you have noticed what appeared to be a change during your lifetime, that likely occurred in the 1990s. During that time astronomers reclassified Neptune and Uranus as ice giants rather than gas giants. The scientific clarification made the news. News anchors, apparently, preferred the astronomers’ pronunciation to saying “your anus.”
But, again, neither pronunciation is new, and both are grammatically acceptable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Medal of Honor was first signed into law for the Navy in December of 1861 and the Army in February of 1862, although the authorization changed in March of 1863 before the first medals were delivered to the war department. Tom Custer was an amazing fellow. No, he was not the first to receive the Medal of Honor, although he was the first to be awarded the medal twice. The first soldiers to receive the MoH were six members of Andrews Raiders in March 25 of 1863, with the first by date of issuance going to Jacob Parrott, a private in Company K of the 33d Ohio Infantry.
I am not sure what you mean by "grandfathering," but the enabling legislation, as it was modified in March of 1863, made the medal a permanent decoration, not just limited to actions in the Civil War. As there was no time limit placed on the date of action, and no limit on when the nomination for the decoration must occur, that gave the opportunity to nominate soldiers for actions that occurred in the past, including before the medal was authorized. For example, Adelbert Ames, a First Lieutenant of the 5th US Artillery, received the award for actions at First Bull Run, July 21, 1861, and Captain of the Afterguard George Bell of the USS Santee received the award for a naval action at Galveston Texas November 7, 1861, both actions that occurred before the medal was authorized.
There is an episode about Thomas Ward Custer here: https://youtu.be/6p0sLJNt2HY
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Simon King it is plenty cool to be watching YT drunk- no judgement there.
Yes, I sell this as a story channel. I say rather directly in the channel introduction that I don’t think that history needs to be boring. I am going to tell history as if I actually am enjoying myself telling history.
I certainly do not seek bias, but I don’t see that as reason to remove emotion from history. History should have you emotionally involved. History should have you on the edge of your seat. You should care about the events and people involved. The drama of history is part of history, and part of what makes history important.
And, frankly, every historian preaches, some are just less willing to admit it.
I appreciate that you are watching through the catalog. But there are certainly episodes in there critical of the British empire (some viewers think too critical, others argue not critical enough.)
I am, truth be told, an anglophile. My earliest interest in history came from Tennyson’s poem “The Charge of the Light Brigade.” I am also a fan of Kipling, and sympathize with his sentiment in “The White Man’s Burden.” But it was a famous Englishman who insisted that portraits should be painted “warts and all.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DT-sb9sv The remains were taken from the plinth of the Savannah Pulaski memorial- there were no other remains there. Of course the anthropologists did not assume this was Pulaski's remains, that is why the DNA testing was done. Mitochondrial DNA matched to the known remains of his great niece. The suggestion of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia was offered by the assistant county coroner in Atlanta, based on a medical journal article, to attempt to explain why remains that were apparently female otherwise matched the known characteristics of the general. I cannot see any evidence that a 1990s county official had any "political motive," nor why a team of anthropologists would have shared that motive, nor why, if they did, they would have continued with such extraordinary efforts, including waiting decades for DNA science to develop, to identify the remains. That assumptions simply makes no sense, especially since there would be no apparent "political" gain. As an archaeologist, I would hope that you choose to look with an unbiased eye at the evidence rather than jumping to a knee-jerk conclusion that assumes the ill-intent of colleagues in your profession. Your comment, sir, does not lend itself to someone concerned with "real science."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In my experience, there is always controversy anytime pretty much anything claims to be the largest anything. The claim here was derived from local reporting, but there was no methodology explained for how the claim was derived. But it is not an incredible assertion. The claim was “at the time,” and referring to a single project. While the Netherlands has more reclaimed land than that drained by the LRDD, it was done over centuries, and so was likely not considered a single drainage project. Forgive me, please, on inexact numbers, but if the numbers on Wikipedia are correct, the LRDD drained more land than all the land reclaimed by the Netherlands from 1400 - 1900. In terms of a single project, the LRDD drains about three times as much land as that of the Zuiderzee Works, described as the largest project in the Netherlands in the twentieth century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Henry Talmage "Hammerin' Hank" Elrod, the commander of the Marine squadron, VMF-211, received the Medal of Honor. He was the first aviator to receive the Medal of Honor during World War II.
Commander Cunningham and Major Devereaux were both awarded the Navy Cross.
The Wake Island Device, for service members who were awarded either the Navy Expeditionary Medal, or the Marine Corps Expeditionary Medal, and served on Wake Island between the dates of December 7 and December 22, 1941, is one of the rarest US military's awards- fewer were eligible for the clasp than received Medals of Honor in the Second World War.
The defenders of Wake Island received the Presidential Unit Citation.
Numerous Silver Stars, Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts were awarded for the defense of the island.
The civilian defenders were given veteran status in 1982, and survivors were awarded POW medals in 1988.
Bills recently in the United States Congress to award the Congressional Gold Medal "To members of the Armed Forces who fought in defense of Guam, Wake Island, and the Philippine Archipelago between December 7, 1941 and May 10, 1942, and who died or were imprisoned by the Japanese military in the Philippines, Japan, Korea, Manchuria, Wake Island, and Guam from April 9, 1942 until September 2, 1945, in recognition of their personal sacrifice and service to the United States." Have so far not received a vote.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There were at least some Western politicians who had advocated for war for years on the thinking the the US could make territorial gains, both in Canada and Florida. Certainly some saw the war as an opportunity. I disagree, however, that territorial expansion was a casus belli. If expansion was the goal, there would have been more profit in starting the war sooner. While it cannot be overlooked as part of the war goals for at least some, it is actually obvious that the nation and congress would not have gone to war over expansion. War required a complaint.
Still, the war is often seen, with fair cause, as a war of independence for Canada. And there is an interesting counterfactual to be considered had the US taken upper Canada. Britain was rather war-weary and financially precarious by then, and a major campaign would have been difficult to mount.
Madison also talked about attacks by native tribes on the frontier, which were shamelessly stirred up by the British. The British hoped to create a Native American "buffer state" to limit American expansion. It was, perhaps, the British aligned native tribes who suffered the most in the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Les B well, we don’t have any Romans around to ask, do we? ;) Actually it is likely related to the size of humans, horses, and cargo, as well as the limits of axle strength. Similar factors affect train gauge. While there is some speculation about how the standard gauge might derive directly from Roman roads, in fact, it is most likely a coincidence related to the fact that both were designed to convey humans, and, originally, be pulled by a team of horses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Andy Reid it is not a mispronunciation- it is quite proper to use either the pronunciation “root” or “rowt” in the United States. While you may travel down “root” 66, virtually everyone gets their internet via a “rowter.” Interestingly, Australians use the pronunciation “rowt” as the word “root” has (ahem) specific meaning. It is interesting how the pronunciations diverged, and has to do with vowel combinations, but the pronunciation of an ou vowel combination actually changed in England after the US gained independence. (When distressed, do Britons “powt,” or do you “poot?”) As an American, I use, consider proper, and will continue to use, both pronunciations. In theory the same is true of “quay,” which many dictionaries list as properly pronounced both “key” and “kway,” although the difference seems important to some.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That claim misrepresents the risk. Bacon and Cigarettes are not comparable carcinogens. Group 1 means that there is evidence that eating processed meats (not bacon specifically, but all processed meats, including cold cuts and hot dogs) can increase cancer risk. However, the significance of those risks are not comparable. Regular smoking increases the relative risk of getting lung cancer by some 23.6 times, of 2360%. The risk from eating 50 g of bacon a day, which is about four strips every day, increases relative risk of stomach or colon cancer by 18%. that is not an 18% risk, it is an 18% increase in relative risk. As science journalist JV Chamary explains: "So if you started with a hypothetical 5% risk of developing bowel cancer, consuming 50g of bacon every day would only raise your risk to almost 6%." While that may be an issue of concern for some, for others, their enjoyment justifies such risk. And for me it is hardly worth trying to make that explanation. People can make their own health choices.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That is an interesting question where etymology meets entomology. In fact, the definitions of both "plague" and "pestilence" include both disease and any cause of general destruction, and plague and pestilence are considered synonyms. The Latin root of pestilence is Pestis, the root of the English word "pest," which certainly seems to describe locusts, but the original Latin meaning was contagious disease.
In terms of the four horsemen of apocalypse in Revelation, the interpretation of the White Horse as pestilence is actually rather new, first occurring in the twentieth century.
In its narrowest sense, "plague" is a specific, bacterial illness. Covid-19 is not a plague, being viral and not caused by Yersinia pestis bacteria, it is a pandemic.
Large locust swarms are actually scientifically called "plagues." That is likely related to the Old Testament and the eighth biblical plague of Egypt. But, in terms of the definitions of the word, locust plagues
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That event is called "the sharkfest," so yeah, still sharky there. :) Actually, swimming the bay to Alcatraz is a common sporting event, and there are monthly non-competitive swims. But those are all restricted to experienced swimmers who take a specific class, are monitored by experienced coaches who accompany them in kayaks, and controlled for weather. Swimmers wear wetsuits because the water is dangerously cold. The tides are notoriously difficult, and there is a risk of sharks in the bay. There is a reason that prison officials thought it highly unlikely that a prisoner would be able to swim for it, even if they got to that point. Moreover, an escapee would almost certainly have to make the crossing at night, and would not likely be able to choose the timing. There is an enjoyable narrative of making that swim here: https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/jan/04/escape-from-alcatraz-swimming-san-francisco-the-rock-shoreline
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Colonists did not see kidnapping men off the street in the same sanguine way. Yes, the crown saw the taxation as paying for defense. That created a vision where colonists started to see better opportunity outside the empire. And, of course, they chafed since tariffs had largely gone unenforced before. There were other complaints. Dudingston was high handed, property was confiscated on scant evidence without a clear system of appeal, and some acts- like sending the accused to the Admiralty court on Boston was seen as a violation of the Rhode Island Charter. Dudingston was specifically disrespectful to the Colonial Governor.
Per usual, my point here is not to take sides. Both had complaints, and both largely dismissed the complaints of the others. As discussed at the end, the interpretations of the causes and motivations have transformed repeatedly in the centuries since the events. No matter your thought on the justice of the cause, the Gaspee Affair happened, and eventually helped to spur broader rebellion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hereholdthiswillya with all due respect to Wikipedia, you are presenting as fact a relatively new revisionist version of history.
While a legitimate point of historical debate, the claim that the bombs were unnecessary is extremely dubious. It is questionable whether the US was aware of the furtive efforts by the Japanese to reach out to the Soviets, or whether Truman had any reason to believe their sincerity.
What is unquestionable is that the Japanese were preparing for a defense of the home Islands, and had certainly made no outreach to the United States. Allied invasion plans were clearly advancing, making it clear that the US did not see the war as being over, nor suspect that Japan was on the verge of surrender. The US estimate of the costs of the invasion to both the US military and the civilian population of Japan gave ample reason for the use of atomic weapons to avoid the invasion.
Even after the weapons were used, and after the Soviets declared war, the Japanese Supreme Council for the Direction of the War refused surrender terms, and only accepted after the personal intervention of the emperor, and even then some officers attempted a coup d’etas to prevent surrender. It is a stretch to assert that Japan was planning to surrender, nor, even with the effects of CBO, that an invasion of the home islands would not still have resulted in a massive amount of allied and Japanese casualties.
More controversial, and unsupported by evidence, is the claim that the bombs were dropped gratuitously, a claim with no primary source support. Moreover, the US actions after the surrender rebuilding Japan, with which the US has been strongly allied ever since, makes the “based on racism” claim appear hollow.
And the US population certainly widely accepted the traditional argument that the US used the bombs to end the war. That is what Keeshan said specifically in his autobiography. As a Marine who was being trained for the upcoming invasion, he seems to have been convinced both that he was heading to war, and that the bombs are what made that sacrifice unnecessary.
You bring up what is an interesting current debate, based on an unprovable counterfactual “what if” if the US had not used the bombs when they did. While I appreciate the discussion, (a good summary is at the link below) I certainly cannot track where every viewer stands on every question of history.
You chose to take umbrage over a single line that is clearly not the topic of the video based on your adherence to a questionable historical position. If you choose to unsubscribe over such, that is certainly your prerogative. But, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation, I do not believe the evidence supports the theory.
https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bobby Paluga Farnsworth is, rightly, generally acknowledged as the inventor of electronic television, and eventually won the patent battles in the US. But there were many people working on electronic television at the time, including other patents in Europe. And, despite the patent determinations, Dworkin’s contributions were at least as important in creating a successful, marketable system.
Philo Farnsworth was an amazing, often under appreciated inventor. But you’ll see him occasionally described as, essentially, inventing TV without the context of the large number of developments that came together at the time and the numerous scientists who contributed to the technology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dennis Dempsey I have only made brief mention of the Great Famine in other videos. No, I have done no in depth discussion. And yes, the proximate cause was the potato blight- that is fact. Yes, I readily admit that I went into more detail on the famine in Bengal in an episode on the famine in Bengal than I did on the Great Famine in an episode on a domestic killing fifty years after the famine. I say to you, I have never intended any agenda where I have mentioned the Great Famine, nor have I attempted to assign or discount blame.
I do, in fact, realize that the Bengal famine occurred during war, and talk to that in great depth. Part of the point is that this terrible event is largely forgotten because it occurred during war. Still, the famine was preventable, and clearly at least exacerbated by government failures that could have been avoided even in the context of the war. I strove for a balanced presentation, and have received much criticism from some who think I should be much harsher in blaming both Britain and Churchill. That I get such criticism from both sides seems to indicate that I was, at least, not operating from a partisan agenda. Kindly stop accusing me of one.
If you want a more thorough video on the causes and blame for the Great Famine, there is plenty available on YouTube. And, of course, you are welcome to upload your own.
1
-
1
-
I think that you are incorrect in claiming that most Americans opposed the the 1940 Selective Service Act. The Act in 1940 was described as defensive only. The public generally assumed that the men drafted would only be called to fight should to US be attacked- and the act stipulated that those drafted couldn't be deployed outside the Western Hemisphere. There was congressional opposition, but no significant public push-back or demonstration. Moreover, over time the crisis in Europe grew, and the opinion of the public shifted. While close to 90% opposed war in January of 1940, by September, according to the National WWII Museum , polling found that "52% of Americans now believed the United States ought to risk war to help the British." That would continue to shift over the course of 1941. There might not have been consensus to declare war prior to Pearl Harbor, but by the time the Selective Service Act took effect in September, 1940, the public had come to recognize the risk and consent to being prepared. Actual opposition to the act, and public resistance, seems to have been slight. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/great-debate
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That is not correct. Apples are examples of extreme heterozygotes, and the fruit from a tree planted from a seed will not be the same as the fruit from which the seed is derived. The seeds of an apple differ significantly genetically from the seeds of the parent plant. Apples also often cross-pollinate, and often must. That is, apple flowers often cannot pollinate themselves. But even if you hand pollinate a Red Delicious with another Red Delicious, the fruit from the tree grown from the seed will not resemble Red Delicious.
If you want to reproduce a fruit of the same characteristics, you need to graft scions of the tree onto root-stock.
Many of the most popular varieties of apples- including both red and golden delicious, were derived from trees that grew randomly from seeds, called a “chance seedling.” For example, the Golden Delicious variety is derived from a chance seedling that occurred in West Virginia, and all Golden Delicious apples today are derived from scions of that tree. If you plant a seed from a Golden Delicious apple, the resulting tree will not produce the same fruit.
The bottom line is yes, by planting just apple seeds and walking away Johnny Appleseed created new varieties of apples.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
moreno franco we could probably name the entire astroid belt after Disney princesses. But, of course, we have discovered beyond Pluto. Pluto is now considered a dwarf planet by the International Astronomical Union, and there are currently four more dwarf planets recognized in our solar system, and potentially more to discover. Personally, were we to go the Disney route, seven names seem obvious to me for dwarf planets. But, instead, astronomers have chosen Pluto, Ceres, Eris, Makemake, and Haumea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I respectfully disagree on both counts.
While African bush elephants have been trained, the practice appears to have only developed during the colonial period, when Indian trainers were imported. Even then they have proven to be much more difficult to train and far less domesticated. Existing experience suggests that training them for war, more or less crossing the Alps with an army, seems exceptionally unlikely. Historians have generally asserted that there was a separate North African species that must have been more trainable, but animal taxonomists have never recognized such a species. While it is not inconceivable that Carthage managed to train African elephants for war, it is more likely that most or all of their war elephants were Asiatic elephants.
The argument regarding Zama is admittedly speculative. However, the history was written by Polybius, who would have been familiar with Scipio's tactics. The question here is that Polybius' account asserts that there were a larger number of elephants present than seems likely, especially given their absence from accounts earlier in the campaign where Carthage certainly would have deployed them had they been available in such numbers. Moreover, the supposed tactics for defeating the elephants seems dubious. Coupled with the fact that other accounts by Polybius regarding war elephants are clearly unreliable, there is a fair argument that the account is, at least, greatly exaggerated.
1
-
Ancient accounts do suggest that elephants could be decisive in an ancient battle, especially where the terrain was favorable. They must have been very costly to maintain though.
To my knowledge we don't have any elephant remains that can be definitively tied to Carthage. But we know there was international trade in Asiatic elephants, and wild populations as close as Syria. There is actually no physical evidence of the supposed breed of North African elephant.
I don't know how easy it would have been to breed domesticated African Elephants, but the species remains remarkably resistant to domestication still today.
Forest Elephants still exist and, I think, were somewhat recently recognized a separate species from bush elephants. They are smaller in size, but seem to be even more resistant to domestication.
Again, I am not discounting the possibility that Carthage used African elephants. The point is that we really do not know what elephants they used, and the asserted North African elephant species that historians have long assumed may never have existed at all.
I agree that the most likely possibility is that the description of elephants at Zama was exaggerated. The idea that the entire battle may have been fabricated was derived from the musing of one historian. But that idea is not outside reason, and i thought it interesting enough to mention.
I don't know the story of disguising camels, but it certainly seems plausible. Deception of all types was used in the World Wars. See the episode about Douglass Fairbanks Jr. and the Beach Jumpers- we made tiny patrol boats appear to be entire invasion fleets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Helgenberger those are fair points, everyone else seemed to think the French would prevail, so why would Bismarck be so confident? But he did have to know that even pushing for unification would provoke the French. The most common opinion is that he deliberately provoked Napoleon, knowing that if he could goad France into attacking first, that would guarantee the Southern states would join with Prussia. That would give the numerical superiority that gave him confidence that he would win the war. This really might be post-war rationalization, but, in any case, it certainly worked out as if he’d planned it that way. In fact, the war occurred during a complex period in Europe, and you are correct that it is unfair, and certainly overly simplistic, to describe the war as some deliberate machination of Bismarck.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And yet they accounted for several air to air kills in Vietnam, were used for fighter cover for anti-submarine missions, and were so formidable as a dogfifghter that they were used to train dogfighting at the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School. It was defined, officially, as "A Light Attack Multirole Carrierborne Figher Aircraft."
I don't know why people have the name so wrapped around their axle given that I said specifically that the Marines used the plane for close air support, but I correctly described the plane. The difference between a strike fighter, a fighter bomber, and an attack aircraft is negligible. The A-4 was not designed exclusively for ground attack, but as a multirole platform that did, historically, play fighter roles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Simply put, describing the argument made as "vague pseudo scientific intersex nonsense" requires a stunningly dishonest representation of the evidence. History is history and facts are facts. The evidence both that these are Pulaski's remains and that they represent an individual with congenital adrenal hyperplasia are actually quite compelling. It would be "pseudo-science" to fail to note this evidence because you, for no reason that I can comprehend, have decided that these facts somehow "taint" the general's reputation. To be clear, this is a fair and science based discussion of facts as we understand them, they do not, as I specifically said, sully the general in any way, and I will not apologize for presenting facts simply because some viewers choose to irrationally be offended by reality. I do suggest that you attempt to track down the 2019 episode of Smithsonian's America's Hidden Stories that lays out the evidence. Any fair appraisal will come to two indisputable conclusions 1: the argument is based on sound and accepted science advanced by credible scientists with no apparent agenda, and 2: nobody involved in the investigation has ever sought to "taint" the general's reputation. This is a history channel, not a politics channel, I strive to present the history as accurately as possible without political agenda, and I will never apologize for presenting historical fact. That is as History Guy as it gets. Yes, I will continue to present the facts as best we know them. That will be done again- over and over.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That theory was based on a genetic measure that has largely been found to be inaccurate for passenger pigeons, and a more current genetic study found that the population had actually been stable for at least ten thousand years. Some observers at the time moved to protect the bird, but government simply could not fathom their extinction, which was not even a clearly understood concept at the time. The decline was gradual- enough that it was difficult to notice, until the 1870s, when the decline was sudden and precipitous.
The explanation is not that the billions were shot (although at least many millions were.) Their habitat was destroyed, their roosts were disturbed, preventing reproduction, and they were evolved to survive as a mass species so that once numbers declined significantly, the species could not cope. One researcher explained it this way: "We reduced the population to a point where their own biology was unable to succeed." That is why billions could drop to none- they simply couldn't survive as small, isolated populations.
There is a good discussion of the conflicting study findings regarding whether the population was stable here: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/16/564597936/why-did-the-passenger-pigeon-go-extinct-the-answer-might-lie-in-their-toes
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardlinter4111 Yes, Germany kept millions of French POWs as prisoners, largely to use them as slave labor and to coerce the Vichy government to keep their own forces small. That leverage was, in fact, all the more reason to treat the collaborationist government as hostile. The fact that they, regardless of coercion, handed over French Indochina was emphatically reason for the allies to treat them as a belligerent. They demonstrably acted against the allies. They demonstrably could again.
Petain was a fascist collaborationist who, among other things, willfully worked with the Nazis to persecute the nation's Jews. But yes, the people of Vichy and the French armies in the territories had mixed loyalties, and many quickly turned to the free French side when they had the opportunity. But that did not make them, the territory they held, or the government they served, "neutral."
I am having difficulty seeing your point. When Germany militarily conquered France, forced capitulation on them, created a sham, puppet government, and used millions of French POWs as a threat to coerce compliance from that government, how is there anything untoward in the allies of France invading the former French territories in order to liberate the nation? How is that comparable to the invasion of Norway? You are not "daring" anything, you are creating your own double standard in order to vilify the people who liberated France for the crime of liberating France. Comparing that to the hostile invasion of Norway by the nation that enslaved France is simply not a fair comparison.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@azgarogly you are being disingenuous. The 85 was provided with limited AT ammunition, but use in that role was extremely rare- in fact seen as only an emergency action. The mount was not designed for targets below horizontal, the barrel was not designed for fast replacement, the gun too heavy to reasonably use. It was far more the equivalent of Germans impressing the 155 artillery gun into an AT role- which essentially required that the tank drive in front of the gun.
The unique characteristic of the 88 was that it was designed for the multi role. Allied AA guns of comparable muzzle velocity were not. Even the heavy allied AT guns did not manage the ease of emplacement or rate of fire of the 8.8.
I do not mean to get into a technical debate, nor am I one those that claims that everything German was superior. But it is contrary to real combat experience to claim that the Soviet 85 mm AA gun was comparable to an 88, except, possibly, against medium bombers. It wasn’t.
To your second point- the claim that AT guns were more important to Germans. Much of the fight in the East was with the Soviets on defense. At Kursk the Germans were fighting entrenched positions, and yet Soviets took tank losses on the order of seven to one. It is not true that Soviet AT guns were better, (and the Germans had excellent AT guns) nor that the Germans were more dependent upon AT guns.
I am not belittling the allies, who, of course, won the war. But, in their winning strategies and equipment was no equivalent to this weapon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There were sixteen fleet carriers- 11 from the US and five British- in the original OB, although not that many for the full battle. There were six light carriers and 22 escort carriers in addition to the 16 fleet carriers.
The fleet carriers were: Hornet, Wasp, Bennington, Enterprise, Franklin, Randolph, Essex, Bunker Hill, Hancock, Yorktown, Intrepid, Indomitable, Victorious, Illustrious, Indefatigable, and Formindable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cliff Griffen I think that your mistake here is to confuse a history of a specific document- the King James Version- as a theological treatise. We interpret no scriptures, and so cannot have misinterpreted any. We never did, nor ever would on this channel, attempt to define the accuracy of biblical predictions. I don’t see, in your criticism, any indication of any inaccuracy in the episode. Rather, your complaint seems to be that a channel that does not claim to be a channel on theology did not, in an episode that did not claim to discuss the meaning, intent, or truth of a religious document, turn into a broad bible study. The “validity of the bible” is not a question for historians. Respectfully, you can find such discussion elsewhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I do not use "propaganda," and am frankly offended by your misrepresentation of what I said. I accurately stated the reason given by Roosevelt, and I take no stand on whether such a threat was real. In fact, I specifically used the word "allegedly," hardly something that someone who, for some obtuse reason, is "doing propaganda" would do. I don't know which bias your are working from, but I would ask that you not project it onto me.
That aside, the allies, and Churchill in particular, were not shy in publicly stating that they would use poison gas only if the enemy did so first. There was obvious reason for concern, as the Reich created and stockpiled some 12,000 tons of Sarin gas. Some historians argue that the only reason that Hitler refused to use the agent was fear that the allies would retaliate in kind. As neither side employed poison gas, it is impossible to tell if either would have absent the credible threat of retaliation by the other side.
As to the threat that Roosevelt specifically mentioned, it is likely he was referring to a 1943 report by British intelligence that the Nazis were prepared to use gas against the Russians in the Donets Basin. Again, I don't take any stand on whether the report was accurate, but merely reported the reasoning that was stated by the allies at the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Martyna Ożóg again, the point is that the events of the period likely drove the interpretation of events. The discussion of what it was biologically is mostly for entertainment. If the wolf that Chastain killed was not the beast, then there are no remains definitively linked to the beast, and thus no way to prove its identity,
Animals that die in the wild are rarely discovered. Wolves that have died are almost never seen. It is perfectly reasonable that, had a lion died from poison, its body would never have been discovered. That is especially true if people thought the wolf Chastain killed was the beast. It is also particularly credible in a place populated by wolves.
The descriptions of its leaping ability, its choice of prey, the location of the attack, its tail and coloring, the fact that it attacked with claws, and the way it scoured bones as if polished are all inconsistent with canines and consistent with a large feline. Large felines have been known to become man eaters. Lions are well known for requiring multiple bullets to take them down, wolves are not. And how would people who were extremely familiar with wolves not recognize a wolf?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respectfully, your comment is largely incorrect. The United Nations defines North America as including the three areas Northern America, Central America and the Caribbean. By that definition Columbus certainly landed on the continent of North America. While on his first voyage the general thought was that the Caribbean islands were part of the Indonesian archipelago, that notion was long dispelled before his final three voyages. The most accepted historical understanding is that Columbus did reach North America and did not die thinking he had made it to India.
But, in fact, we do not claim in the episode that Columbus discovered North America, but that he brought back news of the New World to Europe, which was the actual key historical moment.
Juan Ponce de León is the first known European (or modern European, if we assume that original inhabitants came to the Americas from Europe) to make an expedition to Florida, which might make him the first to visit what is now the United States, unless you count the US Territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin islands.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for linking this, as I did not find it in my research. I particularly enjoyed the detailed battle analyses. So far as my knowledge (I cannot claim to be as expert as you) I certainly agree that it is unlikely that a greater use of elephants would have had a significantly greater effect. All references seem to indicate their dubious value in battle.
I cannot claim your expertise, but I would say from the research that I did for this episode, I feel that you too casually fall upon the solution of forest elephants. The African forest elephant range is equatorial. The Elephant Listening Project does not list a historical range far north of the equator, and no where near Morocco where you claim they were gathered. In fact, the sources I saw suggested that North Africa was too arid to support any population of native elephants. They are true forest dwellers, living largely on fruit, making a North African population even less likely. They are extremely shy, and have the lowest reproduction rate of the three species of elephants. It is difficult to assume they would have been available in the numbers described. And they are notoriously difficult to train. You seem to take quite a lot from the depiction of a coin, which, as I mention in the episode, is a dubious source for an accurate taxonomic description.
I don't mean to criticize, again this is more your specialty than mine, but I do wonder if a biologist might have a different opinion than a historian on the subject.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We were careful throughout to state these were first European discoveries, not first discoveries. While that is, indeed, “Euro-centric,” we are not misrepresenting that fact.
The first European discovery is important, as it established connections between the “old world,” and the “new world.” While connection had enormous negative impacts, and even the “old” vs “new” terminology is Euro-centric, it is, by any standard, one of the single most important events in human history, and thus deserves to be remembered.
Europeans also brought a sort of science that, while not fairly called superior to that used by ancient peoples who accomplished the extraordinary task of populating new continents, included things like cartography that allowed a better understanding across the human population. Events were also recorded in the way the distinguishes history from prehistory.
No matter the ills of colonialism, the purported flaws of European culture, and the largely undocumented virtues of indigenous societies, the “discovery” and connecting of the two is objectively important history, as are the accomplishments of the explorers who faced extraordinary risks. We will continue to present this history, as we strongly believe that history deserves to be remembered, even if the facts of history offend some people’s ideological biases.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think these are fair criticisms. There is no question that he benefited from his name, especially in his appointment to Grant's Staff. That appointment, however, seems to have been more based on his mother's wishes than his own, and he never apparently tried to avoid a combat commission.
His work on the Garfield/Chester administration was well regarded. It is not clear how much his name had to do with his appointment, but he did a good job. He recognized the role his name played in the appointment, in that he complained to a friend that no one wanted to appoint Robert Lincoln, they all wanted to appoint Abraham Lincoln's son. But it is undeniable that he could have sought, and likely won, the Republican nomination for president and refused multiple times, so it is hard to claim that he willfully took advantage of his father's name in politics.
Personally, I think that your perspective on layers is a bit harsh. I think that Abraham Lincoln, for example, was an exceptional leader, despite being an accomplished lawyer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Arnold, then, was certainly a traitor. He led troops against the British, and signed the loyalty oath to congress. His commitment to "sovereign king" is suspect, as his motivations seemed more practical. And the crown never much trusted him. Even had the patriots lost the war for independence, Arnold would still never have been trusted by either side again.
Don't get me wrong, I am not taking sides about Arnold, who had his reasons.
But your argument drips with agenda. George III was of the House of Hanover, whose authority derived from the House of Stuart, whose power derived from the Tudors, who were traitors, descended of traitors. But the winners write the history books, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Many bar soaps are still soap. By FDA rule, to call it "soap" it has to actually be comprised mainly of the “alkali salts of fatty acids." Products that use terms like "bath bar," "body bar," "moisturizing bar," or "cleansing bar" are usually detergents. Dove, the most popular brand in America, is a "beauty bar," and a detergent rather than a soap. But, still, many popular brands- Ivory, Zest, Dial, Coast, Oil of Olay, Irish Spring, Caress are soaps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Confederate soldiers were never granted veteran status, but they have been recognized on Memorial Day from the beginning. Not only is it clear that Logan was inspired by Confederate decoration days, particularly by the Columbus, Mississippi decoration day in 1866 where graves from both the Confederacy and the Union were decorated. During the fist Decoration Day after Logan's General Order #11, graves from both Union and Confederate soldiers were strewn with flowers at Arlington. The press at the time made it clear that part of the reason for the celebration was a mood of reconciliation, and a poem published in the Atlantic Monthly read: "No more shall the war cry sever, Or the winding rivers be red; They banish our anger forever, When they laurel the graves of our dead! Under the sod and the dew, Waiting the judgment-day, Love and tears for the Blue, Tears and love for the Gray." The celebration in 1913 featured a four day "Blue Grey Reunion" of veterans from both sides. There is a Confederate section at Arlington, and today flags are placed on those graves on Memorial Day along with all the others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Guy Souriandt YouTube can pretty much do what it pleases, they are not required to air my content. This isn’t an issue of contract. But it is in YouTube’s interest to deal fairly with content creators, without whom they have no product. I think it is fair that we push back, as this is our business as well. I don’t see any reason to think that they are demanding I revise history. If there is an agenda for what they flag on this channel, I can’t see what it is. Rather, it appears that the process is nearly random, and appeals depend upon whose desk it lands. That should not be. We creators should know where the lines are. As demonetizing costs YouTube as well, I would think that they would want that. But they seem unwilling to put resources into making clearer standards, or somehow prefer the ability to be capricious, although I don’t see the business sense. So far, this revision has not been flagged. The issue might actually have been a single image that was deleted. If so, it is disappointing, as a creator, that I have to find that myself in the dark rather than the internal team taking five minutes to give direction. Or maybe it will get hit again with the random stick of censorship.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1