Quotulatiousness

June 16, 2021

Tank Chats #111 | Sherman M4A1 (76) W | The Tank Museum

Filed under: History, Military, USA, Weapons, WW2 — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 02:00

The Tank Museum
Published 20 Nov 2020

Join The Tank Museum’s Historian David Fletcher as he discusses the Sherman M4A1 (76) W, a late war variant of the Sherman M4A1 which was introduced into service in the summer of 1944. The M4A1 (76) W still had a cast hull, but improved frontal armour, a more powerful version of the Continental radial engine and was up-gunned from the original M4A1, with a 76mm gun.
(more…)

QotD: The Shah of Iran

Filed under: History, Middle East, Quotations — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

The Shah that emerges from these pages would be almost a tragic figure, if they gave us a better feel for him as a person, that is to say as a living being rather than a mere policy-maker. He was by nature a vacillator, thrust by inheritance and a destiny beyond his control into a position in which vacillation would eventually prove fatal. In addition to self-doubt, however, he was also inclined to vainglory, oscillating between the two, retreating from crises and ostentatiously parading himself, and boasting, when things seemed to be going well. He thought that he had both the right and the duty, genuinely for the sake of his country, to rule rather than reign, but while he had the ideas of an autocrat, he also had those of an ordinary decent person who baulked at the shedding of much blood, the only way, in the end, that he could have preserved his throne (and possibly not even then).

He was intelligent and wily, and his achievements were not negligible. He managed to wrest control of Iran’s oil first from the British and then from the international oil consortium that succeeded them. He played the oil market with great skill. He instituted an important land reform that genuinely benefitted the peasantry, expanded education, and had a full understanding of the importance of technology in the modernization of Iran necessary if it were to be anything other than a dependent state. His foreign policy was flexible, pragmatic, and shrewd. He needed the Americans but did not trust them (or anybody else, for that matter), realising that in politics there were no friendships, only common interests. This was to be borne out in the most terrible and tragic way during his last few years of exile, with which this book does not deal. Where there is no friendship, there is no gratitude for services rendered.

His failures were at least as great as his successes, and in the end more important from the point of view of his personal destiny. He so hollowed out political life in Iran, in order to exercise power as a true autocrat, that it came to have two poles: sycophancy and plotting against him. Sycophancy is a terribly addictive drug, no doubt a permanent temptation of the powerful (and therefore a good reason to restrict political terms of office); you can never have enough of it, nor can it ever be outrageous enough.

Unfortunately for the Shah, no one is sycophantic from principle, indeed sycophants tend (rightly) to despise themselves, fully aware that they are acting from the most naked of self-interest. There is no rat that leaves a sinking ship faster than a sycophant deserting a lost cause. A sycophant will take a risk to preserve his skin, but not to preserve his master.

Theodore Dalrymple, “Downfall of the House of Pahlavi”, The Iconoclast, 2021-03-03.

June 15, 2021

History Summarized: Persistence of Judaism

Overly Sarcastic Productions
Published 7 Apr 2017

Gooooood morning everybody! Today, Blue finishes the trilogy of Abrahamic religions with a video summarizing the history of the Hebrew people and the Jewish faith. There’s a lot of ground to cover, so fasten your seatbelts for a twenty-minute rundown of the facts, the theories, and the ever-so-popular misconceptions!

Look forward to next time, when Blue brings it all together to talk about Religious Wars and Religious Philosophy!

PATREON: www.patreon.com/user?u=4664797

MERCH LINKS:
Shirts – https://overlysarcasticproducts.threa…​
All the other stuff – http://www.cafepress.com/OverlySarcas…​

Find us on Twitter @OSPYouTube!

QotD: The destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria

The dramatic force of the New Atheist moral fable of the Great Library of Alexandria not only comes from the Library’s supposed size and unique nature, but also from its supposed cataclysmic and fiery end. The moral of this story has added impact if the Great Library ends in a violent catastrophe, so this is the story that tends to get told by those who use the tale as a stick with which to beat Christianity. The fact is, however, that libraries are delicate institutions and most decline slowly rather than ending in a sudden disaster, or – as in the Great Library’s case – decline slowly while suffering a series of disasters. Anyone who works in library services will tell you that the main enemy of a library’s continuation is a lack of funding. Ancient libraries in particular needed constant financial patronage from their founders and sponsors to survive. Papyrus scrolls decayed and fell apart from use, suffered damage from mice and other vermin and, in a period where artificial light tended to be from open oil lamps, were in constant danger from fires, great and small. The Mouseion, like all ancient libraries, needed a large staff to undertake the constant and unending task of repairing, replacing and recopying books and these staffs, even when made up of slaves, were expensive to maintain.

During the Mouseion‘s heyday in the third and second centuries BC the funding for this labour and the upkeep of the institution generally would have been regular and reliable. The Mouseion was, after all, one of the jewels in the crown of the Ptolemaic kingdom and it sat in the Broucheion or Royal Quarter where the Ptolemies themselves lived. By the first century BC, however, there is some indication that the prestige of the institution had begun to decline. In its first two centuries the Mouseion‘s directors were famous scholars, renowned for their intellects throughout the Greek-speaking world. By the time of the later Ptolemies, however, we find administrators, court favourites and even a former commander of the palace guard taking up the role, which seems to have become, as Lionel Casson puts it, “a political plum” to be awarded to flunkies rather than scholars. This continued under the Romans in the first century AD, with Tiberius Claudius Balbilus being awarded the post by Claudius, though he at least was something of a scholar if not a leading intellect. It is likely that the later Ptolemies began to neglect the institution and Roman imperial patronage of it was probably even less reliable.

But war has always been one of the main destroyers of libraries down the ages and the Great Library’s slow decline was marked by several sacks of the Broucheion which eventually led to the end of the Mouseion. The first and probably the most significant came in 47 BC when Julius Caesar took the side of Cleopatra in her claim on the Ptolemy’s throne and besieged her younger brother, the boy king Ptolemy XIII, in Alexandria. Caesar’s own account mentions that he burned a fleet in the docks of the city, but makes no mention of this fire destroying anything else (Civil Wars, III.11). His account was continued by his lieutenant Aulus Hirtius in his Alexandrine War and he too makes no mention of any fire damaging the city, but he does go out of his way to say “Alexandria is well-nigh fire-proof, because its buildings contain no wooden joinery and are held together by an arched construction and are roofed with rough-cast or tiling” (Alexandrine War, I.1) which could be read as an attempt at a defence against accusations of damage through fire, given his role in the siege. The earliest account of Caesar’s siege damaging Alexandria comes from a lost work by Livy via an epitome by Florus (Florus, II.13) which describes Caesar burning the area around the docks to deprive enemy archers of a position on which to fire on his troops, and this is echoed by Lucan (The Civil War, X.24). It is Plutarch who first depicts this fire destroying the Great Library in an almost casual mention that perhaps assumes this as common knowledge:

    In this war, to begin with, Caesar encountered the peril of being shut off from water, since the canals were dammed up by the enemy; in the second place, when the enemy tried to cut off his fleet, he was forced to repel the danger by using fire, and this spread from the dockyards and destroyed the Great Library, and thirdly, when a battle arose at Pharos, he sprang from the mole into a small boat and tried to go to the aid of his men in their struggle, but the Egyptians sailed up against him from every side, so that he threw himself into the sea and with great difficulty escaped by swimming. (Plutarch, Caesar, 49)

Aulus Gellius’ mention of the Great Library says that the collection numbered “nearly seven hundred thousand volumes” and then adds “but these were all burned during the sack of the city in our first war with Alexandria”, referring to Caesar’s siege (Gellius, Attic Nights, VII.17). Dio Cassius gives a slightly longer account:

    After this many battles occurred between the two forces both by day and by night, and many places were set on fire, with the result that the docks and the storehouses of grain among other buildings were burned, and also the library, whose volumes, it is said, were of the greatest number and excellence. (Dio Cassius, Roman History, XLII.36)

There is some debate about how literally we can take the reports that the whole Great Library was destroyed, especially given that the docks area of Alexandria were some distance from the Mouseion‘s likely location. The fact that so many writers agree that Caesar’s fire destroyed the Great Library simply can’t be ignored, however, and at the very least the fire seems to have destroyed a substantial portion of the book collection, probably stored in warehouses on the docks. It is clear that the losses were huge, as Plutarch also tells the (probably apocryphal) story of Mark Antony confiscating the whole collection of the Great Library of Pergamon and giving them to Cleopatra to replace the books lost in the fire (Plutarch, Antony, 58). While this was not the end of the Mouseion and not the end of its whole collection, writers from around the end of the reign of Caesar’s dynasty onwards tend to refer to the Great Library in the past tense and any surviving collection was probably greatly reduced after 47 BC.

Scholarship continued in the Mouseion, however, and the Roman emperors seem to have continued its funding under their patronage when the Ptolemaic dynasty came to an end with the death of Cleopatra. Claudius built a new wing or annex to the Mouseion, which was to house his works of history and see the public reading of them twice a year. But it was the calamitous third century AD that saw a succession of military disasters in Alexandria and seems to have seen the final end of the Mouseion.

In 215 AD Caracalla punished Alexandria for mockery of him with a wholesale massacre of its young men, after which his troops plundered parts of the city. It is not known if the Mouseion was sacked in this action, but John Malas records that its funding was stopped by Caracalla at this time (Delia, p. 1463). The real end probably came in 272 AD when Aurelian stormed the Broucheion with Ammianus noting “[Alexandria’s] walls were destroyed and she lost the greater part of the district called Bruchion.” (Ammianus, History, XII.15). If that sack didn’t mean the death blow for the institution, Diocletian probably finished the job when he too sacked the city in 295 AD, and it was later devastated by a major earthquake in 365 AD. The only mention of the Mouseion after this is found in a late source, the tenth century Byzantine encyclopaedia called the Suda, which describes the fourth century philosopher Theon as “the man from the Mouseion“, though it is hard to tell exactly what this means. Given that the Mouseion was most likely long gone by Theon’s time, it could be that some other successor “Mouseion” had been established and Theon studied there or it could be that “the man from the Mouseion” is stylised honorific or even a personal nickname – meaning “a scholar like one from the old days”.

The Mouseion and its library were almost certainly a memory by the late third century, destroyed in a series of calamities after a long period of decline. But what is missing from all this evidence is any howling, pyromaniacal Christian mob. If the Great Library ceased to exist in the century before Chrisitanity came to power in the Empire, how did Christians get stuck with the charge of destroying it? The answer lies not in the evidence about the Great Library, but in the history of its daughter library and annex in the Serapeum.

Tim O’Neill, “The Great Myths 5: The Destruction Of The Great Library Of Alexandria”, History for Atheists, 2017-07-02.

June 14, 2021

How To Defend A Star Fortress Forever

SandRhoman History
Published 13 Jun 2021

Thanks to Audible for sponsoring this video! Start listening with a 30-day Audible trial. Choose one audiobook and two Audible Originals absolutely free: http://audible.com/sandrhoman or text sandrhoman to 500-500.

In this video we will provide you with the most necessary knowledge to defend a star fortress forever.

Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/sandrhomanhis…
Paypal (thank you: paypal.me/SandRhomanhistory
We also have Twitter: https://twitter.com/Sandrhoman

#history #siege #sandrhoman

Sources:
Hoppe, S., s.v. “Festungsbau”, in: Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit.
Lynn, J. A., “States in Conflict 1661-1763”, in: Parker, G. (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Warfare, Cambridge 2005.
Lynn, J. A., “The trace itallienne and the Growth of Armies”, in: Rogers, C. J. (Ed.), The Military Revolution Debate. Readings on the Military Transformation of Early Modern Europe, Boulder / San Francisco / Oxford 1995.
Ortenburg, G., Waffe und Waffengebrauch im Zeitalter der Landsknechte (Heerwesen der Neuzeit, Abt. 1, Bd. 1) Koblenz 1984.
Parker, G., “The Limits to Revolutions in Military Affairs: Maurice of Nassau, the Battle of Nieuwpoort (1600), and the Legacy”, in The Journal of Military History, 71;2, 2007; S. 331 – 372.
Rogers, C.J. / Tallet F. (editors), European Warfare, 1350–1750, 2010.
Van Nimwegen, O., The Dutch Army and the Military Revolutions, 1588-1688.

The Welsh Flag: History and Meaning of The Red Dragon Flag

Filed under: Britain, History — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

History With Hilbert
Published 16 May 2018

You may think it’s a bit odd that I’m making a video in the Union Flag Series about the Welsh flag, given that it’s the only part of the United Kingdom not represented on the country’s flag. However Wales is great, and its flag has some interesting history and symbolism so you’re just going to have to deal with it. In this one I’ll be look at the Welsh Dragon Flag, at the figures of Cadwalladr ap Cadwallon (and his dad), Owain Glyndŵr, Henry VII and many more.

Music Used:
“Sneaky Snitch” – Kevin MacLeod
“Teller of the Tales” – Kevin MacLeod
“Up and Away” – Holfix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YmM_…​
“Celtic Impulse” – Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License

All images are from the Public Domain of Wikimedia Commons and Pixabay with the following exception:

Owain Glyndŵr’s Flag – Hogyncymru:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/…

QotD: Obsolescent carrier aircraft in the Pacific war

Filed under: Britain, History, Japan, Military, Quotations, USA, WW2 — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

The most obsolete first-line strike aircraft in any carrier force in 1942 was the American Douglas TBD Devastator torpedo bomber (206mph, 2 x.303 mg. 1,000lbs of a torpedo or bombs, range 716 miles). Despite — or because of — being the first monoplane on any carrier air-wing (1937!), it had never been a very good aircraft. Fully loaded with a torpedo (a much lighter torpedo than used by anyone else), it had a hard time getting off the deck, and had a much reduced speed and range. In fact its attack speed was actually slower than a [British Fairey] Swordfish, and it lacked the Swordfish’s maneouvrability or capacity to take damage. Used in daylight (the only way it could be used), it was an absolute death-trap if there was any airborne opposition at all. In fact the role played by the Devastators at the Battle of Midway was as [unintentional] kamikaze decoy targets to draw the Japanese fighter forces out of place. A point made even clearer by the fact that the few Devastators which had managed to attack at Coral Sea had usually seen their torpedoes fail to work anyway. (The American carrier fleet would not get a successful airborne torpedo until mid 1943!)

The next most obsolete was the Japanese Aichi D3A “Val” dive-bomber (266mph, 3 x 7.7 mg, 1 x 500lb and 2 x 60lb bombs, 970 mile range) which had also entered service in the mid 30’s. It was a fixed landing gear dive-bomber modeled on the famous Junkers Ju87 (183mph, 1 x 7.7mm mg, 1,000lb bomb load, 621 mile range), and was just as good a dive bomber … if there was no opposition. Unlike the Ju87 (and like the [British Blackburn] Skua) the Val also had the ability to defend itself as a second-rate fighter once the bombs had been dropped. Still, the Val relied for success on clear skies, and achieved excellent results under those conditions at Ceylon (cruisers Devonshire and Cornwall and unarmed old carrier Hermes) and Coral Sea (carrier Lexington). Under even moderate air pressure at Trincomalee and Midway the performance fell off markedly, and later in the war the phrase that comes to mind is “Great Marianas Turkey Shoot”. Nonetheless they had to soldier on because the replacement aircraft was too fast for the smaller carriers that were to become the majority of the Japanese carrier fleet after Midway.

Nigel Davies, “Comparing naval aircraft of World War II”, rethinking history, 2010-12-20.

June 13, 2021

Sevastopol Must Fall! – WW2 – 146 – June 13, 1942

Filed under: Africa, Britain, France, Germany, History, Military, Pacific, Russia, USA, WW2 — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

World War Two
Published 12 Jun 2021

It’s a week of starts and stops. The Battle of Sevastopol kicks into high gear, and the Battle of Gazala enters its third phase. And what is going on in the Pacific just one week after Midway?
(more…)

Wartime Changes: The Bren MkI Modified and Bren MkII

Filed under: Britain, Cancon, History, Military, Weapons, WW2 — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Forgotten Weapons
Published 3 Mar 2021

http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons​

https://www.floatplane.com/channel/Fo…​

Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…​

The British lost some 90% of their stock of Bren light machine guns in the disastrous Dunkirk evacuation, and in the following months rushed to rearm. Part of this program was a two-tiered simplification of the Bren design. First was a MkI Modified Bren (which was not marked any differently than the original MkI), and this was followed by a MkII design. These patterns simplified many of the machining operation required to produce the Bren, significantly reducing the number of required machining operations. The most visually distinctive elements of the MkII pattern were the omission of the stainless steel flash hider assembly and the replacement of the original dial rear sight with a simple ladder sight. In addition, changes were made to the buttstock, buttplate, receiver profile, gas block, and bipod. Both Enfield and Inglis would produce the simpler MkII Brens by the middle of the war. Despite the many changes made, the core operating components (bolt, bolt carrier, etc) were left unchanged, so they could still interchange between all patterns of the gun in service.

Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N. Oracle #36270​
Tucson, AZ 85740

QotD: Defending the undefendable – Brutalist architecture

Filed under: Architecture, History, Media, Quotations — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

I have recently collected quite a number of articles online and in the press in favor of brutalism. I did so without having made any special effort, and without finding anything like the same number of countervailing articles against it, albeit that the great mass of the population, in my view rightly, detests brutalism. The penultimate paragraph of one of the recent articles that I have seen in favor of brutalism — the employment of great slabs of concrete in the construction of buildings — goes as follows:

    The newly-gained attractivity [of architectural brutalism] is growing by the day. In troubled times where societal divides are stronger than ever around the globe and in a world where instantaneous rhymes with tenuous, brutalism offers a grounded style. It’s a simple, massive and timeless base upon which one can feel safe, it’s reassuring.

It is rather difficult to argue with, let alone refute, the vague propositions of such a paragraph, which nevertheless intends (I imagine) to connote approval and judgment based upon sophisticated, wide, and deep intellectual considerations. But what exactly is a “grounded style” in contrast to a “world where instantaneous rhymes with tenuous”? This is verbiage, if not outright verbigeration, though it might serve to intimidate those with little confidence in their own judgment. The idea that brute concrete could create any kind of security rather than unease or fear is laughable.

When defenders of or apologists for brutalism illustrate their articles with supposed masterpieces of the genre, it is hardly a coincidence that they do so with pictures of buildings utterly devoid of human beings. A human being would be about as out of place in such a picture, and a fortiori in such a building, as he would be in a textbook of Euclidean geometry, and would be as welcome as a termite in a wooden floor or a policeman in a thieves’ kitchen. For such defenders and apologists of brutalism, architecture is a matter of the application of an abstract principle alone, and they see the results through the lenses of their abstraction, which they cherish as others cherish their pet.

Theodore Dalrymple, “The Brutalist Strain”, Taki’s Magazine, 2019-11-02.

June 12, 2021

Normandy – 1944 | Movietone Moment | 11 June 2021

British Movietone
Published 11 Jun 2021

On this day in 1944, five days after the D-Day landing, the allied forces converged in Normandy. Here is a British Movietone report covering the event.

More and more reinforcements and supplies arrive in Normandy each day. In the skies Allied air power continues to bomb and strafe the enemy. Captured German film shows Rommel and von Rundstedt visiting the vast concrete fortifications on the coast which were thought to be impassable. Mr Churchill arrived onboard HMS Kelvin and was greeted by General Montgomery as he came ashore.

Cut story – Dusk or dawn shot of destroyer with sun rising or sinking in background. Sunrise with armada in fore. Yanks board LCIs. Shots of LCTs. Beached equipment unloaded. GV of activity on beach. British troops of LTC. CU Tedder on bridge of ship. GS of Ramsay & Vian. Tedder, Ramsay & Vian walk along raft into camera. Elevated shot of activity on beach, very good. Troops build airstrip, bulldozers etc. at work. Plane takes off. Camera gun – shooting up trains, transport, & other targets, several large explosions. British pass through street, Frenchmen look on. AFU – British soldiers at look-out with field glasses. Troops (Canadian or British) run through fields & wooded country. Troops through street, French clap. Army transport passes through street, directed by soldier. Yanks march through streets. POW along roads, & over beach, wade out to LCT, one attempts to pull up sock while walking. Captured German reel GS of Rommel & Rundstedt. CU Rommel. SCU of coastal guns, & various shots of fortifications, pillboxes etc. Rommel & Rundstedt walk round inspecting same, look at double barrel coastal gun. SCU of barrel of guns, & various shots of Atlantic Wall (AFU British troops knock part of “Wall” down which they have captured). Eisenhower, Marshall & Arnold on bridge of ship. GV of destroyer Kelvin at sea – very good. CU Churchill in Trinity House uniform, wearing glasses. Churchill assists Brooke with “Mae West” life jackets. Both seated on deck Kelvin at sea. CU Churchill. Kelvin passes Nelson, Ramillies & other warships also large part of armada. Churchill transfers … ships, sailors cheer as he leaves. CU Churchill. CU Smuts both very good. Churchill, Smuts & Brooke in “Duck” [DUKW]. Churchill leans over side talks to Montgomery, Churchill alights from “Duck”. Shakes hands with Monty. The above four in group on beach, walk through crowds of soldiers. AFU – Monty stands on raised platform addresses troops (silent) Monty & Churchill through crowds. Churchill with Monty & climbs into Jeep. SEE STORY NUMBER 44914/2 & 44914/3 FOR CUTS
AP Has HD copy – HD ProRes 422 4:3 – 24fps

Disclaimer: British Movietone is an historical collection. Any views and expressions within either the video or metadata of the collection are reproduced for historical accuracy and do not represent the opinions or editorial policies of the Associated Press.

You can license this footage for commercial use through AP Archive – the story number bm44914

#Normandy #WWII #DDay
Find out more about AP Archive: http://www.aparchive.com/HowWeWork
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AP_Archive
Tumblr: https://aparchives.tumblr.com/​​
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/APNews/

Sail to Steam to Iron – Half a Century of Change

Filed under: Britain, France, History, Military, Russia, USA — Tags: , , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Drachinifel
Published 19 Dec 2018

Today we look at the development of warships from 1815 to 1860.

Want to support the channel? – https://www.patreon.com/Drachinifel​

Want to talk about ships? https://discord.gg/TYu88mt​

Music – https://www.youtube.com/c/NCMEpicMusic

QotD: The assassination attempt(s) on Bismarck

Filed under: Germany, History, Quotations — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

… 19th-century history, particularly the years from the 1848 revolutions to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. The key was Bismarck, the Prussian minister-president who unified Germany. If you want to learn about Bismarck, you will probably pick up a book by some historian of international relations, such as A.J.P. Taylor. That’s the right place to start. But it means you can read a lot about Bismarck before finding out about the time in May 1866 when a guy shot him.

Ferdinand Cohen-Blind, a Badenese student of pan-German sentiments, waylaid Bismarck with a pistol on the Unter den Linden. He fired five rounds. None missed. Three merely grazed his midsection, and two ricocheted off his ribs. He went home and ate a big lunch before letting himself be examined by a doctor.

But even the books that condescend to mention this triviality may not tell you about the other time a guy shot Bismarck: A young Catholic tried to kill him in July 1874, during the anti-Catholic Kulturkampf Bismarck had engineered, but only managed to score his right hand with a bullet.

The point is not that Bismarck was particularly hated, although he was. The point is that this period of European (and American) history was crawling with young, often solitary male terrorists, most of whom showed signs of mental disorder when caught and tried, and most of whom were attached to some prevailing utopian cause. They tended to be anarchists, nationalists or socialists, but the distinctions are not always clear, and were not thought particularly important. The 19th-century mind identified these young men as congenital conspirators. It emphasized what they had in common: social maladjustment, mania, an overwhelming sense of mission and, usually, a prior record of minor crimes.

[…]

Bismarck was not much of a democrat, but his example is instructive. He was so phlegmatic about being shot that he obtained both of the guns he had been shot with. He kept them in his desk, ready for use against a third guy with the same bright idea.

Colby Cosh, “Those old terrorist tendencies”, Maclean’s, 2014-12-07.

June 11, 2021

Is Finland an Ally of Nazi Germany? – Carl Gustaf Mannerheim – WW2 Biography Special

World War Two
Published 10 Jun 2021

Carl Gustaf Mannerheim is a national hero after his service in everything from the Finnish Civil War to the Winter War. But did he plan a war of aggression with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union? And if so, did Hitler and Stalin even give him any choice in the matter?
(more…)

Latin and Greek are the next sacrifices to the great god Antiracism

Filed under: Education, History, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

In the latest edition of It Bears Mentioning, John McWhorter considers the Princeton University classics department decision to get rid of the requirement for students to read classic texts in the original languages:

“USA – New Jersey – Princeton” by Harshil.Shah is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0

I have written recently about the Princeton classics department’s decision to eliminate the requirement that students engaging closely with Latin and Greek texts be able to … read them in Latin and Greek. The new idea is that the department will attract more majors by opening up to ideas from students who may be full of beans but just not inclined to tackle complex, ancient languages. And sub rosa, the idea is clearly – as we can see from words in the official statement like underrepresented, perspectives, and experiences – that of especial interest will be black students, especially in light of today’s racial reckoning which the department openly acknowledges was the primary spur for this change.

My disappointment with this decision is because it is part of a tradition of arguments that we do black people a favor by exempting them from certain kinds of faceless, put-up-or-shut-up challenges to entry. Back in the aughts, the classic example was brilliant, fierce black lawyers confidently arguing that because black firefighter applicants don’t do as well on the entrance exams required for the job, the exams are racist and should be eliminated. More recently there has been the idea that if black kids are rare at top-ranked public schools in New York City like Stuyvesant because few excel on the standardized test one must ace to be admitted, then the solution is to eliminate the test as “racist”. The Princeton decision is a variation: to get black kids into classics, it’s supposedly immoral to expect them to master the intricacies of Latin and Greek, languages which I suppose we can see as foreign, “white” to them as well. Rather, they must be admitted in shining expectation that their class comments will be bracingly “diverse” in good old English.

My Atlantic colleague Graeme Wood is more sanguine about the Princeton decision. He argues sagely that a certain kind of student happens to enjoy working their way through languages like Latin as a kind of puzzle (I openly admit being that type), but that there are others who don’t go in for that particular task and yet are itching and well-equipped to engage and analyze classical texts regardless. Graeme notes that we do not consider it an educational tragedy that specialists in English history are not required to be able to read Old English. (Although I wonder if this analogy would hold if the idea were someone specializing in England of the first millennium, where all of the relevant linguistic matter was in Old English [and Latin].)

I can go with him here to an extent. On the one hand, as I have argued here, to engage work only in translation is, of course, to lose a lot. Yet, in making that argument here, I was referring to my own reading War and Peace in English, as I myself was not inclined to hack through it in Russian (although my being black was not the reason for this disinclination [couldn’t help it!]). The question is how important we consider that loss to be.

Having no facility in languages myself, I’m more sympathetic to the students’ viewpoint than I might otherwise be, but depending on someone else’s translation of the text being studied has unexpected risks, as Sarah Hoyt explained from her own translation studies:

The discussion […] reminded me of when I was sixteen and embarked on a class called “Techniques of Translation”.

Although I had studied French and English and German, the translations I’d done so far were of the “I took the pen of my neighbor” variety. I thought the class would teach me to smooth out the sentence to “I took my neighbor’s pen” and that would be that.

I was wrong. Oh, it taught that also, but that was a minor portion of it. The class mostly hinged on the moral, ethical and — most of all — professional dilemmas of being a translator. I know any number of you are translators, formal or informal, but any number of you are also not. So, for the ones who are not, let me break the news with my usual gentleness:

There is no such thing as translation.

The French have a proverb “to translate is to betray a little” — or at least that’s the closest meaning in English. It’s fairly close to the true meaning, but slightly askew, of course. Every language is slightly askew to other languages.

The idea that there exists in every language a word that is exactly the equivalent of other languages is sort of like assuming that aliens will — of course — live in houses, go to school, ride buses, understand Rebecca Black’s “Friday”. [This was originally written in 2011.]

Language is how we organize our thoughts, and each word, no matter how simple, carries with it the cultural freight and experience of the specific language. Oh, “mother” will generally mean “the one who gave birth to” — except for some tribal, insular cultures where it might mean “the one who calls me by her name” or “my father’s principal wife” — but the “feel” behind it will be different, depending on the images associated with “mother” in the culture.

So, when you translate, you’re actually performing a function as a bridge. Translation is not the straightforward affair it seems to be but a dialogue between the original language and the language you translate into. If you’re lucky, you meet halfway. Sometimes that’s not possible, and you feel really guilty about “lying” to the people receiving the translation. When on top of language you need to integrate different cultures and living systems (which you do when translating anything even an ad) you feel even more guilty, because you’re going to betray, no matter how much you try. At one point, a while back, I had my dad on one phone, my husband on the other, and I was doing rapid-fire translation about a relatively straight forward matter. And even that caused me pangs in conscience, because my dad simply doesn’t understand how things are done here. I had to approach his experience and explain our experience in a way he wouldn’t think I was insane or explaining badly. That meant a thousand minor lies.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress