Forgotten Weapons
Published on 9 Apr 2019This Hotchkiss cannon and its accessories are lot #1116 in the upcoming April 2019 Morphy auction:
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/hotc…
Benjamin Hotchkiss was an American artillery designer who moved to Paris in 1867 in hopes of building a business for his improvements in artillery shells. He experienced the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, and understood the failure of the French Mitrailleuse multi-barrel volley guns. In his opinion, an effective rapid-fire weapon needed to fire explosive projectiles to have a real effect at extended range (unlike the Mitrailleuse which fired simple rifle bullets). So being the inventive sort, he went ahead and designed just such a gun. His revolving cannon was sized for 1-pound (450g) 37mm explosive shells (although he would also produce armor-piercing and canister ammunition). The gun looks like a Gatling gun at first glance, but its mechanical operation is quite different.
The Hotchkiss cannon would become quite popular, with major purchases by the French and American navies as well as many other nations. They would serve into World War One, including some use repurposed as antiaircraft weapons. This particular example was captured by American forces in Cuba during the Spanish-American War, most likely from San Juan Hill. It is a magnificent example of the type, and with a fantastic historical provenance to match.
http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
PO Box 87647
Tucson, AZ 85754
May 14, 2019
Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon from San Juan Hill
May 13, 2019
“[T]he most famous Zulu word on the planet was invented by a New York socialist in 1951”
I had no idea there was so much back-story to the song “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” aka “Wimoweh” aka “Mbube”, which had managed to be a hit for groups as diverse as Tight Fit, Robert John, the Tokens, the Weavers, Ilonka David-Biluska, Henri Salvador, and others:
Those words about “the jungle, the mighty jungle” sit so perfectly and indivisibly on those notes they sound like they’ve belonged to each other for all time. We know the lyric is George Weiss’, but where did the tune come from?
Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it? It was a “Zulu chant” — ie, “traditional – ie, “anonymous” — ie, out of copyright. Which meant someone else could put it back in copyright. In the Fifties and early Sixties, public demand for “authentic” “traditional” music created a huge windfall for savvy Tin Pan Alleymen. You take some half-forgotten folk dirge, tweak it here and there, and then copyright your version as a full-blown composition in its own right. Everyone was doing it: in the Fifties, “Frankie And Johnny”, “Auld Lang Syne”, “Greensleeves” and a bunch of other things that had been around forever were being copyrighted as brand new songs. Huge and Luge had done it with “Can’t Help Falling In Love”, né “Plaisir d’Amour“. So the first thing they wondered, when the Tokens showed up and began doing their Zulu impressions, was where did this “Wimoweh” thing come from anyway? They looked at the song credits: “Paul Campbell” and “Albert Stanton”.
Bingo! There was no such “Paul” and no such “Albert”. Mr “Campbell” was the name Pete Seeger and the Weavers would put on the sheet music when they’d recorded a folk tune and decided they’d like to cut themselves a piece of the songwriting action. And Mr “Stanton” was the name Al Brackman at the Richmond publishing house put on the music when he wanted to do the same for his bank account. Messrs “Campbell” and “Stanton” thus became successful mid-20th century songwriters who apparently hadn’t written anything since the mid-19th century. So the minute Huge and Luge saw those names on “Wimoweh” they knew it was a plum just ripe for a second picking. If it ever came to court, Huge, Luge and George Weiss’ defense would be yes, they’d plagiarized it not from Campbell & Stanton but from the same 19th century Zulu natives Campbell & Stanton had plagiarized it from. And, because Pete Seeger, the Weavers and the Richmond organization well understood that, they never did bring it to court. So there are two entirely separate mid-20th century pop songs by two entirely separate writing teams, one called “The Lion Sleeps Tonight”, the other called “Wimoweh“.
[…]
In South Africa, it was huge. “Mbube” became not just the name of a hit record but of an entire vocal style — a high-voiced lead over four-part bass-heavy harmony. That, in turn, evolved into “isicathamiya“, a smoother vocal style that descended to Ladysmith Black Mambazo and others, taking its cue from the injunction “Cothoza, bafana” — or “tread carefully, boys”. That’s to say, Zulu stomping is fine in the bush, but when you’re singing in dancehalls and restaurants in you’ve got to be a little more choreographically restrained, if only for the sake of the floorboards.
“Tread carefully, boys” is good advice for anyone in the music business. A few years after Solomon Linda and the Evening Birds made their hit record, it came to the notice of Pete Seeger, on the prowl for yet more “authentic” “traditional” “vernacular” “folk music” for the Weavers to make a killing with. He misheard “Mbube” and transcribed it as “Wimoweh“. That’s a great insight into the “authenticity” of the folk boom: the most famous Zulu word on the planet was invented by a New York socialist in 1951
U.S. Civil War – Surprising Soldiers – Extra History
Extra Credits
Published on 11 May 2019Historians have been learning that the US Civil War armies were a lot more diverse than previously accounted for — partly because many soldiers who hailed from other countries and nations used adopted names. Chinese, Hawaiian, Hispanic, and Cherokee soldiers all participated on both sides of the US civil war — suffering even more conflict in some cases.
Researchers are beginning to learn that the makeup of the Union and Confederate armies in the US Civil War was a lot more nuanced and diverse than we had previously known. Here is an episode on the accounts of some of those surprising soldiers!
Join us on Patreon! http://bit.ly/EHPatreon
May 11, 2019
Jonathan Haidt – Social media has altered a fundamental constant of the universe
Katie Herzog attended the first Heterodox Academy conference and reports on Haidt, the academy’s founder, and other attendees at the event:
Jonathan Haidt at the Miller Center of Public Affairs in Charlottesville, Virginia on 19 March, 2012.
Photo via Wikimedia Commons.
I told three people that Jonathan Haidt will be speaking in Seattle this week. One is a left-leaning university professor, another is an apolitical meditation teacher, and the last is a conservative talk radio host. Despite the chasm between their personal politics, they were all equally enthusiastic to hear Haidt speak. He seems to have that effect on people, and is one of the rare political thinkers who manages to both appeal to (and occasionally enrage) people across the political spectrum.
A professor of social psychology at NYU’s Stern School of Business, Haidt is also the author of best-selling book, The Coddling of the American Mind, which he published with First Amendment lawyer Greg Lukianoff last year. That book grew out of an article of the same name that the duo first published in the Atlantic in 2015. As anyone who was paying attention back then may recall, the article made quite a splash, and it brought some emerging trends at university campuses into the public consciousness, including the rise of trigger warnings, deplatforming speakers, and university administrators’ attempts to protect students from any perceived harm. The article, and the subsequent book, didn’t exactly make Haidt popular in some hyper-left circles, and Haidt is occasionally accused of being a conservative in disguise. What he actually is, is a centrist, which gives him a perspective outside the typically left/right binary, and much of his recent work is about tribalism and division in the U.S. It’s a trend he thinks is getting worse.
[…]
“If you are in a university that puts you into interaction with diverse ideas, that makes you smarter,” Haidt says. “You can solve more problems. You become a more critical thinker. The more you hang out with people who think like you, especially if they enforce orthodoxy, the lower your IQ gets.”
In other words, only engaging with ideas you already support can actually make you dumber. It can also damage your cause. As an example, Haidt sites student attempts to deplatform both outside speakers and faculty on campuses over the last few years. Video of protests at schools like Evergreen State were widely shared on conservative networks, and while the students may have seen themselves as warriors in the fight for social justice, those who don’t already support their ideals were more likely to see hysterical students screaming at befuddled adults. The backlash was inevitable. “The antics on campus did a lot, I think, to elect Donald Trump,” Haidt says. “Most people on the left have not seen those videos but most people on the right have seen them. And so even if you think it’s virtuous to always be fighting, in the long run, you are harming your own side.”
In an effort to reverse the trend of ideological homogeneity on campus, Haidt founded the Heterodox Academy, an organization that advocates for universities to embrace viewpoint diversity (even, yes, when those viewpoints are conservative). Last year, they hosted the first Heterodox Academy Open Minds Conference in New York, which I attended. (Full disclosure: I moderated a panel, for which I was compensated.)
The conference was remarkable: Everyone I spoke to seemed to have some story about what made them first see that the world isn’t cleanly broken up into good versus evil, from professors who’d been the subject of protests to journalists who’d been canceled. Still, this was a conference mostly made up of academics and writers, and I doubt there was a single stereotypical Trump voter or social justice warrior in attendance. For the sake of viewpoint diversity this is probably a failure, but the organization still managed to bring together a crowd that included conservatives like Bret Stephens and liberals like Alice Dreger and libertarians like Kmele Foster all in one space. There were heated discussions, to be sure, but no one called for anyone else to be fired. This, I am sure, would be appalling to a certain subset of leftist Twitter, but as Haidt reminded me, social media may be loud, but it’s not representative. “We have to distinguish between the average and the visible anecdote,” he said. “This is another thing social media has done to us: We used to have a sense of the mood in a room or the mood in our social network, and now we have no idea.”
Still, he’s not optimistic that we’ll work our way out of these divisions, at least without significant disruption in the process. “Things feel so strange to me,” he said. “It feels as though a fundamental constant of the universe has been altered. I think social media has done that.”
Inside the Chieftain’s Hatch. M151 Series
The_Chieftain
Published on 6 Apr 2019A fun, and rather dangerous, little softskin which will easily fit in your garage.
QotD: The Coolidge Effect
Behavioral endocrinologist Frank A. Beach first mentioned the term “Coolidge effect” in publication in 1955, crediting one of his students with suggesting the term at a psychology conference. He attributed the neologism to:
… an old joke about Calvin Coolidge when he was President … The President and Mrs. Coolidge were being shown [separately] around an experimental government farm. When [Mrs. Coolidge] came to the chicken yard she noticed that a rooster was mating very frequently. She asked the attendant how often that happened and was told, “Dozens of times each day.” Mrs. Coolidge said, “Tell that to the President when he comes by.” Upon being told, the President asked, “Same hen every time?” The reply was, “Oh, no, Mr. President, a different hen every time.” President: “Tell that to Mrs. Coolidge.”
The joke appears in a 1978 book (A New Look at Love, by Elaine Hatfield and G. William Walster, p. 75), citing an earlier source (footnote 19, Chapter 5).
May 8, 2019
May 7, 2019
The Suez Crisis reconsidered
Jordan Chandler Hirsch reviews a new book on what is now a somewhat forgotten international crisis that shook the Atlantic alliance, Philip Zelikow’s Suez Deconstructed:
Zelikow encourages readers to assess Suez by examining three kinds of judgments made by the statesmen during the crisis: value judgments (“What do we care about?”), reality judgments (“What is really going on?”), and action judgments (“What can we do about it?”). Asking these questions, Zelikow argues, is the best means of evaluating the protagonists. Through this structure, Suez Deconstructed hopes to provide “a personal sense, even a checklist, of matters to consider” when confronting questions of statecraft.
The book begins this task by describing the world of 1956. The Cold War’s impermeable borders had not yet solidified, and the superpowers sought the favor of the so-called Third World. Among non-aligned nations, Cold War ideology mattered less than anti-colonialism. In the Middle East, its champion was Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who wielded influence by exploiting several festering regional disputes. He rhetorically — and, the French suspected, materially — supported the Algerian revolt against French rule. He competed with Iraq, Egypt’s pro-British and anti-communist rival. He threatened to destroy the State of Israel. And through Egypt ran the Suez Canal, which Europe depended on for oil.
Egypt’s conflict with Israel precipitated the Suez crisis. In September 1955, Nasser struck a stunning and mammoth arms deal with the Soviet Union. The infusion of weaponry threatened Israel’s strategic superiority, undermined Iraq, and vaulted the Soviet Union into the Middle East. From that point forward, Zelikow argues, the question for all the countries in the crisis (aside from Egypt, of course) became “What to do next about Nasser?”
Israel responded with dread, while, Britain, France, and the United States alternated between confrontation and conciliation. Eventually, the United States abandoned Nasser, but he doubled down by nationalizing the Suez Canal. This was too much for France. Hoping to unseat Nasser to halt Egyptian aid to Algeria, it concocted a plan with Israel and, eventually, Britain for Israel to invade Egypt and for British and French troops to seize the Canal Zone on the pretense of separating Israeli and Egyptian forces. The attack began just before the upcoming U.S. presidential election and alongside a revolution in Hungary that triggered a Soviet invasion. The book highlights the Eisenhower administration’s anger at the tripartite plot. Despite having turned on Nasser, Eisenhower seethed at not having been told about the assault, bitterly opposed it, and threatened to ruin the British and French economies by withholding oil shipments.
Throughout, Suez Deconstructed disorients. As the story crisscrosses from terror raids into Israel to covert summits in French villas, from Turtle Bay to the Suez Canal, names and places, thoughts and actions blur. Venerable policymakers scramble to comprehend the latest maneuvers as they struggle with the weight of history: Was Suez another Munich? Could Britain and France still project power abroad? Would a young Israel survive?
If you’re not familiar with the Suez Crisis and want more than just the Wikipedia article for background, here’s the coverage of the military side of things from the British perspective (Operation Musketeer) from Naval History Homepage.
A detailed map of Port Said in 1936 (American Geographical Society Library). Changes by 1956 are not known.
Map via Naval History Homepage.
May 6, 2019
“Casual sex” isn’t actually all that casual to most women
Suzanne Venker makes the case that the innate physiological and psychological differences between men and women accounting for most women’s much lower comfort level with “no-strings-attached” sexual encounters:
The differences between women and men are vast, and in no domain is this more true than sex. Our bodies alone prove this in spades! If one body carries life and the other doesn’t, this clearly makes the sexes unequal. Newsflash: The birth control pill doesn’t change a woman’s inherent nature — it merely gives the illusion she’s just like a man.
She’s not. A woman’s need to bond with a man, to feel safe and loved and committed to, is crucial for her to feel secure enough to let down her guard sexually. That’s why she feels uneasy about one-night stands. Her body won’t cooperate.
It’s also why men, not women, are the ones who gain the most from casual sex. (To be clear: I’m not arguing that it’s “OK” or even good for men to sleep around; I’m simply pointing out why, from a physical standpoint, they aren’t angst-ridden when they do.)
Women just aren’t designed for one-night stands. What do we think all those films and television programs are about where the man and the woman have sex and he doesn’t call her the next day, so she thinks he’s a jerk? If women were “just like men,” this would never be a theme in the first place.
When it comes to uncommitted sex, women are playing a game they can’t win. Feeling “used,” or like a “booty call,” is the most common experience of women who engage in casual sex, or “hookups,” whether they’re teenagers or grown women. That just isn’t the case for most men.
Every American over the age of 40 knows this to be true, and adults in schools and at home are failing our youth by not passing this wisdom along — particularly when young people are bombarded with the lie that casual sex is empowering.
QotD: Political scandals
If you say “Clinton scandal,” the first thing that comes to mind for most people, at least for those of us old enough to have been around for Bill Clinton’s presidency, is Monica Lewinsky. That’s a shame: I am convinced that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cattle-futures shenanigans were in fact a much more serious offense as a matter of public corruption. But most people don’t understand futures trading. Everybody understands diddling the interns. Nobody understands finance. Everybody understands sex.
(Except Objectivists.)
That’s why financial scandals rarely end political careers, but sex scandals often do, especially for Republicans.
Kevin D. Williamson, “Fanciful Trump ‘Scandals'”, National Review, 2017-04-16.
May 3, 2019
The rarely used US Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA)
Ron Paul wonders why Russian national Maria Butina got a harsher sentence under the Foreign Agent Registration Act than an actual foreign agent who was paid millions of dollars by the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein:
Russian gun rights activist and graduate exchange student Maria Butina was sentenced to 18 months in prison last week for “conspiracy to act as a foreign agent without registering.” Her “crime” was to work to make connections among American gun rights activists in hopes of building up her organization, the Right to Bear Arms, when she returned to Russia.
She was not employed by the Russian government nor was she a lobbyist on Putin’s behalf. In fact the Putin Administration is hostile to Russian gun rights groups. Nevertheless the US mainstream media and Trump’s Justice Department are treating her as public enemy number one in a case that will no doubt set the dangerous precedent of criminalizing person-to-person diplomacy in the United States.
The Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) was passed in 1938 under pressure from the FDR Administration partly to silence opposition to the US entry into World War II. While a handful of cases were prosecuted during the war, between 1966 and 2015 the Justice Department only brought seven FARA cases for prosecution.
Though very few cases have been brought on FARA violations, one of them was against Samir Vincent, who was paid millions of dollars by Saddam Hussein to lobby for sanctions relief without registering. He got off with a fine and “community service.”
Millions of dollars in unregistered payments from Saddam Hussein gets no jail time, while Butina gets 18 months in prison for privately promoting a cause most Americans support! How is this justice?
The US Justice Department is not even as tough on illegals who commit capital crimes in the US!
Unfortunately Maria Butina was in the wrong place at the wrong time. With the rise of the “Russiagate” hysteria, Butina’s case was seen as a useful tool by Democrats to push the idea that President Trump was put into office by the Russians. Plus, many of them are also hostile to our Second Amendment and to the National Rifle Association. So it was a perfect storm for Butina.
“The Lost Battalion” – The Meuse-Argonne Offensive – Sabaton History 013
Sabaton History
Published on 2 May 2019In the last months of the Great War, the Americans join the fighting on the Western Front in an effort to break through the German Lines for once and for all. The Americans launch their Meuse-Argonne Offensive in the fall of 1918. As part of the offensive, nine companies of the United States 77th Division under command of Major Charles White Whittlesey pushes through the German lines with remarkable ease. Little did they know that the German lines were not abandoned, but that they simply found a hole. The Lost Battalion was surrounded and the men had to fight for days, awaiting their rescue.
Support Sabaton History on Patreon (and possibly get a special edition of The Great War): https://www.patreon.com/sabatonhistory
Watch the Official Lyric Video of “The Lost Battalion” here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSZtV…
Check out the trailer for Sabaton’s new album The Great War right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCZP1…
Listen to Sabaton on Spotify: http://smarturl.it/SabatonSpotify
Official Sabaton Merchandise Shop: http://bit.ly/SabatonOfficialShopHosted by: Indy Neidell
Written by: Markus Linke and Indy Neidell
Directed by: Astrid Deinhard and Wieke Kapteijns
Produced by: Pär Sundström, Astrid Deinhard and Spartacus Olsson
Creative Producer: Joram Appel
Executive Producers: Pär Sundström, Joakim Broden, Tomas Sunmo, Indy Neidell, Astrid Deinhard, and Spartacus Olsson
Maps by: Eastory
Edited by: Iryna Dulka
Sound Editing by: Marek KaminskiEastory YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEly…
Archive by: Reuters/Screenocean https://www.screenocean.com
Music by Sabaton.Sources:
© IWM (Q 8986), IWM (Q 10317), IWM (Q 8842), IWM (Q 9080), IWM (Q 87923), IWM (Q 61038), IWM (Q 53524), © IWM (Q 45553), IWM (Q 81616), IWM (Q 9078), IWM (Q 9079), IWM (Q 8844), IWM (Q 56607), IWM (Q 55559), IWM (Q 55558), IWM (Q 87940), IWM (Q 85383), IWM (Q 23719), IWM (Q 23709), IWM (Q 42057), IWM (Q 115198), IWM (Q 8161), IWM (Q 10316), IWM (Q 7928) IWM (Q 61481), IWM (Q 57695), IWM (Q 9088), IWM (Q 9083), IWM (Q 47997), IWM (Q 79595)
USMC Archives through Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/6086806…An OnLion Entertainment GmbH and Raging Beaver Publishing AB co-Production.
© Raging Beaver Publishing AB, 2019 – all rights reserved.
From the comments:
Sabaton History
1 day ago
We met up with Indy in the Argonne to film Sabaton History’s episode for “The Lost Battalion”. As it happens, our new album is about the First World War as well. We have published a video earlier today presenting the “History Channel Edition” for the upcoming Sabaton Album The Great War. This is a special edition of the new album that is an exclusive reward for people who generously support us on Patreon as a Hussar or higher. If you want to check out the video in which Joakim and Indy explain the contents of the special edition, click here: https://youtu.be/Nk-VN_PjZyg If you want to support this channel on Patreon, go here: https://www.patreon.com/sabatonhistoryThanks for your time and cheers! 🤘
The power of the patriarchy
As we are often told, men have distinct advantages in modern society that women are still struggling to achieve for themselves. Daphne Patai doesn’t seem to have got the memo, however:
In contemporary America, women and men still act out ancient roles. From the point of view of the men, the society is a matriarchy: Women have physically less demanding jobs — with the sole exception of childbirth, by now a rare event in the average woman’s life. Women sustain far fewer injuries on the job, are not required to go to war, take better care of their health, and for these reasons and many others enjoy a lifespan significantly longer than that of men.
In this society, men use their physical strength, when necessary, on women’s behalf. Women claim to be equal partners when that suits them and claim to be entitled to special consideration when that suits them. They insist on autonomy in maintaining or aborting pregnancies, but at the same time, they determine the fathers’ duties-and rights, if any. Women claim child support. They can either demand or impede fathers’ continuing involvement with their offspring, as the women see fit. The result is that women have advantages over men in child custody suits, just as they have learned to use charges of child sexual abuse and domestic violence.
Though dozens of studies show that women, by their own account, initiate violence against their domestic partners as often as (if not more often than) men, and cause as much injury when weapons are involved, somehow the social mythologies of this country keep that fact from gaining broad public attention, let alone credence.
But worst of all, in terms of the interactions of daily life, are women’s emotional demands on men. At home, men routinely sit through harangues that demonstrate women’s greater verbal skills and emotional agility. Men, inarticulate, try to figure out what is required of them in a given situation. Not by accident, verbal therapies in this society archetypically began with men listening and women speaking. Even as little boys, males learn to be in awe of girls’ verbal fluency. The feeling of ineptness, of being no match for females at the verbal and emotional level, is the common inheritance of all but a few exceptional males.
The matriarchy here described, structured to protect women’s interests as against men’s (and, ironically, having conned men into defending such a set up) puts a premium on women’s special social and emotional skills. Everywhere, women engage men and one another in personal conversation, offering and receiving disclosures, demanding commiseration, giving advice, spreading censure. Men, trained to keep to their workhorse style, are uncomfortably cornered by women, in the workplace, and at home, demanding that they speak from the heart. When asked “How are you?” women give a detailed and precise accounting. In offices, they spend valuable time discussing personal matters.
May 2, 2019
May 1, 2019
The Wine Lover Meltdown that Changed the Wine World Forever
Today I Found Out
Published on 26 Mar 2019Check out my other channel TopTenz! https://www.youtube.com/user/toptenznet
Follow Simon on social media:
https://twitter.com/SimonWhistler
https://www.instagram.com/simonwhistler/Never run out of things to say at the water cooler with TodayIFoundOut! Brand new videos 7 days a week!
More from TodayIFoundOut:
Why Does the Yolk of an Overcooked Hard Boiled Egg Turn Green
https://youtu.be/ytqpeHcFT3YWhat’s the Difference Between Brown Eggs and White Eggs?
https://youtu.be/je44qy-_MHYIn this video:
Outside of wine snobs, I think we can all agree that wine snobs are just the worst. This is not because virtually every study ever conducted into the field of wine tasting as a whole has concluded that it’s ridiculously easy to convince even the top sommeliers that $5 boxed white wine is the finest red wine ever bottled. Nor is it because wines they would happily sacrifice their first born to have a glass of and would have otherwise raved about, when told the glass contains a variety of some cheap wine they are to identify, are more than likely to claim it tastes akin to horse piss.
Want the text version? http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.p…
