+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Eyewitness to History (/thread-10314.html)
Eyewitness to History - --Pete - 09-09-2003
Hi,
Overheard in a German Gasthaus around August '65 (best as I remember):
"Ich bin nicht deutsch, ich bin preuss", said in a loud, indignant voice.
I suspect German unification is much like Italian Unification (or the end of the CSA), more real in the minds of some than that of others. :)
--Pete
Eyewitness to History - Chaerophon - 09-09-2003
If your argument that is that a unipolar atmosphere of international relations is somehow desirable, I would have to disagree. If the power truly has desires to act as a universally benevolent entity, that is one thing. The fact is, that's not how members of the international community function, and we have to live with it. To generalize that "a world in which only one power exists in dominance over all other nations" seems remarkably naive given the fact that I highly doubt that you would be as supportive of this statement if that superpower was of communist or facist origins. Similarly, your argument would seem to see benefits in only one nation possessing nuclear weapons etc. Essentially, under that theoretical example, that nation would be capable of strongarming the lesser nations of the world into submission. In fact, I would argue that, while the US does a fairly good job of doing so as it is, the fact that other nations of the world possess nuclear arms has done much to retain some of the quasi-democratic processes of the international world and serves to restrict their power to a reasonable degree.
While I would certainly agree with the majority of the members on this board that, compared with their potential clout, the Americans are relatively benevolent, if they were granted true unilateral power as the sole possesser of nuclear arms, it would make them frightfully capable (I'm certainly not making the point that they would be so at this time) of tyrannical dominance over the international scene and this would not be a desireable outcome for any nation who desires a say in international affairs as it would represent a serious hindrance of the moderate, democratic process that I deem necessary for a maintenance of international peace and solidarity.
Eyewitness to History - jahcs - 09-09-2003
I might like to go back to the day the Louisiana purchase was finalized so I could point and laugh.
Or maybe the day Bill Gates made his presentation of MSDOS for the first time (to IBM?) I could find the competitor that decided to go fly his plane instead of showing up and point and laugh hysterically.
Eyewitness to History - channel1 - 09-10-2003
I might like to go back to the day the Louisiana purchase was finalized so I could point and laugh.
Laugh?
That was a significant source of capital for Napoleon to finance his attempts at expansion in Europe, while liberating forces to otherwise defend the territory. Louisiana had no immediate strategic value to France, with the loss of Haiti.
Had Napoleon been successful, he could have had effective control of the colonies of the European states. Why bother trying to take Spain's colonies piecemeal, when taking Spain itself gives you everything?
With the resources available had Europe fallen to Napoleon, he could have then been in a position to take back the Louisiana territory whenever he wanted it. What was perceived as a miserable chunk of swamp would have been low on his list, though.
-rcv-
Eyewitness to History - Rhydderch Hael - 09-10-2003
Granted, duPont brought American gunpowder manufacture to the fore, but he established his first mill in 1804, and became the large supplier of powder in the United States by 1810. However the plans and construction of the frigates began almost ten years prior to duPont's arrival, and imported English gunpowder was the preferred powder over the domestic product among shootists during that time.
Mind you, European knowledge and industry base concerning gunpowder manufacture reached back centuries, but the British endeavoured to keep gunpowder manufacturing in the American colonies as rudimentary as possible when the colonies were still under British control, with supply to colonists limited and rationed to prevent insurgence. When independence came about, the new United States had to catch up.
American powder circa 1795 could not generate the power of the European competition. An American 18-pounder (the common bore of a frigate of the day) would not range as well as a Brit. So the solution at hand: get a bigger gun. The 24-pounder.
Problem is, those guns are heavier. The ships have to be larger. Fortunately, Humphreys and Fox had the answer to that solution when the American frigates were built.
Eyewitness to History - Doc - 09-10-2003
That makes sense now.
The Americans, who did not fire a warning or a courtisy shot, well, that would be rather rude. I mean, if you peppered somebody with an 18 pound gun, well, damaging perhaps, but over all annoying. Those frigates back then could take that sort of abuse. (unless somebody was aiming for the sails) However, the lack of any sort of warning shot and sending somebody a direct hit with a 24 pound cannon as a wake up call, well, that's just rude as hell. Why, you could sink somebody with manners like that. Why the nerve of the Yankee Navy.
The term "Loose lips sink ships." dates back to this time, but it still unclear why. Some sort of finger pointing at american sailors who chewed tobacco perhaps?
Eyewitness to History - --Pete - 09-10-2003
Hi,
However the plans and construction of the frigates began almost ten years prior to duPont's arrival
Completely overlooked that. So, seems there was some serendipity there. The American frigates were designed to do well with inferior powder, but in the War of 1812 actually were being supplied with superior powder. Probably contributed a lot to their record.
Problem is, those guns are heavier. The ships have to be larger. Fortunately, Humphreys and Fox had the answer to that solution when the American frigates were built.
Yep. Of course, the design requirements for the Americans were different. The American frigates, unlike the British, were not "the eyes of the fleet". They *were* the fleet! :)
--Pete
Eyewitness to History - --Pete - 09-10-2003
Hi,
Just too many possibilities.
Even if I restrict myself to "historical" (say the last seven millenia or so) "events" (say no longer than a day) there are many choices.
To be really appealing, it would have to be something that had a great effect on history (the assassination of Caesar or the destruction of the Mongol fleet by the Kamikaze) but also be something that is not fully known or understood (what happened to the princes in the Tower?).
Some things that fit all the requirements still would not call to me. The death of Socrates, the Resurrection, for example, are not of importance in themselves, but only in that they were recorded and passed down. The influence was from the telling, not the doing (which might or might not have happened). More people "know" history from Shakespeare than from history books.
So, I've read many interesting replies on this thread. And many would be worth viewing if one had a "chronoscope" allowing one to witness (but not influence) history at will. But, asked to pick just one, I cannot - yet.
But good topic. :)
--Pete
Eyewitness to History - Occhidiangela - 09-10-2003
Sovereign principalities were forced, coerced, or persuaded to become part of a greater whole, so a hundres or a thousand years of a cultural identity, of a local sort, took some effort to replace: a job for industrial age methods, though it is interesting to see how the paint peels back to show another picture, like on some Rembrandts.
As for Italy, an example well chosen. The Basque region, now in two other nations, is another. What am I, says a Basque? A Spaniard? "Guns or knives, sirrah, how dare you say that to me!"
The election in 1997-1998, wherein Bossi ran on a Padonia (Pannonia?) platform that suggested partitioning Italy somewhere just south of Rome: he got about 15% of the vote, and of course the artisans in downtown Naples made great little caricatures of the man for sale: they went like hot cakes ! Mine broke in transit back to The States. :( I heard Milanese, and a fellow from Bologna who I worked with, refer to Naples (??) jokingly (??) as "Northern Africa."
Italy, the geographical region, and Germany, roughly the geographical region that it is today, which is sans quite a bit of old Prussia, were places where someone was able to, via political will, homogenize partially by touching common cultural roots to create a national identity of whatever acceptability. It came down from above, and did not grow from below, which is significant when we look at what is being attempted in Iraq.
For some reason reminds me of two old jokes:
Tex: Where you from, podner.
Ace: Virginia
Tex: What part of Texas is that?
1980s' era, possibly earlier, Yugoslavia joke:
What is the total Yugoslav population? One, and his name is Tito. Every one else there is Serb, Croat, Slovene . . .
Eyewitness to History - ShadowHM - 09-10-2003
Occhidiangela,Sep 10 2003, 12:43 PM Wrote:1980s' era, possibly earlier, Yugoslavia joke:When Canadians meet each other, one of the questions sometimes asked is "What nationality are you?"
What is the total Yugoslav population? One, and his name is Tito. Every one else there is Serb, Croat, Slovene . . .
Being Canadian is insufficient, apparently. :P
And if you do answer with 'Canadian' you sometimes get a perplexed stare and a follow-up with"'But where are you from?" or "Well, then, where were your parents from?"
I just helped my Grade 2 son with a questionnaire this week about his heritage. He was to list where his parents, grandparents and great-grandparents were from. Lord was he happy when I told him he could fill in the same word for each line! :lol:
Eyewitness to History - channel1 - 09-10-2003
Funny thing is, maybe you DID see the most important turning point in history.
I remember watching in awe as Armstrong stepped onto the Lunar surface. I didn't sleep until after the LEM launched from the Moon. In retrospect, it's amusing that with all of the science fiction that had been written before, I don't believe that anyone had predicted that the first steps on the Moon would be watched LIVE by the rest of the people on Earth.
On a down side, I imagine a lot of the folks here were watching live as the World Trade Centre collapsed.
The events of that day set into motion some rather questionable acts by the US administration, de-railing the efforts of the UN, setting up a modern version of the Vichy government in Iraq (I don't count Afghanistan here, since there isn't much left of the former government there), incarceration of prisoners of war in a manner that contravenes the Geneva Conventions, indefinite incarceration of American nationals without due process or even making public their names, all things that could lead to the US being seen by history as the greatest menace to world peace in the 21st century.
I find it interesting, as a side-note, the public reaction of the US president immediately after the attacks two years ago. It makes an interesting contrast to the reactions of King George and Queen Elizabeth after the bombing of Buckingham palace in 1939.
While watching the TV coverage on Sept.11/2001, I expected the President to head immediately back to Washington to present an image of courage and control to a shocked nation. Instead, he ran like a rabbit and hid in a hole until he figured it was safe. By comparison, the King almost immediately made a radio broadcast to reassure the nation, lending his courage to a nation under siege. I'm sure that his actions helped give the British people the resolve to carry on through the attacks that lay ahead, and to survive the years of war.
It's America's loss that they lack a leader who values the welfare of the nation less than his own butt.
-rcv-
Eyewitness to History - Occhidiangela - 09-10-2003
contravenes the Geneva Conventions
You don't. The Geneva accords concerning the treatment of PoW's are first of all confined to wars that have combatants, wars between cosignatories and between sovereign nations, and more. I am covered by the Geneva Conventions, and you are not. I have a card to prove it. I am Category IV. Stick with what you actually know, you have many strog suits. :)
The status of the folks in Gitmo is a use of the loophole system of jurisprudence, well accepted throughout the Western World and in your own country, except this time it is not in favor of the criminals. So, unless the criminal gets a break and gets off, loopholes in laws aren't good? Nice double standard, real nice. What, you don't trust the US not to treat prisoners well? How about you ask the Iraqis who we held as PoW's in 1991 how they fared?
As to the Moon, I would have to agree, maybe we have already seen the biggest moment in mankind's history. That was a BIG one.
The World Trade Center, against the urban bombings of any number of wars, or against the V rocket attacks in WW II in London, or the Blitz, or fire bombing Tokyo, or Nanking, is not all that much to talk about in terms of human loss of life and a successful attack on the city of an enemy. Compared to an IRA car bombing, its a beaut.
Lots of folks got to see it live on TV, and even live on the interntet. To you it seems big, to me, and compared to a A Bomb on Nagasaki, which I did not see, it aint that big a deal, but a lost battle in an old war no one outside a few thought was being fought.
Being on TV doesn't make an event any more significant in the Big Scheme of Things. It merely paints a very vivid picture to us all in the here and now. The newpaper pictures of babies crying in Chunking was vivid in 1930's, though.
A murder of one man seen on TV is a shocker. The report of seven murders in the newspaper does not register. I'd rather not confuse the message with the medium.
I'd also rather people don't infer a century's significance from a work in progress. The prediction that US will become a menace to the world is beyond laughable, Chicken Little, you can already smell that many here don't want to have to "own" Iraq (per my comments for month in re "OK so you invade Iraq and win, what then? Now you own it, its problems are now yours." Of course I was right!) and so "owning" any of the rest of the world is so unattractive as to be repulsive.
As to the UN: we, and our drinking buddies from World War II, made the whole thing up, and if we keep working with it as over the last 58 years, it eventually will improve (my preference) and if we leave it or completely undermine it, as some idiots suggest, it will collapse. The Big Five are not equal partners with everyone else anyway, folks should not forget that, and Germany should replace France as a Big Five anyway, they have the muscle to back it up.
Don't mistake rhetoric for policy. The U.S aint going to leave UN any time soon. We'll leave NATO long before that would make any political sense.
Eyewitness to History - Rumgut - 09-10-2003
I'd settle for watching Salome perform the dance of the seven veils. Or perhaps Rocky Welch fightin them dinosaurs.
Eyewitness to History - Rhydderch Hael - 09-10-2003
I'm having a bit of trouble swallowing this "dastardly American" tangent. As I recall, there was an instance where a British frigate tried to bluff and bluster her way against an American frigate in the darkness of one Mediterranean night (back in the Barbary Wars days) by saying that she was an 80-gun ship of the line. The American skipper, befitting of that "nutter" attitude you alluded to earlier, didn't budge and called the bluff of the dark, standing ready to trade a broadside with what he thought was ship with twice his throwweight. It was the British that had to concede the pissing match and send her boat over for consultation (the whole point of the confrontation being that of who would send their longboat over to trade communications).
The fireship in the harbor incident you described earlier bears resemblence to Stephen Decatur's destruction of the USS Philadelphia, enough so to make me think that is what you are referring to. It wasn't quite as maniacal as you describe, but it took guts: row a fireship into the harbor of Tripoli, put the captured Philadelphia alight, then set the burning frigate loose to wreak what havoc she could to the dockworks.
Eyewitness to History - --Pete - 09-10-2003
Hi,
As Occhi already implied, the events of 9/11 are pretty insignificant in the scope of world history. If something that comes about because of that event has a major impact, then 9/11 may take on some importance. However, we would need to cast the chronoscope forward a century or so to see if 9/11 is important or all but forgotten.
Landing on the moon may turn out to also be meaningless in the long term scope. Yes, a major accomplishment. But if nothing further comes of it (and I suspect that nothing will) then it will be remembered as is the Viking settlement of North America. A flash in the pan that could have mattered but didn't.
I see more hope of useful space settlement coming from the space station *if* NASA pulls its collective head out and *if* the American (and world) public ever support space again. Otherwise, it will be up to the multi-national corporations to do take advantage of space. Geo-synced communication and weather satellites, LEO communication networks (OK, so far they have been financial failures -- but it took PDAs a couple of trys to get it right, too), and crop/mineral scanning satellites (the descendants of LANDSAT, etc.) will be the ventures that keep us in space. And they are all driven by $$$$, not ????. If a material (chemical, biological or metallic) becomes potentially valuable but requires zero (or low) g to make, you'll see DuPont, US Steel, or Pfizer "settle" space faster than NASA can point the finger of blame (which seems to be NASA's primary function nowadays).
One of the reasons that "history" and "recent events" are not the same is that history has been filtered by the harshest filter of all, time. You may be right, you might be wrong. I'll wait and let you know in a hundred years or so. You do plan to be here then? I do. :)
--Pete
Eyewitness to History - channel1 - 09-11-2003
I do like Pete's comparison of the Moon landings with the Viking settlements in North America. It certainly does look like the next time people go to the Moon, they will be essentially starting out from scratch.
Pete & Occhidiangela may have gotten the wrong idea about my mention of the World Trade Center / Pentagon attacks. I did not mean to imply that the attack itself was historically significant. Rather, it served to provide an excuse for later actions by the US administration. Rather like how the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand gave Austria an excuse to invade Serbia.
Occhidiangela's point about the Geneva Conventions not applying per se to the internees at Guantanamo Bay is valid, but there is still a a question of the moral correctness of holding some of these people. The US administration has recently admitted that an unspecified number being held there are believed to be innocent of any wrongdoing, and are being held only because they may provide useful information. "Do you know anyone who is, or has ever been, a member of a terrorist group?"
Edit: By the way, Occhidiangela, the folks interned at camp X-Ray could fall under Section 2 of Article IV,
"Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
© That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
Unfortunately, we don't know if the prisoners meet these conditions, since the US has not provided details about their capture.
Pete's mention of the development of space omits one possible scenario for future development. Two economic forces drive development, either a lot of people will pay a little bit, or a few people will pay a whole lot. Communications satellites have been a driving force for the first case.
It struck me on one of my daily visits to a local nursing home what could bring about development and colonization based on the second case. There are a lot of people who have severely restricted mobility in our normal gravity. Imagine what someone would pay to live out the rest of their lives with greatly improved mobility under one-sixth gravity. A lot of those people also drag around ventilators and supplemental oxygen, so a controlled, artificial environment would be a plus.
Of course, there are not enough of the old folks yet who have enough financial resources to make this feasible, but the Baby Boomers getting older. There are a lot of those folks who have a personal net worth large enough to take a bite out of the cost of a space-based or Moon-based facility. If Bil Gates and Paul Allen were stuck in wheelchairs, in constant discomfort, how much would they pay to be able to live out their lives on the Moon?
Of course, a colony made up exclusively of old folks is not going to see it's population increase except by immigration. But the support personnel for such a facility would give the colony inhabitants of child-bearing age. Any facilities with other objectives (research, mining, etc.) would be a bonus.
Of course, the technology that made Neil & Buzz's trip possible won't likely be much help for that future colony, but you can never tell- if they live long enough, they may be customers. :)
-rcv-
Eyewitness to History - whyBish - 09-11-2003
Doc,Sep 11 2003, 04:23 AM Wrote:The term "Loose lips sink ships." dates back to this time, but it still unclear why....er, isn't that term from WW2 where it there was concern that gossip could be picked up by spies?
Eyewitness to History - Doc - 09-11-2003
In the book I have on the origins of famous sayings, it states the loose lips sink ships back to Colonial American days, and was a common saying of the Brits. But not sure why. Tobacco? The fact that Americans were a mouthy protesting lot who had this concept of free speech? Spies, as you indicated? Even back then, there were spies. And plenty of them. I am sure there are a lot of claims as to where things originate. Mayhap we should go back in time to find out for sure just when and how.
Eyewitness to History - Vandiablo - 09-12-2003
Quote:(_b_) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
So what was the sign used by Taliban forces?
If they used one, I'm pretty sure it would have shown up somewhere on all the videos we've seen. It probably would have shown up in the latest Osama hiking video. Maybe it's using cloth headgear and a vest (see the video). We had better round up the Amish farmers...
-V
Eyewitness to History - Doc - 09-12-2003
Oh crap... Us aging hippies better go hide.
**Looks at bell bottoms, vests, and mishapen felt hats**
Dave's not here man!