Re: Things we remember...
Rebecca Rice
> In article <7lhhjpF...@mid.individual.net>,
> John F. Eldredge <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:06:13 +0000, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>
>>> In article <slrnhf4kc...@gatekeeper.vic.com>, David DeLaney
>>> <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>>>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>>>> When I was a kid, everyone dressed up for church, which was one reason
>>>>> I hated going.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where I live now, that's a racial distinction -- black and Hispanic
>>>>> people still dress up for church, white people don't, Asians can go
>>>>> either way.
>>>> The newspaper comic strip Curtis makes fun, every so often, of black
>>>> ladies' supposed penchant for Elaborate And Intricate Competitive Hat
>>>> Displays In Church.
>>> Yes. I searched through a month's worth of back Curtis strips hoping to
>>> find an example, but it hasn't been Hat Sunday in Curtisville recently.
>> Here in Nashville, Tennessee, you still see a lot of black ladies wearing
>> fancy hats on Sunday. One explanation that I have read is that this
>> custom dates back to post-Civil-War Louisiana. Prior to the Civil War,
>> Louisiana required all slave women to wear kerchiefs, and all free women
>> of color to wear hats, so that their status would be visible. After the
>> war, the women wore hats on all formal occasions as a way of proclaiming
>> that they were all now free.
>
> Okay, if that works. There were free blacks in Louisiana before
> the war, then? Interesting.
>
Of course. Free men of color, and the offspring of white
planters and their colored mistresses. Barbara Hambly has
an interesting series featuring a free man of color set in
Louisiana shortly after the Americans bought the place, and
it goes into what life was like back then. A lot of
friction between the Creoles (who would take colored
mistresses, and generally raise any offspring of such unions
reasonably well, including freeing all of them) and the
Americans, who ... wouldn't. And of the friction between
the coloreds and the blacks, since many colored people
apparently thought nothing of owning darker-skinned blacks
as servants.
And yep, it was law that all women of color had to cover
their heads while out, and custom that only the voodoo queen
could wear a seven-pointed tignon.
Really a fascinating series to read.
Rebecca
Quadibloc
> > Okay, if that works. There were free blacks in Louisiana before
> > the war, then? Interesting.
Of course there were free blacks in Louisiana before September 3,
1939. Slavery had been abolished in the United States during the Civil
War, which took place in the previous century.
Yes, I am teasing you here: but "the war" when written without
qualifications, normally means "World War II", and this is not
normally subject to being overridden by context (an exception would be
if I was reading a historical novel, and a character in it was
referring in dialog to a war that had recently taken place in the era
in which it was set).
John Savard
Don Aitken
wrote:
"The war" can be very long ago indeed, particularly with civil wars.
In Defoe's "Journey through the Whole Island of Great Britain",
published in 1724, "the war" invariably means the Civil War of the
1640s. The Jacobite rising of 1715 is "the rebellion". Foreign wars
don't seem to count.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
W. Citoan
>
> Yes, I am teasing you here: but "the war" when written without
> qualifications, normally means "World War II", and this is not
> normally subject to being overridden by context
Bull. That is not the case at all. You might want to actually read a
history book.
- W. Citoan
--
Whatever you choose, do not seek to carry out easy tasks.
-- Adolf Von Baeyer
Dorothy J Heydt
W. Citoan <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote:
>Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I am teasing you here: but "the war" when written without
>> qualifications, normally means "World War II", and this is not
>> normally subject to being overridden by context
>
>Bull. That is not the case at all. You might want to actually read a
>history book.
"The War", without further specification, can mean the current
one. Or the most recent one. Or the biggest one of the century.
Or the one the speaker fought in. Or the one in whose aftermath
he grew up. Or the one most appropriate to the context.
It's like the argument, not infrequently revisited in this group,
about what "The City" refers to. It depends on where the speaker
lives.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Will in New Haven
In this, of course, you are completely wrong. "The war" refers to
whatever war is most important to the speaker or whatever war has been
most recently discussed between the people speaking. In the southern
part of this country, someone mentioning "the war," without
qualification, in 1944 would be talking about the ACW.
--
Will in New Haven
Mike Ash
<929fc788-d6d4-4443...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> Yes, I am teasing you here: but "the war" when written without
> qualifications, normally means "World War II", and this is not
> normally subject to being overridden by context
Your ability to live in a completely different reality from the rest of
us astounds me.
"My cousin went off to the war last week."
"Really? He got in a time machine and went back to the 40s to fight
Nazis?"
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Quadibloc
> It's like the argument, not infrequently revisited in this group,
> about what "The City" refers to. It depends on where the speaker
> lives.
As a Canadian, I was assumed when, at the height of its popularity,
the newspaper USA Today put up vending boxes in my city of Edmonton,
Alberta with its slogan "The Nation's Newspaper" in the front.
Surely they should have realized that people would look at those boxes
funny, since a newspaper named "USA Today" could _hardly_ be Canada's
newspaper.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> In article
> <929fc788-d6d4-4443-ab72-17cd589f9...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > Yes, I am teasing you here: but "the war" when written without
> > qualifications, normally means "World War II", and this is not
> > normally subject to being overridden by context
>
> Your ability to live in a completely different reality from the rest of
> us astounds me.
>
> "My cousin went off to the war last week."
>
> "Really? He got in a time machine and went back to the 40s to fight
> Nazis?"
Some contexts are stronger than others. On the other hand, usually one
would say "My cousin went off to war last week", or even "My cousin
was deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan last week".
John Savard
David DeLaney
>W. Citoan <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, I am teasing you here: but "the war" when written without
>>> qualifications, normally means "World War II", and this is not
>>> normally subject to being overridden by context
>>
>>Bull. That is not the case at all. You might want to actually read a
>>history book.
>
>"The War", without further specification, can mean the current
>one. Or the most recent one. Or the biggest one of the century.
>Or the one the speaker fought in. Or the one in whose aftermath
>he grew up. Or the one most appropriate to the context.
>
>It's like the argument, not infrequently revisited in this group,
>about what "The City" refers to. It depends on where the speaker lives.
Because the previous century ended up having multiple The Wars, as far as I can
tell the first one's now The Great War. (And may have been so before the
second The War started, I haven't done the research?)
Dave "see: Iraq War summer reruns" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Dorothy J Heydt
David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>
>>"The War", without further specification, can mean the current
>>one. Or the most recent one. Or the biggest one of the century.
>>Or the one the speaker fought in. Or the one in whose aftermath
>>he grew up. Or the one most appropriate to the context.
>>
>tell the first one's now The Great War. (And may have been so before the
>second The War started, I haven't done the research?)
Yes. Actually, World War I was called "The Great War", or "The
World War", up until it became clear that WWII was in train and
was even bigger than the previous one, which then got renamed
World War I.
Don Aitken
wrote:
>In article <slrnhferi...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
>David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"The War", without further specification, can mean the current
>>>one. Or the most recent one. Or the biggest one of the century.
>>>Or the one the speaker fought in. Or the one in whose aftermath
>>>he grew up. Or the one most appropriate to the context.
>>>
>>Because the previous century ended up having multiple The Wars, as far as I can
>>tell the first one's now The Great War. (And may have been so before the
>>second The War started, I haven't done the research?)
>
>Yes. Actually, World War I was called "The Great War", or "The
>World War", up until it became clear that WWII was in train and
>was even bigger than the previous one, which then got renamed
>World War I.
The first published source to call it that seems to be the memoirs of
Colonel Repington, which were compiled from diary entries and
published in 1919. He called it "the First World War" in an entry
written before it was over. Lots of people, including H.G.Wells, used
the expression within a year or two of its end.
Cryptoengineer
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:56:06 GMT, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <slrnhferib.k5s....@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
> >David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
> >>Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"The War", without further specification, can mean the current
> >>>one. Or the most recent one. Or the biggest one of the century.
> >>>Or the one the speaker fought in. Or the one in whose aftermath
> >>>he grew up. Or the one most appropriate to the context.
>
> >>Because the previous century ended up having multiple The Wars, as far as I can
> >>tell the first one's now The Great War. (And may have been so before the
> >>second The War started, I haven't done the research?)
>
> >Yes. Actually, World War I was called "The Great War", or "The
> >World War", up until it became clear that WWII was in train and
> >was even bigger than the previous one, which then got renamed
> >World War I.
>
> The first published source to call it that seems to be the memoirs of
> Colonel Repington, which were compiled from diary entries and
> published in 1919. He called it "the First World War" in an entry
> written before it was over. Lots of people, including H.G.Wells, used
> the expression within a year or two of its end.
A strong case can be made that the first 'World War' was the Seven
Year's War (1754-1763 (yes, I know)) which involved pretty much every
European power, and was fought in Europe, Africa, India, and both
North and South America. The French and Indian War in the NA was a
sideshow of this conflict.
pt
Robert Bannister
Because it was the first war thought to involve most of the world. Of
course, if "world" means "known world" then there were quite a few back
in Homeric times and later.
--
Rob Bannister
Michael Stemper
>On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:56:06 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>In article <slrnhferi...@gatekeeper.vic.com>, David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>>>tell the first one's now The Great War. (And may have been so before the
>>>second The War started, I haven't done the research?)
>>
>>Yes. Actually, World War I was called "The Great War", or "The
>>World War", up until it became clear that WWII was in train and
>>was even bigger than the previous one, which then got renamed
>>World War I.
>
>The first published source to call it that seems to be the memoirs of
>Colonel Repington, which were compiled from diary entries and
>published in 1919. He called it "the First World War" in an entry
>written before it was over.
And all this time, I've considered it an anachroism when somebody in
_Sky Captain_ refered to it that way.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
The name of the story is "A Sound of Thunder".
It was written by Ray Bradbury. You're welcome.
Wayne Throop
:: Colonel Repington, which were compiled from diary entries and
:: published in 1919. He called it "the First World War" in an entry
:: written before it was over.
I suspect he meant "unprecedented" rather than "start of a series".
At least in terms of the connotations of "first".
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Walter Bushell
Rebecca Rice <rebecc...@att.net> wrote:
>
> Of course. Free men of color, and the offspring of white
> planters and their colored mistresses. Barbara Hambly has
> an interesting series featuring a free man of color set in
> Louisiana shortly after the Americans bought the place, and
> it goes into what life was like back then. A lot of
> friction between the Creoles (who would take colored
> mistresses, and generally raise any offspring of such unions
> reasonably well, including freeing all of them) and the
> Americans, who ... wouldn't. And of the friction between
> the coloreds and the blacks, since many colored people
> apparently thought nothing of owning darker-skinned blacks
> as servants.
One has to wonder about men who would subject their own flesh and blood
to slavery.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <slrnhfduav....@wcitoan-via.eternal-september.org>,
> W. Citoan <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Quadibloc wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, I am teasing you here: but "the war" when written without
> >> qualifications, normally means "World War II", and this is not
> >> normally subject to being overridden by context
> >
> >Bull. That is not the case at all. You might want to actually read a
> >history book.
>
> "The War", without further specification, can mean the current
> one. Or the most recent one. Or the biggest one of the century.
> Or the one the speaker fought in. Or the one in whose aftermath
> he grew up. Or the one most appropriate to the context.
>
> It's like the argument, not infrequently revisited in this group,
> about what "The City" refers to. It depends on where the speaker
> lives.
Obvious "The City" refers to London proper.
Walter Bushell
<382d2f53-38a4-4a71...@r27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Or in 1959. Damn, even in Maryland. I was a Connecticut Yankee in
Maryland. The Southern General still had mythic status. Still do in much
of the state, except in some parts of Northern Maryland which is the
part around Washington DC., just like Northern Virginia is that around
DC.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
You are aware, I trust, that a large percentage of American slaves
were sired by the men who owned their mothers? In a 1990s study of Y
chromosomes intended to help African-American men connect to their
tribal roots, the most common ancestral ethnic group found was German;
the African ancestry was largely through female lines.
(If I remember correctly -- not at all a sure thing -- Yoruba was
second, Scottish was third, and then it got very diverse.)
The fact that white southern men were keeping their own kin, often
their own children, as slaves really upset a lot of northern
Abolitionists.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Derek Lyons
I don't trouble myself wonder at all - because I know they didn't have
our modern sensibilities about such things.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Dorothy J Heydt
If you live in or near London. Actually, if you live *in*
London, "The City" is the central part, business and financial
and government district, which used (IIRC) to be within the city
walls.
But if you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, "The City" is San
Francisco. And so on.
Dorothy J Heydt
You mean, like all those mixed-race kids that slaveowners got on
their female slaves? Those didn't count.
Juho Julkunen
(djh...@kithrup.com) says...
I thought that on this newsfroup the "City" is a book by Simak.
--
Juho Julkunen
Butch Malahide
>
> I thought that on this newsfroup the "City" is a book by Simak.
Not necessarily. ObSF:
"What?" screamed Vicq Ruiz. "Other cities after this one? Oh, you are
mad, sir! You do not know what you say! You have a fever!"
"I do not have a fever!" I said. "What damned city is it? What is its
name? I'm a stranger around here."
Vicq Ruiz looked at me as a Roman Catholic priest might look at a
hitherto normal communicant who suddenly confesses never to have heard
of God.
"It's Heilar-wey, sir," he says very gently. "Heilar-wey. The white
queen of all the cities of all the world. It's Heilar-wey, sir. Now,
will you come along?"
Well, I had heard of Heilar-wey. I argued no more. We took up the
money and went across the wide peneplain, away from the lilies.
Alan P. Scott
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <Kssw6...@kithrup.com>,
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>> It's like the argument, not infrequently revisited in this group,
>>> about what "The City" refers to. It depends on where the speaker
>>> lives.
>>
>>Obvious "The City" refers to London proper.
> If you live in or near London. Actually, if you live *in*
> London, "The City" is the central part, business and financial
> and government district, which used (IIRC) to be within the city
> walls.
> But if you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, "The City" is San
> Francisco. And so on.
I am *still* amused by the time my wife and I were in the Grand Central
Market in downtown Los Angeles, surrounded by some ten or twelve million
people, and a friendly couple we'd met who said they were from New York
sat down with us, sighed, and said in all apparent sincerity,
"It's so nice to get out of The City."
--
Alan P. Scott..................http://www.pacifier.com/~ascott/apshome.htm
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
--Sigmund Freud
cryptoguy
> Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>In article <Kssw63....@kithrup.com>,
> >> djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >>> It's like the argument, not infrequently revisited in this group,
> >>> about what "The City" refers to. It depends on where the speaker
> >>> lives.
>
> >>Obvious "The City" refers to London proper.
> > If you live in or near London. Actually, if you live *in*
> > London, "The City" is the central part, business and financial
> > and government district, which used (IIRC) to be within the city
> > walls.
> > But if you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, "The City" is San
> > Francisco. And so on.
>
> I am *still* amused by the time my wife and I were in the Grand Central
> Market in downtown Los Angeles, surrounded by some ten or twelve million
> people, and a friendly couple we'd met who said they were from New York
> sat down with us, sighed, and said in all apparent sincerity,
>
> "It's so nice to get out of The City."
In the earlier iteration of this discussion, I pointed out that Frank
Sinatra is alleged to have said "If you're not in New York, you're out
of town, baby".
pt
Robert Bannister
I am slightly horrified at what you might mean by "their own flesh and
blood". Did you mean their own children? That has of course been done
and still happens. Or did you mean perhaps that enslaving people not of
one's own ethnic group is somehow not quite as bad?
--
Rob Bannister
Walter Bushell
<4s5kf59b914h97isd...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:10:08 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <hd5pi7$oed$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Rebecca Rice <rebecc...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Of course. Free men of color, and the offspring of white
> >> planters and their colored mistresses. Barbara Hambly has
> >> an interesting series featuring a free man of color set in
> >> Louisiana shortly after the Americans bought the place, and
> >> it goes into what life was like back then. A lot of
> >> friction between the Creoles (who would take colored
> >> mistresses, and generally raise any offspring of such unions
> >> reasonably well, including freeing all of them) and the
> >> Americans, who ... wouldn't. And of the friction between
> >> the coloreds and the blacks, since many colored people
> >> apparently thought nothing of owning darker-skinned blacks
> >> as servants.
> >
> >One has to wonder about men who would subject their own flesh and blood
> >to slavery.
>
> You are aware, I trust, that a large percentage of American slaves
> were sired by the men who owned their mothers?
That is, naturally what I was referring to.
Nasty!
It is said that 6 year old girls sometimes fetched the price of a prime
buck field hand.
If you can't guess why, you don't want to know. Trust me, not only do
you not want to know, you really and sincerely don't want to know.
> In a 1990s study of Y
> chromosomes intended to help African-American men connect to their
> tribal roots, the most common ancestral ethnic group found was German;
> the African ancestry was largely through female lines.
>
> (If I remember correctly -- not at all a sure thing -- Yoruba was
> second, Scottish was third, and then it got very diverse.)
>
> The fact that white southern men were keeping their own kin, often
> their own children, as slaves really upset a lot of northern
> Abolitionists.
And selling them on the open market, maybe down river.
BARF!
Walter Bushell
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
I know that in many places they were forbidden to learn to read, but it
seems to much that they should be kept from learning how to count.
William December Starr
Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> said:
> Not necessarily. ObSF:
>
> "What?" screamed Vicq Ruiz. "Other cities after this one? Oh, you are
> mad, sir! You do not know what you say! You have a fever!"
> "I do not have a fever!" I said. "What damned city is it? What is its
> name? I'm a stranger around here."
> Vicq Ruiz looked at me as a Roman Catholic priest might look at a
> hitherto normal communicant who suddenly confesses never to have heard
> of God.
> "It's Heilar-wey, sir," he says very gently. "Heilar-wey. The white
> queen of all the cities of all the world. It's Heilar-wey, sir. Now,
> will you come along?"
> Well, I had heard of Heilar-wey. I argued no more. We took up the
> money and went across the wide peneplain, away from the lilies.
I fail the ObSF completely but I have to ask: was it written in
English? The above has something of the feel of a translation to it.
(As a really wild guess, Jorge Luis Borges?)
-- wds
Kurt Busiek
Butch Malahide
> On 2009-11-13 19:33:39 -0800, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <02dfe7f3-cf92-4902-ac4a-d3e703edf...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >> Not necessarily. ObSF:
>
> >> "What?" screamed Vicq Ruiz. "Other cities after this one? Oh, you are
> >> mad, sir! You do not know what you say! You have a fever!"
> >> "I do not have a fever!" I said. "What damned city is it? What is its
> >> name? I'm a stranger around here."
> >> Vicq Ruiz looked at me as a Roman Catholic priest might look at a
> >> hitherto normal communicant who suddenly confesses never to have heard
> >> of God.
> >> "It's Heilar-wey, sir," he says very gently. "Heilar-wey. The white
> >> queen of all the cities of all the world. It's Heilar-wey, sir. Now,
> >> will you come along?"
> >> Well, I had heard of Heilar-wey. I argued no more. We took up the
> >> money and went across the wide peneplain, away from the lilies.
>
> > I fail the ObSF completely but I have to ask: was it written in
> > English? The above has something of the feel of a translation to it.
>
> > (As a really wild guess, Jorge Luis Borges?)
>
> Charles Finney. THE UNHOLY CITY.
Indeed, though I believe he always used the middle initial G. By the
way, Butch Malahide of Abalone, Arizona, is the first person narrator.