Amy, Jean Jacques, and Sam Rowlands. “Legalised non-consensual sterilization – eugenics put into practice before 1945, and the aftermath. Part 1: USA, Japan, Canada, and Mexico.” The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health. 23, no. 2 (2018): 121-29.
Re "Revisionist look at Jutland": The "three large battleships lost at Jutland" were, of course, battlecruisers. ("Something seems to be wrong with our bloody ships today, Chatsworth." Jellicoe). The only battleship lost at Jutland on either side was the German pre-dreadnaught _Pommern_ blown up with all hands; it never should never have been in the line in the first place. As I had noted earlier, battleships seemed to be very hard to kill in battle, but had a disconcerting tendency to blow up catastrophically outside combat.
Apparently we must agree to disagree. As an old Marine who remains very active with Marine reunions and activities, I see mostly the elements of a tribe among the hundreds of Marines I know. Yes, there are a few for whom it's more like a cult, but of course in any large group we must expect to see more than a single narrow kind of response to anything. Yes, self sacrifice for others may be part of the ethos for all kinds of military, but the Marine stories of such practices are far more often told than I've seen among other services.
By Matthew Kosuta
In reading over many of the discussion posts on The Cult of the Warrior - Helpful or...Silly, or...Dangerous?, it seems that much of the discussion centers on anecdotes, general feelings, and frustration with definitions, etc. The discussion hasn’t systematically tried to define warrior or soldier.
I propose a few fundamental characteristics to aid in distinguishing a warrior from a soldier. Here is a list of 5 characteristics of warriors and soldiers juxtaposed:
Not a 'warrior,' definitely not. Just another standard-issue military professional with standard adaptive responses in changing circumstances. Anybody would have done the same.
After nine months and seven exciting posts, our The Left and Nationalism Monthly Series draws to an end. Thanks to our contributors for their valuable insights and to our followers for their attention.
It has been an exciting and stimulating discussion. In the course of the seven posts that have composed our The Left and Nationalism Monthly Series, we have dealt with a broad range of both theoretical and empirical matters learning a great many things.
R.J. Del Vecchio, Tuesday, June 19, 2018:
I've come across some references to a rivalry between newsstands set up (or dedicated to?) the New York Herald, and others, referred to (in a Herald item) as "monopoly stands," in the 1880s. From what I can piece together, the Herald stands charged a penny less for the Herald. They also seemed to sell other papers and magazines. Their presence angered rival newsstand owners. Can anyone know about this? Or can you direct me to other information on this? What was the point of this strategy? In what sense were the other stands a monopoly?