Crazy dudes of history

Mary Mallon, a 19th century cook went on to coin a particurley famous phrase.

And why? Because bitch be crazy, yo.

Mallon (born 1869 died 1938) was an irish immigrant who worked as a professional chef for rich families and the like, living in the USA. When a number of the families she worked for contracted typhoid authorities started to note the pattern and tracked her down, not suffering the disease herself (nor ever, according to her) they did some tests and discovered she was an asymptomatic carrier (probably picking it up in the womb.)

Typhoid is an infection usually caused by poor faeces management or by carriers working with food/drink. It was a lot more common in the past, now its nearly never seen in Europe/USA but still a problem to a degree in less developed countries. It was originally named TheShitOfDeath disease but it didnt catch on.

Now, you are a chef, you find out your bodily fluids have an infectious (and fatal) disease on them and it takes hella scrubbing just to give a decent chance that you wont have it on your hands and give it to anyone who eats your food... what do you do?

In Marys case, fuck all. She vehemently denied having the disease, even after being tested. She was quarantined under public health legislation for a number of years before a new commissioner realising this unique situation probably required a bit of tact, had her sign some paper work making her promise to never work in food prep or related industries again and be careful and stuff with her hands of death, let her go.

But Mary, being a bit of a character, finding out that her only other skills (laundry work, she is a woman, you see) didnt pay as well as cookery, decided "fuck that" changed her name and started working as a cook again.

More people were infected and eventually she was caught again and put into a quarantine that lasted the rest of her life. She was fairly unrepentant and insistent she didnt carry the disease right until she passed on. Got to appreciate that Irish stubborn streak.

Shes remembered in the phrase "typhoid mary", of course. At the time, the papers made a big deal out of her as an unforgiving dealer of death. She was like an early supervillain, passing out death with her hands under assumed names for some evil masterplan. Sadly there was no early 19th century superheroes to fight her off, captain industry or whatever never turned up to kick her ass with the power of the steam rocket.

In reality she was just an ignorant stubborn woman who probably really believed she didnt carry the disease and just couldnt fathom or trust the science that proved she did. So its kind of sad that she had to remain in quarantine her whole life, never really comprehending or believing why.

She wasnt the first or only asymptomatic carrier around, but she was the most crazy and thats why she gets the cool phrase named for her.

(She is known to have infected 53 people with the disease, 3 of which died)

SILLY HISTORY LEGENDS 2

Churchill, badass, slightly crazy, drunken wit. Hell of a speech giver. Front runner for best modern War Leader and greatest English PM awards.

In his first run as English PM he saved Britain, the free world and made some horribly tough decisions. He made his deal with the devil, allying with the Soviets, had to make the awful decision to scupper the French fleet to stop the Germans capturing them (an insane and bold decision that paid off) but the most common one brought up, often mentioned in tv shows and the odd book, is the Coventry dilemma.

For those not in "the know", the coventry dillema goes that after we broke the Enigma code (the secret german code that helped us win the war, you know, watch the movie) one of the earliest messages was the news of an imminent bombing raid of Coventry (11/4/1940.) Giving Churchill a problem, arranging a large scale evacuation would save many lives... but it would tip his hand, showing the Germans who would notice the lack of people and industry and whose agents would surely hear of it.. that the code was broken, perhaps losing the one advantage we had.

So Churchill took the dark path and did nothing, Coventry took heavy losses, civilians died. But we kept the code cracking a secret and ultimately that let us win the war and save the world, etc.

Good story, often trotted out in tv shows to illustrate the very textbook definition of making the hard choice, the immoral choice that in the end turns out to be right. The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few and beautifully illustrates what a good, dark leader Winsto was.

All good apart from the fact it isnt true. We did crack the code before the Coventry raid, true, but only generally. We didnt for instance know KORN stood for Coventry at the time, we did infact get some intelligence a heavy bombing raid was coming... but nobody had any idea where and the best guess of the time was that it would be London (somewhere impossible to shut down or large scale evacuate more than was already done during the war) and nothing could have been done to save Coventry, really.

It is even reported Churchill cancelled a trip out of London, not wanting to be "hiding" out in the country when it was bombed and awaited it on the night, scanning the sky for the bombers arriving before news arrived Coventry was attacked.

The origin of this myth isnt clear, but like most conventional wisdom it gets repeated around so much its hard to know who is getting it from where. It certainly got a boost when it was brought up again in "Bodyguard of Lies" by Anthony Cave Brown, published in 1976, who said "It was a tragic decision for Churchil to have to make".

So, cool story, but didnt happen. Look up the French scuppering or pick up a good Churchill bio in general if you want to hear some hardcore stories that did happen. Churchill has enough of a badass drunken, train riding, war winning life that adding stories isnt neccesary.

Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'


- Churchill Badassery

SILLY HISTORY LEGENDS

Do you know why they used to drink out of glass bottomed tankards in the olden days?

Come on, of course you do, why did they used to do that?

Because of the shilling right, the shilling in the bottom of the glass, that the naval recruiters used to drop in the tankards to trick people into joining the navy/army, right? Because, once you take a shilling you are in, right? So glass tankards, so you dont accidentally get a pint with a slipped in shilling, right?

NO, THAT IS WRONG, WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT, THAT IS SILLY, YOU ARE SILLY TO THINK THAT!

There is some weirdly prevailent myth that this used to happen. The old shilling in the pint trick, you were forced to join the army. This is such a myth that they now make REPLICAS of GENUINE GLASS BOTTOMED TANKARDS that stop this PRACTICE that never actually HAPPENED.

Seriously, check it out (complete with fake historic story.)

No, they didnt press gang people into joining the navy. As a matter of fact, in the time period this story originates (Around napoleonic wars era usually) it was much like now. Even in ye olde days you had a 4 day cooling off period after recruiting (for the very reason of making sure people didnt sign up drunk and regret it, or to impress the ladies and whatever other reasons you join up that arent good and sound like hating the French) and recruiters were actually subject to very strict rules and fines if they were found to mislead or just kidnap people from bars.

Thats not to say coercing wasnt taking place (as it does now) but like now, false pretenses was more the strategy than some obtuse slight of hand trick and like now it was punished if found out by the higher ups.

The origin of this myth is harder to pinpoint. Certainly there was points in British history when people were forced into the navy/military, but it wasnt by trickery but law and it might have root in the press ganging of American colonists, who were forced into the Navy when captured (since any colonist caught was still considered British before treaties were signed between America/UK) but wherever its from... it is stupid.

Stupid like your mother.

Movies vs History 3: The Quickening

Alternative title - Mel Gibson would stamp on an English baby until it was nothing more than paste

Gallipoli is one of the few modern war movies (that is, critical and with themes, not the old ones where everyone had a moustache and the germans would wander in speaking english with a german accent and start shooting puppies) that depicts WW1. Plus one of Australia's better movies, up there with those other movies they made... mad max and... err.... crocodile dundee.

Its about the young idealistic Archy (who joined to do his bit and for the adventure, the stereotype of the time) and the more morally amibigous Frank (who joins for money and to follow his mates, a more identifiable motivation these days) and hes the one played by Mel Gibson. In case you were wonderering who you are meant to hate. That anti-English bastard.


I'm not exactly sure, but it was the German's fault.

-Archy on what caused the war.

Anyway, the first third of the movie is the decision to join. This is actually really well done, it examines the multitude of reasons to join, the sense of nobility and duty (perhaps removed from the realities of war, the definitive notion of war as an awful thing came from this war after all) through Archy, with the more grimly realistic Frank and his more practical reasoning. There is a nice little scene of them discussing the terrible things the "hun" are doing, a nice little piece of propaganda just fitting into normal discussion undoubted.

So far, so good.

Then we get to them training and early stationing. You see the boredom of trench warfare, how you spent most of your time eating crappy rations and waiting. All historically accurate'ish so far, good good. Trench warfare was pretty horrible, but in countries that are ungodly hot and without much in the way of civilisation, especially so. Lots of dysentry, food poisoning and generally gross stuff. And trench foot, dude, dont ever google image search Trench Foot. (Do it, I dare you.)

Then we get to the titular battle, for the Australian forces anyway. You see the true horrors of war, the idea of certain death being something you just had to deal with. Truly shocking. But the problem is, it tries to encapsulate every problem with WW1 into one battle... The notion of lions being led by donkeys, as the phrasing goes. You see the chain of command being totally incompetent, the British commanding officer misunderstands whats going on and needlessly wastes the lives of his troops. You see the British officers sipping tea as the noble Australians die for a distraction of their attack, which ultimately fails anyway. What a needless waste of life and how horrible these noble Aussies die for the terrible British, eh? All over Constantinople, which isnt even a real sounding place.

Istanbul was Constantinople

Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople

Been a long time gone, Constantinople

Now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night

Every gal in Constantinople

Lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople

So if you've a date in Constantinople

She'll be waiting in Istanbul

-Some classic WW1 poetry

Well, as a theme for the war, thats probably not far from the truth. Lots of people died needlessly, it was a time when strategy wasnt as far ahead as weaponry, leading to the needless stalemate and massive deathrate on both sides. But in this particular battle, this makes no sense.

The villain of the movie, the guy with the distinct English accent who cares not for the death of his Australian men... he was actually Australian. Apparently the director was going for "the sort of anglo-australian accent that were common at the time" and we werent meant to think he was English, despite being the only guy with this "anglo-australian accent" IN THE WHOLE DAMN MOVIE. The Australians werent actually a diversion for English forces, they were a diversion for New Zealand forces. But obviously a bunch of Peter Jackson looking guys having tea on the beach while Aussies die didnt have the same impact.

Major Barton: What your telling me sir and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the infantry attack on Lone Pine, and our Light Horse attack on the Nek are diversions.

Col. Robinson: Oh not just diversions Major, vital important diversions. Tonight, 25,000 British troops will land here at Suvla Bay. Our attacks are to draw the Turks down on us so the British can get ashore. Sorry I didn't tell you this before, secrecy is vital.

Major Barton: But sir, the Nek is a fortress. Protected by at least five machine guns at point-blank range.

Col. Robinson: Yeah, we've considered that Barton. We're gonna hit their trenches with the heaviest barrage of the campaign just before your men go over the top.

Artillery Officer: By the time we've finished, there won't be a Turk within miles.

Col. Robinson: The Turks can keep us pinned down at ANZAC forever. This new British landing is our only hope. We must do what we can to make it succeed. Because of it does succeed, we'll have Constantinople with a week, and knock Turkey out of the war.

- This is nonsense.

The film shows a (fictional) general trying to call the attack off. This didnt happen, the attack petered out when big chunks of the line charged without orders messing up the whole tactics of the battle.

And what actually went wrong at the battle, was it really an English orchestrated blood bath of the Aussies?

Well, in the words of Australian historian Les Carlyon

"The scale of the tragedy of the Nek was mostly the work of two Australian incompetents, Hughes and Antill."

Well, yeah. Sadly "it was the australian officers who messed up" just doesnt have the same impact as "it was the EVIL ENGLISH officers who messed up, while drinking tea and laughing, they called you a fag as well dude."

And two companies of a British regiment, the Royal Welsh Fusiliers (I think), in fact suffered very heavy losses trying to support the Australian attack at the Nek once it was realized that the offensive was in trouble. What did they get for there troubles? Not even a movie name check.

Basically, Australia are revisionist wankers.

Cool movie though, AS FAST AS A LEOPARD!

Movies vs History 2: Electric Boogaloo

Alternative Title - Seriously Mel Gibson, what the fuck is your problem with the English?

The Patriot is a big move about the war of independence. Or as it is more accurately know, British Civil War 2.

Now I am going to give this one a little leeway, because it does rename the bulk of its characters so it can use the "based on" proviso. So even though Mel Gibson's protagonist is based on a serial rapist who loved to murder Indians for fun, its ok, because they changed the name a bit so now hes a noble hero. And the English commander they railed against displayed commiting atrocities worse than ever actually occured from either side, well thats ok, because his name is Tavington in the movie, who nobody would ever connect with Tarlington.

Im instead going to point out some of the weird ways the director decided to portray the whole period and the war, and why this is slightly crazy.

American Forces

The thing is, there wasnt any Americans at this time. Everyone was British, you know that story about Paul Revere shouting out "the British are coming!" as a warning... that story isnt true, he shouted "the regulars are coming", because everyone he would have been shouting "The British are coming" too were British, everyone still considered themselves British and the sort of revolutionary ideas that would lead to America after the conflict was over just didnt exist in a widespread fashion... so they would have been confused or possibly insulted.

The movie, none the less, shows America as a sort of independent culturally seperate nation that is completely at odds with these foreign invaders. Which given the timescale and population by immigration and everything, is absurd, both sides should be British speaking and acting (some of the colonials a little different perhaps) and only Mel Gibsons accent should stand out as incongrous and odd, as is his way.

Also the English soldiers either seem to be posh English officers or working class ruffian types right out of a Dickens novel. The British army was a bit more diverse than that, chaps.

Also it seems to ignore the whole irony of a nation fighting for its freedom and basic liberty that still intends to keep murdering its native populace and enslaving Africans, but that isnt that movie worthy, I guess.

Inaccuracy Rating - 2.3/5

The Evils of The English

The British are mass murdering people, burning down churches with people in them and shooting children for kicks.The noble Americans are forced to fight them off with roughshod rebel tactics.

Well, the thing is, thats not true. I mean, a lot of American propaganda at the time (yeah, they had propaganda back then, Hitler didnt invent that shit) might have read like that, but really no side was particurley more brutal than the other. There was a lot of killing surrendering men, but this isnt exactly geneva convention days, that thing was considered "not cricket" but wouldnt always mean you got sent home or even disciplined (in the British army) and a lot of the 'revolutionary' army fought semi-independently and in some cases their only previous combat experience was mass murdering Injuns, so you can imagine what they got up too.

So, the British Army could be dicks, but so were the guys they were fighting.

"(the men showed) a vindictive asperity not easily restrained." - Tarleton on his men not showing quarter to (possibly) surrendering soldiers.

Infact, the German director, often seems to mimic nazi atrocities (the burning of the church thing is pretty much an exact reference to the massacre of Oradour in German occupied France) and portray the British doing them. I dont know if nazis is just his go-to villain characterisation, or if he had some creepy agenda going there, but really... that is a little weird, dude.

Its like Hollywood is bending the truth to make a war about one set of elites replacing another set of elites in an orchestrated war into a good vs evil struggle so people identify with it more. Why would you do that Hollywood, why?
Inaccuracy Rating - 3.7/5

The Americans are Revolting!

The movie pretty much plays into what seems to be a common historic fallacy, that Americans revolted out of some sense of liberty and justice, that the common man rose up and said no to oppression. I mean, dont get me wrong, the foundations of America led to the constitution (a landmark document in quite a few respects when it came to enhancing the common liberty of man, on paper anyway) and many future good things (pizza mostly) but it wasnt really how the war happened.


"One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle." -- James Otis, 1761

The war happened because the rich dudes in charge in (what would be) America realised they could get rid of the rich dudes in charge back in Britain and be the only rich dudes in charge. They thought up a few reasons for this, rabble roused with a load of pamphlets blowing really minor stuff out of proportion and used their resources to make this happen.

Afterwards, the liberty stuff happened and the good stuff, but its more a murky little war that made it happen. See, America is a superpower now, and like any superpower it needs a cool origin story. Batman has the parents thing and the vision of bats, what did America have, a dispute over the rate of taxes paid on tea. They had the aquaman origin story. So they dressed it up with some cool, triumphing over evil stuff and noble intentions, and there you go, America is Batman again.

But if you are making a historical epic, that is at all accurate, the colonials shouldnt be Batman.
Inaccuracy Rating - 4.2/5

America Wins in the End!

At the end of the movie, America wins. Or the colonies. I will just call it America, that is quicker if innaccurate. Anyway, thats it, liberty triumphs.

Ok, yeah, thats right, the colonies did make fighting the war so costly it wasnt considered worth the effort. That is a technical win, like France won the hundred year war after 120 years they made it too difficult to keep occupying most of France.

But well, the movie skips over the whole massive foreign help America got. No real victory, without, among others the Spanish contribution. It does show a number of Battles the English won as American victories (which is just retarded, but whatever) but it ends on lots of shots of American stuff and you feel all independent'y and good, so thats ok.

Historical Inaccuracy - 2.1/5

Conclusion

Basically, if you want to watch a big budget movie about the war of revolution (you notice how the revolutionary aspect of the American backstory sort of got reworked to war of independence after the Cold War, dont deny your partially imaginary origins America! Embrace them!) I would reccomend this one.

Its made up, often inaccurate and it has Mel Gibson in it, totally ignores the massive complexities and dual nature of the whole conflict (the notions of liberty some where fighting for, versus the more realistic economic factors and so on)... but its the only one I have really seen, so my hands are tied.

"Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." - John Adams, 1763

Also all those inaccuracy ratings are totally random. So if you were reading anything into them, I probably wouldnt.

If anyone knows a GOOD movie about this period in history, sort of examining the moral ambiguities more and the propaganda super hero element less, I would love to know, thanks.