Saturday, December 6, 1941. The Saturday before Pearl Harbor

Washington D. C. Christmas shoppers, including a U.S. Army 1st Sergeant.

Today was the first day of a December weekend in 1941.  For Americans, it would be the last day of peace until 1945.  While, as we noted yesterday, wartime shortages and an odd employment situation existed due to the war, it would also have been a day in which most Americans, save for those who worked in some stores, restaurants and move theaters would have had off.  It was also the only day of the weekend that a person could buy gasoline, as gasoline stations were closed on Sundays.

Most people took the opportunity to relax and enjoy the day.

The Saturday Evening Post featured a cover of a young girl holding a guinea pig.  Liberty magazine featured a young cowgirl leaning on a saddle.  Popular Science had a photo of giant military listening devices that were designed to allow crewmen to hear aircraft from a long distance, an odd thing to think of at a time in which radar was just coming in, but then, it was just coming in.

As I stated yesterday, I don't know what servicemen everywhere were doing on this day.  In the continental US, where most were stationed, this was probably a day in which quite a few had day passes.  I had doubted that this was the case to a large extent in the Pacific, although I admitted that I didn't know.  Certainly, the movie depiction holds the opposite.

Well, in looking into this I've now come across a photo of three sailors in Oahu at The Monkey Bar, one of whom would be trapped in his ship the following day and ultimately parish, and the diary of a nurse recounting her December 6, 1941 Evening. That's worth noting here.

Saturday December 6, 1941

She recounted:

One of the perks of being a nurse here in Honolulu is the opportunity to meet so many nice men!
There is a ratio of 20 male officers to every nurse. Tonight, I went to the Pearl Harbor Club with Lt. Barney Benning. It was a delightful evening full of music and dancing. All of our friends were there and we had a absolutely swell time. Barne y is certainly a gentleman- he drove me back to my quarters tonight and we made plans to go Waikiki tomorrow after my shift is over.

It is getting late. More tomorrow!

Also in Hawaii were the Willamette Bearcats and San Jose State football teams.  They were there for the Shrine Bowl.

Some servicemen were just arriving at Pearl Harbor.  The USS Nevada and the USS Oklahoma arrived that day.

Texas and Oregon played, in an era when college football was what counted, in Austin. 

Not everyone took the day off, however, due to wartime conditions.  Indeed, on this day the SS Zebulon B. Vance, a liberty ship, was launched.

Some servicemen who didn't have the day off were those working at the Army's Special Intelligence Service., which included some Navy personnel.  On the night of December 6, 1941, the U.S. Army Special Intelligence Service decoded thirteen parts of a fourteen part message.  The decoded on December 6 portion of the message read:

Memorandum

1. The government of Japan, prompted by a genuine desire to come to an amicable understanding with the Government of the United States in order that the two countries by their joint efforts may secure the peace of the Pacific Area and thereby contribute toward the realization of world peace, has continued negotiations with the utmost sincerity since April last with the Government of the United States regarding the adjustment and advancement of Japanese-American relations and the stabilization of the Pacific Area.

The Japanese Government has the honor to state frankly its views concerning the claims the American Government has persistently maintained as well as the measures the United States and Great Britain have taken toward Japan during these eight months.

2. It is the immutable policy of the Japanese Government to insure the stability of East Asia and to promote world peace and thereby to enable all nations to find each its proper place in the world.

Ever since the China Affair broke out owing to the failure on the part of China to comprehend Japan's true intentions, the Japanese Government has striven for the restoration of peace and it has consistently exerted its best efforts to prevent the extension of war-like disturbances., It was also to that end that in September last year Japan concluded the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy.

However, both the United States and Great Britain have resorted to every possible measure to assist the Chungking regime so as to obstruct the establishment of a general peace between Japan and China, interfering with Japan's constructive endeavours toward the stabilization of East Asia. Exerting pressure on the Netherlands East Indies, or menacing French Indo-China, they have attempted to frustrate Japan's aspiration to the ideal of common prosperity in cooperation with these regimes. Furthermore, when Japan in accordance with its protocol with France took measures of joint defense of French Indo-China, both American and British Governments, willfully misinterpreting it as a threat to their own possessions, and inducing the Netherlands Government to follow suit, they enforced the assets freezing order, thus severing economic relations with Japan. While manifesting thus an obviously hostile attitude, these countries have strengthened their military preparations perfecting an encirclement of Japan, and have brought about a situation which endangers the very existence of the Empire.

Nevertheless, to facilitate a speedy settlement, the Premier of Japan proposed, in August last, to meet the President of the United States for a discussion of important problems between the two countries covering the entire Pacific area. However, the American Government, while accepting in principle the Japanese proposal, insisted that the meeting should take place after an agreement of view had been reached on fundamental and essential questions.

3. Subsequently, on September 25th the Japanese Government submitted a proposal based on the formula proposed by the American Government, taking fully into consideration past American claims and also incorporating Japanese views. Repeated discussions proved of no avail in producing readily an agreement of view. The present cabinet, therefore, submitted a revised proposal, moderating still further the Japanese claims regarding the principal points of difficulty in the negotiation and endeavoured strenuously to reach a settlement. But the American Government, adhering steadfastly to its original assertions, failed to display in the slightest degree a spirit of conciliation. The negotiation made no progress.

Therefore, the Japanese Government, with a view to doing its utmost for averting a crisis in Japanese-American relations, submitted on November 20th still another proposal in order to arrive at an equitable solution of the more essential and urgent questions which, simplifying its previous proposal, stipulated the following points:

1. The Government of Japan and the United States undertake not to dispatch armed forces into any of the regions, excepting French Indo-China, in the Southeastern Asia and the Southern Pacific area.

2. Both Governments shall cooperate with the view to securing the acquisition in the Netherlands East Indies of those goods and commodities of which the two countries are in need.

3. Both Governments mutually undertake to restore commercial relations to those prevailing prior to the freezing of assets.

   The Government of the United States shall supply Japan the required quantity of oil.

4. The Government of the United States undertakes not to resort to measures and actions prejudicial to the endeavours for the restoration of general peace between Japan and China.

5. The Japanese Government undertakes to withdraw troops now stationed in French Indo-China upon either the restoration of peace between japan and China or establishment of an equitable peace in the Pacific Area; and it is prepared to remove the Japanese troops in the southern part of French Indo-China to the northern part upon the conclusion of the present agreement.

   As regards China, the Japanese Government, while expressing its readiness to accept the offer of the President of the United States to act as 'introducer' of peace between Japan and China as was previously suggested, asked for an undertaking on the part of the United States to do nothing prejudicial to the restoration of Sino-Japanese peace when the two parties have commenced direct negotiations.

   The American Government not only rejected the above-mentioned new proposal, but made known its intention to continue its aid to Chiang Kai-shek; and in spite of its suggestion mentioned above, withdrew the offer of the President to act as so-called 'introducer' of peace between Japan and China, pleading that time was not yet ripe for it. Finally on November 26th, in an attitude to impose upon the Japanese Government those principles it has persistently maintained, the American Government made a proposal totally ignoring Japanese claims, which is a source of profound regret to the Japanese Government.

4. From the beginning of the present negotiation the Japanese Government has always maintained an attitude of fairness and moderation, and did its best to reach a settlement, for which it made all possible concessions often in spite of great difficulties. As for the China question which constitutes an important subject of the negotiation, the Japanese Government showed a most conciliatory attitude. As for the principle of non-discrimination in international commerce, advocated by the American Government, the Japanese Government expressed its desire to see the said principle applied throughout the world, and declared that along with the actual practice of this principle in the world, the Japanese Government would endeavour to apply the same in the Pacific area including China, and made it clear that Japan had no intention of excluding from China economic activities of third powers pursued on an equitable basis. Furthermore, as regards the question of withdrawing troops from French Indo-China, the Japanese Government even volunteered, as mentioned above, to carry out an immediate evacuation of troops from Southern French Indo-China as a measure of easing the situation.

It is presumed that the spirit of conciliation exhibited to the utmost degree by the Japanese Government in all these matters is fully appreciated by the American Government.

On the other hand, the American Government, always holding fast to theories in disregard of realities, and refusing to yield an inch on its impractical principles, causes undue delay in the negotiation. It is difficult to understand this attitude of the American Government and the Japanese Government desires to call the attention of the American Government especially to the following points:

1. The American Government advocates in the name of world peace those principles favorable to it and urges upon the Japanese Government the acceptance thereof. The peace of the world may be brought about only by discovering a mutually acceptable formula through recognition of the reality of the situation and mutual appreciation of one another's position. An attitude such as ignores realities and impose (sic) one's selfish views upon others will scarcely serve the purpose of facilitating the consummation of negotiations.

   Of the various principles put forward by the American Government as a basis of the Japanese-American Agreement, there are some which the Japanese Government is ready to accept in principle, but in view of the world's actual condition it seems only a utopian ideal on the part of the American Government to attempt to force their immediate adoption.

   Again, the proposal to conclude a multilateral non-aggression pact between Japan, United States, Great Britain, China, the Soviet Union, the Netherlands and Thailand, which is patterned after the old concept of collective security, is far removed from the realities of East Asia.

2. The American proposal contained a stipulation which states -- 'Both Governments will agree that no agreement, which either has concluded with any third power or powers, shall be interpreted by it in such a way as to conflict with the fundamental purpose of this agreement, the establishment and preservation of peace throughout the Pacific area.' It is presumed that the above provision has been proposed with a view to restrain Japan from fulfilling its obligations under the Tripartite Pact when the United States participates in the war in Europe, and, as such, it cannot be accepted by the Japanese Government.

   The American Government, obsessed with its own views and opinions, may be said to be scheming for the extension of the war. While it seeks, on the one hand, to secure its rear by stabilizing the Pacific Area, it is engaged, on the other hand, in aiding Great Britain and preparing to attack, in the name of self-defense, Germany and Italy two Powers that are striving to establish a new order in Europe. Such a policy is totally at variance with the many principles upon which the American Government proposes to found the stability of the Pacific Area through peaceful means.

3. Whereas the American Government, under the principles it rigidly upholds, objects to settle international issues through military pressure, it is exercising in conjunction with Great Britain and other nations pressure by economic power. Recourse to such pressure as a means of dealing with international relations should be condemned as it is at time more inhumane than military pressure.

4. It is impossible not to reach the conclusion that the American Government desires to maintain and strengthen, in coalition with Great Britain and other Powers, its dominant position it has hitherto occupied not only in China but in other areas of East Asia. It is a fact of history that the countries of East Asia have for the past two hundred years or more have been compelled to observe the status quo under the Anglo-American policy of imperialistic exploitation and to sacrifice themselves to he prosperity of the two nations. The Japanese Government cannot tolerate the perpetuation of such a situation since it directly runs counter to Japan's fundamental policy to enable all nations to enjoy each its proper place in the world.

   The stipulation proposed by the American Government relative to French Indo-China is a good exemplification of the above-mentioned American policy. Thus the six countries -- Japan, the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands, China, and Thailand -- excepting France, should undertake among themselves to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of French Indo-China and equality of treatment in trade and commerce would be tantamount to placing that territory under the joint guarantee of the Governments of those six countries. Apart from the fact that such a proposal totally ignores the position of France, it is unacceptable to the Japanese Government in that such an arrangement cannot but be considered as an extension to French Indo-China of a system similar to the Nine Power Treaty structure which is the chief factor responsible for the present predicament of East Asia.

5. All the items demanded of Japan by the American Government regarding China such as wholesale evacuation of troops or unconditional application of the principle of non-discrimination in international commerce ignored the actual conditions of China, and are calculated to destroy Japan's position as the stabilizing factor of East Asia. The attitude of the American Government in demanding Japan not to support militarily, politically or economically any regime other than the regime at Chungking, disregarding thereby the existence of the Nanking Government, shatters the very basis of the present negotiations. This demand of the American Government falling, as it does, in line with its above-mentioned refusal to cease from aiding the Chungking regime, demonstrates clearly the intention of the American Government to obstruct the restoration of normal relations between Japan and China and the return of peace to East Asia.

6. In brief, the American proposal contains certain acceptable items such as those concerning commerce, including the conclusion of a trade agreement, mutual removal of the freezing restrictions, and stabilization of yen and dollar exchange, or the abolition of extra-territorial rights in China. On the other hand, however, the proposal in question ignores Japan's sacrifices in the four years of the China Affair, menaces the Empire's existence itself and disparages its honour and prestige. Therefore, viewed in its entirety, the Japanese Government regrets it cannot accept the proposal as a basis of negotiation.

7. The Japanese Government, in its desire for an early conclusion of the negotiation, proposed simultaneously with the conclusion of the Japanese-American negotiation, agreements to be signed with Great Britain and other interested countries. The proposal was accepted by the American Government. However, since the American Government has made the proposal of November 26th as a result of frequent consultation with Great Britain, Australia, the Netherlands and Chungking, and presumably by catering to me wishes of the Chungking regime in the questions of China, it must be concluded that all these countries are at one with the United States in ignoring Japan's position.

8. Obviously it is the intention of the American Government to conspire with Great Britain and other countries to obstruct Japan's effort toward the establishment of peace through the creation of a new order in East Asia, and especially to preserve Anglo-American rights and interest by keeping Japan and China at war. This intention has been revealed clearly during the course of the present negotiation.

   Thus the earnest hope of the Japanese Government to adjust Japanese-American relations and to preserve and promote the peace of the Pacific through cooperation with the American Government has finally been lost.

They would intercept and decode the final part in the early morning hours of December 7.

That final part would read:

9.  The Japanese Government regrets to have to notify hereby the American Government that in view of the attitude of the American Government it cannot but consider that it is impossible to reach an agreement through further negotiations.

December 7, 1941.

As detailed in our Today In Wyoming's History: December 6: 1941 entry, in spite of everything, not everyone was convinced that the country was on the eve of war.

1941  Wyoming Senator Harry Schwartz stated that war with Japan was unlikely.  Given the state of relations between the United States and Japan, which were strained to the limit, and in which the Federal government regarded war as likely to break out at any time, Schwartz's opinion seems more than a little optimistic, although he certainly wasn't the only one to hold it.  Attribution:  Wyoming State Historical Society.

1941  President Roosevelt sent a telegram to Emperor Hirohito reading:

Almost a century ago the President of the United States addressed to the Emperor of Japan a message extending an offer of friendship of the people of the United States to the people of Japan. That offer was accepted, and in the long period of unbroken peace and friendship which has followed, our respective nations, through the virtues of their peoples and the wisdom of their rulers have prospered and have substantially helped humanity.

Only in situations of extraordinary importance to our two countries need I address to Your Majesty messages on matters of state. I feel I should now so address you because of the deep and far-reaching emergency which appears to be in formation.

Developments are occurring in the Pacific area which threaten to deprive each of our nations and all humanity of the beneficial influence of the long peace between our two countries. These developments contain tragic possibilities.

The people of the United States, believing in peace and in the right of nations to live and let lives have eagerly watched the conversations between our two Governments during these past months. We have hoped for a termination of the present conflict between Japan and China. We have hoped that a peace of the Pacific could be consummated in such a way that nationalities of many diverse peoples could exist side by side without fear of invasion; that unbearable burdens of armaments could be lifted for them all; and that all peoples would resume commerce without discrimination against or in favor of any nation.

I am certain that it will be clear to Your Majesty, as it is to me, that in seeking these great objectives both Japan and the United States should agree to eliminate any form of military threat. This seemed essential to the attainment of the high objectives.
More than a year ago Your Majesty's Government concluded an agreement with the Vichy Government by which five or six thousand Japanese troops were permitted to enter into Northern French Indochina for the protection of Japanese troops which were operating against China further north. And this Spring and Summer the Vichy Government permitted further Japanese military forces to enter into Southern French Indochina for the common defense of French Indochina. I think I am correct in saying that no attack has been made upon Indochina, nor that any has been contemplated.

During the past few weeks it has become clear to the world that Japanese military, naval and air forces have been sent to Southern Indo-China in such large numbers as to create a reasonable doubt on the part of other nations that this continuing concentration in Indochina is not defensive in its character.

Because these continuing concentrations in Indo-China have reached such large proportions and because they extend now to the southeast and the southwest corners of that Peninsula, it is only reasonable that the people of the Philippines, of the hundreds of Islands of the East Indies, of Malaya and of Thailand itself are asking themselves whether these forces of Japan are preparing or intending to make attack in one or more of these many directions.

I am sure that Your Majesty will understand that the fear of all these peoples is a legitimate fear in as much as it involves their peace and their national existence. I am sure that Your Majesty will understand why the people of the United States in such large numbers look askance at the establishment of military, naval and air bases manned and equipped so greatly as to constitute armed forces capable of measures of offense.

It is clear that a continuance of such a situation is unthinkable. None of the peoples whom have spoken of above can sit either indefinitely or permanently on a keg of dynamite.

There is absolutely no thought on the part of the United States of invading Indo-China if every Japanese soldier or sailor were to be withdrawn therefrom.

I think that we can obtain the same assurance from the Governments of the East Indies, the Governments of Malaya and. the Government of Thailand. I would even undertake to ask for the same assurance on the part of the Government of China. Thus a withdrawal of the Japanese forces from Indo-China would result in the assurance of peace throughout the whole of the South Pacific area.

I address myself to Your Majesty at this moment in the fervent hope that Your Majesty may, as I am doing, give thought in this definite emergency to ways of dispelling the dark clouds. I am confident that both of us, for the sake of the peoples not only of our own great countries but for the sake of humanity in neighboring territories, have a sacred duty to restore traditional amity and prevent further death and destruction in the world.

The Finns took Medvezhyegorsk on this day in 1941, and would occupy it until 1944.

In the Black Sea, the Bulgarians scored a naval victory over the Soviet Navy in the Action of 6 December 1941.  On that day Bulgarian air and naval forces destroyed the Soviet submarine Shch-204.  It was the only Soviet submarine sunk by the Bulgarian navy during the war.

Bulgaria was a member of the Tripartite Pact and had participated in the Axis occupation of Greece, but it was not at war with the Soviet Union and never declared war against the USSR during World War Two.  It oddly would end up declaring war against the UK and US, however, and it allowed Axis forces to use its Black Sea ports.  Ultimately, the Red Army would enter its territory in 1944, and it switched sides.

Closer to Home:

My father on this day would have had the day off in 1941 Scotsbluff, Nebraska.  What would that have meant?  Well, I don't know for sure, but he and his father may have enjoyed the duck hunting around there, which they both did.  In that region, moreover, it was good.  It was a warm day, with the temperature getting up to 60F, but a cold night, falling to 10F.

In Casper on that day, which they were looking to move to, it got up to 43F.  It was a pretty mild night and only fell to the upper 30s.

In St. Lambert, Quebec, it would also have been a day away from school and time off for my  mother, but I know less what she would have done.  Probably enjoy the local town with her friends or family.

December 6, 1921. Ireland becomes the Free State.

Seal of the Irish Free State

The full treaty reads:

ANGLO IRISH TREATY

ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT AS SIGNED

on December 6th, 1921

1. Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand and the Union of South Africa, with a Parliament having powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Ireland and an Executive responsible to that Parliament, and shall be styled and known as the Irish Free State.

2. Subject to the provisions hereinafter set out the position of the Irish Free State in relation to the Imperial Parliament and Government and otherwise shall be that of the Dominion of Canada, and the law practice and constitutional usage governing the relationship of the Crown or the representative of the Crown and of the Imperial Parliament to the Dominion of Canada shall govern their relationship to the Irish Free State.

3. The representative of the Crown in Ireland shall be appointed in like manner as the Governor-General of. Canada and in accordance with the practice observed in the making of such appointments.

4. The oath to be taken by Members of the Parliament of the Irish Free State shall be in the following form:

I ...…................ do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established and that I will be faithful to H.M. King George V, his heirs and successors by law, in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.

5. The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof and towards the payment of war pensions as existing at that date in such proportion as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claims on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counter-claim, the amount of such sums being determined in default of agreement by the arbitration of one or more independent persons being citizens of the British Empire.

6. Until an arrangement has been made between the British and Irish Governments whereby the Irish Free State undertakes her own coastal defence, the defence by sea of Great Britain and Ireland shall be undertaken by His Majesty's Imperial Forces. But this shall not prevent the construction or maintenance by the Government of the Irish Free State of such vessels as are necessary for the protection of the Revenue or the Fisheries.
The foregoing provisions of this Article shall be reviewed at a Conference of Representatives of the British and Irish Governments to be held at the expiration of five years from the date hereof with a view to a share in her own coastal defence.

7. The Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial Forces:

(a) In time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the Annex hereto, or such other facilities as may from time to time be agreed between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State; and

(b) In time of war or of strained relations with a Foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid.

8. With a view to securing the observance of the principle of international limitation of armaments, if the Government of the Irish Free State establishes and maintains a military defence force, the establishments thereof shall not exceed in size such proportion of the military establishments maintained in Great Britain as that which the population of Ireland bears to the population of Great Britain.

9. The ports of Great Britain and the Irish Free State shall be freely open to the ships of the other country on payment of the customary port and other dues.

10. The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of Police Forces and other Public Servants who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of Government effected in pursuance hereof.
Provided that this agreement shall not apply to members of the Auxiliary Police Force or to persons recruited in Great Britain for the Royal Irish Constabulary during the two years next preceding the date hereof. The British Government will assume responsibility for such compensation or pensions as may be payable to any of these excepted persons.

11. Until the expiration of one month from the passing of the Act of Parliament for the ratification of this instrument, the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall not be exercisable as respects Northern Ireland and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, shall so far as they relate to Northern Ireland remain of full force and effect, and no election shall be held for the return of members to serve in the Parliament of the Irish Free State for constituencies in Northern Ireland, unless a resolution is passed by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland in favour of the holding of such election before the end of the said month.

12. If before the expiration of the said month, an address is presented to His Majesty by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to that effect, the powers of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland, and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act., 1920 (including those relating to the Council of Ireland) shall, so far as they relate to Northern Ireland continue to be of full force and effect, and this instrument shall have effect subject to the necessary modifications.

Provided that if such an address is so presented a Commission consisting of three Persons, one to be appointed by the Government of the Irish Free State, one to be appointed by the Government of Northern Ireland and one who shall be Chairman to be appointed by the British Government shall determine in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions, the boundaries between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland, and for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and of this instrument, the boundary of Northern Ireland shall be such as may be determined by such Commission.

13. For the purpose of the last foregoing article, the powers of the Parliament of Southern Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to elect members of the Council of Ireland shall after the Parliament of the Irish Free State is constituted be exercised by that Parliament.

14. After the expiration of the said month, if no such address as is mentioned in Article 12 hereof is Presented, the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland shall continue to exercise as respects Northern Ireland the powers conferred on them by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, but the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State shall in Northern Ireland have in relation to matters in respect of which the Parliament of Northern Ireland has not power to make laws under that Act (including matters which under the said Act are within the jurisdiction of the Council of Ireland) the same powers as in the rest of Ireland, subject to such other provisions as may he agreed in manner hereinafter appearing.

15. At any time after the date hereof the Government of Northern Ireland and the provisional Government of Southern Ireland hereinafter constituted may meet for the purpose of discussing the provisions subject to which the last foregoing article is to operate in the event of no such address as is therein mentioned being presented and those provisions may include:

(a) Safeguards with regard to patronage in Northern Ireland:

(b) Safeguards with regard to the collection of revenue in Northern Ireland:

(c) Safeguards with regard to import and export duties affecting the trade or industry of Northern Ireland:

(d) Safeguards for minorities in Northern Ireland:

(c) The settlement of the financial relations between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State:

(f) The establishment and powers of a local militia in Northern Ireland and the relation of the Defence Forces of the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland respectively:

and if at any such meeting provisions are agreed to, the same shall have effect as if they were included amongst the provisions subject to which the Powers of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State are to be exercisable in Northern Ireland under Article 14 hereof.

16. Neither the Parliament of the Irish Free State nor the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall make any law so as either directly or indirectly to endow any religion or. prohibit or restrict the free exercise thereof or give any preference or impose any disability on account of religious belief or religious status or affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at the school or make any discrimination as respects state aid between schools under the management of different religious denominations or divert from any religious denomination. or any educational institution any of its property except for public utility purposes and on payment of compensation.

17. By way of provisional arrangement for the administration of Southern Ireland during the interval which must elapse between the date hereof and the constitution of a Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State in accordance therewith, steps shall be taken forthwith for summoning a meeting of members of Parliament elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland since the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and for constituting a provisional Government, and the British Government shall take the steps necessary to transfer to such provisional Government the powers and machinery requisite for the discharge of its duties, provided that every member of such provisional Government shall have signified in writing his or her acceptance of this instrument. But this arrangement shall not continue in force beyond the expiration of twelve months from the date hereof.

18. This instrument shall be submitted forthwith by is Majesty's Government for the approval of Parliament and by the Irish signatories to a meeting summoned for the purpose of the members elected to sit in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, and if approved shall be ratified by the necessary legislation.

On behalf of the British Delegation.	On behalf of the Irish Delegation.
Signed	Signed
D. LLOYD GEORGE.	ART Ó GRÍOBHTHA (ARTHUR GRIFFITH).
AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN.	MICHEAL Ó COILÉAIN.
BIRKENHEAD.	RIOBÁRD BARTÚN.
WINSTON S. CHURCHILL.	EUDHMONN S. Ó DÚGÁIN.
L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS.	SEÓRSA GHABHÁIN UÍ DHUBHTHAIGH.
HAMAR GREENWOOD.
GORDON HEWART.
December 6th, 1921

ANNEX

1. The following are the specific facilities required:

Dockyard Port at Berehaven(a) Admiralty property and rights to be retained as at the rate hereof. Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties.

Queenstown(b) Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties. Certain mooring buoys to be retained for use of His Majesty's ships.

Belfast Lough(c) Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties.

Lough Swilly(d) Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties.

Aviation(e) Facilities in the neighbourhood of the above Ports for coastal defence by air.

Oil Fuel Storage(f) Haulbowline, Rathmullen - To be offered for sale to commercial companies under guarantee that purchasers shall maintain a certain minimum stock for Admiralty purposes.

2. A Convention shall be made between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State to give effect to the following conditions:

(a) That submarine cables shall not be landed or wireless stations for communications with places outside Ireland be established, except by agreement with the British Government; that the existing cable landing rights and wireless concessions shall not be withdrawn except by agreement with the British Government; and that the British Government shall be entitled to land additional submarine cables or establish additional wireless stations for communication with places outside Ireland.

(b) That lighthouses, buoys, beacons, and any navigational marks or navigational aids shall he maintained by the Government of the Irish Free State as at the date hereof and shall not be removed or added to except by agreement with the British Government.

(c) That war signal stations shall be closed down and left in charge of care and maintenance parties, the Government of the Irish Free State being offered the option of taking them over and working them for commercial purposes subject to Admiralty inspection, and guaranteeing the upkeep of existing telegraphic communication therewith.

3. A Convention shall be made between the same Governments for the regulation of Civil Communication by Air.

D. LL. G. A.C.

B.

W. S. C. E. S. O D.

A. G. M. O C. R. B. S. G. D.

The treaty ended the Anglo-Irish War and established Ireland, as the Irish Free State, as a British dominion.  It was, however, very clearly a compromise and due to Éamon de Valera's betrayal of his negotiators, it led nearly immediately to the Irish Civil War, which would break out that following June and feature all the bloodshed and violence typical to internecine warfare.

An odd sticking point for the Irish would prove to be the retained oath of allegiance for the Irish parliament.  It had been removed for Irish government employees, but an oath that had been worked out for the parliament remained.  To some degree, the Irish went to war with each other over that.

President Harding delivered his State of the Union address in person, breaking with recent tradition.

On the same day, the Congressional Record published the names of 11,000 World War One draft dodgers at the request of the Department of War.

Mackenzie King's Liberal Party won the Canadian election by a landslide.  Agnes Macphail became the first Canadian parliamentarian in the election.

Microscopic Pandora's Box.

 Oh great, we're doing so well with microscopic things that are natural and reproduce.

The world's first 'living robots' start to reproduce

Scientists say a breakthrough using microscopic animal-machine hybrids could lead to self-replicating technology

This is a disaster in the making.

 

Majority of court appears poised to uphold Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks

Justices mull availability of emotional distress damages in anti-discrimination cases

Justices mull availability of emotional distress damages in anti-discrimination cases: The Supreme Court heard oral argument Tuesday in, Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., a case on whether emotional distress damages are available in certain anti-discrimination suits against recipients of federal funding. Jane Cummings sued Texas-based Premier Rehab for discriminating based o

"Don't know much about history". . . The historical inaccuracy thread

Sick of ongoing and continual historical inaccuracies, this new ongoing thread will catalog them.

First installment, from the Daily Beast regarding Governor DeSantis to join those states that have a State Guard.

Here's the quote:

Back at the start of World War II, the federal government authorized the states to form military units to fill in for the National Guard, which had been incorporated into the U.S military to fight in Europe and the Pacific. 

First of all, allow me to note that I think this effort to form a 200-man Florida State Guard is silly, so I'm not commenting on that.

But state guards weren't "authorized" by the Federal Government during World War Two. They had existed long before that.  Their actual origin is World War One.

Prior to World War One there was a Federally inspired controversy over whether National Guardsmen could be deployed overseas. The thought has always been that they could be, and in fact during the Spanish American War they were.  The problem originated in Woodrow Wilson's pacifistic administration in which the Attorney General of the United States came up with the opinion out of the blue that the National Guard could not be deployed outside of the United States when it was mustered. That's why the Guard, while Federalized, did not go into Mexico during the Punitive Expedition.

This, of course, caused an immediate crisis when World War One came as half of the American military strength was found in the Guard.  This was solved by simply conscripting the entire National Guard in mass.

Be that as it may, it also caused some states to form State Guards which they expressly formed as being state militia's outside of the National Guard system.  It was a serious move as some of the units were very good ones.  Massachusetts and Rhode Island were notable in this effort.  Texas, which retain a real border crisis with Mexico during the Great War, did as well.

During the war, however, State Guard units started to pop up to take the place of the then conscripted National Guardsmen for the duration of the war.  Most were disbanded after the war, but some, like Massachusetts and Rhode Islands, kept on keeping on.  During the Second World War almost every, nad perhaps every, state looked back to this example and formed State Guard units once again.  Most were, quite frankly, fairly sad affairs and at least one ended up taking its military mission and the fear of the Germans too seriously and ended up killing a fellow at a guarded bridge.

Be that as it may, following the war most states, seeing no point in the maintaining these units any further now that the Guard was back home, disbanded them. But some kept them.  In recent years, in some places, notably places with notably right wing politics, there's been a minor effort to recreate them.

And also, the National Guard wasn't "incorporated into the U.S. military" during World War Two.  Since the Dick Act of 1906, it's been part of the U.S. military, with it officially being a reserve of its respective branches.

Friday, December 5, 1941. A Turning Point.

It's worth noting that this day was a Friday.  For Americans, this would be the last day in which the United States was not a full belligerent in the largest war in modern history.

As a Friday, most people would have been looking forward to a weekend off, when people really did have the weekends off.  Wartime shortages were already a thing, but young adults would have been out on the town, and even older ones such as myself may have gone to the movies or the like in an era when home entertainment of the electronic type was limited to the radio.  Thousands of men, at the end of the day, would have hit bars before going home.

It's also traditionally a day when some soldiers and sailors received weekend leave, but I don't know the situation on December 5, 1941. I suspect, but don't know, that it had largely been cancelled in overseas locations, although that's certainly not the way movies depict it.  On this day the US felt that a Japanese strike was imminent, but they were still not expecting it on Hawaii.  Indeed, as recent posts and today's' make plain, the Navy was just reinforcing some outlying Northern Pacific island now.

Secretary of War Stinson criticized the leakers of Rainbow 5 to be unpatriotic and dismissed the matter as one of simple contingent preparedness.

Secretary of the Navy Knox met with Franklin Roosevelt and expressed the opinion that the Japanese Navy, which was out to sea, was going south. Roosevelt asked it could be going north, which Knox allowed for, but discounted.

As detailed Today In Wyoming's History: December 5, 1941, things were in motion all over the globe.

1941  The USS Lexington, an aircraft carrier, and the cruisers USS Indianapolis, Astoria, Chicago and Portland, together with five destroyers depart the U.S. Naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. 

Their mission was to deliver Marine Corps aircraft to Wake Island, where the commander was fearing a Japanese attack.

The USS Arizona arrived at Pearl Harbor, as noted here:

Today in World War II History—December 5, 1941

1941  Japanese diplomats provided the following explanation to the U.S. Secretary of State in response to a question about Japanese ship movements in the eastern Pacific.

Reference is made to your inquiry about the intention of the Japa­nese Government with regard to the reported movements of Japanese troops in French Indo‑china. Under instructions from Tokyo I wish to inform you as follows

As Chinese troops have recently shown frequent signs of movements along the northern frontier of French Indo‑china bordering on China, Japanese troops, with the object of mainly taking precautionary measures, have been reinforced to a certain extent in the northern part of French Indo‑china. As a natural sequence of this step, certain movements have been made among the troops stationed the southern part of the said territory. It seems that an exaggerated report has been made of these movements. It should be added that no measure has been taken on the part of the Japanese Government that may transgress the stipulations of the Protocol of Joint Defense between Japan and France.

 [WASHINGTON,] December 5, 1941.

The Japanese Ambassador and Mr. Kurusu called at their request at the Department. The Ambassador handed to the Secretary a paper which he said was the Japanese Government's reply to the President's inquiry in regard to Japanese troops in French Indochina. The paper reads as follows:

STATEMENT HANDED BY THE JAPANESE AMBASSADOR (NOMURA) TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE ON DECEMBER 5, 1941

Reference is made to your inquiry about the intention of the Japanese Government with regard to the reported movements of Japanese troops in French Indo-china. Under instructions from Tokyo I wish to inform you as follows

As Chinese troops have recently shown frequent signs of movements along the northern frontier of French Indo-china bordering on China, Japanese troops, with the object of mainly taking precautionary measures, have been reinforced to a certain extent in the northern part of French Indo-china. As a natural sequence of this step, certain movements have been made among the troops stationed the southern part of the said territory. It seems that an exaggerated report has been made of these movements. It should be added that no measure has been taken on the part of the Japanese Government that may transgress the stipulations of the Protocol of Joint Defense between Japan and France.

The Secretary read the paper and asked whether the Japanese considered that the Chinese were liable to attack them in Indochina. He said, so Japan has assumed the defensive against China. He said that he had heard that the Chinese are contending that their massing troops in Yunnan was in answer to Japan's massing troops in Indochina. Mr. Kurusu said that that is all that they have received from their Government in regard to this matter. The Ambassador said that as the Chinese were eager to defend the Burma Road he felt that the possibility of a Chinese attack in Indochina as a means of pre?venting Japan's attacking the Burma Road from Indochina could not be excluded.

The Secretary said that he had understood that Japan had been putting forces into northern Indochina for the purpose of attacking China from there. He said that he had never heard before that Japan's troop movements into northern Indochina were for the purpose of defense against Chinese attack. The Secretary added that it was the first time that he knew that Japan was on the defensive, in Indochina.

The Ambassador said that the Japanese are alarmed over increasing naval and military preparations of the ABCD powers in the southwest Pacific area, and that an airplane of one of those countries had recently, flown over Formosa. He said that our military men are very alert and enterprising and are known to believe in the principle that offense is the best defense. The Secretary asked whether the Ambassador's observations applied to defensive measures we are taking against Hitler. The Ambassador replied that he did not say that, but that it was because of Japan's apprehensions in regard to the situation that they had made their November 20 proposal.

The Secretary asked whether, if the Chinese are about to Japan in Indochina, this would not constitute an additional reason for Japan to withdraw her armed forces from Indochina. The Secretary said that he would be glad to get anything further which it might occur to the Japanese Government to say to us on this matter.

The Ambassador said that the Japanese Government was very anxious to reach an agreement with this Government and Mr. Kurusu said that the Japanese Government felt that we ought to be willing to agree to discontinue aid to China as soon as conversations betweem China and Japan were initiated. The Secretary pointed out that when the Japanese bring that matter up it brings up the matter of the aid Japan is giving to Hitler. He said that he did not see how Japan could demand that we cease giving aid to China while Japan was going on aiding Hitler. Mr. Kurusu asked in what way was Japan aiding Hitler. The Secretary replied that, as he had already made clear to the Japanese Ambassador, Japan was aiding Hitler by keeping large forces of this country and other countries immobilized in the Pacific area. (At this point the Ambassador uttered sotto voce an expression in Japanese which in the present context means "this isn't getting us anywhere".) The Secretary reminded the Ambassador of what the Secretary had said to the Ambassador on this point on November 22 as well as on our unwillingness to supply oil to Japan for the Japanese Navy which would enable Japan to operate against us in the southern Pacific and also on our attitude toward continuing aid to China. The Ambassador said that he recalled that the Secretary had said that he would almost incur the danger of being lynched if he permitted oil to go to Japan for her navy. The Ambassador said that he believed that if the Secretary would explain that giving of oil to Japan had been prompted by the desirability of reaching a peaceful agreement such explanation would be accepted. The Secretary replied that senators and others are not even now desisting from criticizing the Secretary for the course that he had hitherto taken.

The Secretary then recapitulated the three points on which he had orally commented to the Japanese. Ambassador on November 22, with reference to the Japanese proposal of November 20, namely one, our difficulty with reference to the Japanese request that we discontinue aid to China, two, our feeling that the presence of large bodies of Japanese troops anywhere in Indochina caused among neighboring countries apprehensions for their security, and, three, public attitude in this country toward supplying Japan with oil for military and naval needs. He asked the Ambassador whether he had not set forth clearly his position on these points to the Ambassador on November 22. The Ambassador agreed.

The Ambassador said that this Government blames Japan for its move into Indochina but that if Indochina was controlled by other powers it would be a menace to Japan. The Secretary replied that as the Ambassador was aware we could solve matters without delay if only the Japanese Government would renounce courses of force and aggression. The Secretary added that we were not looking for trouble but that at the same time we were not running away from menaces.

Mr. Kurusu said that he felt that if we could only come to an agreement on temporary measures we could then proceed with our exploration of fundamental solutions. He said that such a fundamental agreement would necessarily take time and that what was needed now was a temporary expedient. The Secretary replied that the Japanese were keeping the situation confused by a malignant campaign conducted through the officially controlled and inspired press which created an atmosphere not conducive to peace. The Secretary said that we knew the Japanese Government could control the press and that therefore we did not understand what the motives are of the higher officials of the Japanese Government in promoting such a campaign. Mr. Kurusu said that on the American side we were not free from injurious newspaper propaganda. He said that for example there was the case of a newspaper report of the Secretary's interview with the press which created an unfortunate impression in Japan. The Secretary replied that he had been seeing for months and months that Japanese officials and the Japanese press had been proclaiming slogans of a bellicose character and that while all this was going on he had kept silent. He pointed out that now he was being jumped on by the Japanese if he said a single word in regard to his Government's principles. Mr. Kurusu then referred to a press report casting aspersions on Kurusu to the effect that he had been sent here to check on the Ambassador, et cetera, et cetera. The Secretary replied that he had heard only good reports in regard to Mr. Kurusu and the Ambassador. At this point the Ambassador and Mr. Kurusu took their leave after making the usual apologies for taking so much of the Secretary's time when he was busy:

The United Kingdom was expanding the war, at leat on paper. 

1941  UK declares war on Finland, Hungary and Romania.

Soviet territory lost to the Axis by December 1941, from Why We Fight.

1941  Soviets launched a massive counterattack against the Germans in the Siege of Moscow.  

This attack brought Operation Typhoon to an unsuccessful end for the Germans. Indeed, while not really perceptible, with German setbacks in North Africa and the Soviet Union, and Japan about to bring the United States fully into the war, it could be argued that the war was at a turning point.

Closer to Home:

This was a Friday in 1941, so at that time both of my parents would have been experiencing a "meatless" day, meaning that they were restricted to protein other than from animals or birds. This, of course, as their families were, and ours is, Catholic.

For my father, living in the interior of the country, it's likely that meant something like macaroni and cheese, a Catholic meatless staple.  For my mother, however, living in Quebec, that likely meant some sort of ocean fish, perhaps.

My mother, being a few years older than my father, may have gone to the movies with her sisters, brothers and cousins, all of whom lived on the same block, but I don't know for certain.

Monday December 5, 1921. Reflections from a distant mirror.

A Joint Congressional committee called upon President Harding to inform him of the opening of the 67th Congress.

The 67th Congress of the United States convened.  It had been elected more than a year earlier, so suffice it to say, things were not going swimmingly, something we can appreciate now.

The first bill they considered was the budget for the following year, which ran a deficit, something we're also familiar with now.

In London, Irish delegates met with British ones and came to a compromise in which Northern Ireland could choose to remain separate from Southern Ireland and an oath of allegiance would only be administered to members of the Irish parliament.  Ireland would accept dominion status.

The Irish negotiators were in the difficult position of receiving very little in the way of instruction from the Irish President Éamon de Valera who remained in Ireland during negotiations and who simply gave the negotiators nearly carte blanc authority.  The compromise reached was a real one, giving up on dreams of an Irish republic and accepting an ongoing connection with the United Kingdom, although that no doubt reflected the wishes of most of the Irish.

The British football association banned women from the game.

 

The United States Supreme court upheld picketing during labor strikes as an exercise of the 1st Amendment.

Best Posts of the Week of November 28, 2021

The best posts of the week of November 28, 2021

Medicine Bow Aiport (Site 32 SL-O (Salt Lake-Omaha) Intermediate Field Historic District).

The 2024 Election, Part I. Early adopters

The University of Wyoming, October 1908.

University of Wyoming.  October, 1908.

I'm pretty much habituated to working on Saturdays. . .

Women smoking. How did it come back?

December 1, 1941. Birth of the Civil Air Patrol.

The argument to preserve Roe v. Wade inspite of its ineptitude.

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist Part XXIV. The Neighborhood News List

2022 Wyoming Legislative Session. Part I.

I'll be frank that I don't put much credence in diets. . .

Pandemic Part 8. Enter Omicron

December 4, 1971. Smoke On the Water

Milk, Big Lunches, and Coffee

Geography, Native Ameicans, Women, French, and Female Anatomy, laissez les bon mots rouler?

Geography, Native Ameicans, Women, French, and Female Anatomy, laissez les bon mots rouler?

We recently posted this lengthy post on a Federal order to rename place names in the Federal domain that contain the word "squaw"

Today In Wyoming's History: Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming has 43 federal...: Arapaho woman (Hisei), late 19th Century. Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming has 43 federal places with 'squaw' in the ... :   ...

This is, as noted, a pretty in depth exploration of the topic.  We'd encourage you to read it.

Now news comes of a ranches decision, or hope, to rename such a place itself, and to drop the name "squaw" in favor of "boobs".

Well, in French, so it's nicer.

Allow us to explain.

In Teton County, as we've already noted, there exists of course the famous Grand Tetons. They're spectacular mountains, to be sure.

A panorama mic we stitched of the Grand Tetons back in 2012.  Photobucket since that time has screwed up the linkage, but it's our photo.

On Wyoming's Ladder Ranch, near Savery, just over the Wyoming border in Colorado, there exist a Little Squaw Mountain.  The owners of the ranch, whose excellent blog we link in to this site here, are proposing to rename the mountain Petite Tetons.

As many may know, Grand means "big" in French, and "petite" small.

Tetons?

Tits.

Yes, the nameless French fur trapper who came through and named the Grand Tetons was naming it "Big Tits" or "Big Boobs", depending upon how you want to translate it.  Perhaps he went on to also name the nearby Gros Ventre, which means "big belly".  

Anyway you look at it, the name is actually pornographic.  He was wondering around out there and decided that the majestic mountains in what is now northwest Wyoming reminded him of big boobs, and he so named them that.  Apparently the suggestion having been made, it stuck, perhaps causing other displaced Québécois to recall mammaries as well.  It clearly displayed a prurient interest.

Which the suggestion by the Wyoming ranchers, with land in Colorado, does not. They want to honor the mountain while getting rid of a name that they've come to regard as inappropriate.  And why not name it after the majestic Wyoming mountain rage.  What is now called Little Squaw Mountain has a certain majesty of its own.

Well, such efforts are fraught with difficulties and dangers, and here we find a couple.

We don't really know, in most cases, what the people who named places "squaw" had in mind.  There are all sorts of places named after women, but we often don't know why.  There are the "Three Sisters" peaks, for example, also in Wyoming. Why are they named that?  I think simply as they're three hills.

The term "squaw", which as noted we examined in this context at length, has become to be regarded as offensive in our day and age. At one time, it both was and wasn't, simultaneously. Early on, it doesn't appear to have been.  Times have changed, of course, and it now is.

But could you come out and call a mountain range "The Big Boobs"?  

Most certainly not, and for good reason.

But that's exactly what the Grand Tetons are called, albeit in French.

Does that make it okay?

Well, no, but we're used to the name and most of us don't speak French, so no doubt we'll stick with it. . . at least for the time being.

But should we rename a mountain named, basically, "little Indian woman" "small tits"?

I'd prefer that we didn't.

And should Colorado get a Tetons mountain of its own? The range is a distinct Wyoming land feature.

And the Law of Unintended Consequences reigns on.

Laramie Audubon: 122nd Annual Christmas Bird Count - December 18

Laramie Audubon: 122nd Annual Christmas Bird Count - December 18: The Laramie Audubon Society will again take part in a 100+year-old tradition: the annual "Christmas Bird Count."  Volunteers are w...

Milk, Big Lunches, and Coffee

Milk, it does a body good. . . or not.

The ability of some, but not all, human populations to drink milk is supposedly only about 6,000 years old.

I am not a huge milk fan, frankly.  Some people really are.  There are adults who like milk so much that they'll buy it and regularly consume it, although people seem to mostly do that at home, and with adults it seems to really drop off.

It's not that I detest it either.  I just quit drinking it pretty much as a teenager and I don't like it enough to resume drinking it. . . if I could.  I don't recall the last time I simply drank a glass of milk, but it would be a long time ago.  The last time I regularly did it, I"m pretty sure, was in basic training, as they served it in little pint cartons, just like schools used to do.

Milk has to be digested.

Our species is supposedly about 300,000 or so years old, which probably means its closure to 500,000 years old if not 600,000 or more.  We only got around, they say, and as noted above, to drinking cows milk about 6,000 years ago, supposedly, which probably means its a little longer than that.

Now, if you are a mammal, you are evolved to drink milk. . . as a baby.  Milk, all milk, contains lactose, a sort of sugar, and babies produce lactase in order to be able to digest it.  But human adults, in our default state of nature, don't.

In fact, no adult mammal does.  Not even cats, which will drink milk for the fat in it. Cats can't taste sweet, by the way, so they're not experiencing milk like you do when they drink it.  It's more like gulping down a liquid bratwurst for them.

About 6,000 or so ago a mutation started showing up in European genetics for lactase persistence.  In reality, lactose intolerance isn't so much a genetic deficiency as lactase persistence is a genetic advantage.  What was pretty clearly going on is people were keeping cattle, so they didn't have to go out and hunt them (wild cattle in Europe still existed. . .indeed they existed on much of the globe) and at some point, either out of desperation or something, they started drinking their milk.  That was probably a bold move, but we'd note that the only pastoral people on earth who remain lactose intolerant are African pastoralist, who will if things get desperate bleed cattle for protein, which is sort of similiar in a way.

According to the BBC, the first humans to take up drinking milk probably were rather flatulent, but if my own experience means anything, they probably felt a little sick to their stomach.

I.e., as an adult I've become somewhat lactose intolerant.

It's a bummer.

It just happened over the last couple of years, which surprises me.  My lactase production as an adult must have always been somewhat weak, but only very recently has this become a problem.  But it has now.

It's breakfast where the problem really shows up.

As best as  I can determine, in my amateur but scientific fashion, I still produce some lactase.  I can and do eat cheese, for example. And usually things cook with milk in them, which I frankly don't eat a lot of, don't bother me.  I'll note that I'm also mildly allergic to eggs, and this is true of them as well.

But putting milk on cereal has become a sufficient enough problem that I have to use it very sparingly, and even then sometimes that's a problem.  And there's one egg/milk casserole dish that my wife occasionally makes that is practically a no-go for me.  Just too darned much.

Pass the cheese slathered leftovers please. .  F=m(a).

I'm not much of a breakfast eater anyway now that I'm in my older years.  I tend to eat it, as I don't eat lunch hardly at all, and that way I don't get too hungry during the day if I’m doing something, although truthfully if I don't eat at all, it usually doesn't matter.

That's probably because I have an office job most days, and sitting around on your butt isn't expending much in the way of calories.

That's self-evident, I think, but to a lot of people it doesn't seem to be, or it is in sort of a chasing the tail fashion.  

I note that as it seems that about 100% of the European American population in the United States is on some sort of a "diet".  I just commented on this.  This affliction doesn't seem to wander into other ethnicities, in so far as I’m aware, but for European Americans, at least middle class and upper class Americans, this is true.

Americans have long had a problem with magical thinking about diet and medicine as it's earlier than actually accepting the science of things.  I.e, rather than think "yikes, I'm getting sick and might need to see the doctor" it's easier to buy "essential oils" or some other crap off the Internet.  If you don't die, you can proclaim it cured you, and if you die, you won't be around to make that point.

Diet works the same way.

The basic biology of diet is pretty simple.  You expend so many calories just existing, and if you work beyond that, you'll expend more.  Sitting around in an office doesn't expend many calories.  So if you don't want to gain weight, the first principal would be not to eat too much.

The second one would be not to eat an unnatural diet.  If it comes prepackaged in cardboard, it's probably unnatural.

Anyhow, that's simple enough, but that means you'd have to eat less, and for a lot of people, that's a real bummer.  Most people like food, and most people like some food that is way high calorie.

The big problem is, however, that most people don't work for their food in the physical sense, the most class definition (but not the only one) being that W=m(a), that is work is equivalent to mass times acceleration.  No, most people don't do that.

Take even the period just prior to World War One, which wasn't that long ago in real terms.  There was some prepackaged food in the form of canned goods, and there was food that people canned themselves. And there were salted and brined meats as well. But by and large, what most married people experienced involved quite a bit of work. 

A Canning Club Girl, May 26, 1920.

If you lived where I do, for example, there's a strong chance that you walked to work, if you were a man or one of the minority of women who were employed outside the home.  Some were driving by 1921, but a lot were still walking, and it was 1911, most were walking. That's work under the physics definition.

Married women, or women in a married household who were adults, typically went to the grocers and the meat market every day during the day. So that was more work. 

In contrast, now most people simply drive to the grocery store and get what they need, which involves work for the car, but not for the eater.

Added to that, in addition, quite a few people worked to some degree, at least by having a garden, for their food.

Some of this still goes on, but by and large people are highly acclimated to doing very little physical work for their food.

This isn't really new. Since the mid 20th Century this has been an increasing trend, and by the late 20th Century, when it might be noted people really started putting on the weight, it was much like it is now.  The odd thing is, however, that people have never really gotten away from large-scale food consumption.

Eating three full meals a day makes sense if you are a farm hand in 1910, but not much if you are an office worker in 2021.  For that matter, even aboriginal people rarely eat that much, and that's what our bodies mostly think we are, with some regional evolutionary adaptations for agriculture.  If you don't have those adaptations at all, what your body thinks is that you might not eat today. . . or tomorrow, but you'll be okay when you kill that deer the day after.  But pass on that milk . . .

Or if your ancestors, let's say, lived in the Mediterranean, your body probably thinks you'll get three squares with lots of grains and cheese, but you're also going to be spending almost all day hiking around with your goats.

Your body never thinks that you are going to eat a hearty breakfast, drive to work, and eat a lunch as big as most people's dinners in prior eras, then drive home and eat an even bigger dinner.

That's what a lot of people actually do, but very few people are ready to admit it.

I'm 5'6" tall and I weight 165 lbs (normally).  

I did a post on this quite a while back, from an historical prospective.  That post is here:

Am I overweight? Well, that might depend on the century.

I realize now that I actually messed up on that post, as the linked in chart involved only women.  In that my weight, 165, would have been overweight for a woman, barely, but my  guess is that it wouldn't have been for a man.  According to current figures, however, I'm overweight to the tune of 10 lbs.

Now, a lot goes into that, and I'll admit that I should lose some weight, even though I don't think I'm really all that much overweight.  Be that as it may, if I ate breakfast every day, and then followed up with a full meal at noon, and went home to eat dinner, I'd be very much overweight.  I'd guess at least another 20 lbs higher.

It's a matter of physics and metabolism.

On this, being overweight is not a sign of some moral failing.  I'm continually surprised when people assume it is.  Indeed, when Chesterton had a pending cause for canonization, there were some who noted that he was overweight.

Seriously?  That's why he shouldn't be canonized?

Coffee, it does a mind good

Some recent reports hold that drinking coffee significantly reduces the risks of dementia later in life, by which they presumably mean drinking a caffeinated beverage. The headlines were on coffee, however.  That's good news for me, as I drink a full post of coffee before I go to work.

I've witnessed dementia up close and personal as my mother acquired it.  I'll be frank, it worries me, but then you have to play the cards you are dealt.  It doesn't occur on my father's side of the family at all.  Having said that, for the most part, most of the men in my family haven't tended to live much past. . . my current age. Once again, you play the cards you are dealt.

Having said that, it's probably the case that not too much can be drawn from the latter.  My father acquired a persistent internal infection that we don't really know the origin of, but which was probably related to his gal bladder and some ineffective early medical treatment (he knew what he had, but his physician didn't seem to really grasp what was going on completely).  He inherited late in life gall bladder problems, by all appearances, from his mother, who also had them, and died from them.  However, they both had a bit of a fondness for certain foods that didn't help that, and I don't really have the same sort of sweet tooth they did.  My father's father died in his late 40s, but he had high blood pressure, which I don't.  My father's brother is in his late 80s and doing great, so hopefully. . . 

Anyhow, I drink a lot of coffee and I'm glad for the news.