Back in the day in elementary school we were each issued a tonette
[dead]
Interesting that they don't seem to have had much cultural impact. I've never heard of these, never seen them in war films. You don't hear songs wistfully using a wartime ocarina or referring to them.
Does this explain why all the kids in the States got recorders after the war? It's still a thing in 4th grade for most kids in public school.
Same. I was just able to order an original kit on eBay for $40, so demand isn’t high.
That explains the Joey's ocarina in the movie Stalag 17.
An old favorite. "How stupid can you get, animal?"
Good movie, time to rewatch
Carter?
"Yes sir?"
What is it, Carter?
"An ocarina, sir"
Bring it up here!
It came with some sheet music that shows each note as a box with four dots in it that can be shown as either open or closed:
https://ocarinasongbook.com/fingering-charts/four-hole/
It sounds unusually sophisticated — perhaps even better after forty-plus years -- and it's actually a relatively new design. The ocarina is ancient but the four hole chromatic design dates from the 1960s, so it's newer than those Gretsch ocarinas in the article.
You can get them in all sorts of shapes and sizes -- Thomann sell hand-painted clay 4H ocarinas in the shapes of strawberries and clownfish.
I wish we'd been taught to play these in school instead of with those Aulos descant recorders that everyone in British schools, particularly teachers I imagine, grew to hate.
I did recorder in primary school. One of the things I dimly remember along with certain games and rhymes. (I think in Irish schools they do the tin whistle.)
I gather a lot of schools are adopting ukuleles now. Ukes have a bad name, unfairly I think. (Listen to Eddie Vedder's "Ukulele Songs" album, very underrated). The ukulele is more forgiving than the recorder in my opinion.
Music shops sell a lot of ukuleles. Huge numbers at Christmas, it's a very popular gift.
It's a fabulous instrument, nuanced and subtle, and you can buy beautiful instruments these days for really not much money at all.
But AFAIK its popularity in school as a teaching instrument has as much to do with Spongebob as it does its capability :-)
I understand the intellectual satisfaction you're talking about. Now I'm wondering if we can push the minimalism to using these four holes with only two fingers. It seems doable from the diagram you link, using link fingers, and assuming half holes can be covered from the left side, and two holes can be covered with one finger at the same time. Would that work, or does the physicality of the instrument prevent that ?
From memory — can't find the thing right now! — this would be a little difficult on the one I had because of its shape.
Also because — not sure how to explain it — but in my experience the holes on a four hole ocarina are also sort of finger grips, in a way. That is to say, you support the ocarina against your lips with at least one finger below it and two thumbs behind it, but part of your grip on the instrument is gently transferring from fingertip to fingertip as you play, a bit like a recorder or the pipe of bagpipes. The "open" low note has the loosest grip, and you might even subconsciously tilt your head back slightly to allow the weight of the ocarina to shift more to your thumbs.
It might be possible to design, effectively, a one-handed playable instrument that works the way you are talking about, but I think it would be quite uncomfortable.
The US military thought a lot about how to entertain its soldiers because there was a lot of downtime during a war and most of them were draftees who didn't necessarily want to be there, Another thing they did was publish pocket paperback editions of books back when paperbacks were less common.
There were also the 2,400 specially-designed upright pianos it bought from Steinway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Vertical .
My favorite WW2 morale detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cream_barge
The British did better
Put beer into drop tanks on Spitfires
https://planehistoria.com/flying-pubs-spitfires-flew-beer-to...
That still happens in America. Hike to a remote place, and get your friend to drop a keg in a mountain lake from his plane.
"Alpine Lake Keg Drop".
> most of them were draftees who didn't necessarily want to be there
It is called forced labour or slavery.
It wasn’t slavery as they were paid and could be expected to be discharged at the cessation of hostilities.
Conscription is as old as society itself.
> It wasn’t slavery as they were paid
Being paid some amount of money doesn't magically make it not slavery. Obvious counterpoint: what if a plantation owner "paid" each slave a single modern-day penny a year, would that make it okay?
> and could be expected to be discharged at the cessation of hostilities
Being let go when you're no longer needed doesn't stop it being slavery either. Would you no longer be a slave if the plantation owner released you after the harvest season? You'd just be re-captured for the next harvest, of course - either by the same owner or a different one.
> Conscription is as old as society itself.
So is slavery. That doesn't make it okay.
Definitions of forced labour, like the ILO Forced Labour Convention of 1930 for example, have to explicitly include "by the way, it's totally okay if it is done as part of mandatory military service" clauses for a reason.
There are obviously differences between traditional slavery and conscription, but conscription is still way closer to forced labour than it is to consensual service. Just look at what happens when you try to leave, for one!
Yeah, they were paid!! Plastic ocarinas!
You're both right. We don't want to water down the term "slavery" by using it for draftees, but it is a form of temporary slavery. Slave's have always been "paid" in the form of room and board (however meager), but it's still slavery.
I mean, to be fair, so is slavery.
I think it's important to acknowledge that conscription is a violation of human rights, and absolutely a violation of human autonomy and dignity.
The reason it exists is because historically, the primary source of military power has been the number of armed humans you can put on the battlefield. That's much less true now, but even in WWII the technology wasn't yet up to that point.
And while the US did not end up being materially at risk in WWII (aside from some very small exceptions like Pearl Harbor), that was not a guarantee going in. The Nazis were hellbent on wiping out all opposition to them, and the fear that, if Europe was lost, they would cross the ocean to attack us was not at all crazy. Furthermore, our allies absolutely were under existential threat—and in such a situation, it's frankly irresponsible of a nation not to use conscription if that's actually likely to make a difference.
Either saying "conscription is slavery, therefore it is never justifiable" or "conscription is nothing like slavery, soldiers get treated well" ignores enough of the truth that they're misleading at best. Sometimes you really do have to deal with nuance.
Conscription for wars fought for political purposes is qualitatively different from conscription to defend your country. (But this is a continuum rather than two disjoint categories.) The former happens when the ambitions of the leaders exceed the capabilities of the state. The latter is based on the view that a country is a collective of its citizens, and the citizens are therefore personally responsible for defending it.
You have the option to emigrate as opposed to fight, which is fundamentally what differentiates conscription from slavery (and human rights violations). You're not legally obligated to stay in your country.
Hello?
Germany introduced law, your are required to notify ministry and get permission, of you leave country for couple of weeks.
Ukraine closed border for men in like 10 seconds.
Um...what?
Desertion has, historically, been a capital crime. Trying to paint conscription as not being a kind of captivity because "you're not legally obligated to stay in your country" is at best wildly disingenuous, and at worst just flat-out wrong.
I think you might need to take quite a bit more time to consider this issue, lest you prove your username much truer than you probably want.
> Desertion has, historically, been a capital crime.
And it remained so for the US in WW2, although the sentence was carried out just once.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik
Major General Norman "Dutch" Cota, who was at the execution, called it "the toughest 15 minutes of his life". For context, Cota was also present at the bloodbath on Omaha Beach, where he famously rallied troops.
You can absolutely emigrate prior to the conscription coming to fruition. It has to be permanent, or it's draft evasion, but it is perfectly legal.
Sorry for the edits confusing things. I can see earlier how you thought I meant desertion as opposed to emigration.
Most people do not have the ability to emigrate. Hell, a great many people barely have the economic ability to move across their own state, but emigration requires that the country you're trying to move to is willing to let you live and work there permanently. I don't know if you're familiar with the difficulties involved in this, but I can assure you they are significant.
Dismissing the loss of freedom inherent in conscription by saying you can avoid it by abandoning your entire life, leaving your country, your job, probably your family behind...even if you do have both the money and a legal path to immigrate somewhere else, which, again, most people do not, that's hardly a reasonable alternative.
> It is called forced labour or slavery.
In war, people who tolerate military conscription and discipline will conquer those who're slaves to pigheaded "you're not the boss of ME!" individualism.
It'd be nice if humans would voluntarily abandon war someday. But a corollary of the First Commandment is to face facts.
> In war, people who tolerate military conscription and discipline will conquer those who're slaves to pigheaded "you're not the boss of ME!" individualism.
Sure, right up until it leads to fragging. During the Vietnam War about a thousand superiors were killed by their subjects. You can't give someone weapons, try to force them into a suicidal mission, and not expect them to use it to stop the mission. Give someone only a hammer and everything looks like a nail...
That doesn't make it not forced though.
Most of this sub thread people who are unwilling to say "yeah it's forced labor and that's fine considering the details" doing mental gymnastics to make it not forced.
Just because something is forced, doesn’t make it slavery. I’m forced to pay taxes; that doesn’t make me a slave. Nor was a tenant farmer in the Middle Ages when required to provide corvée. I think the primary objection in this thread is to the use of the word slavery, which is simply not the same thing.
I agree with your account, the problem is how many perceive slavery. Here in the south (USA) many still think the slaves before the Civil War were "happy". They obviously weren't slaves. Until ALL mankind looks slavery fully in the eye for understanding, we will continue to undervalue those other then ourselves.
I remember story how Irish migrants were used to digg deep holes. Walls could collapse any moment, and bury the crew alive. Slaves were deemed too valuable to risk in such jobs!
I don’t think there can be a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable coercion of liberties.
> Nor was a tenant farmer in the Middle Ages when required to provide corvée.
Many historians now concede that there is little to no meaningful difference between various forms of feudal servitude and slavery.
Slaves in the later Roman Empire also had certain rights, including the right to buy their own freedom in many cases. That doesn’t mean they weren’t slaves.
I will have to disagree with these historians. There is a fundamental difference between having legal personhood and being chattel. To be bound is not the same thing as to be owned.
Many, if not most, historical institutions that are universally recognized as slavery didn’t permit slave owners to dispose of their slaves like arbitrary property they owned. If that’s the definition of slavery, it’s an unusually restrictive one.
In peacetimes, yes, but if it's defensive war I don't see many arguments against a draft, it can't be generalized though.
There is shit ton of opposition, people are literally defending themselves with guns from kidnappers !
States have a legitimate right to taxation. Taxes can be used to pay volunteers. While there are still people owning wealth above the poverty level, there is no excuse to force people into military slavery. And even if literally everybody has been taxed into poverty, there are more ethical alternatives than slavery, e.g. tying the right to vote to military service like in Starship Troopers. Freedom from slavery is extremely high on the scale of ethical importance, even more important than democracy.
If there's anything worth defending, people will volunteer to defend it.
Seems like there's a clear free-rider problem, the volunteers make the sacrifice and the non-volunteers reap the benefits.
Indeed, and there are many historical examples of this.
Today’s average Western nation-state tends to be a rathole that spits into the faces of its citizens every single day, until the moment the state is under attack, at which point everyone is told that they owe their lives to their sacred motherland that has done so much for them.
What if people do but not in enough numbers? Farewell, sweet country!
If the country doesn't have enough people to defend it, perhaps it's good and just that some other community gets to control the territory? A country isn't really anything except for its people, after all.
The occupying power may be interested in your country's resources rather than its people.