I have a great-grandfather who served in the army. He died years before I was born, but some stories about his time in the service have been passed down to me. He was in France 100 years ago today and probably felt immense relief that it was over coupled with sadness over the deaths of the soldiers he befriended.

I know quite a lot about the music from the 1910's, so I'll share some interesting American songs from World War I.

"Joan of Arc" sung by Willie Weston in May 1917.
https://archive.org/details/78_joan-of-arc_willie-weston-bryan-weston-wells_gbia0013578b
This song represents an unusual aspect of American support for entry in World War I - sympathy for France's plight. There has been a historic appreciation for France because they gave important help to us in the War for Independence. Since the fighting in Europe posed no threat to us across the Atlantic, the threat it posed to France was used to drum up sympathy. The singer, Willie Weston was a popular vaudeville performer who came from an English theatrical performing family that immigrated here when he was a child. He frequently participated in entertainment shows at rallies to sell war bonds to help finance the war.

"For Your Country and My Country" sung by Willie Weston in May 1917.
https://archive.org/details/78_for-your-country-and-my-country_willie-weston-irving-berlin_gbia0013578a
Another recording by Weston. This songs hints towards a simmering problem the U.S. had in recruiting soldiers. We had a huge population of immigrants and children of immigrants from Germany and Austria-Hungary who didn't want to fight against those nations, and they had to be convinced to fight. Check out these lines:

"America has opened up her heart.
Every nationality
And now she asks from every nation
their appreciation.
It makes no difference now from where you came.
We are all the same."

"Over There" sung by Nora Bayes in July 1917.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGLwJGv1fAQ
This is the most well-remembered American song from World War I. Nora Bayes was a well-known singer who performed many shows for soldiers. This song was written by George M. Cohan. He was enormously popular as an actor, songwriter, and playwright and arguably played the most important part in shaping the American musical. His songs written in support of the war were sung frequently.

"I Didn't Raise My Boy to be a Soldier" sung by the Peerless Quartet in January 1915.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C2qOAgMCl4
The Peerless Quartet was a vocal Quartet employed by Columbia Records. This is one of several "protest songs" written from 1914-1916 before the U.S. entered the war. The war felt distant to Americans in those early years and most supported isolationism. The song's poignant lyrics describe the grief and anger of a mother who doesn't want her son to go to war.

"What victory can cheer a mother's heart
when she looks at her blighted home?
What victory can bring her back
all she cared to call her own?"

>>12558
Well yes, there's a fine and often blurred line between respect and contempt. At least, my attitude is the same in both cases. Saves a lot of mental effort. Being needy of someone, and also pursuing someone out of a grudge, or even wanting people to need you, I view to be immature and feminine behaviors. It's how women act.

I don't see how somebody not caring about you is a problem at all. Their care or lack of it is their own problem/business. Imagine a stranger walks up to you on the street and says "I don't care about you". Great, the feeling is mutual, so there's no problem.

In general, I don't like to patronize/validate someone as if he was my property or something. Whether he wants to be validated/patronized, well, that's his own problem, innit. I don't see why I owe anyone attention, and furthermore, feeling entitled to other peoples' attention in the first place seems selfish to me.

In general, I trust others to be independent, proud individuals who don't need no authority or crutch or validation or whatever from other people. If they aren't such people, well, that's their problem again, huh.

(Probably why I don't have friends or gf, since I have no need of anybody, others having need of me seems like a burden)

t. edgy schizoid cunt

>>12070

>Economy about which I talking about is not something that far byound

Tell me, where do you see the ability to make enough of everything for billions of people and give it all away for nothing? You move the goalposts from how you say that the 1st world can only do it because they exploit everybody else, but somehow it's just around the corner that everybody can do it without exploiting anybody? Make up your mind.

>Maybe eleminate all taxes and go back to absolute no any kind of social servises

Unironically sounds great. You don't touch my stuff and I don't touch yours. If you don't understand why someone might desire liberty more than comfort then there is no point trying to explain freedom to you because the concept will just be alien. But let's have you imagine that you roll into a town and start redistributing the goods so everybody gets their 'free stuff'. What if the residents tell you to leave and not come back? What happens to the enemies of socialism in this supposed 'transitional period'? The fact you keep dancing around it makes me think your answer is gulag.

>I not saying about "happy utopia to whole world" I trying to describe current trends and evolution of economics in 1st world countries.

You're talking about how nobody will have to do any work and everthing will be free and how no country will be 'exploited' and that this can't happen in a single state because that doesn't work. If that's not describing some kind of world utopia, I don't know what is.

>>12074

>just around the corner

Yes, in matter of recent centuries in current tecnological advantage - maybe 200, maybe 400 years, I will not play a gypsy and try to predict certain dates.

>and give it all away for nothing?

To some degree. There was already experements recently in some european states. With current economy level... how much Finland tested thier "base income"? 800 euros or something?

>because the concept will just be alien

I sometimes want become survialist in post-apocalypse but I like to place such things just in video games where they belong nowdays.

>The fact you keep dancing around it makes me think your answer is gulag.

How much anarhists for example get on modern european elections? Which general trends in enconomy modern 1st world people is most popular in recent half centuary?
Of cource there always political opposition, current agruings between "right" and "left" but I will not say that general trends shifted that much from their original path. And I don't see many people in EUROPEAN UNION GULAGS.

>You're talking about how nobody will have to do any work and everthing will be free and how no country will be 'exploited' and that this can't happen in a single state because that doesn't work. If that's not describing some kind of world utopia, I don't know what is.

I don't said any of this, you described in this post "commuism utopia" which of cource if happen, will become possible after hundreds of years from now, but it make me wonder if you even reading mine posts.
I said directly that this transitial system started to happen in dedicated states basing on their ability to exploit other states. This states have opportunity to give all of it's citizens "amount of capital (not neccecery in actual money)" to make certain level of life quality avalible without any work. Further evolving of this system depend on increacing this amount of capital. - So this is basicly opposite of what you described in this sentence.

>>11642
since b) contains an absolute statement

>Only the written form is failproof, exact and to the point.

i cannot agree to it, but it contains some other true sub-statements.
same goes for a).

since you formulated it as a binary true/false question, i would answer "neither".
would the question only contain the first statements

> a) Communicating in written form is flawed.
> b) Communicating face to face is flawed.

i would answer "both are true".

in general, i would share the hypothesis of >>11651

i agree with most (all?) posters here stating, that written communication is better for fact based communication, e.g. math thesis, while verbal communication is better suited for emotional communication.

i would want to add another questions: what about forms of communications outside the written/verbal spectrum? (like music, paintings... or "art" in general. you know, the kind of stuff people create because they lack the words to convey what they feel.)

would you agree that those things try to break the bounds of established language to add further things the mind can think about to it?