Torch

Torch (pronounced tawrch)

(1) A light to be carried in the hand, consisting of some combustible substance, as resinous wood, or of twisted flax or the like soaked with tallow or other flammable substance, ignited at the upper end.

(2) A portable light-source (now almost universally electric and battery or solar powered); use rare in the US where the preferred term is “flashlight”.

(3) Any of various lamp-like devices that produce a hot flame and are used for soldering, burning off paint etc (blowtorch, oxy-gas torch et al).

(4) Figuratively, something considered as a source of illumination, enlightenment, guidance etc.

(5) In slang, an arsonist (one who to set fires maliciously (ie “torches” stuff).

(6) To burn or flare up like a torch.

(7) As “torch singer”, one who sings “torch songs” (pieces lamenting an unrequited love by one who still “carries a torch” for their object of desire).

(8) As “pass the torch”, the idea (sometimes inter-generational) of a responsibility or office being handed to a successor (synonymous with “pass the baton”).

(9) To insult someone or something, to ruin the reputation of someone or something; to release damaging claims about someone or something (a generalized term, particular flavors of such “torchings” on the internet often now described with specific terms).

1250–1300: From the Middle English noun torch & torche, from the Old French torche & torque (torch; bundle of straw), from the unattested Vulgar Latin torca (something twisted; coiled object) from the Latin torqua, a variant of torquis, from torqueō (twist), from the primitive Indo-European root PIE root terkw- (to twist).  In a very modern twist, it’s from this source that the OnlyFans favourite “twerking” comes.  From the Latin is drawn the modern measure of specific energy (twisting effort): “torque”), the original sense being a “torch formed of twisted tow dipped in wax”.  By at least the 1620s “torch” was in figurative use describing “a source of inspiration or guidance”.  Quite when the term “torch-bearer” (in the literal sense) was first used isn’t known but it’s a very old job and likely therefore also to be used as long as the word “torch” although use seems not to have been documented before the early fifteenth century.  The figurative sense of s “torch-bearer” being the “leader of a cause” dates from the 1530s.  The slang sense of “an arsonist” dates from 1938.  In the way these things happen, electrically powered portable light-sources usually are called “flashlights” in US use while “torch” tended to predominate elsewhere in the English-speaking world although, because so many products are now marketed internationally as “flashlight”, the use has spread.  The verb torch dates from circa 1819 in the sense of “illuminate with a torch” and was derived from the noun while as a regional or dialectal form by mid century it was used to mean “flare up, rise like flame or smoke from a torch”.  In US use, the meaning “set fire to” was in use by 1931, this extended by 1938 to “arsonist”.  Torch & torching are nouns & verbs, torcher is a noun, torched is a verb and torchable, torchless & torchlike (also as torch-like) are adjectives; the noun plural is torches.

In Greek mythology, Θᾰ́νᾰτος (Thánatos) was the personification of Death.  Thánatos was from θνῄσκω (thnēskō) (I die, I am dying) and although his name was transliterated in Latin as Thanatus, his counterpart in Roman mythology was Mors or Letum.  In the Iliad, Thánatos appears as the brother of Sleep (Hypnos) and according to the 7-8^th century BC Ancient Greek poet Hesiod, these two spirits were the sons of Nyx (the personification of the night and its goddess).  The sister of Ertebus and daughter of Chaos, her realm was the far west far beyond the land of Atlas and as well as Death & Sleep, she was the mother of a number of abstract forces including Morus (Destiny), Momus (Reproach), Oizys (Distress), the Moirae (Nemesis), Apate (Deceit), Philotes (Love), Geras (Old Age), Eris (Strife), and the Hesperides (the nymphs of the Setting Sun).  As a dramatic device, Thánatos sometimes appeared as a character in Greek theatre but his presence was otherwise rare.  When he appeared in paintings or sculpture, it was often with the torch he held in his hand being upside-down, signifying death or the end-of-life.

A cooking torch being used to apply a finishing touch to a lemon meringue pie.

There are all sorts of torches including “blow-torch” (a gas-powered tool used by plumbers), “cooking torch” (a gas-powered tool used by chefs usually to induce some sort of “burnt” effect on the surface of dishes), “cutting torch” (the tool attached to cylinders of oxygen & acetylene (ie oxy-acetylene) which, when combined and ignited, enable metal to be cut or joined, “fusion torch” (in nuclear physics, a technique using the high-temperature plasma of a fusion reactor to break apart other materials (especially waste materials) and convert them into reusable elements, “weed torch” (A torch used to kill weeds by means of a high-temperature propane flame, the attraction being precision (ie can be used in close proximity to desirable plants one wishes not to kill) and avoiding the use chemicals or disrupting the soil, “pen torch” (also as “pen-light”) small torches built into functional pens.

In the history of World War II (1939-1945), the word “torch” is most associated with “Operation Torch”, the Allied invasion of French North Africa, conducted between 8–16 November 1942.  One of those “compromises” thrashed out between the British and Americans in the mechanism of the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS), it was a vital component in the rhythm of the conflict because (1) it allowed a final “mopping up” of the Axis forces in North Africa, (2) introduced US forces to the European theatre (albeit in Africa) and (3) removed any threat to the Allied control of the Mediterranean, (4) secured Middle East oil supplies and (5) made possible later military action in Italy & southern France.  There was though also a “torch” footnote in the history of the war.  Before things turned against him, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) would sometimes make (usually inept) attempts at humor and, early in 1941 when the invasion of the Soviet Union was going well, the Führerhauptquartiere (Leader’s Headquarters) was the Wolfsschanze (Wolf's Lair) near the East Prussian town of Rastenburg (now Kętrzyn in present-day Poland).  There one night, he found one of his secretaries (Christa Schroeder (1908–1984)) wandering in the darkness saying she couldn’t find her torch.  He claimed innocence, arguing: “I’m a country thief (Ländledieb) thief, not a lamp (Lämpledieb) thief”.  That was about as good as Anführerhumor got.

Passing the Torch

In use since the late nineteenth century, the idiomatic phrase “pass the torch” is a metaphor drawn from Antiquity: the λαμπαδηδρομία (lampadēdromía) (torch-races), a feature at many festivals in Ancient Greece.  These were relay events, run over a variety of distances, each team member carrying a burning torch, the prize awarded to the team whose runner crossed the finish line first with the torch still burning.  That is of course the long accepted myth but many modern historians regard the "torch relay" from Antiquity as a "manufactured myth", one of many emerged in the centuries long after the purported events were said to have transpired.  The idea entered modern athletics in relay events where each runner carries a baton which they hand to the competitor about to run the next leg (thus “pass the baton” being synonymous with “pass the torch”).  The torch relay idea was revived for 1936 Summer Olympic Games in Berlin and has since been a feature of all games (winter & summer), the design of the devices now part of Olympic history.   

Berlin, 1936.

So much publicity did the torch run from Olympia in Greece to Berlin attract as a prelude to the 1936 Olympic games that it has since been a feature of every subsequent summer & winter games (and within five years the Nazis would occupy Greece although not willingly).  The 1936 run was a genuine relay which involved over 3,000 in a route which included Greece (which within five years the Nazis would occupy although not willingly, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia (invaded by the Nazis in 1941), Hungary (invaded by the Nazis in 1944), Austria (annexed by the Nazis in 1938), Czechoslovakia (annexed by the Nazis in 1938-1939) & Germany.

Rendered in steel and fueled by a flammable paste inside a magnesium tube, each load had a burning time for some 10 minutes, ideal for the relay schedule but there were quality control problems with one batch of torches so the Nazis cheated, some of the torchbearers in more rural regions being driven by car.  The decision to use a torch was a deliberate attempt to link the Third Reich with the classical civilizations of Antiquity.  Although symbolic fires had been kept alight during the games at Amsterdam (1928) and Los Angeles (1932), neither had been lit with flame carried from Olympia in a torch relay.  The first intention of the Berlin organizing committee had been to remain true to the old ways, creating torches of hardwood topped with bundles of narthex stalks, taken from a Mediterranean tree known for its slow combustion but tests soon revealed this to be impractical and so metal torches were fabricated.

Mexico City, 1968.

One of the more pleasing designs was that used for the 1968 summer games in Mexico City.  In a then novel touch, the torch was produced in four versions: (1) An all-steel construction with vertical grooves present on the whole body of the torch, (2) A similar design to the first type except for the bottom part of the body which featured a black leather handle, (3) A design which included a handle made partly from wood and a motif featuring a dove was repeated on the upper part and (4) A silver ring with repeated dove motifs was added to decorate the top of the torch while the caption “Mexico” was reproduced twice at the base of the handle.  Depending on which method of construction was used, the fuel load varied, the solid mix including nitrates, sulphurs, alkaline metal carbonates, resins and silicones.

Lake Placid, 1980.

According to the organizing committee, the design and choice of materials used for the torch for the XIII Olympic Winter Games held at New York’s Lake Placid in 1980 was intended to symbolize the blending of modern technology and the traditions of Ancient Greece.  Accordingly, it was constructed of metal with a bronze finish, a handle wrapped in leather and as fuel it used liquid propane, each torch able to remain alight for an impressive 40 minutes.  The sole decorative element was a silver ring where metal met leather, the inscription reading: “XIII Olympic Winter Games Lake Placid 1980”. Although it pre-dated both the personal computer (PC) revolution and the internet, apparently there was some use of computers in the design.    The committee described the shape of the bowl as a tribute to classical Greek architecture but many couldn’t help but notice some resemblance to a certain plumbing tool.

President Biden passes the torch

Opinion seems divided on whether the remarkable “Pass the torch Joe” advertisement a Democratic Party Super Political Action Committee (PAC) paid to run on what is known to be one of Joe Biden’s (b 1942; US president since 2021) favorite television shows had much to do with his decision to withdraw from seeking his party’s nomination for a second term.  Even if not decisive however, for a Super PAC publicly (and expensively) to advocate something which is usually an internal party matter must have had some sort of “shock effect” on the president because it was unprecedented; to him it must have been something like seeing "something nasty in the woodshed".  While the Super PAC structure is not exclusive to US politics, the American devices (created essentially as a work-around of tiresome campaign finance laws) work on a grand scale compared with those in other countries but previously they have exclusively been devoted to promoting a candidate, not airing the dirty laundry.

The Super PAC’s message (best translated as “Joe, you’re too old and senile to do this”) wasn’t new because it had (in sanitized form) since the first presidential debate in June been either stated or selectively leaked by any number of party grandees including a former president, a former speaker and leading Democrats in both houses of Congress.  That might have been manageable by the Biden faction but what was not was the flow of funds from party donors drying up, another candidate being the only conduction of resumption.  The Super PAC’s choice of “pass the torch” as a metaphor was clever because (1) it’s well understood and (2) with its classical origin it lends an air of nobility, the idea being the old warrior, standing undefeated, handing the torch to someone who was after all his chosen deputy.  Of course, what was left unspoken was that in Ancient Greece the point of the exercise was the torch has to be passed while still aflame, the question being whether it has in Mr Biden’s increasingly unsteady grip, blown out, leaving only smoking embers.

On the way out; on the way in: Time magazine covers after the debate (left) and after the tweet (right).  What the latter cover lacked was a word to replace "panic".  The editorial board would have discussed the matter, pondering possibly "faith", "hope" or "desperation" before deciding to leave it to the readers.  The choice of red for the background was interesting.

By Sunday 21 July it seems the cold hard numbers had been assembled and presented to Mr Biden, explaining that not only could he not win the presidency but that with him as a candidate, The Democrats would likely lose control of the Senate and the Republicans would increase their majority in the House of Representatives.  Senile or not, Mr Biden can still comprehend basic electoral arithmetic and understand the implication for his “legacy” were he to cling to something his very presence was making a losing cause.  His statement on X (formerly known as Twitter) was essentially the same as that of Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969) who realized the war in Vietnam had destroyed his presidency:

President Biden, 2024 (edited): “My Fellow Americans, over the past three-and-a-half years, we have made great progress as a nation.  Today, America has the strongest economy in the world.  America has never been better positioned to lead than we are today.  I know none of this could have been done without you, the American people.  Together, we overcame a once in a century pandemic and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  We've protected and preserved our democracy. And we've revitalised and strengthened our alliances around the world.”

“It has been the greatest honour of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek re-election, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.  For now, let me express my deepest gratitude to all those who have worked so hard to see me re-elected.  I want to thank Vice President Kamala Harris for being an extraordinary partner in all this work. And let me express my heartfelt appreciation to the American people for the faith and trust you have placed in me.”

The Washington Post, 1 April 1968.

President Johnson, 1968 (edited): “With America's sons in the fields far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office — the presidency of this country.  Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”

Not all were happy when crooked old Lyndon announced he would not seek another term, Carl Giles (1916–1995), Daily Express, 2 April 1968.  Reaction to senile old Joe's tweet will also be mixed.

LBJ’s legacy is now better regarded than would have been thought likely in 1968 but it’s not possible to predict what will be the fate of Mr Biden’s except to say it will at least be influenced by the outcome of the 2024 election and perception of what part his long delayed withdrawal from the contest played.  The comparisons with 1968 are inevitable for a number of reasons, not least because both presidents were products of and operatives in the Democratic Party machine and both achieved the highest office in unlikely circumstances, having earlier failed while attempting a more conventional path.  The other echo of 1968 is the prospect of an open party convention in Chicago, something the political junkies would welcome for the same reasons the party leadership will wish to avoid one; on both sides, the conventions have for decades been stage-managed affairs, something in no small part encouraged by the scenes of violence and chaos in Chicago in 1968.  Thus, what’s planned is to have Kamala Harris (b 1964; US vice president since 2021) position on the ticket stitched up by a “virtual vote” of the delegates, well in advance of the mid-August convention which can then be allowed to function as a combination of coronation and formal campaign launch.  Details about which white, male governor of which battleground state will be named as running mate have yet to be confirmed.  It’s impossible to say how good Ms Harris will be as a candidate (or for that matter as president) because until they’re in the arena (having “the blowtorch applied to the belly” as Neville Wran (1926–2014; premier of the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) 1976-1986) put it), it won’t be known and political history is littered with examples of those of whom much was expected yet failed and of those expected to fail yet who prospered for a decade or more and not un-noticed in both parties is her unprecedented electoral advantage in being (1) not white and (2) not male, thus making available at any time accusations of racism or misogyny.  Already, some Republicans are complaining she’ll be “bubble-wrapped” by the liberal media (the outfits Mr Trump calls “the fake new media”) and they’re suggesting that any time a difficult question is asked (presumably by Fox News) it’ll be answered by “that’s sexist” or “that’s racist”.  Played selectively, they can be good cards.

So the 2024 election will be a very modern campaign.  One who must be mulling over the wisdom of doing such a good job in making Mr Biden’s candidature untenable is Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) and it was notable that in the hours after Mr Biden’s tweet, he couldn’t resist continuing his attacks of the person no longer his opponent.  It was flogging a dead horse but presumably his team had no more appropriate material available for his use.  The Trump campaign team certainly has a problem in that all the resources they have for months devoted to honing the attacks for a Trump-Biden re-match and it’s unlikely much can be re-purposed for a Trump-Harris bout.  Tellingly, perhaps because of concerns about the “racism, sexism thing”, not much thought seems to have been given to Ms Harris and even the occasionally used “laffin’ Kamala” has nothing like the ring of “crooked Hillary”, “sleepy Joe”, “the Biden crime family”, “low energy Jeb”, “crazy Bernie” “lyin’ Ted”, “Mini Mike” or any of the other monikers he used to so effectively import into political campaigning the techniques he’d perfected on reality television.  He does deliberately mispronounce “Kamala” (which, like “lafin’”, some have suggested is a coded racial slur) and, apparently impromptu, recently said “she’s nuts” but none of that suggests anything which had been well-workshopped.  The team will be aware that when dealing with a PoC (person of color) there must be caution so it'll be interesting to see what they come up with.  That caution meant Mr Trump must have regretted he couldn't use the gay slur "mayor Buttplug" of Pete Buttigieg (b 1982 US secretary of transportation since 2021), an allusion to him being (as it's still put in sections of the Republican Party) "a confessed homosexual" because "Alfred E Newman" didn't catch on, Mad Magazine now too remote for most of the population; "must be a generational thing" Mr Buttigieg said, explaining it baffled him although the resemblance certainly was striking.  

It is a whole new dynamic for the campaign but what hasn’t changed is that just as there was no great pro-Biden feeling, nor is there yet much of a pro-Harris feeling (although there may be a pro-woman & pro-PoC factor) and the 2024 poll remains pro-Trump vs anti-Trump.  Unlike a week ago, a Democrat victory is now something many are contemplating.  The critical factors are abortion which in recent months has proved an electoral asset for the Democrats and the potential a PoC has to entice to vote the habitually politically disconnected.  To win the election a party needs a surprisingly small number of these recalcitrant souls to turn out and it’s worth remembering that both Mr Biden and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) in 2020 & 2016 respectively anyway received substantially more votes than Mr Trump.  The 2024 election can go either way and is now interesting in a way it wasn’t a week ago.

Torch Songs

The notion of “keeping the torch burning” refers to those who remain faithful to causes often thought doomed.  Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) for example never gave up the idea the Orthodox Church might one day return to communion with Rome and thus always “kept burning on the ramparts a torch to guide home the wandering daughter who ran off to Constantinople.”  It’s used also of those who never abandon the idea they might yet be reconciled with a long-lost lover and it’s those feelings which inspire the writers of “torch songs” although they are often tales of unrequited love.  Most “torch singers” seem these days to be women but the original pieces described as “torch songs” during the 1920s were performed by men although when “torch singer” came into wider use the next decades, it seems mostly to be used of women.

Over, a Lindsay Lohan torch song (official music video).

Over by John Shanks, Kara Dioguardi & Lindsay Lohan, © BMG Rights Management, Sony-ATV Music Publishing, Universal Music Publishing Group, released in 2004 on the album Speak.

I watch the walls around me crumble

But it's not like I won't build them up again

So here's your last change for redemption

So take it while it lasts because it will end

My tears are turning into time I've wasted trying to find a reason for goodbye

I can't live without you

Can't breathe without you

I'm dreamin' 'bout you honestly

Tell me that it’s over

'Cause if the world is spinning and I'm still living

It won't be right if we're not in it together

Tell me that it's over

And I'll be the first to go

Don't want to be the last to know

I won't be the one to chase you

But at the same time you're the heart that I call home

I'm always stuck with these emotions

And the more I try to feel the less I'm whole

My tears are turning into time

I've wasted trying to find a reason for goodbye

I can't live without you

Can't breathe without you

I'm dreamin' 'bout you honestly

Tell me that its over

'Cause if the world is spinning and I'm still living

It won't be right if we're not in it together

Tell me that it's over

And I'll be the first to go

Yeah, I'll be the first to go

Don't want to be the last to know

Over, over, over

My tears are turning into time

I've wasted trying to find a reason for goodbye

I can't live without you

Can't breathe without you

I'm dreamin' bout you honestly

Tell me that it’s over

'Cause if the world is spinning and I'm still living

It won't be right if we're not in it together

Tell me that it's over

Tell me that it's over

Honestly tell me,

Honestly tell me,

Don't tell me that it's over

Don't tell me that it's over.

Brand

Brand (pronounced brand)

(1) The kind, grade, or make of a product or service, as indicated by a stamp, trademark, or such.

(2) A mark made by burning or otherwise, to indicate kind, grade, make, ownership (of both objects and certain animals) etc.

(3) A mark formerly put upon slaves or criminals, made on the skin with a hot iron.

(4) Any mark of disgrace; stigma.

(5) A kind or variety of something distinguished by some distinctive characteristic.

(6) A set of distinctive characteristics that establish a recognizable image or identity for a person or thing.

(7) A conflagration; a flame.  A burning or partly burned piece of wood (now rare except regionally although the idea of brand as “a flaming torch” still exists as a poetic device).  In the north of England & Scotland, a brand is a torch used for signalling. 

(8) A sword (archaic except as a literary or poetic device).

(9) In botany, a fungal disease of garden plants characterized by brown spots on the leaves, caused by the rust fungus Puccinia arenariae

(10) A male given name (the feminine name Brenda was of Scottish origin and was from the Old Norse brandr (literally “sword” or “torch”).

(11) To label or mark with or as if with a brand.

(12) To mark with disgrace or infamy; to stigmatize.

(13) Indelibly to impress (usually in the form “branded upon one’s mind”)

(14) To give a brand name to (in commerce including the recent “personal brand).

Pre 950: From the Middle English, from the Old English brond & brand (fire, flame, destruction by fire; firebrand, piece of burning wood, torch (and poetically “sword”, “long blade”) from the Old High German brant, the ultimate source the primitive Indo-European bhrenu- (to bubble forth; brew; spew forth; burn).  It was cognate with the Scots brand, the Dutch & German Brand, the Old Norse brandr, the Swedish brand (blaze, fire), the Icelandic brandur and the French brand of Germanic origin.  The Proto-Slavic gorěti (to burn) was a distant relation.  Brand is a noun & verb, brander is a noun, brandless is an adjective, branded is a verb and branding is a noun & verb; the noun plural is brands.  Forms (hyphenated and not) like de-brand, non-brand, mis-brand & re-brand are created as required and unusually for English, the form brander seems never to have been accompanied by the expected companion “brandee”.

Some work tirelessly on their “personal brand”, a term which has proliferated since social media gained critical mass.  Lindsay Lohan’s existence at some point probably transcended the notion of a personal brand and became an institution; the details no longer matter.

The verb brand dates from the turn of the fifteenth century in the sense of “to impress or burn a mark upon with a hot iron, cauterize; stigmatize” and originally described the marks imposed on criminal or cauterized wounds, the used developed from the noun.  The figurative use (often derogatory) of “fix a character of infamy upon” emerged in the mid-fifteenth century, based on the notion of the association with criminality.  The use to refer to a physical branding as a mark of ownership or quality dates from the 1580s and from this developed the familiar modern commercial (including “personal brands”) sense of “brand identity”, “brand recognition”, “brand-name” etc.  Property rights can also attach to brands, the idea of “brand-equity”.

Although it’s unknown just when the term “branding iron” (the (almost always) iron instrument which when heated burned brands into timber, animal hides etc) was first used (it was an ancient device), the earliest known citation dates only from 1828.  The “mark made by a hot iron” was older and in use since at least the 1550s, noted especially of casks and barrels”, the marks indicating variously the maker, the type of contents, the date (of laying down etc) or the claimed quality..  By the early-mid nineteenth century the meaning had broadened to emphasise “a particular make of goods”, divorced from a particular single item and the term “brand-name” appears first to have been used in 1889, something significant in the development of the valuable commodity of “brand-loyalty” although that seems not to have been an acknowledged concept in marketing until 1961.  The idea of “brand new” is based on the (not always accurate) notion a brand was the last thing to be applied to a product before it left the factory.

BMC ADO16 brands, clockwise from top left: Wolseley 1300, Riley Kestrel 1300, MG 1300, Austin 1300 GT, Morris 1100 and Vanden Plas Princess 1300.  The British Motor Corporation's (BMC) ADO16 (Austin Drawing Office design 16) was produced between 1962-1974 and was a great success domestically and in many export markets, more than two million sold in 1.1 & 1.3 litre form.  The Austin & Morris brands made up the bulk of the production but versions by Wolseley, Riley, MG & Vanden Plas versions were at various times available.  All were almost identically mechanically with the brand differentiation restricted to the interior trim and the frontal panels.  This was the high (or low) point of the UK industry's “badge engineering”.  The abbreviation ADO is still sometimes said to stand for “Amalgamated Drawing Office”, a reference to the 1952 creation of BMC when the Austin & Morris design & engineering resources were pooled.  Like many such events subsequently, the amalgamation was more a “takeover” than a “merger” and the adoption of “Austin Drawing Office” reflected the priorities and loyalties of Leonard Lord (later Lord Lambury, 1896–1967), the former chairman of Austin who was appointed to head the conglomerate.  The appearance of “Amalgamated Drawing Office” appears to be a creation of the internet age, the mistake still circulating.

Since the beginnings of mass-production made possible by powered industrial processes and the ability to distribute manufactured stuff world-wide, brand-names have become (1) more prevalent and (2) not of necessity as distinctive as once they were.  Historically, in commerce, a brand was an indication of something unique but as corporations became conglomerates they tended to accumulate brands (sometimes with no other purpose than ceasing production in order to eliminate competition) and over time, it was often tempting to reduce costs by ceasing separate development and simply applying a brand to an existing line, hoping the brand loyalty would be sufficient to overlook the cynicism.  The British car manufactures in the 1950s use the idea to maintain brand presence without the expense of developing unique products and while originally some brand identity was maintained with the use of unique mechanical components or coachwork while using a common platform, by the late 1960s the system had descended to what came to be called “badge engineering”, essentially identical products sold under various brand-names, the differences restricted to minor variations in trim and, of course, the badge.

Australia Day vs Invasion Day: The case for a re-brand

Although it came to be known as “Australia’s national day” and in some form or other had been celebrated or at last marked since the early nineteenth century, as a large-scale celebration (with much flag waving) it has been a thing only since the 1988 bi-centennial of white settlement.  What the day commemorated was the arrival in 1788 in what is now Sydney of the so-called “First Fleet” of British settlers, the raising of the Union Flag the first event of legal significance in what ultimately became the claiming of the continental land-mass by the British crown.  Had that land been uninhabited, things good and bad would anyway have happened but in 1788, what became the Commonwealth of Australia was home to the descendants of peoples who had been in continuous occupation sine first arriving up to 50,000 years earlier (claims the history extends a further 10,000 remain unsupported by archaeological evidence); conflict was inevitable and conflict there was, the colonial project a violent and bloody business, something the contemporary records make clear was well understood at the time but which really entered modern consciousness only in recent decades.

What the colonial authorities did was invoke the legal principle of terra nullius (from the Latin terra nūllīus (literally “nobody's land”)) which does not mean “land inhabited by nobody” but “land not owned by anyone”.  The rational for that was the view the local population had no concept of land “ownership” and certainly no “records” or “title deeds” as they would be understood in English law.  Given that, not only did the various tribes not own the land but they had no system under which they could own land; thus the place could be declared terra nullis.  Of late, some have devoted much energy to justifying all that on the basis of “prevailing standards” and “accepted law” but even at the time there were those in London who were appalled at what was clearly theft on a grand scale, understanding that even if the indigenous population didn’t understand their connection to the land and seas as “ownership” as the concept was understood in the West, what was undeniable by the 1830s when the doctrine of terra nullius was formally interpolated into colonial law was that those tribes understood what “belonged” to them and what “belonged” to other tribes.  That’s not to suggest it was a wholly peaceful culture, just that borders existed and were understood, even if sometimes transgressed.  Thus the notion that 26 January should better be understood as “Invasion Day” and what is more appropriate than a celebration of a blood-soaked expropriation of a continent is there should be a treaty between the colonial power (and few doubt that is now the Australian government) and the descendants of the conquered tribes, now classified as “first nations”.  Although the High Court of Australia in 1992 overturned the doctrine of terra nullius when it was recognized that in certain circumstances the indigenous peoples could enjoy concurrent property rights to land with which they could demonstrate a continuing connection, this did not dilute national sovereignty nor in any way construct the legal framework for a treaty (or treaties).

The recognition that white settlement was an inherently racist project based on theft is said by some to be a recent revelation but there are documents of the colonial era (in Australia and elsewhere in the European colonial empires) which suggest there were many who operated on a “we stole it fair and square” basis and many at the time probably would not have demurred from the view 26 January 1788 was “Invasion Day” and that while it took a long time, ultimately that invasion succeeded.  Of course, elsewhere in the British Empire, other invasions also proved (militarily) successful but usually these conflicts culminated in a treaty, however imperfect may have the process and certainly the consequences.  In Australia, it does seem there is now a recognition that wrong was done and a treaty is the way to offer redress.  That of course is a challenging path because, (1) as the term “first nations” implies, there may need to be dozens (or even hundreds according to the count of some anthropologists) of treaties and (2) the result will need to preserve the indivisible sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia, something which will be unpalatable to the most uncompromising of the activists because it means that whatever the outcome, it will still be mapped onto the colonial model.

As the recent, decisive defeat of a referendum (which would have created an constitutionally entrenched Indigenous advisory body) confirmed, anything involving these matters is contentious and while there are a number of model frameworks which could be the basis for negotiating treaties, the negotiating positions which will emerge as “the problems” are those of the most extreme 1% (or some small number) of activists whose political positions (and often incomes) necessitate an uncompromising stance.  Indeed, whatever the outcome, it’s probably illusory to imagine anything can be solved because there are careers which depend on there being no solution and it’s hard to envisage any government will be prepared to stake scare political capital on a venture which threatens much punishment and promises little reward.  More likely is a strategy of kicking the can down the road while pretending to be making progress; many committees and boards of enquiry are likely to be in our future and, this being a colonial problem, the most likely diversion on that road will be a colonial fix.

One obvious colonial fix would be a double re-branding exercise.  The New Year’s Day public holiday could be shifted from 1 January to December 31 and re-branded “New Year’s Eve Holiday”, about the only practical change being that instead of the drinking starting in the evening it can begin early in the day (which for many it doubtless anyway does).  Australia Day could then be marked on 1 January and could be re-branded to “Constitution Day” although given the history that too might be found objectionable.  Still, the date is appropriate because it was on 1 January 1901 the country and constitution came into existence as a consequence of an act of the Imperial Parliament, subsequently validated by the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (an institution created by the London statute).  It’s the obvious date to choose because that was the point of origin of the sovereign state although in the narrow technical sense, true sovereignty was attained only in steps (such as the Statute of Westminster (1931)), the process not complete until simultaneously both parliaments passed their respective Australia Acts (1986).  The second re-branding would be to call 26 January “Treaty Day” although the actual date is less important than the symbolism of the name and Treaty Day could be nominated as the day on which a treaty between the First Nations and the Commonwealth could be signed.  The trick would be only to name 26 January as the date of the signing, the year a function of whenever the treaty negotiations are complete.  The charm of this approach is the can can be kicked down the road for the foreseeable future.  Any colonial administrator under the Raj would have recognized this fix.

Lunt

Lunt (pronounced luhnt or loont)

(1) A match; the flame used to light a fire.

(2) Smoke or steam, especially smoke from a tobacco pipe.

(3) To emit smoke or steam.

(4) To smoke (historically a pipe, later cigarettes).

(5) To kindle a fire.

(6) To light a pipe, torch, etc.

(7) A match, torch, or port-fire once used for discharging cannon.

(8) The lock and appurtenances of a match-lock gun such as a musket.

(9) In Polish military slang, a cigarette.

1540–1550: From the Dutch lont (match, wick fuse) and related to the Danish & Middle Low German lunte (match, wick), the Old Norse lunta (to emit smoke) and the Swedish lunta (match, fuse).  In dialectical Scots English, lunting was the action of walking while smoking a pipe.  Middle English picked up the meaning of lunta from the Old Norse: "a whiff or puff of smoke" and in Middle English, it evolved into "lunt", again referring to a small quantity or puff of smoke.  In the way English does things, the meaning of "lunt" expanded, coming to be associated with a glowing match or a piece of burning material used to ignite a fire and it came to be used especially of firearms.  In the slang or dialects of several languages, "lunt" evolved to describe the glowing end of a cigar or a pipe and form this to refer to smoking in general although most forms are now archaic.  Lunt is a noun & verb and lunted & lunting are verbs; the noun plural is lunts. 

The place, the name, the road sign

Lunting Lindsay Lohan.

Unrelated to fuses and smoke, there is also the proper noun Lunt which serves both as surname and place-name.  A suggested alternative etymology linking Lunt to grassland never attracted much support.  As a surname, it’s English, but of pre-seventh century Norse-Viking origins; Recorded variously as Lunt, Lund, Lound, Lount and Lynt, it’s locationally associated with one of the various places called Louth, Lund or Lunt in different parts of the north and East Anglia.  These were areas of England under Viking control or influence for several centuries until the Norman Conquest of 1066.

Lunt's street signs are often defaced but a campaign in 2008 to change the name received little support.

The English village of Lunt lies in the parish of Sefton, close to to Liverpool.  Like the surname, the locality name was from the Old Old Norse Lundr or the Old Swedish lunder (grove or copse").  It's thought this was a reference to the remnants of a large ancient forest which substantially still stood when the settlement was founded.  The first known reference to the village dates from the parish records in the Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey, an entry from 1251 mentioning it was known as "de Lund".  The combination of a liveable climate, reliable sources of water and areas of arable land meant the location has long been associated with human habitation, archaeological digs revealing structures from the mesolithic (5800 BC), the indications being the inhabitants were hunter-gatherers.  For a certain sub-set of the population, the signage in Lunt's public spaces to just too tempting and defacement is common.  Those who deface are presumably from the population which which contributes to Urban Dictionary's definitions for the word, many of which, predictably, are used to degrade women, a category which must make up a remarkable percentage of the site's entries.

Facsimile

Facsimile (pronounced fak-sim-uh-lee)

(1) An exact copy of something (most typically a book, painting, or manuscript).

(2) In telecommunications a method, protocol collection or device (ie the “fax” or “fax machine”) for transmitting data which exists in printed form (typically text documents, drawings, photographs et al) by means of radio or telephone for exact reproduction on a compatible device in another place; expressed usually as the clipping “fax”.

(4) An image transmitted by such a method (historically always in paper hard-copy but technically can be a digital file (e-Fax and similar systems).

(4) To reproduce in facsimile; make a facsimile of something (also as a modifier as in facsimile publication or facsimile transmission).

1655–1665: From the earlier fac simile! (make something like it!), the construct being the Latin fac (imperative of facere (to make; to render) (from the primitive Indo-European root dhe- (to set, put in place)) + simile, noun use of the neuter of similis (alike; similar).  In the English-speaking world, the one-word form was almost universal by the early twentieth century; that always used for the adjective which dates from 1877.  In the modern way, other languages tended to use “fax” unaltered from English use as the technology was adopted.  One exception was French where the older form fac-similé (plural fac-similés) was officially preferred even to facsimilé but even there the monosyllabic “fax” usually prevailed.  Facsimile (like fax) is a noun, verb & adjective, facsimiled (or facsimiled) & facsimileing (or facsimiling) are verbs (again, more familiar as faxed & faxing); the noun plural is either facsimiles or facsimilia (and of fax it is faxes).

There are a remarkable number of synonyms for facsimile (in the sense of copy) including copy, carbon copy, likeness, replica, clone, copy, ditto, double, dupe, duplicate, look-alike, mimeo, mirror, print, reduplication, replication & ringer (even “miniature” was often used and understood in context) but such was the influence of the fax machine that for other purposes “facsimile” tends now to be used only in historic reference.  One example of appropriate use was the celebration in 1943 of the 50^th birthday of Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nazi Germany 1938-1945), the highlight of which was a presentation to the minister of a diamond-studded casket containing facsimiles of all the treaties he had signed during (his admittedly busy if not productive) tenure.  When one of his aides remarked that there were only “a few treaties we had not broken”, Ribbentrop was briefly uncertain how to react until he saw “…Hitler’s eyes filled with tears of laughter”.  It was said to be a good party.  The casual dismissiveness towards treaties was shared by most of the Nazi regime, Hermann Göring (1893–1946; prominent Nazi 1923-1945 & Reichsmarschall of Germany 1940-1975) cheerfully gloating when under cross-examination during the Nuremburg Trial (1945-1946) that he regarded treaties as “…just so much toilet paper”.  Like Ribbentrop, he was convicted on all four counts and (planning aggressive war, waging aggressive war, war crimes & crimes against humanity) and sentenced to be hanged.

Facsimile copy of the secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov (Nazi-Soviet) Pact, signed in Moscow 23 August 1939.

The protocol defined (1) the parameters of the two countries respective spheres of interest in parts of Europe, (2) the actual borders of the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania) and (3) the division of Poland.  In the case of Poland, the line of demarcation was essentially the same as the Curzon Line, drawn in 1919 by the UK's foreign secretary Lord Curzon (1859–1925), something which in discussions towards the end of World War II (1939-1645) would cause some embarrassment to British negotiators.

Fax machines are unfashionable though not quite extinct.  For most users, most of the time, the alternatives are better but fax across phone lines did have some real advantages, the most obvious being security; it was just about impossible to intercept a tax message unless one was able physically to tap into the physical copper wires attaching the send & receive devices to the telephone network.  There was also something pleasingly democratic about fax, the low transmission speed (the default for years was 14.4 kbit/s although support for the V34 standard (28.8 & 33.6) became common and digital modems even ran over ISDN at 64 kbit/s) meant just about everyone on the telephone network ran at about the same rate.  Sometimes too, legislation for a while cemented the fax’s place in communications, banks and the real estate industry long fond of the fax because a signature transmitted thus was accepted as evidence in matters of contract law while the electronic version was not (and with good reason).  Cultural factors too made a difference.  Long after their receptionists had switched to using computers and thus eMail and other forms of communications, medical practitioners seemed to be creatures of habit and thought if something wasn’t a fax then it wasn’t real.

Lindsay Lohan, faxed.

Fax as short form of facsimile was wholly unrelated to the original fax which was from the Middle English fax, from the Old English feax (hair, head of hair), from the Proto-West Germanic fahs, from the Proto-Germanic fahsą (hair, mane), from the primitive Indo-European poḱsom (hair (literally “that which is combed, shorn, or plucked”)), from the primitive Indo-European peḱ- (to comb, shear, pluck).  It was cognate with the Dutch vas (headhair), the German Fachs (head-hai”), the Norwegian faks (mane), the Icelandic fax (mane) and the Sanskrit पक्ष्मन् (pákṣman) (eyelash, hair, filament).  The Latin fax (torch, firebrand; fireball, comet; cause of ruin, incitement), from the primitive Indo-European ǵhwehk- (to shine) and cognate with facētus (elegant, fine; courteous, polite; witty, jocose, facetious) and the Lithuanian žvakė (candle) and there’s also a speculative link to the Etruscan word for face (which may also have meant torch).  In English (and apparently Scottish) dialectal use it used to mean “hair of the head” until the late fifteenth century.  The first recorded use as a clipping of facsimile (or in some countries “telefax”) to describe the consumer level telecommunications technology, its output and use is thought to date from 1979 but use as an oral form may slightly have predated this.  However, as a noun, “fax” had been in use by telegraphy engineers since 1948 and the verb in this context dates from at least 1970 although, in oral use it could have a longer history.

Brother FAX1820C fax machine.

Adding to the obsolescence was the switch in many countries away from the sometimes century-old analogue network of copper wires to a digital system, something which was the death knell of many fax machines.  In corporations, where internal PBXs (private branch exchange (also PABX (private automated branch exchange)), had usually provided a translation layer which provided both analogue and digital lines, the fax machines (usually as one of the components of a MFD (multi-function device which handled photocopying, faxing, scanning, OCR (optical character recognition) and sometimes even storage) carried serenely on although the evidence suggested use had diminished sometimes to zero.  Even in homes and small businesses without a PBX, adaptors are available which link a fax machine to a SIP/VoIP (Session Initiation Protocol/Voice over Internet Protocol) account, emulating the analogue original.  Unlike the old and robust telephone system, reliability could be patchy because the performance of the internet tends to bounce around more and (strangely) error correction is a less exact science.  There are more sophisticated solutions but they don’t use existing hardware so costs are higher and the take-up rate has been low, reflecting that most e-mail or other messaging solutions cover the needs of most users at zero or marginal cost.

The Imperial fax machine that never was

In the two decades between 1955-1975 when Chrysler in the US ran Imperial as a separate division rather than a badge to be used for up-market versions built on the corporate full-sized platform (although Imperials in their last generations did revert to such engineering), despite the odd encouraging season, the brand never threatened the dominance of Cadillac in the sector and rarely troubled Ford's Lincoln, the perennial runner-up.  The 1967 & 1968 Imperial range did however offer something truly unique.  The “Mobile Director Package” was available exclusively on the Imperial Crown Coupe and reflected (within the limits of what the available technology and fiscal realism would then permit) what Chrysler thought a company director would most value in an automobile being used as a kind of “office on the move” and it included: an extendable walnut-topped table which could be unfolded over the rear seats, a gooseneck (Tensor brand) high-intensity lamp which could be plugged into the cigarette lighter on either side of the car (in a sign of the times, Imperials had four cigarette lighters installed) and most intriguingly, the front passenger seat could rotate 180° to permit someone comfortably to use the tables and interact with those in the rear.  Unfortunately, the fax machine previewed on the well-publicized prototype didn't make the cut for the production version.  All the publicity material associated with the Mobile Director Package did suggest the rearward-facing seat would likely be occupied by a director’s secretary and as one might imagine, the configuration did preclude her (and those depicted were usually women) using a lap & sash seat-belt but she would always have been in arm’s reach of at least one cigarette lighter so there was that.  The package was available only for those two seasons and in its first years cost US$597.40 (some US$5500 adjusted for 2023 values).  The cost of the option was in 1968 reduced to US$317.60 (some US$2800 adjusted for 2023 values) but that did little to stimulate demand, only 81 buyers of Crown Coupes ticking the box so even if the new safety regulations hadn’t outlawed the idea, it’s doubtful the Mobile Director Package would have appeared on the option list in 1969 when the new (and ultimately doomed) “fuselage” Imperials debuted.

Imperial's advertising always emphasised the "business" aspect of the package but the corporation also circulated a photograph of the table supporting a (presumably magnetic) chessboard and another with a bunch of grapes tumbling seductively.  The latter may have been to suggest the utility of the package when stopping for a picnic with one's secretary.  Once advertising agencies got ideas, they were hard to restrain.    

The advertising copy at the time claimed the package was “designed for the busy executive who must continue his work while he travels”, serving also as “an informal conference lounge”.  The Imperial was a big car (although the previous generations were larger still) but “lounge” was a bit of a stretch but “truth in advertising” laws were then not quite as onerous as they would become.  More accurate were the engineering details, the table able to “pivot to any of four different positions, supported by a sturdy chrome-plated pillar and in the forward position, it can convert into a padded armrest between the two front seats while extended, it opens out to twice its original size with a lever on the table swivel support to permit adjustments to the height”.  It was noted “a special tool is used for removing the table and storing it in the trunk” the unstated implication presumably that in deference to the secretary’s finger-nails, that would be a task for one’s chauffeur.  The US$597.40 the option listed at in 1967 needs to be compared with the others available and only the most elaborate of the air conditioning systems was more expensive.

Imperial option list, 1967.

The package as it appeared in showrooms was actually modest compared with the “Mobile Executive” car the corporation sent around the show circuit in 1966.  That Imperial had been fitted with a telephone, Dictaphone, writing table, typewriter, television, a fax machine, reading lamp and stereophonic sound system.  The 1966 show car was also Crown Coupe but it was much more ambitious, anticipating advances in mobile communications which would unfold over the next quarter century.  At the time, car phones were available (the first service in the US offered during the late 1940s) although they were expensive and the nature of the bandwidth used and the lack of data compression meant that the range was limited as was the capacity; only several dozen calls able simultaneously to be sustained.  In 1966, there was even the novelty of a Datafax, a "facsimile machine" (later to become the ubiquitous "fax") able to send or receive a US Letter-sized (slightly smaller than A4) page of text in six minutes.  That sounds unimpressive in 2023 (or compared even with the 14.4 kbit/s for Group 3 FaxStream services of the 1990s) but the appropriate comparison is with the contemporary alternatives (driving, walking or using the US Mail) and six minutes would have been a considerable advance.  As it was, the tempting equipment awaited improvements in infrastructure such as the analogue networks of the 1980s and later cellular roll-outs and these technologies contributed to the extent of use which delivered the economies of scale which eventually would make possible smart phones.

The 1966 car which toured the show circuit demonstrated the concept which, in simplified form, would the next year appear on the option list but things like telephones and fax machines anticipated the future by many years (although fax machines in cars (Audi one of a handful to offer them) never became a thing).  The Dictaphone did however make the list as one of Chrysler's regular production options (RPO) in the early 1970s and the take-up rate was surprisingly high although the fad quickly passed, dealers reporting the customers saying they worked well but they "never used them".