Contra (pronounced kon-tra)
(1) Against; contrary or opposed to; in opposition or contrast to; against, anti.
(2) An arrangement (usually between companies) whereby they exchange goods and/or services on a basis agreeable to both, often without any exchange of cash.
(3) In politics (sometimes used in a derogatory sense), a conservative; originally tied to Nicaraguan counter-revolutionaries.
(4) In accounting, as contra-entry or contra-account, an entry or account which cancels another entry or account.
(5) In music, an informal term for any of the musical instruments in the contrabass range (contrabassoon, contrabass clarinet or (especially) double bass).
(6) In dance, a type of country dance most identified with the New England region in the US (mostly obsolete).
1350–1400: From the Middle English contra (against, over against, opposite, on the opposite side; on the contrary, contrariwise) from the Latin contrā. The Latin contrā (against) meant originally "in comparison with" and was the ablative singular feminine of com-teros, from the Old Latin com (with, together) + -tr, (zero-degree form of the comparative suffix -ter-). As used as a noun in English, it meant "a thing which is against another" by 1778, an evolution of the earlier sense of "the contrary or opposite" from the 1640s. English also picked up the practice from Late Latin in using contra as a prefix. In French, it became contre- which passed into English as counter-, the Old English equivalent of which was wiðer (which survived in dialectical English as withers and in Scottish as widdershins), from wið (with, against). There was also contraindicate (to indicate the contrary of (a course of treatment, etc)) from the 1660s, an evolution from the 1620s forms contraindicated & contraindication, contra-indicate the rare verb. The use to describe the forces opposed to the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua since 1979 began in 1981, Contra a shortened form of the Spanish contrarrevolucionario (counter-revolutionary). Contra is a noun, verb, adjective & adverb; the noun plural is contras.
The Contras and the Sandinistas
Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) Flag.
The contras were active from 1979 to the early 1990s in opposition to the left-wing government in Nicaragua (the Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction). The term was a short-form of la contrarrevolución (counter-revolution) although there were intellectuals in the movement who disliked the label because they thought it suggested something negative or reactionary. They preferred comandos (commandos) though peasant sympathizers also called the rebels los primos (the cousins), reflecting in many ways the character of the early movement as one of civilian irregulars. In the White House, contra wasn’t greatly favored either and by the mid-1980s, marketing types in the Reagan administration (1981-1989) introduced “democratic resistance” to press conferences though it never caught on outside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Undeterred, by the press’s scepticism towards newspeak, on the ground, the ever-optimistic CIA liaison operatives encouraged use of la resistencia.
National flag of Nicaragua.
Believing the domino theory applied as much to central America as once it had been applied in east Asia, almost from the beginning the contras received military and financial aid from the US. Congress cut the appropriations but the White House continued support with funding provided through a variety of imaginative (and covert) money-making schemes and slush funds which culminated in the Iran-Contra affair (Iran-Contragate), the biggest scandal of the Reagan years. The affair (noted if not openly discussed by the ayatollahs in the Persian ماجرای ایران-کنترا and definitely not by the Contras in the Spanish Caso Irán–Contra) was a back channel CIA (the US Central Intelligence Agency) operation run out of the White House, secretly to sell weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran, then subject to an arms embargo.
The cover story for the operation was the armament shipments were part of an intricate web of deals to free seven American hostages held in Lebanon by the Hezbollah, a paramilitary operation which started as modestly as many others but which would evolve into a something which simultaneously would effectively take over the Lebanese state while acting as the regional proxy of Tehran (or a sub-contractor to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard depending on the interpretation). The story wasn’t entirely untruthful but the administration arranged the first sales prior to the hostages being seized.
In 1985, the administration began a diversion of the profits the Iran operation to the Contras although it’s still not certain the president authorized this, so many of the supporting documents having been destroyed, the lesson of Nixon’s tapes well-learned: If stuff gets burned it can’t become evidence. Within a year the story broke and after many denials about many things, Reagan was forced to appear on nationally television, taking “full responsibility” for the affair, suggesting what began with good diplomatic intensions, ran astray in a classic case of mission creep. A commission was appointed to investigate and concluded no evidence existed to prove the president either knew of or approved the detail of operations. Although several dozen administration officials were indicted and some were convicted, many were overturned on appeal and while a couple served terms of probation, most of the rest were pardoned by President George HW Bush (1924–2018; George XLI, US President 1989-1993) even before coming to trial, some noting the evidence suggested George XLI had his own reasons for not wishing the some matters to be aired in court although whether that included the role the CIA allegedly played in the distribution of crack cocaine in US cities during the 1980s has never been clear.
Supermarine Seafang (1946) with contra-rotating propellers. The Seafang (1946-1947) was powered by the 37-litre (2240 cubic inch) V12 Rolls-Royce Griffon (1941-1955) and was the final evolution of the Spitfire (1938-1948) derived Seafire (1943-1947) and Spiteful (1944), the trio all designed for use on Royal Navy aircraft carriers, the series enjoying success despite the basic design being hampered by the narrow undercarriage which made landings a challenge (something corrected on the Spiteful & Seafang). Series production of the Seafang was contemplated but eventually only 18 were built because the jet-powered de Havilland Sea Vampire (1945-1950) proved capable of carrier operations, surprising some at the Admiralty who doubted the jets could operate from anywhere but land.
Contra-rotating propellers (known also as coaxial contra-rotating propellers) were implemented on some World War II (1939-1945) aircraft to address several aerodynamic and performance challenges associated with the fitting of piston engines developing power well in excess of anything the designers had envisaged. The attraction were many and included reducing the “torque Reaction”, the phenomenon in which the torque generated by a spinning propeller cause an aircraft to yaw in the opposite direction of the propeller's rotation. Pilots had long been trained to counteract this by use of the rudder (especially during take-off and low-speed-flight) but as engine power rose and propeller blades became bigger, heavier and more numerous, the effect greatly was exaggerated. On two or four-engined machines, the obvious solution was to have the blades on each wing rotate in opposite directions but on the most powerful of the single-engined fighters, the two units were mounted one behind the other and this had the benefit also of allowing the rear propeller to recover energy from the swirling airflow (the slipstream) generated by the forward. That allowed designers to harness the greater power without increasing the diameter of the propellers, avoiding issues with ground clearance and supersonic tip speeds (one of the reasons the Soviet Air Force’s swept-wing (unusually in a propeller aircraft) Tupolev Tu-95 (Bear) bomber (in service 1956-1993) was so loud was because the propeller tips exceeded the speed of sound). Had jet technology not emerged when it did, the contra-rotating propellers would have become more common, wartime adoption was limited by the complexity in assembly and additional maintenance demands.