Declarative

Declarative (pronounced dih-klar-uh-tiv)

(1) Serving to declare; having the quality of a declaration; make known, or explain.

(2) Making or having the nature of a declaration.

(3) In the study of learning, acquiring information one can speak about.

(4) In psychology and structural mnemonics, as declarative memory, a type of long-term memory where facts and events are stored (one of two types of long term human memory).

(5) In computing, as declarative statement (or declarative line or declarative code) that which declares a construct.

(6) In computing, as declarative programming, a paradigm in programming where an objective is stated, rather than a mechanism or design.

(7) In formal grammar, a grammatical verb form used in declarative sentences.

1530-1540: From the Middle English declarative (making clear or manifest, explanatory), from the French déclaratif, from the Late Latin dēclārātīvus (explanatory), past participle stem of the Classical Latin declarare (make clear, reveal, disclose, announce), the construct being de- (presumed here to be used as an intensifier) + clarare (clarify) from clarus (clear).  The meaning “making declaration, exhibiting” dates from the 1620s and in the mid-fifteenth century it was in common use as a noun meaning “an explanation”.  In some contexts, declarative is often a synonym of declaration.  The companion adjective enunciative (declarative, declaring something as true) also dates from the early sixteenth century and was from the Latin enunciates (technically enuntiativus), from the past participle stem of enuntiare (to speak out, say, express).  In English, it’s rare compared to declarative (1) because of that form's wide use in documents explaining the rules and conventions of English and (2) because enunciate was captured by the speech therapists and elocution teachers who refused to give it back.  Declarative is a noun & adjective and declaratively an adverb; the noun plural is declaratives.

The Balfour Declaration, 1917.

Published by the newspapers on 9 November 1917, the letter of a week earlier from then UK foreign secretary Arthur Balfour (1848–1930; UK Prime Minister 1902-1905) to British banker and leading Zionist Lord Rothschild (1868–1937), came to be known as the “Balfour Declaration”, a seemingly modest and certainly vague (a quality of expression at which Balfour excelled) text of but three sentences but the implications of that vagueness have for more than a century troubled the world.

It was an example of the power of words.  After half a lifetime in politics immersed in diplomacy and the minutiae of treaties & agreements Balfour knew a “declaration of sympathy” was no more an obligation than “view with favor” was a commitment, personal or political and that one's “best endeavours” meant whatever one at the time decided it meant and that ranged from “doing nothing” to “doing much”.  However, as well as the implications of writers there are also the inferences drawn by readers and to the extend Balfour did descend into illustrative specifics, his text was meaty enough for those who might be affected (and many more besides) to decide for themselves what HMG (His Majesty's Government) had declared and variously, those views have lived on in the collective memory.  In psychology, psychiatry and structural mnemonics, there are three defined types of memory: declarative, semantic & episodic.  Declarative memory (known also as explicit memory) is a type of long-term memory where knowledge & events are stored.  Semantic memory is a sub-category of declarative memory which (1) stores general information such as names and facts and is (2) a system of the brain where logical concepts relating to the outside world are stored.  Episodic memory is a sub-category of declarative memory (1) in which is stored memories of personal experiences tied to particular times and places and (2) is a system of the brain which stores personal memories and the concept of self.  

A gang of four Sceggs, all of whom would speak in the accent known as the “declarative middle-class voice”. Sceggs should not be confused with the homophonic skegs, a feature from shipbuilding.

Although technically only marginally related to declarative as otherwise used in English, as a specific category in studies of social class the “declarative middle-class voice” is an accent taught or honed by private girls’ schools.  Optimized for husband-hunting expeditions, training involves reciting school mottos such as Luceat Lux Vestra (Let your light shine), borrowed by Sydney Church of England Girls’ Grammar (SCEGG) from Matthew 5:16.  Over the Sydney Harbor Bridge, at Abbotsleigh the motto is tempus celerius radio fugit (Time flies faster than a weaver's shuttle), the idea behind that said to be: “As the shuttle flies a pattern is woven, with the threads being the people, buildings and events. The pattern is Abbotsleigh as it continues to grow in complexity and richness each year”.  Quite whether a weaver’s shuttle (said by some detractors to have been chosen as symbolic of the "proper" place of women being in a state of domestic servitude for the convenience of men) is appropriate for a girls’ school in the twenty-first century has been debated.  The motto came from the family crest of Marian Clarke (1853-1933), Abbotsleigh’s first headmistress (principle) and was maintained using the family’s grammatically dubious form tempus fugit radio celerity until 1924 when the correct syntax was substituted.  It’s an urban myth the mistake was permitted to stand until 1924 as a mark of respect while Ms Clarke was alive; she lived a decade odd after the change although the family’s heraldry was apparently never corrected.

One of history's more fateful declarative statements: Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) delivers a speech to members of the Reichstag, declaring war on the United States.  Kroll Opera House, Berlin, 11 December 1941, the US responding the same day with declarations of war against Germany and Italy.  Appearing in this image are a number of the Nazi hierarchy who would (1) later sit together as defendants  in the Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) & (2) be hanged from the same gallows (1946).  Interestingly, although militarily hardly inactive over the last few decades, the declarations of war in June 1942 (essentially a "tidying up exercise" to satisfy legal niceties) against Romania, Bulgaria & Hungary were the last by the US.  From the moment the declaration was made, historians and others have puzzled over Hitler's state of mind, given Germany was under no legal obligation to declare war and his decision meant the wealth and industrial might of the US was suddenly added to the forces opposing the Reich.  Much has been written on the subject exploring the understanding of Hitler, his general & admirals had of the potential of the US rapidly to project military power simultaneously across both the Atlantic and Pacific and there are a variety of thoughts but all can be boiled down to what defence counsel in the 1970s offered as the streaker's defence: "It seemed a good idea at the time".

Hitler addressing the members of the Reichstag, 1939 (left) & 1941 (right), the most obvious difference (at least politically) between the two the presence on the front row (lower left) of Rudolf Hess (1894–1987; Nazi deputy Führer 1933-1941), who in June 1941, on the eve of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, flew to Scotland on a personal mission to negotiate the end of hostilities between Germany & the UK, something that remains one of the more bizarre episodes of World War II (1939-1945) albeit one at the time which became a "nine day wonder" subsumed by larger events and the geopolitics of the time which left the British reluctant to exploit the arrival for propaganda purposes.  By the time war was declared on the US, Hess was some six months into a period of captivity which would last until his death more than forty-five years later although, when Hitler made the fateful declaration, he had been moved from the Tower of London, his fortnight of imprisonment there a distinction much envied by Baldur von Schirach (1907–1974), one of Hess's fellow inmates in Spandau Prison for close to twenty years.  Reserved usually for royalty and those accused of high treason, Hess would be the last prisoner to be held in the Tower of London.  The photograph from 1941 is sometimes confused with one taken from the same angle on 30 January 1939 when Hitler delivered the speech most remembered for his infamous prediction that another world war would ensure "the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe", the relevant passage being:

"I have very often in my lifetime been a prophet and have been mostly derided. At the time of my struggle for power it was in the first instance the Jewish people who only greeted with laughter my prophecies that I would someday take over the leadership of the state and of the entire people of Germany and then, among other things, also bring the Jewish problem to its solution. I believe that this hollow laughter of Jewry in Germany has already stuck in its throat. I want today to be a prophet again: if international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, the result will be not the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". 

The declarative sentence in English

In English grammar, there are four types of sentences:  Declarative, exclamatory, imperative, and interrogatory and the declarative, whether in fiction or non-fiction the declarative is by far the most frequently used.  The declarative sentence is one which makes a statement, provides a fact, offers an explanation, or conveys information.  To be a declarative sentence (also known as a declarative statement), it needs to be in the present tense, usually ends with a period (full-stop) and typically, the subject appears before the verb.  A declarative sentence can also be called an assertive sentence it if asserts something is factual.

In 2005, Lindsay Lohan went for a drive in her Mercedes-Benz SL 65 AMG roadster (left) which didn't end well (centre) but the car was later (right) repaired and at auction attracted an above-average price; that proves all's well that ends well.

There are two types of declarative sentences: the simple and the compound (or elaborated declarative sentence.  A simple declarative sentence consists of only a subject and predicate (Lindsay Lohan is an actor).  A compound declarative sentence usually joins two related phrases with a comma and a conjunction (such as and, yet, or but) but the link can also be provided by a semicolon (a device which continues to litter literary novels but has otherwise much fallen from favor) and can be accompanied by a transition word such as besides, however or therefore, (Lindsay Lohan bought a Mercedes-Benz SL 65 AMG; within weeks she crashed it).  The song 88 lines about 44 women (The Nails, 1981) was illustrative in that although composed essentially as 89 simple declarative sentences, it was performed as 44 compound declarative sentences.  The writer explained the (88 vs 89) discrepancy by saying “Uh-uh, not Kathrine” (nominally “line 49”) was “not a line but an aside”.

88 lines about 44 women by David Kaufman, Douglas Guthrie, George Kaufman & Marc Campbell (1981).

Deborah was a Catholic girl

She held out till the bitter end

Carla was a different type

She's the one who put it in

Mary was a black girl

I was afraid of a girl like that

Suzen painted pictures

Sitting down like a Buddha sat

Reno was a nameless girl

A geographic memory

Cathy was a Jesus freak

She liked that kind of misery

Vicki had a special way

Of turning sex into a song

Kamala, who couldn't sing,

Kept the beat and kept it strong

Zilla was an archetype

The voodoo queen, the queen of wrath

Joan thought men were second best

To masturbating in a bath

Sherry was a feminist

She really had that gift of gab

Kathleen's point of view was this

Take whatever you can grab

Seattle was another girl

Who left her mark upon the map

Karen liked to tie me up

And left me hanging by a strap

Jeannie had a nightclub walk

That made grown men feel underage

Mariella, who had a son

Said I must go, but finally stayed

Gloria, the last taboo

Was shattered by her tongue one night

Mimi brought the taboo back

And held it up before the light

Marilyn, who knew no shame

Was never ever satisfied

Julie came and went so fast

She didn't even say goodbye

Rhonda had a house in Venice

Lived on brown rice and cocaine

Patty had a house in Houston

Shot cough syrup in her veins

Linda thought her life was empty

Filled it up with alcohol

Katherine was much too pretty

She didn't do that shit at all

Uh-uh, not Kathrine

Pauline thought that love was simple

Turn it on and turn it off

Jean-Marie was complicated

Like some French filmmaker's plot

Gina was the perfect lady

Always had her stockings straight

Jackie was a rich punk rocker

Silver spoon and a paper plate

Sarah was a modern dancer

Lean pristine transparency

Janet wrote bad poetry

In a crazy kind of urgency

Tanya Turkish liked to fuck

While wearing leather biker boots

Brenda's strange obsession

Was for certain vegetables and fruit

Rowena was an artist's daughter

The deeper image shook her up

Dee Dee's mother left her father

Took his money and his truck

Debbie Rae had no such problems

Perfect Norman Rockwell home

Nina, 16, had a baby

Left her parents, lived alone

Bobbi joined a New Wave band

Changed her name to Bobbi Sox

Eloise, who played guitar

Sang songs about whales and cops

Terri didn't give a shit

Was just a nihilist

Ronnie was much more my style

Cause she wrote songs just like this

Jezebel went forty days

Drinking nothing but Perrier

Dinah drove her Chevrolet

Into the San Francisco Bay

Judy came from Ohio

She's a Scientologist

Amaranta, here's a kiss

I chose you to end this list

There are also special classes of declarative sentences such as the interrogative sentence which poses a direct question so necessitating a question mark at the end.  (What is your name?).  The imperative sentence delivers an instruction, command, or request and, depending on this and that, will end either in a period or an exclamation mark (thus “Pass me the remote.” or “Shut the fuck up!”).  An exclamatory sentence will almost invariably end with an exclamation mark and if would be only as a deliberate literary device that an author would use an exclamatory sentence without one (and there are critics who insist that without one, it can’t be an exclamatory sentence although one can discern the difference between “I love you!” and “I do love you.”).

Sociolect

Sociolect (pronounced soh-see-uh-lekt (U) or soh-shee-uh-lect (non-U))

In the jargon of sociolinguistics, a variant of a language used by a particular social group (socioeconomic class, an ethnic group, an age group etc); a social dialect.

1970–1975: The construct was socio- + (dia)lect (ie by analogy with dialect, idiolect, etc).  The prefix socio- was from the Latin socius (associated, allied; partner, companion, ally), from the primitive Indo-European sokyo- (companion), from sek- (to follow).  The suffix –lect was adopted from the terminal element of dialect, thus representing the Ancient Greek element -λεκτος (-lektos), ultimately from λέγω (légō) (I say or speak).  The plural was sociolects.

In sociolinguistics, a sociolect is a variation of an established language, distinguished by a non-standard dialect or a re-allocation of meaning to elements of an existing dialect and a restricted or extended register).  Most sociolinguists restrict the definition to language used by a socioeconomic class, ethnic group, age group etc but some (somewhat controversially) include the language sub-sets used almost exclusively by trades or professions; few sociolinguists agree with the latter approach and maintain this language of essentially technical terms should be listed just as jargon.  The other significant difference from most other dialects is that it tends to be social class rather than geographical origin which substantiates the (unique or shared (lexical overlap being a noted feature in this field)) linguistic elements.

Sociolects (the companion term ethnolect is sometimes applied to ethnic-based dialects) as a distinct phenomenon are a recent addition to the field of structural linguistics.  There had long been an interest in dialectial variations which usually emerged organically in specific geographical spaces and tended to evolve and become entrenched in when the mobility of people was limited (although recent research does suggest this effect was over-stated) but what began in the late 1960s was the distinct branch of dialectology, the study of different dialects in relation to social society.  Unlike the dialects which began and became associated with a particular geographical space, the idea of the sociolect was of a speech which conforms to a social group identity, based usually on age or ethnicity and greatly influenced by socio-economic status.  That sounded environmentally deterministic and at the time that was probably true but what later emerged, especially as new technologies permitted an essentially instantaneous dissemination of popular culture to an increasing number of the global population, the earlier sociolinguistic view that patterns of speech are learned from the surrounding community was modified: people could now mix & match, picking community with which they wished to be associated and adopting their linguistic traits.

One of the best known of the genre is Ebonics (the construct a portmanteau of ebony + phonics), a word re-purposed in the early 1970s by a group of African-American academics, headed by a psychologist, Professor Robert Lee Williams II (1930–2020).  Originally, linguistic anthropologists used Ebonics to refer to the forms of English-based languages used by all those descended from black African slaves, particularly those brought from West Africa to the Caribbean and North America.  For generations, scholars had regarded these variations from Standard English as inferior and essentially a form for the “uneducated” and the assertion of a redefined Ebonics was a reaction to the negative connotations which had long pervaded academia.  It proved of some interest to those working in structural linguistics but within the community of black academics (who turned out to be as diverse and disparate in their opinions as academics of any race), it was a controversial topic because of the view that whatever the merits in recognizing that all dialectical forms (and structurally, in a sense, Standard English was just one of many) deserved to be recognized as equally valid forks, there was the recognition that the use and mastery of the standard forms was a fundamental necessity for social advancement and economic empowerment.

A Clockwork Orange (1962) by Anthony Burgess, first edition, signed by the author, AU$18,975.08 on eBay.

Neither widely embraced by the linguistic community nor recognized by most lexicographers (although dictionaries in the era were still substantially in print and acceptance did take longer, mistakes in static documents impossible to correct), Ebonics for years remained little-known outside universities although some police departments did use the word, providing printed guides of phrases used (uniquely it was said) by African-Americans to communicate among themselves while concealing the meaning from outsiders who might be listening.  These phrases used words from the vocabulary of Standard English but with a different grammar and sometimes a re-allocation of meaning.  In this it differed from Nadsat, the argot or fictional register invented by Anthony Burgess (1917-1993) for the droogs in A Clockwork Orange (1962), where the words, although often derived from English, were barely if at all unrecognizable.

It was in 1996 Ebonics became widely known in the US.  The Oakland School Board, apparently in an attempt to gain additional funding for the teaching of English to those for whom it was not a first language, listed Ebonics as the primary language of the substantial number of their African-American pupils.  The use of the term seems to have been an attempt to add some academic gloss or gain political favor because the alternative term “African American English”, had been in use for some years and technically, meant the same thing although there may have been the feeling Ebonics carried a favorable political loading.  The board’s view was interpreted as a recognition there was in some senses a separate community of African Americans and to enable them to operate in both cultures it was desirable for them to learn Standard (American) English so they might use both depending on the circumstances, a process called "code switching".

A roaming pack of valley girls.

Valleyspeak (sometimes shortened to Valspeak) was another interesting form.  It was a socially-specific dialect associated with the stereotypical white, materialistic, upper middle-class, teen-aged girl (hence “valley-girl” being the archetype) in southern California circa 1980-1987, characterised by the adoption (and sometimes re-purposing) of existing words and phrases, delivered with an exaggerated inflection.  Elements of Valleyspeak spread to other demographics and for a certain period in the 1980s and 1990s, it was something of a fad with a peak period from around 1981 to 1985 although some of it has endured in words and phrases now part of much mainstream speech.  The use of “like” as a discourse marker and “whatever”, deployed to covey general dismissiveness have become endemic and “uptalk” or “upspeak” (technically the “high rising terminal” (HRT) or “high rising intonation” (HRI), where declarative sentences can end with a rising pitch similar to that once associated only with yes/no questions) seems to have been infectious in younger, less educated demographics.  The source of the term Valleyspeak is said to have been Frank Zappa’s (1940-1993) parody music single Valley Girl (1982) in which, behind the music, his teenage daughter Moon Unit Zappa (1967), delivered a monologue in what would come to be known as Valleyspeak.  The form was subsequently spread and popularized by US pop-culture, especially film and television.  Valleyspeak includes:

Like = um.
Whatever = dismissively, whatever you say.
Totally = I agree.
As if = unlikely, impossible.
Oh my God = amazing, shocked.
So = very.
Fer shur (for sure) = certainly.
Bitchin’ = excellent.
Filth = excellent.
Gag Me = ick.
Gag me with a spoon = super ick.
Awesome = awesome.
I know, right? = agree.
Grody = somewhat gross.
Gross = disgusting.
Bogus = untrustworthy, sketchy.
Barf out! = An exclamation of encountering something grody.
For sure = absolutely.
Dork = someone uncool & clueless.
Hunk = attractive male.
Spaz = someone clumsy.
To the max = extreme adjective.
Excellent! = excellent.
No way = I don’t believe it, dude.
Yes way = believe it, dude (in response to ‘no way’).
Humongous = very large, bigger than huge.
Humongoid = humongous.
Heinous = ugly.
Nice = an ironic judgement.

Moon Unit Zappa, Valley Girl (1982)

Renegade

Renegade (pronounced ren-i-geyd)

(1) A person who deserts a party or cause for another; an outlaw or rebel.

(2) An apostate from a religious faith, often used as a modifier (renegade priest).

(3) Of, pertaining to or like a renegade; traitorous.

1575–1585: From the Spanish renegado, from the Medieval Latin renegātus, noun use of the past participle of renegāre (to desert, renege; to renounce), the construct being re- + neg- (the base of negāre (to deny) + -ātus.  The Latin prefix rĕ- was from the Proto-Italic wre (again) and had a parallel in the Umbrian re- but the etymology was always murky.   In use, there was usually at least the hint of the sense "back" or "backwards" but so widely was in used in Classical Latin and beyond that the exact meaning is sometimes not clear.  Etymologists suggest the origin lies either in (1) a metathesis (the transposition of sounds or letters in a word) of the primitive Indo-European wert- (to turn) or (2) the primitive Indo-European ure- (back), which was related to the Proto-Slavic rakъ (in the sense of “looking backwards”).  The Latin suffix -ātus was from the Proto-Italic -ātos, from the primitive Indo-European -ehtos.  It’s regarded as a "pseudo-participle" and perhaps related to –tus although though similar formations in other Indo-European languages indicate it was distinct from it already in early Indo-European times.  It was cognate with the Proto-Slavic –atъ and the Proto-Germanic -ōdaz (the English form being -ed (having).  The feminine form was –āta, the neuter –ātum and it was used to form adjectives from nouns indicating the possession of a thing or a quality.  Renegade is a noun & verb, renegadism is a noun and renegraded & renegrading are verbs; the noun plural is plural renegades.  The adjective renegadeish is non-standard.

Renegade tends now to be most used of political or religious (there can be overlap between those) separatists but the word has a long history of use in just about any context including philosophy, organized crime (dissidents there no more tolerated than in churches) and sport (renegade leagues and competitions common for more than a century).  Depending on the context and tradition, related or synonymous words include reactionary, defector, deserter, dissenter, dissident, heretic, insurgent, mutineer, traitor, apostate, heretic, turncoat, backstabber, rat, two-timer, backslider, outlaw, radical, rebel, recreant, revolutionary, runaway, betrayer, double-crosser, escapee & exile.  Renegade is a noun & verb, renegader is a noun and renegaded is a verb; the noun plural is renegades.

Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and his renegade province

Circa 1933 Chinese propaganda poster featuring a portrait of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (Chiang Chung-cheng).  Set in an oval frame below flags alongside stylized Chinese lettering, the generalissimo is depicted wearing his ceremonial full-dress uniform with decorations.

Ever since Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (1887-1975; leader of the Republic of China (mainland) 1928-1949 & the renegade province of Taiwan 1949-1975) in 1949 fled mainland China, settling on and assuming control of the island of Taiwan, the status of the place has been contested, most dramatically in the incidents which flare up occasionally in the in the straits between the island and the mainland, remembered as the First (1954–1955), Second (1958) and Third (1995-1996) Taiwan Strait Crises which, although sometimes in retrospect treated as sabre rattling or what Mr Hun Sen (b 1952; Cambodian prime-minister since 1985) might have called “the boys letting off steam”, were at the time serious incidents, each with the potential to escalate into something worse.  Strategically, the first two crises were interesting studies in Cold War politics, the two sides at one stage exchanging information about when and where their shelling would be aimed, permitting troops to be withdrawn from the relevant areas on the day.  Better to facilitate administrative arrangements, each side’s shelling took place on alternate days, satisfying honor on both sides.  The other landmark incident was China’s seat at the United Nations (UN), held by the Republic of China (ROC) (Taiwan) between 1945-1971 and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (the mainland) since.

Jiefang Taiwan, xiaomie Jiangzei canyu (Liberate Taiwan, and wipe out the remnants of the bandit Chiang) by Yang Keyang (楊可楊) and Zhao Yannian (趙延年).  

A 1954 PRC propaganda poster printed as part of anti-Taiwan campaign during first Taiwan Strait Crisis (1954-1955),  Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek depicted as a scarecrow erected on Taiwan by the US government and military. Note the color of the generalissimo’s cracked and disfigured head (tied to a pole) and the similarity to the color of the American also shown.  The artists have included some of the accoutrements often associated with Chiang’s uniforms: white gloves, boots and a ceremonial sword.  The relationship between Chiang and the leaders of PRC who defeated his army, Chairman Mao (Mao Zedong. 1893–1976; paramount leader of PRC 1949-1976) and Zhou Enlai (1898–1976; PRC premier 1949-1976) was interesting.  Even after decades of defiance in his renegade province, Mao and Zhou still referred to him, apparently genuinely, as “our friend”, an expression which surprised both Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) and Henry Kissinger (b 1923; US national security advisor 1969-1973 & secretary of state 1973-1977) who met the chairman and premier during their historic mission to Peking in 1972.

Note that the weapon depicted in this poster is neither a genuine Russian AK 47 or a Chinese copy.  It is (with a little artistic license) a Chinese Type 50 sub-machine gun, based on the PPSh 41 produced in the USSR.  As with many guns of the era rushed into wartime production, the PPSh 41 was constructed with heavy gauge steel, welded, pinned and brazed as functionally required, the fit and finish not to a high standard.  Despite the compromises, it was a robust and effective battlefield weapon, offering a high rate of fire, was accurate by the standards of its type and, importantly, single rounds could be fired.  One distinctive feature was the front end of the perforated barrel casing sloped steeply backward from top to bottom, thus acting as a compensator to keep the muzzle down.  Comrade Stalin supplied many PPSh 41s to the Chinese Communists and local manufacture at scale began in 1950.  The Chinese version used a lighter stock and differed in that it could use either a curved box magazine or the drum which was the standard magazine on the original.  If the finish on the early Soviet guns had been a little rough, those which came out of the often improvised Chinese factories were crude indeed.  Still, they shot straight and didn’t jam, proving their effectiveness in the Korean War and later against the French in Indo-China.

A toast: Comrade Chairman Mao Zedong (left) and  Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (right), celebrating the Japanese surrender, Chongqing, China, September 1945.  After this visit, they would never meet again.

Most people, apparently even within the PRC, casually refer to the place as “Taiwan” but state and non-governmental entities, anxious not to upset Beijing, use a variety of terms including “Chinese Taipei” (the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA, the International Federation of Association Football) & its continental confederations (AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, OFC and UEFA)), “Taiwan District” (the World Bank) and “Taiwan Province of China” (the International Monetary Fund (IMF)).  Taiwan’s government uses an almost declarative “Republic of China” which is the name adopted for China after the fall of the Qing dynasty and used between 1912-1949 and even “Chinese Taipai” isn’t without controversy, “Taipei” being the Taiwanese spelling whereas Beijing prefers “Taibei,” the spelling used in the mainland’s Pinyin system.  There have been variations on those themes and there’s also the mysterious “Formosa”, use of which persisted in the English-speaking world well into the twentieth century, despite the Republic of Formosa existing on the island of Taiwan for only a few months in 1895.  The origin of the name Formosa lies in the island in 1542 being named Ilha Formosa (beautiful island) by Portuguese sailors who had noticed it didn’t appear on their charts.  From there, most admiralties in Europe and the English-speaking world updated their charts, use of Formosa not fading until the 1970s.

All that history is well-known, if sometimes subject to differing interpretations but some mystery surrounds the term “renegade province”, used in recent years with such frequency that a general perception seems to have formed that it’s Beijing’s official (or at least preferred) description of the recalcitrant island.  That it’s certainly not but in both the popular-press and specialist journals, the phrase “renegade province” is habitually used to describe Beijing’s views of Taiwan.  Given that Beijing actually calls Taiwan the “Taiwan Province” (sometimes styled as “Taiwan District” but there seems no substantive difference in meaning) and has explicitly maintained it reserves the right to reclaim the territory (by use of military invasion if need be), it’s certainly not unreasonable to assume that does reflect the politburo's view but within the PRC, “renegade province” is so rare (in Chinese or English) as to be effectively non-existent, the reason said to be that rather than a renegade, the island is thought of as a province pretending to be independent; delusional rather than defiant.  The idea of a territory being a “renegade province” can be of great political, psychological (and ultimately military) significance.  The core justification used by Mr Putin (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) when explaining why his “special military operation” against Ukraine in 2022 was not an “invasion” or “war of aggression” (he probably concedes it may be a “state of armed conflict”) was that he denied Ukraine was a sovereign, independent state and that Volodymyr Zelenskyy (b 1978, president of Ukraine since 2019) was not a legitimate president.  In other words, Ukraine is merely a region of the modern Russia in something of the way it was once one of the 15 constituent SSRs (Soviet Socialist Republic) of the Soviet Union.  Although the Kremlin doesn’t use the phrase, in Mr Putin’s world view, Ukraine is a renegade province and he likely believes that applies also to the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia) and possibly other former SSRs.  Lake many, the CCP is watching events in Ukraine with great interest and, as recent “exercises” seem to suggest the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) have sufficiently honed their techniques to execute either a blockade (which would be an “act of war”) or a “quarantine” (which would not), the attention of Western analysts is now focused on the hardly secret training being undertaken to perfect what’s needed for the triphibious operations demanded by a full-scale invasion.  The US think-tanks which think much about this possibility have suggested “some time” in 2027 as the likely point at which the military high command would assure the CCP’s central committee such a thing is possible.  What will happen will then depend upon (1) the state of things in the PRC and (2) the CCP’s assessment of how the long-term “strategic ambiguity” of Washington would manifest were an attempt made to finish the “unfinished business” of 1949.

The puppet and the renegade.

Park Chung Hee (1917–1979; president of RoK (Republic of Korea; South Korea) 1962-1979) (left) and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (1887-1975; leader of the Republic of China (mainland) 1928-1949 & the renegade province of Taiwan 1949-1975) (right), Taipei Songshan Airport, Taiwan, February, 1966.  The occasion was President Park's four day state visit.  Kim Il-Sung (Kim I, 1912–1994; Great Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1948-1994), Kim Jong-Il (Kim II, 1941-2011; Dear Leader of DPRK 1994-2011) & Kim Jong-Un (Kim III, b 1982; Supreme Leader of DPRK since 2011) have all damned the RoK as a “puppet state” while in Beijing, the CCP regards Taiwan as a “renegade province”.

What does frequently appear in commentaries on the Taiwan province published in the PRC are quotation marks.  Any article in the PRC which alludes to Taiwan using anything from the lexicon of sovereignty, independence or democracy is likely to be ridiculed by an escort of inverted commas hence: “president”. “candidate”, “election”, “democracy” etc.  According to PR state media, the Taiwan province does not have a “president” or a “government”, the place merely has a “leader of the Taiwanese Authorities” which it defines as “the administrative department currently controlling China’s Taiwan District.”  Sometimes the state media refers to the place as an island but whether this is intended as a slight or just a geographical term depends on the contest of the piece in which it appears.  Calling Taiwan an island seemingly has no hidden meaning and Beijing anyway doesn’t bother with subtlety in this matter: when they wish to bang the drums, they’ll toss in something like “the illegitimate president”.

Researchers have looked into the matter when the phrase “renegade province” was first used in English when describing Taiwan.  There may be older or more obscure material which isn’t indexed or hasn’t been digitized but of that which can be searched, the first reference appears to be in a US literary journal from 1973 (which, it later transpired, received secret funding from the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)).  It took a while to catch on but, appearing first in the New York Times in 1982, became a favorite during the Reagan years (1981-1989) and had been part of the standard language of commentary since.  Diplomats, aware of Beijing's views on the matter, tend to avoid the phrase.

Signs of the times.  The Tiananmen (天安门), the Gate of Heaven-Sent Pacification, Beijing, in the 1930s (left) with the generalissimo's portrait and in the 1980s (right) with the late chairman's.

Students of international relations understand that for all sorts of reasons abstractions like “right” and “wrong” do intrude on their field and such discussions need to be handled politely which can be time-consuming and to make things more tiresome still, what’s said to be “right” and “wrong” can shift.  For that reason the position the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has since 1949 maintained in the matter of Taiwan is welcome model of the consistency.  According to the CCP, there is no such thing as a “renegade province”, the government in Beijing adhering to the “One-China” principle and resolute in opposition to any form of “independence” for Taiwan; this extends to “separatist activities” which stop short of independence.  Since 1997, when Hong Kong was restored to Chinese sovereignty, Beijing’s official position has been that the “One Country, Two Systems” model is appropriate for a complete reunification of the motherland, this being a “general trend” which represents the common aspiration “of all Chinese sons and daughters”.  Attempts to split the country are against the will of the people and are doomed to fail.  Under the One China Policy, Taiwan is an inalienable part of China and the island is the “Taiwan region of China”, something which emphasizes compatriots on both sides of the strait are members of the Chinese nation, jointly committed to the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.  The CCP’s policy remains the complete reunification of the motherland through peaceful means and rather than labeling the Taiwan administration in confrontational terms, the goal is to foster mutual understanding and cooperation for the shared future of the Chinese nation.

Jeep, now a division of the multi-national corporation Stellantis, has used Renegade either as a model name or an option pack since 1970, applied always to their sub-compact, compact or midrange consumer 4x4s.  The Jeep Renegade has for some years been on sale in the renegade province of Taiwan and no market resistance to the name has been reported.

Jeep Renegade sales in PRC 2016-2021.

BeiBao Lindsay Lohan spare wheel & tyre cover for Jeep Renegade.

Jeep also sell the Renegade (manufactured locally in Guangzhou City in southern Guangdong Province) in the PRC and although sales have in recent years declined, analysts report this is due to prevailing market conditions (government credit and other policies, COVID-19, increased competition etc), the Renegade name appearing not to influence sales performance for better or worse.

Defiant

Defiant (pronounced dih-fahy-uhnt)

Characterized by defiance or a willingness to defy; boldly resistant or challenging.

1830s: From the French défiant, from the Old French, present participle of the verb défier (to challenge, defy, provoke), the construct thus def(y) + “i” + -ant.  Defy dates from the mid thirteenth century and was from the Middle English defien, from the Old French desfier, from the Vulgar Latin disfidare (renounce one's faith), the construct being dis- (away) + fidus (faithful).  The construct in French was thus des- (in the sense of negation) + fier (to trust), (from the Vulgar Latin fīdāre, from the Classical Latin fīdere (fidelity),  In the fourteenth century, the meaning shifted from “be disloyal” to “challenge”.  The suffix –ant was from the Middle English –ant & -aunt, partly from the Old French -ant, from Latin -āns; and partly (in adjectival derivations) a continuation of the use of the Middle English -ant, a variant of -and, -end, from the Old English -ende ( the present participle ending).  Extensively used in the sciences (especially medicine and pathology), the agent noun was derived from verb.  It was used to create adjectives (1) corresponding to a noun in -ance, having the sense of "exhibiting (the condition or process described by the noun)" and (2) derived from a verb, having the senses of: (2a) "doing (the verbal action)", and/or (2b) "prone/tending to do (the verbal action)".  In English, many of the words to which –ant was appended were not coined in English but borrowed from the Old French, Middle French or Modern French.  The negative adjectival forms are non-defiant & undefiant although there is a kind of middle ground described by quasi-defiant, semi-defiant & half-defiant, the latter three sometimes used in military conflicts where, for whatever reason, it’s been necessary (or at least desirable) for a force to offer a “token resistance” prior to an inevitable defeat.  The adjective over-defiant refers to a resistance or recalcitrance, the extent or duration of which is not justified by the circumstances; in such cases the comparative is “more defiant” and the superlative “most defiant”.  Defiant is a noun & adjective, defiantness is a noun and defiantly is an adverb; the noun plural is defiants.

Defiance in politics: use with caution

The commonly used synonyms include rebellious, direful, truculent, insolent, rebellious, recalcitrant, refractory, contumacious & insubordinate but in diplomacy, such words must be chosen with care because what is one context may be a compliment, in another it may be a slight.  This was in 1993 discovered by Paul Keating (b 1944; Prime Minister of Australia 1991-1996) who labelled Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad (b 1925; prime minister of Malaysia 1981-2003 & 2018-2020) one of the “recalcitrant” when the latter declined to attend a summit meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).  For historic reasons, Dr Mahathir was sensitive to the memories of the imperialist oppressors telling colonized people what to do and interpreted Mr Keating’s phrase as a suggestion he should be more obedient (the most commonly used antonym of defiant, the others including obedient & submissive).  Things could quickly have been resolved (Dr Mahathir of the “forgive but not forget” school of IR (international relations)) but, unfortunately, Mr Keating was brought up in the gut-wrenching “never apologize” tradition of the right-wing of the New South Wales (NSW) Labor Party so what could have been handled as a clumsy linguistic gaffe was allowed to drag on.

Circa 1933 Chinese propaganda poster featuring a portrait of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (Chiang Chung-cheng).  Set in an oval frame below flags alongside stylized Chinese lettering, the generalissimo is depicted wearing his ceremonial full-dress uniform with decorations.

The admission an opponent is being “defiant” must also sometimes be left unsaid.  Ever since Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (1887-1975; leader of the Republic of China (mainland) 1928-1949 & the renegade province of Taiwan 1949-1975) in 1949 fled mainland China, settling on and assuming control of the island of Taiwan, the status of the place has been contested, most dramatically in the incidents which flare up occasionally in the in the straits between the island and the mainland, remembered as the First (1954–1955), Second (1958) and Third (1995-1996) Taiwan Strait Crises which, although sometimes in retrospect treated as sabre rattling or what Hun Sen (b 1952; prime minister (in one form or another) 1985-2023) might have called “the boys letting off steam”, were at the time serious incidents, each with the potential to escalate into something worse.  Strategically, the first two crises were interesting studies in Cold War politics, the two sides at one stage exchanging information about when and where their shelling would be aimed, permitting troops to be withdrawn from the relevant areas on the day.  Better to facilitate administrative arrangements, each side’s shelling took place on alternate days, satisfying honor on both sides.  The other landmark incident was China’s seat at the United Nations (UN), held by the Republic of China (ROC) (Taiwan) between 1945-1971 and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (the mainland) since.

Jiefang Taiwan, xiaomie Jiangzei canyu (Liberate Taiwan, and wipe out the remnants of the bandit Chiang) by Yang Keyang (楊可楊) and Zhao Yannian (趙延年). 

A 1954 PRC propaganda poster printed as part of anti-Taiwan campaign during first Taiwan Strait Crisis (1954-1955), Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek depicted as a scarecrow erected on Taiwan by the US government and military. Note the color of the generalissimo’s cracked and disfigured head (tied to a pole) and the similarity to the color of the American also shown.  The artists have included some of the accoutrements often associated with Chiang’s uniforms: white gloves, boots and a ceremonial sword.  The relationship between Chiang and the leaders of PRC who defeated his army, Chairman Mao (Mao Zedong. 1893–1976; paramount leader of PRC 1949-1976) and Zhou Enlai (1898–1976; PRC premier 1949-1976) was interesting.  Even after decades of defiance in his renegade province, Mao and Zhou still referred to him, apparently genuinely, as “our friend”, an expression which surprised both Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) and Henry Kissinger (b 1923; US national security advisor 1969-1973 & secretary of state 1973-1977) who met the chairman and premier during their historic mission to Peking in 1972.

A toast: Comrade Chairman Mao Zedong (left) and  Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (right), celebrating the Japanese surrender, Chongqing, China, September 1945.  After this visit, they would never meet again.

Most people, apparently even within the PRC, casually refer to the place as “Taiwan” but state and non-governmental entities, anxious not to upset Beijing, use a variety of terms including “Chinese Taipei” (the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA, the International Federation of Association Football) & its continental confederations (AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, OFC and UEFA)), “Taiwan District” (the World Bank) and “Taiwan Province of China” (the International Monetary Fund (IMF)).  Taiwan’s government uses an almost declarative “Republic of China” which is the name adopted for China after the fall of the Qing dynasty and used between 1912-1949 and even “Chinese Taipai” isn’t without controversy, “Taipei” being the Taiwanese spelling whereas Beijing prefers “Taibei,” the spelling used in the mainland’s Pinyin system.  There have been variations on those themes and there’s also the mysterious “Formosa”, use of which persisted in the English-speaking world well into the twentieth century, despite the Republic of Formosa existing on the island of Taiwan for only a few months in 1895.  The origin of the name Formosa lies in the island in 1542 being named Ilha Formosa (beautiful island) by Portuguese sailors who had noticed it didn’t appear on their charts.  From there, most admiralties in Europe and the English-speaking world updated their charts, use of Formosa not fading until the 1970s.

All that history is well-known, if sometimes subject to differing interpretations but some mystery surrounds the term “renegade province”, used in recent years with such frequency that a general perception seems to have formed that it’s Beijing’s official (or at least preferred) description of the recalcitrant island.  That it’s certainly not but in both the popular-press and specialist journals, the phrase “renegade province” is habitually used to describe Beijing’s views of Taiwan.  Given that Beijing actually calls Taiwan the “Taiwan Province” (sometimes styled as “Taiwan District” but there seems no substantive difference in meaning) and has explicitly maintained it reserves the right to reclaim the territory (by use of military invasion if need be), it’s certainly not unreasonable to assume that does reflect the politburo's view but within the PRC, “renegade province” is so rare (in Chinese or English) as to be effectively non-existent, the reason said to be that rather than a renegade, the island is thought of as a province pretending to be independent; delusional rather than defiant.  Researchers have looked into the matter when the phrase “renegade province” was first used in English when describing Taiwan.  There may be older or more obscure material which isn’t indexed or hasn’t been digitized but of that which can be searched, the first reference appears to be in a US literary journal from 1973 (which, it later transpired, received secret funding from the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)).  It took a while to catch on but, appearing first in the New York Times in 1982, became a favorite during the administration of Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989) and has been part of the standard language of commentary since.  Diplomats, aware of Beijing's views on the matter, tend to avoid the phrase, maintaining the “delusional rather than defiant” line.

Picture of defiance: Official State Portrait of Vladimir Putin (2002), oil on canvas by Igor Babailov (b 1965).

The idea of a territory being a “renegade province” can be of great political, psychological (and ultimately military) significance.  The core justification used by Mr Putin (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) when explaining why his “special military operation” against Ukraine in 2022 was not an “invasion” or “war of aggression” (he probably concedes it may be a “state of armed conflict”) was that he denied Ukraine was a sovereign, independent state and that Volodymyr Zelenskyy (b 1978, president of Ukraine since 2019) was not a legitimate president.  In other words, Ukraine is merely a region of the modern Russia in something of the way it was once one of the 15 constituent SSRs (Soviet Socialist Republic) of the Soviet Union.  Although the Kremlin doesn’t use the phrase, in Mr Putin’s world view, Ukraine is a renegade province and he likely believes that applies also to the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia) and possibly other former SSRs.  Lake many, the CCP is watching events in Ukraine with great interest and, as recent “exercises” seem to suggest the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) have sufficiently honed their techniques to execute either a blockade (which would be an “act of war”) or a “quarantine” (which would not), the attention of Western analysts is now focused on the hardly secret training being undertaken to perfect what’s needed for the triphibious operations demanded by a full-scale invasion.  The US think-tanks which think much about this possibility have suggested “some time” in 2027 as the likely point at which the military high command would assure the CCP’s central committee such a thing is possible.  What will happen will then depend upon (1) the state of things in the PRC and (2) the CCP’s assessment of how the long-term “strategic ambiguity” of Washington would manifest were an attempt made to finish the “unfinished business” of 1949.

Lindsay Lohan, who has lived a life of defiance.

The objectification of women’s body parts has of course been a theme in Western culture since at least Antiquity but rarely can as much attention been devoted to a single fingernail as the one photographed on Lindsay Lohan’s hand in July 2010 (during her “troubled starlet” phase).  The text printed on the fingernail was sufficiently explicit not to need a academic deconstruction of its alleged meaning, given image was taken when she sitting in court listening to a judge sentence her for one of her many transgressions; the consensus was the text was there to send a “defiant message” the internet’s collective conclusion (which wasn’t restricted to entertainment and celebrity sites) presumably reinforced by the nail being on the middle finger.  Ms Lohan admitted to fining this perplexing, tweeting on X (then known as Twitter) it was merely a manicure and had “…nothing to do w/court, it's an airbrush design from a stencil.”  So, rather than digital defiance, it was fashion.  Attributing a motif of defiance to Ms Lohan wasn’t unusual during “troubled starlet” phase, one site assessing a chronological montage of her famous mug shots before concluding with each successive shot, “Lindsay's face becomes more defiant — a young woman hardening herself against a world that had turned her into a punch-line”.

The Bolton-Paul Defiant (1939-1943)

The Parthian shot was a military tactic, used by mounted cavalry and made famous by the Parthians, an ancient people of the Persian lands (the modern-day Islamic Republic of Iran since 1979).  While in real or feigned retreat on horseback, the Parthian archers would, in full gallop, turn their bodies backward to shoot at the pursuing enemy.  This demanded both fine equestrian skills (a soldier’ hands occupied by his bows & arrows) and great confidence in one's mount, something gained only by time spent between man & beast.  To make the achievement more admirable still, the Parthians used neither stirrups nor spurs, relying solely on pressure from their legs to guide and control their galloping mounts and, with varying degrees of success, the tactic was adopted by many mounted military formations of the era including the Scythians, Huns, Turks, Magyars, and Mongols.  The Parthian Empire existed between 247 BC–224 AD.  The Royal Air Force (RAF) tried a variation of the Parthian shot with Bolton-Paul Defiant, a single-engined fighter and Battle of Britain contemporary of the better remembered Spitfire and Hurricane.  Uniquely, the Defiant had no forward-firing armaments, all its firepower being concentrated in four .303 machine guns in a turret behind the pilot.  The theory behind the design dates from the 1930s when the latest multi-engined monoplane bombers were much faster than contemporary single-engined biplane fighters then in service. The RAF considered its new generation of heavily-armed bombers would be able to penetrate enemy airspace and defend themselves without a fighter escort and this of course implied enemy bombers would similarly be able to penetrate British airspace with some degree of impunity.

Bolton-Paul Defiant.

By 1935, the concept of a turret-armed fighter emerged.  The RAF anticipated having to defend the British Isles against massed formations of unescorted enemy bombers and, in theory, turret-armed fighters would be able approach formations from below or from the side and coordinate their fire.  In design terms, it was a return to what often was done early in the World War I, though that had been technologically deterministic, it being then quite an engineering challenge to produce reliable and safe (in the sense of not damaging the craft's own propeller) forward-firing guns.  Deployed not as intended, but as a fighter used against escorted bombers, the Defiant enjoyed considerable early success, essentially because at attack-range, it appeared to be a Hurricane and the German fighter pilots were of course tempted attack from above and behind, the classic hunter's tactic.  They were course met by the the Defiant's formidable battery.  However, the Luftwaffe learned quickly, unlike the RAF which for too long persisted with their pre-war formations which were neat and precise but also excellent targets.  Soon the vulnerability of the Defiant resulted in losses so heavy its deployment was unsustainable and it was withdrawn from front-line combat.  It did though subsequently proved a useful stop-gap as a night-fighter and provided the RAF with an effective means of combating night bombing until aircraft designed for the purpose entered service.

The Trump class "battleships"

In a surprise announcement, the Pentagon announced the impending construction of a “new battleship class” the first of the line (USS Defiant) to be the US Navy’s “largest surface combatant built since World War II [1939-1945]”.  The initial plans call for a pair to be launched with a long-term goal of as many as two dozen with construction to begin in 2030.  Intriguingly, Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) revealed that while the Department of Defense’s (it’s also now the Department of War) naval architects would “lead the design”, he personally would be involved “…because I’m a very aesthetic person.”  That may sound a strange imperative when designing something as starkly functional as a warship but in navies everywhere there’s a long tradition of “the beautiful ship” and the design language still in use, although much modified, is recognizably what it was more than a century earlier.  The Secretary of the Navy certainly stayed on-message, announcing the USS Defiant would be “…the largest, deadliest and most versatile and best-looking warship anywhere on the world’s oceans”, adding that components for the project would “be made in every state.”  It won't however be the widest because quirk of ship design in the US Navy is that warships tend to be limited to a beam (width) of around 33 metres (108 feet) because that’s the limit for vessels able to pass through the Panama Canal.

Depiction of Trump class USS Defiant issued by the US Navy, December, 2025.

By comparison with the existing surface fleet the 35,000 ton Defiant will be impressively large although, by historic standards, the largest (non-carrier) surface combatants now in service are of modest dimensions and displacement.  The largest now afloat are the 15,000-ton Zumwalt class destroyers (which really seem to be cruisers) while the 10,000 ton Ticonderoga class cruisers (which really are destroyers) are more numerous.  So, even the Defiant will seem small compared with the twentieth century Dreadnoughts (which became a generic term for “biggest battleship”), the US Iowa class displacing 60,000 ton at their heaviest while the Japanese Yamato-class weighted-in at 72,000.  Even those behemoths would have been dwarfed by the most ambitious of the H-Class ships in Plan-Z which were on German drawing boards early in World War II.  Before reality bit hard, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) left physics to the engineers and wasn't too bothered by economics.  After being disappointed the proposals the successors to the Bismarck-class ships would have their main armament increased only from eight 15-inch (380 mm) to eight 16 inch cannons, he ordered OKM (Oberkommando der Marine; the Naval High Command) to design bigger ships.  That directive emerged as the ambitious Plan Z which would have demanded so much steel, essentially nothing else in the Reich could have been built.  Although not one vessel in Plan Z ever left the slipway (the facilities even to lay down the keels non-existent), such a fleet would have been impressive, the largest (the H-44) fitted with eight 20-inch (508 mm) cannons.  Even more to the Führer’s liking was the concept of the H-45, equipped with eight 31.5 inch (800 mm) Gustav siege guns.  However, although he never lost faith in the key to success on the battlefield being bigger and bigger tanks, the experience of surface warfare at sea convinced Hitler the days of the big ships were over and he would even try to persuade the navy to retire all their capital ships and devote more resources to the submarines which, as late as 1945, he hoped might still prolong the war.  Had he imposed such priorities in 1937-1938 so the Kriegsmarine (German Navy) could have entered World War II with the ability permanently to have 100 submarines engaged in high-seas raiding rather than barely a dozen, the early course of the war might radically have been different.  Germany indeed entered the war without a single aircraft carrier (the only one laid down never completed), such was the confidence the need to confront the Royal Navy either would never happen or was years away.

The US Navy in 1940 began construction of six Iowa class battleships but only four were ever launched because it had become clear the age of the aircraft carrier and submarine had arrived and the last battleship launched was the Royal Navy’s HMS Vanguard which entered service in 1946.  Although the admirals remained fond of the fine cut of her silhouette on the horizon, to the Treasury (an institution in the austere, post-war years rapidly asserting its authority over the Admiralty) the thing was a white elephant, something acknowledged even by the romantic, battleship-loving Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) who, when in November, 1953 planning a trip to Bermuda for a summit meeting with Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969; US POTUS 1953-1961), opted to fly because “it costs Stg£30,000 if we go by Vanguard, and only £3,000 by air.”  In 1959, Vanguard was sold for scrap and broken up the next year while the last of the Iowa class ships were decommissioned in 1992 after having spent many years of their life in a non-active reserve.  Defiant is of course a most Churchillian word and after World War I (1914-1918, he was asked by a French municipality to devise the wording for its war memorial.  He proposed:

IN WAR: RESOLUTION

IN DEFEAT: DEFIANCE

IN VICTORY: MAGNANIMITY

IN PEACE: GOODWILL

At the time, old Georges Clemenceau (1841–1929; French prime minister 1906-1909 & 1917-1920) wasn’t feeling much magnanimity towards the Germans and nor was he much in the mood to extend any goodwill so Churchill’s suggestion was rejected.  

Depiction of Trump class USS Defiant issued by the US Navy, December, 2025.

The conventional wisdom therefore was the days of the big warships were done and the Soviet Navy’s curious decision in the 1980s to lay down five (four of which were launched) Kirov class battlecruisers seemed to confirm the view.  Although the Kremlin called the ships тяжёлый атомный ракетный крейсер (heavy nuclear-powered guided missile cruisers), admiralties in the West, still nostalgic lot, choose to revive the old name “battlecruiser”.  The battlecruiser (essentially a battleship with less armor) was a brainchild of the naval theorists of the early twentieth century but while the concept was sound (and in practice may have proved so if the theory had been followed at sea) but in service was a disappointment and none were commissioned after 1920 until the Soviets revived the idea.  As recently as 2018, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) sources were sceptical any of the Russian ships would ever return to service but in 2025 the Admiral Nakhimov (ex-Kalinin) emerged from a long and expensive re-fit & modernization to serve as the world’s biggest warship.  Although fast and heavily armed, concern remains about her vulnerability to missiles and torpedoes.

Depiction of Trump class USS Defiant issued by the US Navy, December, 2025.

The US Navy seems confident about the protection afforded by the Trump class’s systems, claiming “the battleship [the Pentagon’s term] will be capable of operating independently, as part of a Carrier Strike Group, or commanding its own Surface Action Group depending on the mission and threat environment.”  In other words, unlike an aircraft carrier, the security of the vessel does not depend on a flotilla of destroyers and other smaller escort vessels.  The first of the Trump class is projected to cost between US$10-15 billion although, on the basis of experience, few will be surprised if this number “blows out”.  The Trump class will be the flagships for the Navy’s “Golden Fleet” initiative (an old naval term dating from days of the Spanish colonial Empire and nothing to do with Mr Trump’s fondness for the metal).  In an age in which small, cheap, UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles, usually referred to as drones) have revolutionized warfare (on land and at sea), the return of the big ships is as interesting as it was unexpected and analysts are already writing their assessments of the prospects of success.

Although the concept wasn’t new, it was late in the nineteenth century naval architects began to apply the word “class” systematically to group ships of the same design, the pioneers the Royal Navy but other powers soon adopted the practice.  It had long been the practice for warships to be constructed on the basis of substantially replicating existing designs and some truly were “identical” to the extent a series would now be called a “class” but before the terminology became (more or less) standardized, warships usually were described by their “Rate” or “Type” (first-rate ship of the line, corvette, frigate etc) but, in the usual military way, there was also much informal slang including phrases such as “the Majestic battleships” or “ships of the Iron Duke type”.  The crystallization of the “class” concept was really a result of technological determinism as the methods developed in factories which emerged during the industrial revolution spread to ship-building; steam power, hulls of iron & steel and the associated complex machinery made design & construction increasingly expensive, thus the need to amortize investment and reduce build times by ordering ships in batches with near-identical specifications.

Navies in the era were also becoming more bureaucratic (a process which never stopped and some believe is accelerating still) and Admiralties became much taken with precise accounting and doctrinal categorisation.  The pragmatic admirals however saw no need to reinvent the wheel, “class” already well-established in engineering and taxonomy, the choice thus an obvious administrative convenience.  The “new” nomenclature wasn’t heralded as a major change or innovations, the term just beginning to appear in the 1870s in Admiralty documents, construction programmes and parliamentary papers in which vessels were listed in groups including Devastation class ironclad turret ships (laid down 1869), Colossus class battleships (laid down 1879) and Admiral class battleships (1880s).  In recent history tests, warships prior to this era sometimes are referred to as “Ship-of-the-line class”, “Three decker class” etc but this use is retrospective.  The French Navy adopted the convention almost simultaneously (with the local spelling classe) with Imperial Germany’s Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) following in the 1890s with Klasse.  The US Navy was comparatively late to formalise the use and although “class” in this context does appear in documents in the 1890s, the standardization wasn’t complete until about 1912.

As a naming convention (“King George V class”, “Iowa class” etc), the rule is the name chosen is either (1) the first ship laid down, or (2) the lead ship commissioned.  According to Admiralty historians, this wasn’t something determined by a committee or the whim of an admiral (both long naval traditions) but was just so obviously practical.  It certainly wasn’t an original idea because the term “class” was by the late nineteenth century well established in industrial production, civil engineering, and military administration; if anything the tradition-bound admirals were late-adopters, sticking to their old classificatory habit long after it had outlived its usefulness.  With ships becoming bigger and more complex, what was needed was a system (which encompassed not only the ships but also components such as guns, torpedoes, engines etc) which grouped objects according to their defined technical specification rather than their vague “type” (which by then had become most elastic) or individual instances; naval architecture had entered the “age of interchangability”.

A docked Boomin' Beaver.

It’s good the US Navy is gaining (appropriately large) “Trump Class” warships (which the president doubtless will call “battleships” although they’re more in the “battlecruiser” tradition).  Within the fleet however there are on the register many smaller vessels and the most compact is the 19BB (Barrier Boat), a specialized class of miniature tugboat used deploy and maintain port security booms surrounding Navy ships and installations in port.  Over the last quarter century there have been a dozen-odd commissioned of which ten remain in active service.  Unlike many of the Pentagon’s good (and expensive) ideas, the Barrier Boats were a re-purposing of an existing design, their original purpose being in the logging industry where they were used to manoeuvre logs floating along inland waterways.  In that role the loggers dubbed them “log broncs” because the stubby little craft would “rear up like a rodeo bronco” when spun around by 180^o.  Sailors of course have their own slang and they (apparently affectionately) call the 19BBs the “Boomin’ Beaver”, the origin of that being uncertain but it may verge on the impolite.  It’s not known if President Trump is aware of the useful little BB19 but if brought to his attention, he may be tempted to order two of them renamed “USS Joe Biden” and “USS Crooked Hillary” although, unlike those reprobates, the Boomin’ Beavers have done much good work for the nation.

The Arc de Triomphe, Paris (left), Donald Trump with model of his proposed arch, the White House, October, 2025 (centre) and a model of the arch, photographed on the president's Oval Office desk (right).  Details about the arch remain sketchy but it's assumed (1) it will be "big" and (2) there will be some gold, somewhere.

As well as big ships (and the big Donald J Trump Ballroom already under construction where the White House’s East Wing once stood), Mr Trump is also promising a “big arch”.  A part of the president’s MDCBA (Make D.C. Beautiful Again) project, the structure (nicknamed the “Triumphal Arch” and in the style of the Arc de Triomphe which stands in the centre of the Place Charles de Gaulle (formerly the Place de l’Étoile), the western terminus of the avenue des Champs-Élysées) is scheduled to be completed in time to celebrate the nation’s 250^th anniversary on 4 July 2026.  Presumably, on that day, it will be revealed the official name is something like the “Donald J Trump Sestercentennial Arch” which will appear on the structure in large gold letters.  The arch is said to be “privately funded”, using money left over from what was donated to build the ballroom, a financing mechanism which has attracted some comment from those concerned about the “buying of influence”.

Adolf Hitler's (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) sketch of an arch (1926, left) and Hitler, Albert Speer (1905–1981; Nazi court architect 1934-1942; Nazi minister of armaments and war production 1942-1945) and others examining Speer's model of the arch, presented 20 April 1939 upon the occasion of the Führer’s 50^th birthday (right; note the pattern in carpet).

A model of Germania.  To give some indication of the scale, within the dome of the huge meeting hall (at top of image), St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome would have fitted several times over; its diameter of the dome would have been 250 metres (825 feet).

Commissioned to honor those who fought and died for France during the French Revolutionary (1792-1802) and Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815), construction of the Arc de Triomphe (officially the Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile) absorbed 30-odd years between 1806-1836, as a piece of representational architecture the structure is thought perfectly proportioned for assessment by the human eye and perhaps for this reason it has been admired by many.  As early as 1926, Adolf Hitler sketched his vision of a grand arch for Berlin, while bitter experience taught him the big warships were a bad idea because of their vulnerability to air attack, he never lost his enthusiasm for megalomania in architecture and in Albert Speer he found the ideal architect.  Noting the dimensions in Hitler’s sketch, Speer responded with something in the spirit of their blueprint for Germania.  Hitler’s planned the rebuilding of Berlin to be complete by 1950, less than ten years after the expected victory in a war which would have made him the master of Europe from the French border to the Ural mountains (things didn’t work out well for him).  While the 50 metre (163 feet) tall Arc de Triomphe presented a monumental appearance and provided a majestic terminus for the Champs Elysees, Speer’s arch stood 117 meters (384 feet) in height but even though obviously substantial, it would have been entirely in scale with the rest of Germania, the whole place built in a way to inspire awe simply by virtue of sheer size.