Why We Should Bring Back the Art of Toasting

Raising your glass in a toast was common from ancient Greece to fairly recently, but appears to have fallen out of favor in the 21st century, outside of weddings. The group act of drinking in unison with a common thought is a way of bonding, of communicating a sentiment, and a ritual that should be brought back. To understand the reasons why, we need to look at the history of the toast. It has gone through a few changes while keeping the same basic form.

Indeed, amongst both the Greeks and Romans, toasting could not only serve as a declaration of well wishes (and an excuse for copious drinking!), but also a provocation — a challenge. Being able to hold one’s liquor was considered a form of toughness and discipline, and a night of toasting surely tested a man’s capaciousness. Just as the Greeks who pledged their drinks to the gods expected blessings in return for their sacrifice, toasts made to one’s fellow mortals were expected to be reciprocated. One toast would beget another, and back and forth the tributes went. With each, the vessel would have to be entirely drained of its intoxicating contents; as we’ll see, merely sipping one’s drink after a toast is a modern refinement. Thus, offering a toast was sometimes a way of throwing down the gauntlet — an invitation to competition and a kind of duel; could the others match you cup for cup? Unsurprisingly, a night of toasting frequently found participants passed out in a stupor by its end.

In later eras, toasting did not automatically mean drinking more than you should. The history of toasting is followed by an elegant argument for reviving the custom at The Art of Manliness.  -Thanks, Tim!


Comments (5)

Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

I remembered something from history class, concerning toasts at the Jefferson birthday celebration in April 1832. Quoting from http://www.ushistory.org/us/24e.asp :

"Many political issues separated Jackson from Calhoun, his Vice President. One was the issue of states rights. Hoping for sympathy from President Jackson, Calhoun and the other states-rights party members sought to trap Jackson into a pro-states-rights public pronouncement at a Jefferson birthday celebration in April 1832. Some of the guests gave toasts which sought to establish a connection between a states-rights view of government and nullification. Finally, Jackson's turn to give a toast came, and he rose and challenged those present, "Our Federal Union — It must be preserved." Calhoun then rose and stated, "The Union — next to our liberty, the most dear!" Jackson had humiliated Calhoun in public. The nullification crisis that would follow served as the last straw. Jackson proved that he was unafraid to stare down his enemies, no matter what position they might hold."
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
If toasting, in the style they promote, were common, then there would be more pictures of it in the public domain. Since so many of those pictures are for simple toasts (or not toasts at all), I argue that that means that their understanding of history is wrong. In addition, of course, that there's nothing intrinsically "manly" about toasting.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I don't doubt that your research is correct, but I can tell you it's difficult to find enough public domain images to illustrate an article of this length, without having to make sure they are perfectly accurate for the text they appear near.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
They are spreading it thick with the "manly", and they don't care to respect the history. For example, the image of the oil painting is "Hip, Hip, Hurrah!" by Peder Severin Krøyer, based on a party at the house of two artists who had just moved to the artist colony at Skagen, Denmark. The title says it all - it's not a oratory toast like the article wants.

The picture under "Why We Should Bring Back Toasting" is not from a toast at all. Elsewhere it's titled: "Patrons at a Harlem bar on 135th Street toast joyously after black world heavyweight champion Joe Louis’s first-round knockout of Max Schmeling at Yankee Stadium, 1938".

The picture under "verbal souvenir" is of Shackleton's Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition. Multiple sources say it was from the traditional Saturday evening toast in the Navy: "To our sweethearts and wives", with the unofficial response "may they never meet". Again, not a long 'manly' oratory. The British Navy also changed it a few years ago to "Our families", as many women also serve these days.

Personally, I would rather bring back drinking songs.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Hmmm. Color me an idiot, but I thought that if the power was coming from thrust at the tips of the rotors (instead of from a powered axle), there was no need for a tail fan for counter rotation...
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The tail rotor would be needed for yaw (turning left and right). A normal helicopter needs a tail rotor to constantly fight the counter-rotation from the main rotor; this helicopter would need a tail rotor to make it turn left or right.

It appears to be geared with the main rotor, but is likely pitched such that it doesn't provide any thrust to the left or right during flight. When the pilot wants to turn, he pitches the tail rotor blades to provide thrust.

If the tail rotor failed, the helicopter would be just fine, although it would have no ability to turn on its emergency descent.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@ strayxray

actually it would start to spin uncontrollably with out the tail rotor, just because there is no powered axle between the main rotor and the main body of the helicopter doesn't mean that the friction from the rotor and where it is connected to the body isn't enough to cause it to start spinning. We don't live in a world with frictionless bearings. Also the fuel delivery system to the rockets probably add's a lot more friction to the main rotors axle.

It might not happen as quickly and violently as a normal heli would if it lost it's rotor, but if he were high enough, by the time he got the heli to the ground he could be spinning like a tea cup.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Every action gives re-action. So the main body of the chopper will rotate in the oppsite direction of the main rotor. Don't forget that there is a fuelline-coupling from the main body to the rotorblades that gives added friction. So the tailfan is needed.

I like the noise of that thing- While most chopperbuilders work frantically on reducing or even cancelling the noise of their rotorblades as best as they can to make their choppers more useable in crowded areas, these guys come up with a system that wakes up the whole valley when they start up their machine. :-D
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
This concept is not exactly new. In the 1950s a Dutch company built 11 Kolibri's (Hummingbirds):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jhpUJLhQfs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlandse_Helikopter_Industrie_(NHI)
And an American prototype:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YH-32_Hornet

All designs failed...
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
With torque the entire force generated by the engine gets split between the rotor and the body of the helicopter.

The difference with friction as a force is two fold. First, obviously, is that it would be in the direction of the rotors, not the opposite direction. Second, we're talking an incredibly small amount of the output of the engine being transferred via friction (easily as low as .01%). Third, it takes much more energy to spin the heavier body of the helicopter than the rotors.

So it would take very, very little to cancel it out.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
this is right on it...Every action gives re-action. So the main body of the chopper will rotate in the oppsite direction of the main rotor. Don't forget that there is a fuelline-coupling from the main body to the rotorblades that gives added friction. So the tailfan is needed.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
hey guys....stop thinking like a regular heli...the trust created by the jets is the prim factor of this equation....the blades move in an opposit direction to the exiting energy from the jet....the body of the vehicle, thru drag, will tend to follow the directions the blades are rotating in...the speed at witch the vehicle travels depends on the friction present at the rotor bearins and the vehicle mass that is presented to the air around it..ie...if there is a lot of friction the heli will turn quicker but if the was a huge flat panel sitting flush to the direction it is rotating in then it would tend to act as an air brake and slow down the action of rotation in proportion to its size.....space travel is marvelous...time travel is quicker....zorro
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Email This Post to a Friend
"Why We Should Bring Back the Art of Toasting"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More