»  Radio Derb — Transcript

        Saturday, December 14th, 2013

—————————

[Music clip: From Haydn's Derbyshire Marches, organ version]

01 — Intro.     [Uptalk] And Radio Derb is on the air? This is your dialectically genial host? John Derbyshire? With selections from the week's news?

Sorry, just trying to bring myself up to date there. I was reading a story at the BBC Science News website, headline More men speaking in girls' "dialect," study shows. Apparently young metrosexual males are adopting female speech patterns, especially what's called "uptalk," where you end declarative sentences with a rising pitch, as if they were questions?

I can't do this consistently myself — a case of old dogs, new tricks, I'm sure — but a cruise ship just moored off the island here and the girls went aboard for some shopping. Let's eavesdrop, see what they got.

[Girls: Uptalk.]

Say what you like? I think the government's? putting estrogen? in the water supply?

Be that as it may, there's a week's worth of news to report on, so let's get to it.

02 — With one bound, Congress is free … to spend.     Finding himself, as Warren Harding's Vice President, presiding over the U.S. Senate, Calvin Coolidge did a little research into the functions of that body. As he later recorded in his autobiography, quote:

At first I intended to become a student of the Senate rules and I did learn much about them, but I soon found that the Senate had but one fixed rule, subject to exceptions of course, which was to the effect that the Senate would do anything it wanted to do whenever it wanted to do it.

End quote. Coolidge only got half of the truth there, as the same applies to the House of Representatives. What they want to do, they do, whenever they want to do it.

What both houses of Congress mainly want to do is spend money. There are only two restraints on their doing so. One restraint arises when there is some will in the executive to stop them spending. This, to put it very mildly indeed, is not the case at present. The other is when their spending becomes so outrageously extravagant that the general public begins to notice.

That second restraint came up in the early Obama years, when it dawned on the populace that they would have to get used to pronouncing the word "trillion" when talking about government programs, and that the ratio of federal debt to GDP was at World War Two levels. Folk got upset, the Tea Party came up, Democrats lost the House, there was a crisis about the debt ceiling, and at the end of it all we got the August 2011 Budget Control Act.

Known to its friends as BCA, the Budget Control Act specified that if Congress didn't legislate for spending cuts, spending would be cut across the board by default — the famous "sequester" — with mandatory caps on discretionary spending. The BCA also set up a bipartisan committee, six Democrats and six Republicans, to seek a way to reduce the deficit and stop these continual crises over the debt ceiling.

Well, of course Congress didn't legislate for spending cuts, so we've been in sequester-land since March. And, also of course — in fact double of course, of-course-of-course — the bipartisan committee couldn't agree and everyone would have ignored it anyway, just like they ignored Simpson-Bowles the year before. Remember Simpson-Bowles? Oh, never mind.

Tuesday this week Congress wriggled out of those pesky restraints. They cut a deal that allows them to spend over the sequester caps in 2014 and 2015, but promises to restore them in 2016. And we all believe that will happen, listeners, don't we? Of course we do. Why would anyone doubt a solemn promise made by the U.S. Congress?

The deal isn't all bad. There are some eensy-teensy reforms of entitlements and federal pensions, and a few gestures towards attacking the cosmic levels of waste, inefficiency, and fraud in the federal government. For example: Did you know that when a citizen dies, the Social Security Administration notes the fact in a master file, but that this master file is not security protected? Tuesday's deal adds a layer of security to discourage fraud. Social Security was established in, let me see … yes, 1935, so that's only taken 78 years. The mills of government grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small.

So far as the congresscritters are concerned, the details don't matter. The deal lets them put their collective foot down on the spending pedal. That's what's important to them.

Does it make chopped liver of the BCA? Of course it does. That's what I'm telling you. Congress can do what it wants.

Republican critters are probably shaking hands with themselves for having gotten off the hook on another government shutdown threat. Maybe so, but I can't see that this deal is any real help to their party.

What the GOP very badly needs to do is get out the middle class and working class white vote in next year's midterms by giving those people some reason to go to the polling station. That's the main thing they failed to do in 2012. Mitt Romney lost Iowa, for crying out loud. By six percentage points!

This deal won't help. But then, I'm starting to think nothing will help the Republican Party. It's on a suicide spiral.

Although, mind you … We still have Jeff Sessions.

03 — The Stupid Party at its stupidest.     Here's another reason to dislike the budget deal. It pushed the whole sequestration / debt ceiling / budget issue into the background, at least for two years — plenty of time to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

We all know what Comprehensive Immigration Reform means.

  1. Solve the problem of illegal immigrants by declaring them all legal.
  2. Solve the even more vexing problem of American workers wanting decent wages by raising the numbers of legal immigrants willing to work for peanuts.

That's it. Everybody's happy. Well, everyone who matters: the race lobbies, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, George Soros, SEIU, Tyson Foods, agribusiness, the higher education rackets, … everyone who matters, and who proves they matter by shoveling scads of money into congresscritters' pockets.

Secure the nation's borders? Oh yeah, we promise to do that. Sure, we promised to do it in 1996, and again in 2006, but this time we really mean it. Honest injun. E-verify? Oh yeah, we'll do that too. No really. We promise.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform really could happen. It could even have been a driver for this budget deal. Not that the prospect of relaxed restraints on spending doesn't have congressional mouths watering on its own account; but if it also greases the skids for a new assault on American wage levels and accelerates the demise of America's white majority — hey, party time!

Quote from Breitbart.com, Wednesday:

Last week, The Hill [that's a congressional newspaper] reported that amnesty advocates and big-business and high-tech lobbyists who want comprehensive immigration reform wanted nothing more than a budget deal that would prevent another government shutdown. Such a budget deal would pave the way for legislation that the Congressional Budget Office predicts will lower the wages of working-class Americans.

End quote.

You sometimes hear people say that this whole budget-amnesty dance is orchestrated from the White House, a Machiavellian scheme cooked up by Obama and his pals to get the floods of foreign workers they want and destroy the nation's white-European ethnic core.

I don't buy that. Obama isn't that smart, and most of the people around him are even less smart than he is. They don't need to be smart, when they're up against fools, quislings, and Chambers of Commerce sock puppets like John Boehner and Paul Ryan.

If this does happen — if the quiescence of the budget issue leads to a surge for open borders legislation, with Boehner, Ryan, Lindsey Graham, and the other GOP reptiles joining the call — then it will be clear that the duty of all conservatives and patriots is to do whatever we can think of to destroy the Republican Party. We should start by just voting Democrat at every opportunity. From that point on it'll be a case of the worse, the better.

Bring down the cleansing fire!

04 — Hunting season on dissidents.     Outrage of the week took place in Denver, Colorado.

The story begins last year when two homosexuals, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, got "married" in Massachusetts and flew to Colorado for their honeymoon. They naturally wanted a wedding cake with which to celebrate the happy event, so they showed up at the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver and asked the proprietor, Jack Phillips, to bake them a cake and decorate it in appropriate style — with pansies, perhaps, I don't know.

Mr. Phillips, who is a devout Christian, politely declined to do so. The homosexuals thanked him for his time and went back to their Yellow Pages to find another cake shop …

No,wait; that's what happened in Bizarro U.S.A., a sensible country where citizens respect each other's harmless beliefs. In the nation we actually inhabit, the United States of Grievance, nobody behaves like that any more.

What Mr. and Mr. Craig did was, they ran off squealing in outrage to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and filed a complaint. The armies of the law mobilized for action, and this week, after long and weighty deliberations, Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled that, yes, Mr. Phillips had unlawfully discriminated.

Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do any jail time, but if he persists in his vile discriminatory practices he faces penalties and the revocation of his business license.

Mr. and Mr. Craig (I'm assuming, from the look of them, that Mr. Craig is the dominant partner) declared the ruling "fabulous." Other homosexuals held a jeering demonstration in front of Mr. Phillips' cake shop, holding up signs saying Let Them Eat Cake.

Mr. Phillips' attorney summed up the situation for us. Quote from him:

The judge's order puts Mr. Phillips in an impossible position of going against his Christian faith. He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck. If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for.

End quote. I'm afraid I have to correct the counsellor there: The judge's ruling is antithetical to everything America used to stand for. It is entirely in line with what America now stands for: totalitarian liberalism. Conform to the left-liberal narrative, or suffer the consequences.

In fact totalitarian liberalism is now in its hunting phase. There can't be much doubt that these homosexuals picked out Mr. Phillips, or had him picked out for them by one of the countless taxpayer-funded homosexualist organizations, precisely in order to harass and humiliate him. They can do that, and be sure that a judge will support them. Forget your liberties — they're long gone. It's hunting season on dissidents.

Those signs the homosexuals are holding are in a way appropriate. Liberalism has now reached Marie Antoinette levels of arrogance and contempt towards despised and humiliated non-liberals like Mr. Phillips.

Personally, I'm going to take what modest comfort I can from reflecting on what happened to Marie Antoinette at last. [Guillotine sound.]

05 — Africa: the Shadow and the Substance.     All the great and the good of the Western world were in South Africa Tuesday at Mandelapalooza, the memorial service for Nelson Mandela.

Concerning the man himself, I said what I have to say last week, and can't think of anything I want to add. The reaction of the great and the good deserves a note, though. First, a quick look at their mindset.

This is one of those features of the human world that I think of in terms of the Shadow and the Substance.

The Shadow is multiculturalism, and in particular multiracialism, and in even more particular, reverence for black people, which is the state ideology all over the Western world. "Ideology" is in fact hardly a strong enough word: it's almost a religion, and has to some degree merged with what's left of Christianity and taken on its forms. When the Nobel Peace Prize committee gave the Prize to just-elected Barack Obama, a provincial nonentity with no record of accomplishment in any sphere at all, I knew something other than rational value judgment was going on.

That's the Shadow. The Substance — what we old-fashioned types call "reality" — is Africa and its people, or rather peoples. These peoples belong of course to our species homo sapiens, and we share common ancestry with them 60 or 70 thousand years back; yet they somehow obstinately keep refusing to conform to the image of them promoted by worshipers of the Shadow.

The essence of that image is the old imperial paternalism. In the Shadow narrative, blacks are helpless children, for the most part without any agency. Whatever good happens to them, happens because good white people make it happen. Whatever bad happens, happens because bad white people make it happen. The task is to lift up these children into the sunlight of white liberal values.

Blacks who show that they have been so lifted are rewarded with extravagant praise, like when you got a gold star on your workbook in elementary school. Hence Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize; hence the Mandela-olatry of recent days. Blacks who fail to do so, like that fellow in Uganda trying to stamp out homosexuality, are given a disapproving frown and sent to the back of the class.

That's the Shadow. The Substance — the actual realities of Africa — keep stubbornly failing to conform to it.

There is the matter of crime, for example, and antisocial behavior in general. The murder rate in South Africa is 31 per hundred thousand. For a typical European country the corresponding number is around … one. Sweden is one on the nose, so is Australia. France is 1.1, Britain 1.2, Finland 2.2 — hoo boy, what are they getting up to over there in Helsinki?

The U.S.A. is 4.7, which is high for a developed country. That nationwide average is jacked up by some very homicidal cities, though: Memphis, Tennnessee at 24; Baton Rouge, Louisiana at 29; Oakland, California, Newark, New Jersey, and Birmingham, Alabama all at 33 — a tad higher than South Africa.

It gets worse: Baltimore 35, St. Louis 36, New Orleans 54, Detroit 55, and Flint, Michigan leading the nation with a sensational 65. Chicago, which you hear a lot about, is practically a Peace Park: a mere 19 homicides per hundred thousand in 2012. New York City? Fuhgeddaboutit: 3. They're not even trying. The Big Apple might as well be Finland.

Those American cities with high rates all have big black populations, of course. That's the Africa factor. Boise, Idaho has homicide rate 1.4, lower than Belgium's.

To worshippers of the Shadow, talk like that is sheer sacrilege. Crime in black American cities? Legacy of slavery and Jim Crow! Crime in South Africa? Legacy of apartheid!

Anything negative you can say about blacks must be the fault of bad white people. In the liberal imagination, not a sparrow falls but the white man wills it. That's the ideological background for Tuesday's Mandelapalooza in Johannnesburg.

06 — Mandelapalooza.     So there they were, the great and the good, devotees of the Shadow, in that huge Johannesburg stadium on Tuesday.

It was a grand party, lasting four hours. A lot of B-list showbiz types were there: Bono, Charlize Theron, Naomi Campbell, Paul Lynde … No, that can't be right, he's dead. Well, a lot of B-listers: enough that the title of the event could have been Emoting With the Stars.

It led off with "interfaith prayers." I missed that bit myself, but I can well enough imagine the scene. You know: a priest, an Imam, a rabbi, and then a witch doctor sacrificing a chicken.

Then various Mandela family members took a break from fighting over the old boy's estate [ker-ching!] to offer tributes. Winnie Mandela, Nelson's ex-wife, showed up wearing a very attractive necklace, but did not speak, perhaps being too choked with emotion.

Then various foreign muckety-mucks made gassy speeches: the Secretary-General of the U.N., Presidents of Brazil, India and Cuba, some ChiCom Party hack, and of course Barack Obama at his gassiest.

Some sourpusses in the American conservative media tried to raise a fuss about Obama shaking hands with the Cuban President Raúl Castro, Fidel Castro's brother, but they couldn't get much traction. Hardly surprising: By comparison with the people Barack Obama hung out with in his pre-Presidential years — people like Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — Raúl Castro is practically a country-club Republican.

Also present, though not speechifying, was Robert Mugabe, President-for-life of Zimbabwe, scourge of the white devils, husband of the world's all-time champion shopper, and financial innovator responsible for the one hundred trillion Zimbabwe dollar banknote. Cap'n Bob is another little bit of Africa that obstinately refuses to conform to the Shadow narrative, but the crowd cheered him anyway.

President George W. Bush, on the other hand, was booed by the crowd. I thought this was just because of his shameful whiteness; but then they booed Jacob Zuma, their own President, so that couldn't have been it.

So: cheered, we have Raúl Castro, Robert Mugabe, and Barack Obama. Booed: George W. Bush and Jacob Zuma. If you can figure out the logic there, you'll have understood something about Africa.

And while the Shadow was being worshipped in that stadium, the African Substance was quietly manifesting itself in the background.

07 — The deaf leading the deaf.     Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, for example — another Nobel Peace Prize winner, by the way — had his house burgled while he was away speechifying at the memorial service.

It's the second time this year Tutu has been burgled. The last time, he and his wife were asleep in the house when it happened, making it technically a home invasion. Home invasion — called "home robbery" in South African crime statistics — is a very characteristically South African crime, occurring at high levels in spite of the fortress security precautions now routinely taken by middle-class citizens. Two percent of these home robberies end with a murder, four percent with a rape, nine percent with attempted murder, and 13 percent with significant injury; so the Tutus got off lightly.

And then there was this delicious story of the signer at the Mandelapalooza ceremony.

The new rainbow South Africa being fully up to date on all things diverse, they naturally had a signer standing alongside when the VIPs were speechifying. That is to say, they had a guy following the speaker's words along in sign language for the benefit of deaf viewers.

Only problem was, the signer didn't know sign language. That, at any rate, was the judgment of four different sign language experts consulted by the Associated Press. They all agreed that his hand signs were, quote, "gibberish."

Given that this was Africa, one shouldn't be terribly surprised. You don't get a job in countries like that by being capable at anything; you get a job by being someone's uncle, nephew, cousin, or boyfriend.

That would be my explanation, anyway. Caitlin Dewey over at the Washington Post came up with a different one. A true and pious devotee of the Shadow, Ms. Dewey blamed it on white people. According to her, the signing fiasco is … yes, a legacy of apartheid. Quote:

As late as the 1980s, South Africa employed different sign languages for whites and blacks, making it next to impossible for deaf blacks to get jobs or educations.

End quote. Now, in the first place, every ethnic group everywhere has its own sign language, and there is nothing unusual about that. British Sign Language and American Sign Language, for example, are quite different, and their users can't understand each other. In the second place, why couldn't blacks get jobs working for other blacks? I've never heard that apartheid prevented blacks from opening stores, offices, restaurants, or workshops, or running home-repair businesses, even in the black-run black homelands.

So what's Ms. Dewey saying here? That blacks have no initiative, that they can only sit around waiting for the white man to give them something? Of course that's what all liberals believe — that's the Shadow narrative — but to they really want to be so open about it?

Further quote from Ms. Dewey:

The Rev. Cyril Axelrod, a Catholic priest who lobbied for change in the deaf community … once came upon a group of 170 black deaf children, some as old as 15, who couldn't read, write or sign as a result of discriminatory education policies.

End quote. Well, then, Father Axelrod is a liar, or else Ms. Dewey is. You can't stop deaf people signing. One of the mysteries of linguistics is how any group of deaf people, no matter how isolated, work up a sign language very quickly.

There is by the way a politics of sign language. There was a strong movement against it in the later 19th century, led by, of all people, Alexander Graham Bell, whose mother was deaf. Bell strongly opposed signing, arguing that it would lead to the creation of a "deaf race" separating themselves off from the rest of us, to their own ultimate detriment. He wanted deaf kids to be taught lip reading and vocalizing, and not to sign. That in fact is when we found out how hard it is to stop deaf kids signing, when educators tried to stop them.

In the early 20th century a counter-movement came up, promoting sign language as a precious cultural artefact whose elimination would be educationally disastrous for deaf kids.

The battle between signers and anti-signers swayed back and forth through the 20th century. An aunt of mine taught deaf kids in England in the 1970s; the school didn't try to stop signing, but they strongly discouraged it.

Nowadays deafness is of course embraced as one more strand in the wonderful tapestry of Diversity and sign language is celebrated for its cultural authenticity. Whether deaf people are better off the one way than the other, is beyond my ability to judge.

That's all by the by. The fake signer gave us all a good laugh; then Ms. Dewey came along to blame it all on evil white people, and we all had a good groan.

I'm going to make a plea for the whole business of the fake signer to be taken in a spirit of fun. I hope my plea won't fall on deaf ears.

08 — Living on a volcano.     Speaking of crime statistics, here are some from Iceland, up there by the Arctic Circle. Police in the nation's capital, Reykjavik (which by the way means "Smoky Bay") shot and killed a man December 2nd.

Why is this newsworthy? Because it's the first time it's ever happened since Iceland's had a police force.

Contrast this with the American city of St. Louis, which has the same population as the whole of Iceland, 300 thousand and change. From 2008 to 2011, St. Louis police shot at suspects 98 times. Twelve of the shootees died.

A good liberal would hasten to tell you that America's crime rate is high because we have so many guns in private hands. That doesn't actually help in explaining Iceland's sensationally low crime rate. There are 90,000 registered firearms in Iceland, one for every 3.6 inhabitants. True, the U.S. number is one firearm per 1.2 inhabitants, a three times higher density of guns; but somehow this doesn't translate into a merely three times higher crime rate.

For homicide, for example, which is the most reliable crime statistic — it's hard to argue away a corpse — our national rate of 4.7 per hundred thousand is twelve times Iceland's 0.3. And in fact that 0.3 is artificial: For 2009, the last reporting year, the total number of homicides in Iceland was one. One in three hundred thousand is 0.3 per hundred thousand.

It's not hard to figure reasons for the discrepancy. For one, Iceland is a small place far from anywhere else, with a small population. It's not quite the case that they all know each other, but it's nearly the case.

Suppose you know a hundred people; and suppose each of them knows a hundred people, average 70 of whom are not double counted. That's 7,000 people. If each one of them knows a hundred people, average 50 of whom are not double counted, that's 350,000 people, which is the population of Iceland. So if you pick two Icelanders at random, Anna and Björn, it's highly probable that Anna knows someone who knows someone who knows Björn.

And then, Iceland is very egalitarian. The Gini coefficient, which measures wealth inequality in a society, is 28 percent, one of the lowest in the world. The U.S.A. is 45; South Africa is 63. So there's very little class resentment.

Very little race resentment, either, Icelanders being all one race; although like the other Scandinavians they've been letting some African and Moslem refugees in recently to improve the nation's vibrancy. I wonder how that'll work out. My advice to Iceland's police force would be to get some marksmanship practice in down at the shooting range.

Still, if it's a nearly crime-free nation you're looking for, try Iceland. The downside is, you have to not mind living on a volcano.

09 — Miscellany.     And now, our closing miscellany of brief items.

Imprimis:  From the December 9th New York Post gossip pages, quote:

Scottish actor Alan Cumming was the belle of the White House holiday party on Friday night. Cumming outshone all the other guests at the bash hosted by President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle by wearing a kilt. One guest told us, "In a room full of gray suits, Alan had on a greenish kilt and a black 'wife-beater'-style shirt."

End quote. OK, any excuse to bring up a kilt joke.

English lady to kilted Scottish gentleman: "Excuse me, Sir, but I'm just curious: Is anything worn under the kilt?" Replies the gentleman: "No, Ma'am, everything's just as good as new."

Item:  Remember the Octomom? — Nadya Suleman, Queen of the Welfare Queens, who gave birth to octuplets five years ago, while being unmarried, unemployed, and living on welfare with her six previous kids? Well, she's in the news again: getting evicted from her five-bedroom rented house in Orange County, California.

Apparently she's a problem tenant. Quote from her landlady:

I have had problems refinancing the building myself because of her. That's one of the things why we have to ask her to leave. The bank refused to support the loan. She is said to have left her houses abused and everything and it worried the bank.

End quote. Not very important perhaps in the great scheme of things, but an opportunity to recycle another old favorite: yes, the Octomom song. Come on, sing along, you all know the tune.

Who's the gal who pushed out eight?
Did it all without a mate.
Expenses paid for by the state.
Octomom! Octomom! Octomom!

Item:  Just one more on crime and law enforcement in Africa.

Listeners I'm sure remember the attack by Muslim terrorists on an upscale shopping mall in Kenya back in September which left more than 60 civilians dead.

Well, the New York City Police Department, keen to get what insights they can into terrorist operations against civilian targets, sent a team over to investigate the incident. Tuesday this week they issued their report. It puts Kenyan law enforcement in a sorry light, and massively contradicts the Kenyan government's own report.

For example: Both police and army units were sent in. The police got there first, and when the army arrived the police shot at them, killing the army unit's commander and wounding another officer.

Again: The mall's partial collapse was not caused by fires set by the terrorists, as the Kenyan government claims, but by the totally inappropriate use of mortar fire and rocket-propelled grenades by the military.

That there was heavy looting by the military once they got into the mall, is no surprise. What is a surprise, and the most damning thing in the report, is that all the terrorists got away. There were not "ten to fifteen" attackers, as the Kenyans have told us, but only four, and all of them escaped.

Another little bit of African Substance poking up through the Shadow. I'm sure it's all the fault of bad white people somehow. What's the number of that Washington Post lady?

Item:  Anything else? Let's just do a final scan of the headlines here. Whaddawe got?

World's oldest erotic novelist dies aged 105 — and she was still writing racy bodice-rippers up until her death. Hmm. Quote: "Her best-selling book titles include White Heat and Interlude for Love." No, not really Radio Derb material … though I do hope she's now in some place where the temperature is at less than white heat.

From Seattle: Police: Backseat driving son bit off dad's eyebrow. Say what? Quote: "A 30-year-old Burien man is accused of biting off his father's eyebrow after turning unruly on a drive home from a family wedding has been charged with assault." How do you bite off an eyebrow? Did he spit or swallow? No, too many questions unanswered there.

How about this, from Ashburn, Va.: Jogger hit by flying deer. Quote: "Loudoun County Sheriff's say a car hit a deer on Claiborne Parkway around 6pm on Thursday. The deer went airborne and hit a woman who was jogging on the sidewalk." Wow. The victim's name is not given. Let's just call her Jane Doe. [Groans.]

No, I think we've drawn the well dry for this week. Let's close out the show.

10 — Signoff.     Listeners who read my VDARE.com column saw me reminiscing this week about the mental timeline a mid-20th-century English kid acquired regarding England's wars. WW2 of course had only just happened and adults talked about it all the time. WW1 was for most kids your grandad's war, although in my particular case it was my Dad's.

Back beyond that on the furthest edge of public memory was the Boer War of 1899-1902. When I was a kid, the oldest of old soldiers were veterans of the Boer War, sometimes called the South African War.

Every war has a song. WW2 had "Lili Marlene." WW1 had "Tipperary." The Civil War had "Dixie." The Revolutionary War had "Yankee Doodle."

The Boer War came right after the Spanish American War, so they shared a song. Here it is.

More from Radio Derb next week!

[Music clip: "Goodbye Dolly Gray."]