If you change one, you must change them all

*bolded terms refer to an authorized LCSH term*

If you read my last post about Transgenderism then you know that LCSH uses the term as an umbrella for a wide variety of gender non-conformant identities and behaviors. As I said last time, that term at one point was indeed used to indicate a broader set of identities and behaviors, but now is mostly used [by anti-trans activists] to refer specifically to people whose gender identity does not match that which they were assigned at birth — a much more narrow definition.

These conflations in LCSH however, have trickled down to another heading: Transgender people. The narrower terms assigned are:
Christian transgender people
Female impersonators
Jewish transgender people
Libraries and transgender people
Male impersonators
Social work with transgender people
Transgender children
Transsexuals
Transvestites
 
[Emphasis mine] the highlighted terms above leap out to me as terribly incorrectly placed. [I’ll acknowledge here that the specific relationship between Transsexuals and Transgender people may be improperly constructed as well]
The ‘impersonator’ headings have variant terms of ‘Drag queens’ and ‘Drag kings’ respectively and have parallel scope notes of:
Here are entered works on men who impersonate women, generally for purposes of entertainment or comic effect. Works on women who impersonate men, generally for purposes of entertainment or comic effect, are entered under Male impersonators. Works on persons, especially males, who assume the dress and manner of the opposite sex for psychological gratification are entered under Transvestites.
[the sexes are swapped in the scope note for Male impersonators]
Drag performers are not inherently trans people. There’s a wide wide world of difference between them. Certainly some trans people have performed drag professionally, but it is an emphatic error to place drag performers as NT under Transgender people.
Transvestites doesn’t belong here either. As the scope note indicates above, LCSH understands that it’s primarily a practice among straight men, for reasons other than entertainment or public performance. As with the impersonator headings, a variant term, ‘cross dressers’ is actually preferred by practitioners.
LCSH continuing to collapse varied forms of gender performance and expression under Transgender people does harm to trans people, especially trans women, and plays right into the hands of the politicians, their malicious laws, and anti-trans activists.
Recommendation:  Move Male impersonators and Female impersonators as NTs of Performance artists, and NTs of Gay culture [and while we’re at it, change the preferred term to ‘Drag kings’ and ‘Drag queens’ respectively]. Move Transvestites as an NT under Heterosexual men — Social life and customs, [and change preferred term to ‘Cross dressers’]

Transgenderism

*bolded terms refer to an authorized LCSH term*

 It is no secret that LCSH is a mess when it comes to gender and sexuality. Today, I want to focus specifically on a single term in the hierarchies of trans identities. [With an eye towards continuing this look at other terms]
First: Transgenderism, whose scope note reads:
Here are entered works on the various manifestations of cross-gender orientation, such as transvestism, transsexualism, male or female impersonation, intersexuality, etc., treated collectively.
From this well springs forth a great deal of trouble, because what even is this term? A google search [March 18, 2017] reveals the following from page 1: [CN: ANTI-TRANS RHETORIC]
  • Wikipedia [Transgender]
  • Focus on the Family [Understanding “Transgenderism”]
  • Focus on the Family [Transgenderism – Our Position]
  • Oxford English Dictionary [transgenderism]
  • Federalist [Psychiatry Professor: ‘Transgenderism’ Is Mass Hysteria Similar To 1980s-Era Junk Science]
  • Daily Wire [Report: Transgenderism Not Supported By Science]
  • Daily Caller [Journal: Transgenderism ‘Not Supported By Scientific Evidence’]
  • Huffington Post portal [Three articles all affirming trans people’s humanity]
  • Pacific Standard [Five Studies: What You Need to Know About Transgenderism, According to the Research]
  • New Yorker [WHAT IS A WOMAN? The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism.]
  • Public Discourse [The Absurdity of Transgenderism: A Stern but Necessary Critique]
  • National Review [Making Sense of Transgenderism]
So from my count that’s 8 anti-trans hits, 2 reference sources [one of which doesn’t even use the term in the header], 2 mostly positive hits
The term in LCSH’s use is meant to be a broad umbrella to cover the concept gender non-conformity. That is indeed a useful concept for which to have a term, albeit a broad one. Unfortunately the scope of the term in its modern usage [the heading was entered in 2007] has shifted to be much more narrow. All of the above sources are specifically referring to the concept that people’s gender identities don’t match their assignment at birth.
Let’s look at the heading’s usage in WorldCat [search of su:Transgenderism, limited to 2016, books, first 10 hits]

Of these 10 — only a single one [Transantiquity, 5] has been assigned Transgenderism to mean anything other than “the concept that some people’s gender identities don’t match their assignment at birth”. I contend that the vast majority of assignments will follow suit.

We need a term for that concept, and perhaps Transgenderism is that term, perhaps not [edit: see below, 2017-03-22]  But just as importantly we need a different term for the wider scope of “gender non-conformity”. If LCSH wants there to be an umbrella term which encompasses what the current scope note above [all the way at the top!] does, the concept that there are people who cross dress for sexual satisfaction, perform drag, are transsexual, are transgender, are intersex — it cannot be Transgenderism because that is simply not how the term is being used, neither in resources, nor in cataloger application.

Recommendation: Add new term to LCSH for the broad concept of gender non-conformity. Limit the scope of Transgenderism [or replace the term for one which people actually use] to the concept of being transgender specifically.


Edit: 2017-03-22

After consideration, and checking sources — I’ve come to the understanding that Transgenderism must be removed from LCSH, contrary to the above recommendation. From the sources:

“This is not a term commonly used by transgender people. This is a term used by anti-transgender activists to dehumanize transgender people and reduce who they are to “a condition.” — GLAAD

Much like those who still refer to gay people exclusively as “homosexuals,” the majority of the people who use the word “transgenderism” are either biased against the community, such as the discredited anti-trans “expert”Dr. Paul McHugh, or harbor hatred toward the trans community, like the right-wing organization classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Family Research Council. — Advocate

So one thing I want to ask: why do we need this term? That is, are there resources about “the concept that some people’s gender identities don’t match their assignment at birth” that would not be better met with the term Transgender people?  I’m not convinced. On the other hand there are many dual terms for “Concept” and then “concept as manifested in people”. Ex. PovertyPoorBisexualityBisexualsDisabilitiesPeople with disabilities. I bring this up because I don’t think that the PSD would be so amenable to removing the noun-concept word entirely.

Edited Recommendation: Add new term to LCSH for the broad concept of gender non-conformity [with the scope note of the current term Transgenderism.] Make the term Transgenderism a variant of Transgender people. [Or find a better term for the concept of trans-ness]

New LCSH!

As always — check out the full approved list


Amulets in literature

51C0QXFDM6L.jpg
I haven’t read it, but I’m betting the tentacle monster gets the amulet

Brigands and robbers in art

Brigand.jpg
YOUR BOOTS BETRAY YOU

Energy web

energiavioleta-41.jpg
Sounds like something Picard would get stuck in

Google Cardboard (Three-dimensional display system)

Build_Your_Own-e1465937154223.png
and I get to build it myself? Twice the fun!

Instruction librarians

Screen Shot 2017-03-06 at 7.35.42 PM.png
Nailed it.

Messianism in art

content_Tommy_Met-680.jpg
Listening to you, I get the music

Museums in social media

wiley.jpg
I bet their instagrams are terrific

Noir poetry

vlcsnap-2013-08-08-11h57m56s18.png
Walter Neff has got a plan                                                               Caught by Keyes’s little man

Polar bear populations

line-graph-down.jpg
Humans are terrible

The Breadth of Women and Men, Pt. 2

[Edit: 2017-03-05 — I removed all the recommendations for creation of additional gendered terms as per a colleague suggesting that exacerbating the problem is not the solution]

I ended the previous post with three questions:
1. Which headings appear on one list but not the other?
2. Of those, are there equivalent headings that in LCSH?
3. Why does the equivalent heading either not exist, or isn’t in the hierarchy?

Before I get to the specifics, I need to address the obvious elephant: The Marked Other.

I’ve written about this before but it’s so important, it’s worth saying twice [or more!]

Men have traditionally and still today of course, are seen as the neutral. The addition of women to a topic, is an aberration to be remarked upon. This is as enshrined into LCSH as it is in every other part of American society. Until 1973 a pattern of headings existed of “Women as […]” Ex. Women as accountants, Women as clergy, Women as judges, etc. in 1973 they removed this construction in favor of Women accountants, Women clergy, Women judges. It’s an acknowledgement that for a woman to be something other than a Mother, Sister, Daughter, or Wife wasn’t so strange that it needed to be billed “Women as judges?! How shocking”

That doesn’t mean that women are on equal status in LCSH however. The overwhelming majority of resources which purport to be about a topic, if they do not present themselves as involving women, will be cataloged ‘neutrally’. That is, if a book is about pilots, and all of the teachers mentioned are male, or there’s a mix of male pilots and female pilots — odds are that that those resources will be tagged Air pilots.

Unless a resource states in the title or somewhere else prominent Women pilots, lady pilots, female pilots galore! It is unlikely that that resource would get cataloged as Women air pilots.

This is going to be ‘answer’ to many of my three questions above: bias in cataloging, bias in publishing.

The list of remaining NTs of Men is shorter than the list for Women [after removing the equivalent terms], so we’ll start there. The following terms are NTs of Men which do not have an equivalent term in the NTs of Women. For each I’ll provide either one of three options for potential equivalents:

None: This indicates that there isn’t a term in LCSH that I think could be an equivalent candidate as an NT of Women.

N/A: This indicates that I don’t think an equivalent term could exist. That is, the concept is limited, not just in LCSH.

[Specific term which exists in LCSH]: In some cases I’ve found a specific term which matches, but is not currently an NT of Women.
Antique collecting for men                                 None
Brotherhoods                                                          Sisterhoods
Cosmetics for men                                                Cosmetics
Dandies                                                                     N/A
Eunuchs                                                                    N/A
Grooming for men                                                 Beauty, Personal
Latin lovers                                                              None
Male prostitutes                                                     Prostitutes
Men in black (UFO phenomenon)                    N/A
Strong men                                                              N/A
Uncircumcised men                                              N/A

Explanations follow:

Antique collecting for men

 There is no term for Antique collecting for women. The original term’s MARC record shows no work-being-cataloged citation which is a requirement for ever LCSH proposal. I assume that the work in question was:  Antique collecting for men / Louis Heilbroner Hertz. What’s interesting to me is that “Antiques — Collectors and collecting” and “Antique collecting” are both UF of Antiques. That is, apparently that LCSH term encompasses collecting.

Compare this with Women art collectors and Women book collectors neither of which have a men’s counterpart.

Brotherhoods

Sisterhoods is right there in LCSH, here is the comparison:

Brotherhoods (May Subd Geog)
[BV950-970]
UF Brotherhood
BT Church societies
Men
Secret societies
Societies
NT Monasticism and religious orders

Sisterhoods (May Subd Geog)
[BX4200-4556 (Catholic Church)]
[BX5185 (Church of England)]
BT Charities
Church history
Women in charitable work
RT Monasticism and religious orders for women
NT Deaconesses

They’re fairly similar although map to different parts of the classification scheme. Both are church-adjacent, and both incorporate ‘Monasticism and religious orders’.

Note that there’s an error in Brotherhood: according to H 370

Link a new heading only to the next broader heading in the logical hierarchy by means of a BT. [emph. mine]

Brotherhood has BTs of Secret societies and Church societies. Those are both NTs of Societies. That means that Brotherhood should not also have Societies as a BT.

Recommendation: Add Women as a BT of Sisterhoods, remove the Societies as a BT from Brotherhoods.

Cosmetics for men

First remember as I said in the previous post, terms with the prepositional phrase “X for [Class of person]” always get a BT of that class of person. This is an example of the occasional reversal from the marked other. Cosmetics is seen as a “woman’s domain” and so the LCSH Cosmetics stood in for all resources about make-up for women. Here are some resources that could’ve triggered the creation of such a heading:

But of course the unmarked heading Cosmetics would cover these as it is assumed that that implies a connection with women.

Dandies
Eunuchs

The above two terms, I’d marked as N/A because I don’t think that there really are female equivalents to be applied. Let me know if I’m wrong.

Grooming for men

As above with Cosmetics for men, this is an automatic BT to Men, and the reciprocal potential heading Grooming for women is a UF pointing to Beauty, Personal.

Beauty, Personal (May Subd Geog)
[GT499 (Manners and customs)]
[RA776.98-778.2 (Grooming)]
Here are entered works on personal grooming and appearance. Works on the attractiveness of women as a philosophic or artistic concept are entered under Feminine beauty (Aesthetics).
UF Beauty
Complexion
Grooming, Personal
Grooming for women
Personal beauty
Personal grooming
Toilet (Grooming)

As you can see from the scope note, Beauty, Personal is explicitly linked to women, as the note doesn’t point to Masculine beauty (Aesthetics), even though it could.

Latin lovers

This is kind of a shitty heading. There’s lots of literary warrant for it, but there are no other headings for specific stereotypes of classes of persons/ethnic groups. There are no headings for ‘Greedy Jews’ or ‘Lazy Mexicans’ despite there being literary warrant for those as well.

I’m not suggesting someone create a heading ‘Fiery Latinas’ or ‘Voracious Dark Haired Beauties’ because those would be shitty as well.

Recommendation: Delete this heading, use –Sexual behavior subdivision under classes of person instead when appropriate.

Male prostitutes

As I said in a post a week ago, Prostitutes used to be an NT of Women. I understand why they moved it, but that’s just putting a bandaid over it. Perhaps they were worried about the optics of when users might scroll to see what LCSH thinks Women are. But let’s look at the term:

Prostitutes (May Subd Geog)
Here are entered works on prostitutes in general as well as works specifically on women prostitutes.
UF Call girls
Female prostitutes
Girls, Call
Harlots
Hookers (Prostitutes)
Hustlers (Prostitutes)
Sex workers (Prostitutes)
Street prostitutes
Streetwalkers
Strumpets
Tarts (Prostitutes)
Trollops (Prostitutes)
Whores (Prostitutes)
Women prostitutes

[Emph. mine]

The scope note and two of the UFs specifically call out women as the domain of Prostitutes. They’ve removed the term from the hierarchy of Women, but the association still remains enshrined, they’ve just hidden it somewhat.

I’m not issuing any kind of recommendation until the issue of the term itself can be resolved, see the post on sex work I just linked to for more on that.

Men in black (UFO phenomenon)
Strong men
Uncircumcised men

These three terms, as above with Dandies and Eunuchs, do not call out to me as requiring female equivalents. Although we know women can be “Men in black” [just ask Agent L!] that’s the name of the term. Frankly, I don’t know enough about the phenomenon or sub-culture to really say anything intelligent here.

Strong men does not refer to simply men of strength, but more of the circus-ey, side-show type of strong man. I’m not sure there’s a history of such for women in that venue, and would probably be sufficiently covered by Women bodybuilders for more modern works.

Uncircumcised men could of course have corresponding Uncircumcised women because not all people with penises are men — but although I searched, I could not find any extant resources on circumcision amongst trans women or genderqueer people.


Next time we’ll start in on the unmatched Women NTs, and see what we see

The Breadth of Women and Men, Pt. 1

Earlier this week on twitter:
Now I was mostly idly musing as is my wont [though I did get two offers from dear colleagues!], but I started adding things to a spreadsheet anyway, to see what I could see.
There may be more posts in the future emanating from this poking around, but here’s the first.
 You know, and I know, that neither gender nor sex are binaries. LCSH isn’t quite there yet, so for the purposes of these analyses — I will be treating men and women as though they were opposite sides of a binary.
As I gathered more and more terms that are gender divided, I realized that the best place to start might be analyzing and comparing the narrower terms of two fairly high terms — Women and Men.
Before I do that, a word about broader terms [BT] and narrower terms [NT]. Let’s turn to H 370 in our Subject Heading Manual:
There are three main relationships for which a BT is assigned
Genus/species (or class/class member):
Apes
BT Primates
Buildings, Prefabricated
BT Buildings
Women executives
BT Executives
Cinematography
BT Photography
Dental anthropology
BT Physical anthropology
Whole/part:
Toes
BT Foot
Ethnology
BT Anthropology
Instance (or generic topic/proper-named example):
Whitewater Lake (Wis.)
BT Lakes–Wisconsin
Belleau Wood, Battle of, France, 1918
BT World War, 1914-1918–Campaigns–France
You may’ve noticed that all the examples link a term to a BT and none link a term to an NT. That’s because in MARC records, there are no NTs. In proposing and maintaining LCSH records — only BT relationships are recorded. The system automatically generates the corresponding NT. That isn’t going to come up or anything, I just think it’s interesting to know.

Two other pertinent points from the memo:
[ . . . ] and [ . . . ] headings:
Make a BT from the heading (or its equivalent) that follows the word and (cf. H 310).
Prepositional phrases:
Make a BT from the heading that corresponds to the term(s) following the preposition.
Examples:
Sex instruction for [group of people]
BT [group of people]
Church work with [group of people]
BT [group of people]
The […] and […] headings will be particularly important later. Remember the rule that a BT is made only for the term which follows the ‘and’.
Now that we’ve covered some of the rules of forming BT relationships — let’s see what terms LCSH has deemed Men and Women to be BTs of.

[You don’t have to read all these now!! This is just so you can consult the full list if you want, later, I’m going to break it down in a bit]

Women (May Subd Geog)
[GT2520-2540 (Customs)]
[HQ1101-2030.9 (Sociology)]
Here are entered works on the human female. Works on female organisms in general are entered under Females.
UF Human females
Wimmin
Woman [Former heading]
Womon
Womyn
BT Females
Human beings
RT Femininity
SA subdivision Women under individual wars, e.g. World War, 1939-1945—Women; also subdivision Relations with women under names of individual persons; and headings beginning with the word Women
NT Abused women
Abusive women
Advertising and women
Architecture and women
Assyrian women
Aunts
Bahai women
Beauty contestants
Bisexual women
Buddhist women
Christian women
Church group work with women
Church work with women
Computers and women
Crones
Dalit women
Dance for women
Daughters
Daughters-in-law
Discounts for women
Exercise for women
Fascism and women
Femmes fatales
Gentile women
Gifted women
Heterosexual women
Hindu women
HIV-positive women
Homeless women
Housewives
Indian women
Indigenous women
Internet and women
Jaina women
Jewish religious education of women
Jewish women
Large-breasted women
Lesbians
Libraries and women
Married women
Mass media and women
Matriarchy
Medically uninsured women
Mentally ill women
Middle-aged women
Middle class women
Minority women
Mothers
Motion pictures and women
Motion pictures for women
Museums and women
Muslim women
National socialism and women
Nieces
Older women
Overweight women
Ovum donors
Photography of women
Physical education for women
Poor women
Preaching to women
Pregnant women
Puerto Rican women
Queens
Racially mixed women
Radio and women
Retired women
Runaway women
Rural women
Samaritan women
Scolds
Sedentary women
Self-defense for women
Self-employed women
Separated women
Sex instruction for women
Sexual ethics for women
Sexual harassment of women
Sexual minority women
Sikh women
Single women
Sisters
Social work with women
Syriac women
Tall women
Taoist women
Technology and women
Television and women
United States. Navy—Women
Upper class women
Urban women
Video games for women
Violence in women
Widows
Wild women
Wives
Women’s mass media
Working class women
Yezidi women
Young women
Zoroastrian women
Men (May Subd Geog)
Here are entered works on the human male. Works on male organisms in general are entered under Males.
UF Human males
BT Human beings
Males
RT Effeminacy
Masculinity
SA headings beginning with the word Male, e.g. Male nurses
NT Abused men
Abusive men
Antique collecting for men
Bahai men
Bisexual men
Brotherhoods
Brothers
Christian men
Church group work with men
Church work with men
Cosmetics for men
Dandies
Eunuchs
Fathers
Gay men
Gifted men
Grooming for men
Heterosexual men
HIV-positive men
Homeless men
Househusbands
Husbands
Indian men
Indigenous men
Jewish men
Latin lovers
Male prostitutes
Married men
Men in black (UFO phenomenon)
Middle-aged men
Middle class men
Motion pictures and men
Motion pictures for men
Muslim men
Nephews
Older men
Overweight men
Photography of men
Poor men
Preaching to men
Rural men
Sex instruction for men
Sexual harassment of men
Sexual minority men
Short men
Single men
Social work with men
Sons
Sperm donors
Strong men
Uncircumcised men
Uncles
Upper class men
Urban men
Violence in men
Widowers
Wild men
Womanizers
Working class men
Young men

That’s a lot of terms and I don’t expect you to read ’em all, but I wanted to make sure you had them for your own analysis [knowing not everyone has access to ClassWeb, the most up-to-date place for LCSH].
Next, I wanted to whittle down these lists to make them a little more manageable. I matched identical terms and equivalent familial relationships. I also mapped Short men to Tall women as being kin, though I am willing to entertain that there should be headings for Tall men and Short women [neither exist at press time]. Femme fatales being matched to Womanizers is admittedly, not the best match, but they’re close enough to me that I still felt justified.
The following are the matched headings.
Men
Abused men
Abusive men
Uncles
Bahai men
Bisexual men
Christian men
Church grp work w/ men
Church work with men
Sons
Womanizers
Gifted men
Heterosexual men
HIV-positive men
Homeless men
Househusbands
Husbands
Indian men
Indigenous men
Jewish men
Gay men
Married men
Middle-aged men
Middle class men
Fathers
Motion pictures and men
Motion pictures for men
Muslim men
Nephews
Older men
Overweight men
Sperm donors
Photography of men
Poor men
Preaching to men
Rural men
Sex instruction for men
Sexual harassment of men
Sexual minority men
Single men
Brothers
Social work with men
Short men
Upper class men
Urban men
Violence in men
Widowers
Wild men
Working class men
Young men
Women
Abused women
Abusive women
Aunts
Bahai women
Bisexual women
Christian women
Church grp work w/ women
Church work with women
Daughters
Femme fatales
Gifted women
Heterosexual women
HIV-positive women
Homeless women
Housewives
Wives
Indian women
Indigenous women
Jewish women
Lesbians
Married women
Middle-aged women
Middle class women
Mothers
Motion pictures and women
Motion pictures for women
Muslim women
Nieces
Older women
Overweight women
Ovum donors
Photography of women
Poor women
Preaching to women
Rural women
Sex instruction for women
Sexual harassment of women
Sexual minority women
Single women
Sisters
Social work with women
Tall women
Upper class women
Urban women
Violence in women
Widows
Wild women
Working class women
Young women
Check back in the next post where — I want to address three questions:
1. Which headings appear on one list but not the other?
2. Of those, are there equivalent headings that in LCSH?
3. Why does the equivalent heading either not exist, or isn’t in the hierarchy?

Sabaton (Musical group)

Earlier in this series: Iron Maiden (Musical group), Blind Guardian (Musical group)


 

Sabaton is a Swedish power metal band — they’re into war. Like, really into war. I’m not sure where they got this war-lust from considering that Sweden stayed ‘neutral’ in World War 2. I toss it in quotes because they still sold thousands of tons of iron to the Nazis. Yes, I haven’t forgotten that Sweden. On the other hand they harbored nearly all of Denmark’s Jews. So it’s a mixed bag.

Sabaton are good, but if you aren’t into war [as I am not] their catalog can be a bit exhausting and demoralizing with its endless glorification. That being said, they have some fantastic tunes, and lead singer Joakim Brodén has two affectations that I find delightful.

The first is this Thor-style chest piece that he wears.

imgres.jpg                                            images.jpg

The second is that he rolls his Rs. I used to think it was an accent thing [though none of my other Swedish bands roll their Rs until I found this interview:

David: You have a rather special accent when you sing, with rolling r’s, how come?

Joakim: Well, I want the lyrics to be recognizable. It’s easier to catch the message if I use a distinct pronouncing. But also I want people to hear that we are not from an English speaking country. So that’s why the r’s come out kind of Scottish and I guess I sound German sometimes.

http://www.metalcovenant.com/pages/livereviews/sabaton_special_srf_2005.htm

Primo Victoria (2005)

Primo Victoria

650 _ 0 World War, 1939-1945 $x Campaigns $z France $z Normandy.

Reign of Terror

650 _ 0 Persian Gulf War, 1991.

Panzer Battalion

650 _ 0 Iraq War, 2003-2011.

Wolfpack

650 _ 0 World War, 1939-1945 $x Naval operations $x Submarine.

650 _ 0 World War, 1939-1945 $x Campaigns $z Atlantic Ocean.

Counterstrike

650 _ 0 Israel-Arab War, 1967.

Stalingrad

650 _ 0 Stalingrad, Battle of, Volgograd, Russia, 1942-1943.

Into the Fire

650 _ 0 Napalm.

650 _ 0 Vietnam War, 1961-1975.

Purple Heart

650 _ 0 Purple Heart.

Metal Machine

650 _ 0 Heavy metal (Music)


Attero Dominatus (2006)

Attero Dominatus

650 _ 0 Berlin, Battle of, Berlin, Germany, 1945.

Nuclear Attack

651 _ 0 Hiroshima-shi (Japan) $x History $y Bombardment, 1945.
651 _ 0 Nagasaki-shi (Japan) $x History $y Bombardment, 1945.

Rise of Evil

651 _ 0 Germany $x Politics and government $y 1918-1933 .

650 _ 0 World War, 1939-1945 $x Causes.

In the Name of God

650 _ 0 Terrorism $x Religious aspects.

We Burn

600 1 0 Karadžić, Radovan V., 1945-

650 _ 0 Islamophobia $z Bosnia and Herzegovina $z Srebrenica.

650 _ 0 Genocide $z Bosnia and Herzegovina $z Srebrenica.

Angels Calling

650 _ 0 World War, 1914-1918.

Back in Control

650 _ 0 Falkland Islands War, 1982.

A Light in the Black

650 _ 0 Peacekeeping forces.

Metal Crüe

650 _ 0 Heavy metal (Music)


Metalizer (2007)

[skipping this one as it’s a re-release of their demo and has no particularly interesting content to analyze]

 


The Art of War (2008)

Sun Tzu Says

700 0 0 Sunzi, $d active 6th century B.C. $t Sunzi bing fa. $k Selections. $l English. $s Spoken word.

Ghost Division

610 1 0 Germany. $b Heer. $b Panzer-Division, 7.

The Art of War

700 0 0 Sunzi, $d active 6th century B.C. $t Sunzi bing fa. $k Selections. $l English. $s Spoken word.

40:1

650 _ 4 Wizna, Battle of, Wizna, Poland, 1939.

Unbreakable

650 _ 0 World War, 1939-1945 $x Underground movements.

The Nature of Warfare

700 0 0 Sunzi, $d active 6th century B.C. $t Sunzi bing fa. $k Selections. $l English. $s Spoken word.

Cliffs of Gallipoli

650 _ 0 World War, 1914-1918 $x Campaigns $z Turkey $z Gallipoli Peninsula.

Talvisota

650 _ 0 Russo-Finnish War, 1939-1940.

Panzerkampf

650 _ 0 Kursk, Battle of, Russia, 1943.

Union (Slopes of St. Benedict)

651 _ 0 Montecassino (Monastery) $x Siege, 1944.

The Price of a mile

650 _ 0 Ypres, 3rd Battle of, Ieper, Belgium, 1917.

Fire Storm

650 _ 0 World War, 1939-1945 $x Aerial operations.

A Secret

700 0 0 Sunzi, $d active 6th century B.C. $t Sunzi bing fa. $k Selections. $l English. $s Spoken word.

650 _ 0 Sound recordings $x Pirated editions.


Coat of Arms (2010)

Coat of Arms

650 _ 0 World War, 1939-1945 $x Campaigns $z Greece.

Midway

650 _ 0 Midway, Battle of, 1942.

Uprising

651 _ 0 Warsaw (Poland) $x History $y Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, 1943.

Screaming Eagles

610 1 0 United States. $b Army. $b Airborne Division, 101st.

650 _ 0 Ardennes, Battle of the, 1944-1945.

The Final Solution

650 _ 0 Holocaust, Jewish (1939-1945)

Aces in Exile

610 _ 0 Great Britain. $b Royal Air Force. $x Foreign service.

610 _ 0 Great Britain. $b Royal Navy. $b Fleet Air Arm $x Foreign service.

650 _ 0 Britain, Battle of, Great Britain, 1940.

Saboteurs

650 _ 0 Operation Freshman, 1942.

Wehrmacht

610 1 0 Germany. $b Wehrmacht.

White Death

600 1 0 Häyhä, Simo.

Metal Ripper

650 _ 0 Heavy metal (Music)


Carolus Rex (2012)

The Lion from the North

600 0 0 Gustav $b II Adolf, $c King of Sweden, $d 1594-1632.

Gott Mit Uns

650 _ 0 Breitenfeld, Battle of, Germany, 1631.

A Lifetime of War

650 _ 0 Thirty Years’ War, 1618-1648.

1648

650 _ 0 Prague, Battle of, Prague, Czech Republic, 1648.

The Carolean’s Prayer

650 _ 0 Sweden $x History, Military $y 17th century.

Carolus Rex

600 0 0 Charles $b XII, $c King of Sweden, $d 1682-1718.

Killing Ground

650 _ 0 Fraustadt, Battle of, Wschowa, Poland, 1706.

Poltava

650 _ 0 Poltava, Battle of, Poltava, Ukraine, 1709.

Long Live the King

600 0 0 Charles $b XII, $c King of Sweden, $d 1682-1718 $x Death and burial.

Ruina Imperii

650 _ 0 Northern War, 1700-1721 $x Campaigns $z Norway $z Trøndelag.

650 _ 0 Sweden $x History $y Charles XII, 1697-1718.


Heroes (2014)

Night Witches

650 _ 0 World War, 1939-1945 $x Participation, Female.
650 _ 0 Women air pilots $z Soviet Union.

No Bullets Fly

600 1 0 Brown, Charlie, 1912-2008.
600 1 0 Stigler, Franz, 1916-2008.

Smoking Snakes

610 1 0 Brazil. Exército. Força Expedicionária Brasileira, 1944-1945.

Inmate 4859

600 1 0 Pilecki, Witold, 1901-1948.

To Hell and Back

600 1 0 Murphy, Audie, 1924-1971.

650 _ 0 Post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Ballad of Bull

600 1 4 Allen, Bull, 1916-1982.

Resist and Bite

650 _ 0 World War, 1939-1945 $x Underground movements $z Belgium.

650 _ 0 World War, 1939-1945 $x Campaigns $z France $z Ardennes.

Soldier of 3 Armies

600 1 0 Törni, Lauri Allan, 1919-1965.

Far from the Fame

600 1 0 Janoušek, Karel, 1893?-1971.

Hearts of Iron

650 _ 0 Halbe, Battle of, Germany, 1945.

Man of War

610 2 0 Manowar (Musical group).


The Last Stand (2016)

Sparta

650 _ 0 Thermopylae, Battle of, Greece, 480 B.C.

Last Dying Breath

600 1 4 Gavrilović, Dragutin.

Blood of Bannockburn

650 _ 0 Bannockburn, Battle of, Scotland, 1314.

Diary of an Unknown Soldier

650 _ 0 Argonne, Battle of the, France, 1918.

The Lost Battalion

610 1 0 United States. $b Army. $b Infantry, 308th.

Rorke’s Drift

650 _ 0 Rorke’s Drift, Battle of, South Africa, 1879.

651 _ 0 Rome (Italy) $x History $y Siege, 1527.

The Last Stand

610 1 0 Vatican City. $b Guardia svizzera pontificia–History.

Hill 3234

651 _ 0 Afghanistan $x History $y Soviet occupation, 1979-1989.

651 _ 0 Soviet Union. $b Sovetskai︠a︡ Armii︠a︡.

Shiroyama

650 _ 0 Satsuma Rebellion, 1877.

Winged Hussars

651 _ 0  Vienna (Austria) $x History $y Siege, 1683.

650 _ 0 Poland. $b Armia. $b Kawaleria.

The Last Battle

650 _ 0 World War, 1939-1945 $x Campaigns $z Austria $z Tyrol.