Rewriting History
Deborah A Tinsley
through contemporary eyes and as much as some may try to be objective,
there is always a spin. Then there is the less innocent rewriting of
history to support a specific agenda. I assume these things are a given
even stated in this simple form.
So what particular history (and let's stick with things at least 50 years
in the past) at this time do you think is being most misrepresented at this
point in time and for what reason? Which is the most egregious? Is history
more or less truthful than it has been in the past?
--
Deborah
"One day I learned that science was not true.
I do not recall the day, but I recall the moment..
The God of the twentieth century was no longer God."
Kosko
Alan Allport
<3793d42e...@news.remarq.com>...
>History belongs to the victors, the dominant culture. We see history
>through contemporary eyes and as much as some may try to be objective,
>there is always a spin. Then there is the less innocent rewriting of
>history to support a specific agenda. I assume these things are a
given
>even stated in this simple form.
No. If history belongs to the victors, why is there still such a
burgeoning - and often frankly sympathetic - interest in the wartime
American Confederacy, for example?
Alan.
JDzik
>History belongs to the victors, the dominant culture.
But the dominant culture of an area does not always equal the victors. I give
the following examples:
1. Go into an American bookstore. Find a book on the Vietnam war. Chances are
that it is written by Americans from an American perspective, even though the
Vietnamese won.
2. Go into a bookstore in the American south. Go to the Civil War section.
You will most likely have no trouble finding any number of histories that have
a southern perspective, including many written by Confederates ranging from
Jefferson Davis down to Sam Watkins. (As a somewhat harder experiment: find
the sixth grade history textbook used in Fairfax County in Northern Virginia.
You will find the treatment of the Civil War biased towards the Confederate
cause. I know: I've got children who have been issued that textbook.)
3. Go to a bookstore in Western Europe or America. Look for a book on the
Crusades. Chances are that most books will be written by scholars from
Christian countries, scholars whose perspective is informed by their societies.
This in spite of the fact that the Christian nations lost the crusades.
I'll agree that the history that is most widely spread in an area is from the
perspective of that area's dominant culture. But that is not the same as
saying that history is written by the victors. That only occurs when the
culture of the loser is wiped out, which is actually fairly rare.
The statement that "history is written by the winners" is wrong. It is written
from the perspective of the dominant culture of an area, admittedly. But then,
that's the whole point to being the dominant culture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Joe Dzikiewicz
Anything worth doing is worth overdoing.
But not everything is worth doing...
Deborah A Tinsley
pose a the question more intelligently. I am not a historian (big
surprise), but I enjoy reading this group very much.
How we remember the past is very interesting to me. How current events are
presented is a special concern. I know from personal experience with the
mundane events of my own life that accurate reporting, hell accurate
comprehension, is dicey. I see so much spinning by power groups at my place
of work about why things go wrong or right, what really happened, secret
and hidden factors, I assume the same is true (times ten) of major
conflicts.
I think I was looking for help to form the question I really want to ask
and hoped some of the good minds and knowledgeable folk on this ng would
give me a kick start.
snip
> >History belongs to the victors, the dominant culture.
>
> But the dominant culture of an area does not always equal the victors. I
give
> the following examples:
>
> 1. Go into an American bookstore. Find a book on the Vietnam war.
Chances are
> that it is written by Americans from an American perspective, even though
the
> Vietnamese won.
Well the Vietnamese won but they are by no means victors. They won the
right to not have us in their country but if there were reparations from
the U.S. at all (were there any?) it must have been small, and though I am
woefully ignorant, IIRC didn't the U.S. freeze them out as far as trade
until recently? Also, even though Cambodia is not Vietnam, I believe in
much of the popular mind they were unfairly associated at least
emotionally with the massacres there.
Americans use that war symbolically and as a way to analyze American
politics and culture. It is written about almost as a second Civil War.
Vietnam is like a bad dream to be analyzed and the Vietnamese perspective
is relegated to what it says about America (I'm sure there are some notable
exceptions. At least I hope so).
> 2. Go into a bookstore in the American south. Go to the Civil War
section.
> You will most likely have no trouble finding any number of histories that
have
> a southern perspective, including many written by Confederates ranging
from
> Jefferson Davis down to Sam Watkins. (As a somewhat harder experiment:
find
> the sixth grade history textbook used in Fairfax County in Northern
Virginia.
> You will find the treatment of the Civil War biased towards the
Confederate
> cause. I know: I've got children who have been issued that textbook.)
I must concede that the victors are not the ones who control the history. I
suppose that it is a testament to our country that pro-Confederate
literature was not forbidden, censored or discouraged. Perhaps part of what
kept this country together was being able to respect each other.
But isn't the way the Civil War is written about indicative of the period
that writes about it? Isn't it seen in a different way now than it was 30
years ago (during the heat of struggle for civil rights) or 40 and 50 years
ago when racism was more openly a part of society? I'm sure things must
have been written at that time more sympathetic to slave holders. Even my
grade school history implied that slavery was if not a benign institution,
it was not the evil we know it to be now.
snip
> I'll agree that the history that is most widely spread in an area is from
the
> perspective of that area's dominant culture. But that is not the same as
> saying that history is written by the victors. That only occurs when the
> culture of the loser is wiped out, which is actually fairly rare.
>
> The statement that "history is written by the winners" is wrong. It is
written
> from the perspective of the dominant culture of an area, admittedly. But
then,
> that's the whole point to being the dominant culture.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------
> Joe Dzikiewicz
> Anything worth doing is worth overdoing.
> But not everything is worth doing...
Well when you are right you are right. Thank you for taking the time to
address my poorly formed question. I was hoping for a bit more insight and
some discussion, and that's exactly what you have provided.
Deborah
Nigel & Nancy Sellars
The growing body of work of histories "from below" -- labor history,
women's history, African-American, Hispanic-American and Native American
history, much of the "New" Western history -- are all examples of
writing history not from the viewpoint of the dominant culture.
Nigel Sellars
Donald Phillipson
> History belongs to the victors, the dominant culture. We see history
> through contemporary eyes and as much as some may try to be objective,
> there is always a spin. Then there is the less innocent rewriting of
> history to support a specific agenda. I assume these things are a given
> even stated in this simple form.
This seems not to be a genuine axiom but derived from something
else, viz. the idea that conflict is essential to history (cf.
lemma that where there is no conflict there is no history.)
(Logicians also observe that the strength of belief in anything
is irrelevant to its truth or verifiability or status as a
general axiom.)
Of course philosophers have spent a certain amount of time on
this. Not all accept that there can be no history if there
is no conflict (thus no "victors.") The axiom seems unhelpful
even in some fields e.g. party politics where conflict and
victory are obvious. When you ask whether Republicans or
Democrats are victors, or French or Germans, you find too
many strong arguments contradict any simple answer: which
makes you examine the nature of the question (e.g. whether
Rep./Dem conflict, or French/German) is an absolute conflict
oriented to a single final decision (the "end of history") or
a sort of alternating game, possibly oriented by the ultimate
survival of both parties.
Now we are doing real history, rather than mere narrative.
But we may convince ourselves early that not much of this
allows us to assume anything as given.
There now are a whole array of alternative Big Ideas,
from Gaia (design) to Nietzsche (disaster). Conflict is
not primary in many of these, but derived from something
else. Most doctrines of conflict in time presume a high
degree of continuity. But we know from biology that,
every time a new person is born, the gene pool is altered.
This is a strong hint that Republicanism, Capitalism,
France, Islam etc. is not likely to be identical in 1950
with how it was in 1900, let alone 1750.
This is why some people believe change is what is central
to history, and conflict is only one among several agents
of change: another is invention, i.e. the emergence of
ideas or objects that truly never existed before. Obviously
a strong influence in history, invention may be channeled
by conflict but does not to appear to originate in conflict.
--
| Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, |
| Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 |
Cliff
JDzik <jd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7mni6a$r1c$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> Deborah Tinsley writes:
>
> >History belongs to the victors, the dominant culture.
>
> victors.
Very true. Here is another example. Classical histories are
Greek, not Roman. Yet, Romans were the victors.
[excellent examples snipped.]
> I'll agree that the history that is most widely spread in an
area is from the
> perspective of that area's dominant culture. But that is not
the same as
> saying that history is written by the victors.
It is also not the same as the history that is written down. In
other words, we have at least three different histories here.
(a) History according to the victors and examples of which are
the c. 14th century English family histories deriving family
lineage from Biblical characters. (b) History according to oral
or popular traditions examples of which are Shakespeare's
portrayal of Joan of Arc and typical newspaper articles. (c)
History according to monks, clerics, or history professors.
>
> The statement that "history is written by the winners" is
wrong. It is written
> from the perspective of the dominant culture of an area,
admittedly. But then,
> that's the whole point to being the dominant culture.
Actually, history is just written by whoever bothers to expend
the effort to write, to publish and to preserve it.
Sadly, in the History of Histories the goal of producing an
objective record of what happened has not had much staying
power. There were a few centuries when some Greek historians
tried to do it. Another try at it started a couple of centuries
ago only to be smothered in the latter half of this century by
post-modernism. I have read excerpts of the Chinese dynastic
history that attempted it. But really, the idea that one should
gather believable data and then present it objectively so that
valid conclusions may be deduced from it does not really
satisfy. The conclusions all too often turn out to be not what
we want them to be.
--
Cliff
Al Kirke
>through contemporary eyes and as much as some may try to be objective,
>there is always a spin. Then there is the less innocent rewriting of
>history to support a specific agenda. I assume these things are a given
>even stated in this simple form.
>
>in the past) at this time do you think is being most misrepresented at this
>point in time and for what reason? Which is the most egregious? Is history
>more or less truthful than it has been in the past?
Popular history, the stuff taught in school and displayed in the newpaper
press currently contains about the same amount of truth as it has contined
in the past. The truth is in print. The books exist. But it is very hard
to locate.
We could begin with the American Civil War, which concentrated the political
power of half a continent in the uncontrolled office of the American
President.
It was a tragedy for the U.S., but for the world it was a disaster.
Then with World War I we paid 120,000 American dead in order to get
the Treaty of Versailles and World War II. (cheap at twice the price!)
We could continue with World War II, and the giving of eastern Europe and
mainland China to the Communists at the cost of 400,000 American lives.
Hey, I'll bet we could have figured out a way to gift that territory to the
Communists with no American lives lost at all.
Any body want to argue those?
Marvelous, isn't it?
Al
Donald Phillipson
>>History belongs to the victors, the dominant culture. We see history
>>through contemporary eyes and as much as some may try to be objective,
>>there is always a spin. Then there is the less innocent rewriting of
>>history to support a specific agenda. I assume these things are a given
>>even stated in this simple form.
"Al Kirke" (alk...@mindspring.com) writes:
> Popular history, the stuff taught in school and displayed in the newpaper
> press currently contains about the same amount of truth as it has contined
> in the past. The truth is in print. The books exist. But it is very hard
> to locate.
1. This sounds as if the truth in print so announces itself
that you recognize it automatically when you come across it.
This works OK for personal conviction. It does not work OK
for disciplinarized history, i.e. being able to prove your
conclusion so as to convince other people.
I.e. saying "the truth is in print" is at best half true.
You do not just have to spot the truth, like identifying
a rare bird. You and I create the truth by an act of will
and intellect.
This is a practical problem because everyone has the right to
reach her own historical conclusions (e.g. that conflict
explains everything and/or that the defeated write no history.)
All of us invest a lot of emotion in our conclusions, so can
get emotionally upset when someone else contradicts us, or if
we fail to convince someone else we are right.
Professional historians have gone a long way to disentangle
intellectual conviction from emotional commitment by agreeing
on standard methods of inference and standards of proof. This
is of huge practical value. It means that, even if you are
a committed Northerner (1861) you can still help and get
help from a committed Southerner.
> . . . continue with World War II, and the giving of eastern Europe and
> mainland China to the Communists at the cost of 400,000 American lives.
> Hey, I'll bet we could have figured out a way to gift that territory to the
> Communists with no American lives lost at all.
2. One of the commonest patterns of personal conviction is
nationalism, e.g. that the French were (generally) right under kings,
right under the Terror, right under Napoleon, right in WW1,
right in WW2 and so on. American nationalism is no less strong.
But it is an interesting unique feature that American nationalism
has (only since about 1945) often included the idea that the USA
had a responsibility for Poland, Bulgaria, China, Viet Nam etc.
thus a moral blame for "giving" these territories to whoever
ruled them in 1950 or 1990 or whatever. It is interesting because
other imperial powers (France, Britain etc.) used to demonstrate
a kindred idea (the "white man's burden") but abandoned it at
just about the same date Americans took it up.
2b. Europeans came around 1935-60 to the idea that Poland,
Angola, Fiji etc. must belong to the Poles, Angolans, Fiji
islanders etc. in a way they could not possibly belong to anyone
else. The critical time and place was Africa about 1960. Before
then colonial powers agreed they ought to confer independence
in the long run, but also agreed they had first to "teach
democracy" and this would take more than a generation, i.e. was
beyond the current political horizon. In about 1960 colonial
powers changed their policy to agree immediate independence
was more urgent than waiting until more people were literate, accustomed
to voting, etc. This was to a considerable extent adoption of
the American (isolationists') anti-colonial policy of the
1920s.
2b. The actual Americans who started in the 1940s complaining
about their "loss of" China, Poland, etc. repay study since
they appear to be the same Americans who were typically isolationist
before 1941, e.g. argued that the USA should do nothing about
Hitlerite Germany or the Spanish Civil War or Italian colonization
of Ethopia. Of course we should not take this at face value.
It may just have been a pretext for right-wing Americans to
defeat left-wing Americans in domestic American politics.
Either way it is a strong hint that, even if the truth really
is already in print, buried somewhere in the library, it does
not necessarily announce itself when you or I actually
open the book....
Rich Rostrom
> I must concede that the victors are not the ones who control the history. I
> suppose that it is a testament to our country that pro-Confederate
> literature was not forbidden, censored or discouraged. Perhaps part of what
> kept this country together was being able to respect each other.
>
> But isn't the way the Civil War is written about indicative of the period
> that writes about it? Isn't it seen in a different way now than it was 30
> years ago (during the heat of struggle for civil rights) or 40 and 50 years
> ago when racism was more openly a part of society? I'm sure things must
> have been written at that time more sympathetic to slave holders. Even my
> grade school history implied that slavery was if not a benign institution,
> it was not the evil we know it to be now.
There are multiple fields of battle. War is one, politics is another,
culture (which includes both history and literature) is a third.
Those defeated in war or politics often renew the struggle in politics
or culture.
For instance, the Boers were defeated by Britain in the war of 1899-1901.
But only a few years later they became a dominant force in the politics
of the Union of South Africa, and in 1948 took complete control.
The Confederacy lost the Civil War. They retreated to lesser goals
(i.e. control of state politics) where they won. They also took up the
goal of shaping the discourse about the Civil War and related events.
"Southern" partisans churned out acres of books pushing their version
of events; by sheer industry they succeeded in making some of their
beliefs mainstream. (They didn't try to demonize Lincoln or defend
slavery. Instead they pushed 'it was all states rights' theory of the
war and demonized Reconstruction.)
People with an agenda can often dominate an area of discourse just by
out-talking everybody else. And controlling the historical record can
lay the basis for renewed political and even military action.
--
Rich Rostrom | "Ah, White Lightning, that splits the skull and
| encourages the body and the sentiments!"
R-Rostrom@ |
mcs.net | -- R. A. Lafferty, _The Reefs of Earth_
David Bofinger
in world history of the period 1850 to 1950. I think in doing so he's
looking only at the bad side of the result. To really decide whether
the choices made were good, we have to compare the result we got to
the result we could have got.
Al Kirke wrote:
> We could begin with the American Civil War, which concentrated the
> political power of half a continent in the uncontrolled office of
> the American President.
I don't know I'd call the US president "uncontrolled", Nixon is an
example of someone who was brought up short by his leash. And they do
have to face an election every four years.
A way in which the president has become, IMO, uncontrolled is in his
ability to make war without congressional approval. But this applies
to the post-WW2 era, after your examples.
The alternatives to the historical result of the American Civil War
were, I think:
1. Southern victory. Confederacy independent, but states within it
have a lot of autonomy. Quite possibly some eventually secede. The
USA and CSA maintain large standing armies, and interstate trade is
retarded, so by our time both are much poorer. Blacks in the CSA are
oppressed for a long time, maybe an apartheid situation surviving to
the present day. This world sounds horrid to me.
2. No ACW. A lot of people live who otherwise would have died, Atlanta
has older architecture. Slavery either survives a long time or dies
out more or less peacefully. States rights stay intact longer. Maybe
not too bad a timeline: I'm not a big fan of states rights but a lower
death toll would excuse a lot. Depends on how long slavery lasts, I
guess.
> Then with World War I we paid 120,000 American dead in order to get
> the Treaty of Versailles and World War II. (cheap at twice the price!)
America could have pushed for a stronger League of Nations, or a less
harsh Versailles. It didn't because Wilson was gone and nobody else
cared. Maybe the US won the war and threw away the prize at the peace
table.
If America hadn't entered the war perhaps Germany would have won (it
was very close at the end, and the modest American contribution could
have been the straw that broke Germany's back). If Germany loses
anyway then some Americans are alive and some Anglo-French dead, but
otherwise little change. If Germany wins then Europe will remain a
nasty place for some time, though whether it will be as nasty as WW2
is hard to say.
> We could continue with World War II, and the giving of eastern
> Europe and mainland China to the Communists at the cost of 400,000
> American lives.
I think this is the most clearcut case where American participation
was of value.
Suppose America doesn't get involved. This means that western (i.e.
British) participation will be severely restricted (I'm assuming the
loss of lend-lease, etc.). There are two cases:
1. Germany wins. Most of Europe remains under a deranged, paranoid
regime. European GDP will be much smaller than it is today, and that
will impact on American economic growth as well. This is a nightmare,
and while America will suffer far less than most people don't kid
yourself they won't suffer at all. Assuming we see Hilterism and
Stalinism as equally bad, this is worse than history to the extent
that western Europe is also oppressed, rather than just the east.
2. The Soviet Union wins. Much like history, except that communism
controls a larger area than in our timeline: probably all of Germany,
Austria and Denmark; direct control by the USSR of Yugoslavia and
Albania; perhaps Greece and/or Finland; possibly Italy. It's also
much worse than the historical result.
> Hey, I'll bet we could have figured out a way to gift that
> territory to the Communists with no American lives lost at all.
Don't look at the territory that was lost. Look at what was saved.
The losses would have been lost either way, I think.
In summary, I think you are comparing the results with an ideal
result, rather than what would have happened if nothing had been done.
Just because the result won't be perfect is no reason to do nothing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan W Hendry
Quoth Rich Rostrom on 18 Jul 1999 17:48:35 GMT in <7mt41j$1396$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>:
> There are multiple fields of battle. War is one, politics is another,
> culture (which includes both history and literature) is a third.
> Those defeated in war or politics often renew the struggle in politics
> or culture.
A past example: the nations overrun by the Mongol hordes. Those
that survived had lost, but were able to write the history. Mainly
because the Khans didn't keep much history, and there culture
largely disappeared.
A recent example: Serbia. Milosevic built nationalist fervor
over a long-past battle which the Serbians lost. They lost,
but they turned the loss into a central organizing point
for their culture. This required a lot of myth-making, but
that's par for the course.
It certainly helps a great deal if the winner later
falls apart on their own. Milosevic might not have been
as persuasive had the Ottoman empire still been around,
maintaining *their* version of events.
Clayton E. Cramer
Donald Phillipson <ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:3791dc5a....@news.remarq.com...
> Professional historians have gone a long way to disentangle
> intellectual conviction from emotional commitment by agreeing
> on standard methods of inference and standards of proof. This
> is of huge practical value. It means that, even if you are
> a committed Northerner (1861) you can still help and get
> help from a committed Southerner.
You'll forgive my skepticism, but when I see the amount of press
coverage that Michael Bellesiles's claim "there were almost no guns
in antebellum America, and practically no one hunted, even on the
frontier" is getting in publications like Journal of American History
and The Economist, it tells me that these standard methods of
inference and proof aren't working.
>
Pat Sibbald
Jonathan W Hendry wrote:
How true. A Russian friend of mine and a Polish friend believe that their respective
countries single handedly repulsed the Mongol invaders and protected the rest of Europe from
them. The Poles even have a national holiday to commemorate the 'fact'! (August 14 if memory
serves)
CG Luxford
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Al Kirke wrote:
>
> We could begin with the American Civil War, which concentrated the political
> power of half a continent in the uncontrolled office of the American
> President.
>
rest of the world.
Chris,
Sean Holland
>
> How true. A Russian friend of mine and a Polish friend believe that their respective
> countries single handedly repulsed the Mongol invaders and protected the rest of Europe from
> them. The Poles even have a national holiday to commemorate the 'fact'! (August 14 if memory
> serves)
I understand that American children are taught that the US won the War of
1812. Canadians learn a different version of the story.
Clayton E. Cramer
news:379168a1....@news.remarq.com...
Which I suppose merely indicates that the dominant culture is
showing a great deal of generosity. Are there examples from other
periods in which the formerly (and even currently) oppressed
groups have the level of access to the discussion of history that
is common now?
Clayton E. Cramer
Clayton D. Strand
<seho...@islandnet.com> wrote:
(( cuts ))
> I understand that American children are taught that the US won the War of
>1812. Canadians learn a different version of the story.
I can't speak for what other American children learned in school, but
I learned the war itself had a neutral outcome, but Jackson's victory
at New Orleans had a far reaching effect. In fact though it is one of
the most important events in American History it is hardly mentioned
at all in American schools, so far as I know, much like the Mexican
War.
Most Canadians I have talked to have a perspective which includes
about 33% of the activity of the war, that is the activities on their
borders and in the Northern United States.
The war was fought in order to stop two British provocations, first,
and best remembered, the impressionment of American sailors by the
British Navy. This issue was not decided by the Treaty of Ghent,
though the sides agreed to future negotiations. As a practical
matter, the British stopped doing it.
The second British provaction had to do with what was then called the
Northwest Territories. The British in America never really agreed
that this was a part of the 13 colonies and continued after the
revolution to recruit Native allies and expand their trade networks
through what is now Michigtan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio. To this end
they supplied their allies, including Techumseh, with arms and other
trade goods. This was another objective of the war by the Amercians.
The Treaty of Ghent did not address this either, but the British left
their trading posts on American territory, abandoning their allies of
decades, which caused a general slaughter of the Native tribes in the
region until, during the next couple of decades, they were pushed
across what is now the Western border of Iowa and onto the Great
Plains, thus clearing this entire territory for American expansion.
Last, though it had no effect on the Treaty of Ghent which ended the
war, the Battle of New Orleans destroyed forever British military
influence in the Western Hemisphere. From that point forward, when
disputes arose, as with the Oregon Territory conflict of the mid
1840s, the British compromised, even when, as with the Annexation of
Texas it was clearly against their best interest to do so.
Upper and Lower Canada, it is true, each retained their colonial
relationship to Britain, which was a net gain for Britain, though what
it gained Canadians is harder to see.
Spain (Britain's ally) retained Florida for another seven years, but
ultimately ceded Florida to the USA in return for the USA abandoning
its tenuous claim that Texas was a part of the Louisiana Purchase,
which did have the effect of extending first Spanish and later Mexican
ownership of California and what is now the American Southwest for
another quarter of a century.
Dave
cdst...@cpsidfw.com
http://www.cdstrand.com
Donald Phillipson
> I understand that American children are taught that the US won the War of
> 1812. Canadians learn a different version of the story.
This is the classic example of what this thread is
about. Once this point penetrates the classroom
(easily for Canadians, possible for Americans) the
kids may ask what "winning" means, i.e. evaluate
fact-based and loyalty-based reasons why either
party says "we won." This is the beginning of
adult history.
CG Luxford
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Sean Holland wrote:
>
> I understand that American children are taught that the US won the War of
> 1812. Canadians learn a different version of the story.
>
Chris,
Alan Allport
>Last, though it had no effect on the Treaty of Ghent which ended the
>war, the Battle of New Orleans destroyed forever British military
>influence in the Western Hemisphere.
Given that most of the British Isles are within the Western Hemisphere, this
is an unfortunately worded statement...
Even in the colloquial sense, though, it seems wrong - British territories
in the West Indies, South America and the South Atlantic (Falkland Isles,
South Georgia etc.) remained a significant part of the worldwide Imperial
military network throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries, even leaving
aside the Dominion of Canada.
Alan.
--
*********************************************
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~allport/
*********************************************
Stephen Graham
Clayton D. Strand <cdst...@cpsidfw.com> wrote:
>I can't speak for what other American children learned in school, but
>I learned the war itself had a neutral outcome, but Jackson's victory
>at New Orleans had a far reaching effect. In fact though it is one of
>the most important events in American History it is hardly mentioned
>at all in American schools, so far as I know, much like the Mexican
>War.
I learned most of my American history in Michigan, which stresses the
War of 1812 much more than most of the rest of the US. We also were
taught that the war was essentially a draw.
If I remember correctly, we had a decent overview of the entire war,
even mentioning the tie-in to the Napoleonic Wars. The focus though was
on the invasion of Canada and the various struggles with the
British-allied Indians. That shouldn't be surprising - much of the
fighting took place in Michigan or in the immediate region. The
historical sites with a military slant all date from the War of 1812 or
earlier, so that's what you're exposed to most often.
The French and Indian War is also stressed in the Michigan schools but
there's no link made to the Seven Years War.
--
Stephen Graham
gra...@ee.washington.edu
gra...@eskimo.com
Deborah A Tinsley
<3794a31c...@news.remarq.com>...
> Sean Holland (seho...@islandnet.com) writes:
>
> > I understand that American children are taught that the US won the
War of
> > 1812. Canadians learn a different version of the story.
>
> about. Once this point penetrates the classroom
> (easily for Canadians, possible for Americans) the
> kids may ask what "winning" means, i.e. evaluate
> fact-based and loyalty-based reasons why either
> party says "we won." This is the beginning of
> adult history.
And sometimes political points are won by claiming victory, inundating the
populace with the claim, sometimes supported by what people want to be true
(i.e. pre-Vietnam adage: The U.S. has never lost a war.) No victory is
ever absolute though some come darn close.
Deborah
Clayton E. Cramer
>I understand that American children are taught that the US won the War of
>1812. Canadians learn a different version of the story.
Hmmm. What I learned in the lower grades wasn't that the U.S. won the
War of 1812, but there was a studious avoidance of "winning"
vs. "losing" on that. It seems to me that it was generally taught as
a great mistake of a war.
Clayton E. Cramer
George Hardy
gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) says:
>
>I learned most of my American history in Michigan, which stresses the
>War of 1812 much more than most of the rest of the US. We also were
>taught that the war was essentially a draw.
More accurately, there ceased to be any reason to be at war. Neither
side had any reason to fight. The idea that Canada wanted to be
"liberated" was without any support in Canada. Many Canadians of
that era had been loyalists in the lower colonies and were not at
all interested is seeing the atrocities they had experienced during
the American Revolution repeated again.
>If I remember correctly, we had a decent overview of the entire war,
>even mentioning the tie-in to the Napoleonic Wars.
Wow, even mentioned that there was a connection with the Napoleonic
Wars! No wonder you became an historian. You already had a thesis
subject.
GFH
***************************************************************
http://www.ankerstein.org/
The Anchor Stone Building Set (Anker-Steinbaukasten) Home Page
See what makes me tick.
***************************************************************
dr...@panix.com
> I understand that American children are taught that the US won the War of
> 1812. Canadians learn a different version of the story.
Looking through the 11 college-level US history texts on the shelf next
to my computer, I'll note that none of them makes this claim.
Andrew
Mark D. Lew
(Jonathan W Hendry) wrote:
> A recent example: Serbia. Milosevic built nationalist fervor
> over a long-past battle which the Serbians lost. They lost,
> but they turned the loss into a central organizing point
> for their culture. This required a lot of myth-making, but
> that's par for the course.
>
> It certainly helps a great deal if the winner later
> falls apart on their own. Milosevic might not have been
> as persuasive had the Ottoman empire still been around,
> maintaining *their* version of events.
Well, sort of. The development of the Kosovo myth was greatly facilitated
by the fact Serbia did not lose as thoroughly as the stories say.
Militarily the 1389 battle was a draw. Although it did lead to gradual
absorption of Serbia by the Ottoman empire, the Serbian court survived for
more than a decade, and the epics were first sung during that period.
When the empire did annex Serbia, it did nothing to suppress Serb language
or culture. Stefan Lazarevic became not only a vassal of the sultan but a
close friend as well. The Ottoman Turks were not a ravaging horde. Rather,
they were a well-organized political organization. Growth of the empire was
due more to diplomacy and intermarriage than to wars of conquest.
Ottoman misrule did not come until a few centuries later, and even then it
was due more to government neglect than government oppression.
mdl
(For public-domain translations of Serb epic poetry, see
<http://home.earthlink.net/~markdlew/SerbEpic/>.)
Stephen Graham
George Hardy <geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote:
>Wow, even mentioned that there was a connection with the Napoleonic
>Wars! No wonder you became an historian. You already had a thesis
>subject.
It's hard to tell if you're serious or sarcastic here. But the link to
the Napoleonic Wars is pretty obvious. The entire question of
citizenship and impressment was exacerbated by the need for additional
ship crew during the Napoleonic Wars. Following this, it was clear that
the British were heavily engaged elsewhere in 1812, giving the US a
local advantage in military power. Then in 1814, additional, experienced
British troops become available as campaigning in Europe winds down.
Ken Moore
<clayton...@nokia.com> writes
>Hmmm. What I learned in the lower grades wasn't that the U.S. won the
>War of 1812, but there was a studious avoidance of "winning"
>vs. "losing" on that. It seems to me that it was generally taught as
>a great mistake of a war.
In so far as it is visible at all in the UK, it is seen as that there
also.
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
Web site: http://www.hpsl.demon.co.uk/
Phil
news:37947846...@news.remarq.com...
>
> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Al Kirke wrote:
> >
> > power of half a continent in the uncontrolled office of the American
> > President.
> > It was a tragedy for the U.S., but for the world it was a disaster.
> >
> I don't see that the American Civil War had any real affect on the
> rest of the world.
>
It did, but probably in subtle ways, e.g. the UK had to look for other
sources of cotton, potential Americans would be less likely to emigrate
during the Civil War, etc. Also, I reckon that the British government
would have looked a lot more favourably on the South (that lifestyle
having derived from the landowners in the West Indies) than the North
(which was a society that had originally been made up of people who wanted
to escape from what they saw as oppression in the UK) had it not been for
the outcry which greeted the publication of "Uncle Tom's Cabin". That may
even have been part of the reason for the British refusing to get too
involved, the other reason being economic. I have to admit, I can't see
how it was a disaster for the world.
As for the office of the American President being uncontrolled, you have
to ask by whom. Personally, I think you may find that JFK was uncontrolled
in the way that Al Kirke was talking about although he would appear to
have been pretty much controlled by his father.
--
Phil
--------------------------------------------------
ph...@cyclops.force9.co.uk
Mark D. Lew
> I understand that American children are taught that the US won the War of
> 1812. Canadians learn a different version of the story.
I honestly don't remember what, if anything, my school taught me about the
War of 1812.
Reading the history of Canada is an excellent way of learning about
American history in the period of 1750-1815, I believe. It was, in fact, a
chance encounter with the Pelican History of Canada (which I still
sometimes consult) that first opened my eyes to the possibility that
America was actually a nation that could be studied like any other. Before
that I always associated the idea of "American history" with a bunch of
anecdotes about Pilgrims and Puritans, George Washington, the Declaration
of Independence, etc, etc.
It's not so much that we're taught history that is in inaccurate (though
there's some of that), it's this pervasive notion that other countries are
just countries, but America is a spiritual phenomenon.
mdl
Mark D. Lew
<all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote:
> Even in the colloquial sense, though, it seems wrong - British territories
> in the West Indies, South America and the South Atlantic (Falkland Isles,
> South Georgia etc.) remained a significant part of the worldwide Imperial
> military network throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries, even leaving
> aside the Dominion of Canada.
The Falkland Islands significant?? In 1814, there was no British presence
there at all. In 1774, the British Navy abandoned their outpost there
because it was useless. They didn't return until the 1830s, and it wasn't
until the 1850s that the colony was developed.
As for South Georgia, you've got to be kidding. Beautiful island, but
what's the population? About 20, I think.
I agree with you about Canada and the West Indies, though.
mdl
George Hardy
gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) says:
ject.
>It's hard to tell if you're serious or sarcastic here.
Sarcastic.
>But the link to the Napoleonic Wars is pretty obvious.
Even to an historian, it would seem.
>The entire question of citizenship and impressment was exacerbated
>by the need for additional ship crew during the Napoleonic Wars.
Oh, come on! Was not the real problem that the US gave citizenship
papers to anyone who asked? That any British seaman who managed to
get on board a US ship, or ashore in the USA, was granted a safe
haven. Did not the USA actually promote the problem? Was not
Great Britain willing to be reasonable if the USA would not grant
citizenship papers to British deserters?
>Following this, it was clear that the British were heavily engaged
>elsewhere in 1812, giving the US a local advantage in military power.
And did not the USA think in 1912 that France was a winner, that it
was a good time to cash in on that victory?
>Then in 1814, additional, experienced British troops become available
>as campaigning in Europe winds down.
Yes, after it was clear France was losing, the USA became eager to
begin peace talks, which went very slowly. And, the USA also found
out that their dream of a Canadian uprising in favor of independence,
was a pipe-dream, with God-knows-what in the pipe.
John McCarthy
extended fronts, mass armies in the field for a long time, heavy
dependence on railroads and the telegraph. 'Tis said that the
Prussians learned more from it than did the French.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Stephen Graham
George Hardy <geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote:
>>But the link to the Napoleonic Wars is pretty obvious.
>
>Even to an historian, it would seem.
But not necessarily to a sixth-grader studying state history. A lot of
state history courses, particularly in elementary school, give very
limited or no background to what they're teaching.
>>The entire question of citizenship and impressment was exacerbated
>>by the need for additional ship crew during the Napoleonic Wars.
>
>Oh, come on! Was not the real problem that the US gave citizenship
>papers to anyone who asked? That any British seaman who managed to
>get on board a US ship, or ashore in the USA, was granted a safe
>haven. Did not the USA actually promote the problem? Was not
>Great Britain willing to be reasonable if the USA would not grant
>citizenship papers to British deserters?
No, that's not the real problem. Look at British behavior when someone
who might be a British subject is threatened by another nation. (Hint:
consider the War of Jenkins' Ear.) The US was entitled to grant
citizenship to whomever it pleased. And objecting to the Royal Navy
boarding ships of a neutral nation was perfectly reasonable.
>>Following this, it was clear that the British were heavily engaged
>>elsewhere in 1812, giving the US a local advantage in military power.
>
>And did not the USA think in 1912 that France was a winner, that it
>was a good time to cash in on that victory?
Sure. Why does that matter?
>>Then in 1814, additional, experienced British troops become available
>>as campaigning in Europe winds down.
>
>Yes, after it was clear France was losing, the USA became eager to
>begin peace talks, which went very slowly.
It was really much more the appearance of the additional troops that
made the difference.
CG Luxford
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Phil wrote:
> It did, but probably in subtle ways, e.g. the UK had to look for other
> sources of cotton,
True, to a certain extent. Though other sources were alreaady being
developed by that time. Especially in India where they were quite
well established. The loss of American cotton was certainly a
short term problem, but the US had never been the sole source of raw
cotton for the Lancashire cotton mills. It is, IIRC, an old world plant
after all.
> potential Americans would be less likely to emigrate
> during the Civil War, etc.
Again true, though I don't know how much long term difference that can
be realistically said to have had to either the US or the countries of
origin.
> Also, I reckon that the British government
> would have looked a lot more favourably on the South (that lifestyle
> having derived from the landowners in the West Indies)
Possibly. Though I think it's more that the South was a supplier of raw
materials, while the North was threatening to become a serious economic
rival.
> than the North
> (which was a society that had originally been made up of people who wanted
> to escape from what they saw as oppression in the UK)
Though many of those who crossed the Atlantic for religious reasons went
in order to set up their own brand of religious intollerance. But that's
a different issue entirely.
> had it not been for
> the outcry which greeted the publication of "Uncle Tom's Cabin". That may
> even have been part of the reason for the British refusing to get too
> involved, the other reason being economic.
There may have been any number of reasons. The fact that slavery had
already been abolished in the British Empire no doubt played a part,
especially once the war became seen as purely about that issue.
> I have to admit, I can't see how it was a disaster for the world.
The world would doubtless be different had the Confederacy been allowed
to continue, but probably not much.
> As for the office of the American President being uncontrolled, you have
> to ask by whom.
And whether the post is, or was, significantly more or less "controlled"
than any other head of government.
Chris,
Nigel & Nancy Sellars
<snipped>
>
> And sometimes political points are won by claiming victory, inundating the
> populace with the claim, sometimes supported by what people want to be true
> (i.e. pre-Vietnam adage: The U.S. has never lost a war.) No victory is
> ever absolute though some come darn close.
The U.S. "never lost a war claim" also ignores the defeat of the U.S. in
the two Seminole Wars (and technically still at war until an offical
peace treaty in the 1970s, IIRC) and the Fort Laramie Treaty with the
Lakota after Red Cloud's War. But then these aren't "real" wars to many
people. On the other hand, here in Oklahoma we learn much more of the
native Americans side of the story.
Nigel Sellars
Mark D. Lew
> >Even to an historian, it would seem.
Stephen Graham:
> But not necessarily to a sixth-grader studying state history. A lot of
> state history courses, particularly in elementary school, give very
> limited or no background to what they're teaching.
I think George is indulging in more sarcasm. The point is that it is so
basic that it ought to be ludicrous to even discuss American history during
1789-1815 without discussing the French revolution. The joke is that your
school, which did mention Napoleon, was the exception.
George again:
> >Oh, come on! Was not the real problem that the US gave citizenship
> >papers to anyone who asked? That any British seaman who managed to
> >get on board a US ship, or ashore in the USA, was granted a safe
> >haven. Did not the USA actually promote the problem? Was not
> >Great Britain willing to be reasonable if the USA would not grant
> >citizenship papers to British deserters?
Many Americans promoted the problem, the USA government did not. The
problem was that at the time the American government did not have that kind
of control. The federalists in Washington certainly would have liked to
stop it, but they couldn't. The matter of citizenship papers didn't even
come up until after impressment was already a problem. The British navy
officers couldn't easily tell who was a deserter and who wasn't, so they
tended to just grab whatever sailor they wanted.
In response to that, the US government started requiring American sailors
to carry citizenship papers, so as to help the British identify deserters
and obviate their need/excuse to impress non-deserters. That would have
been fine if it were possible to ensure papers were authentic, but it
wasn't. British deserters now had a need to have citizenship papers to
show. Whether fake documents from a forger or genuine ones from a corrupt
official, it didn't much matter, the British deserters were willing to pay
for them. Given the American government's complete inability to fight
forgery and corruption, citizenship papers were so widely available that it
was a buyer's market, and any British sailor with a dollar to spend could
become a "citizen".
Before long the idea of using documents to distinguish citizens from
deserters became a joke. It was not, however, an intentional deceit by the
US government.
mdl
George Hardy
gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) says:
> The US was entitled to grant citizenship to whomever it pleased.
But, granting the new citizenship in no way relieves the person
of his obligations under his "old" citizenship.
>And objecting to the Royal Navy boarding ships of a neutral nation
>was perfectly reasonable.
Odd thinking. A neutral ship is harboring a fugitive. And that ship
may not be boarded? Remember Panama? The USA invaded to capture its
ruler. Because he violated some USA laws, or so we said. It seems
that the USA feels it has some sort of 'super-authority". During
the early stages of WWI and WWII were not neutral ships stopped and
boarded to inspect their cargoes? Is not a blockade permitted in
your mind? Does anyone else agree with you?
>>And did not the USA think in 1912 that France was a winner, that it
>>was a good time to cash in on that victory?
>
>Sure. Why does that matter?
Because when it became clear that the American judgement was wrong,
it was time to settle the war.
>>>Then in 1814, additional, experienced British troops become available
>>>as campaigning in Europe winds down.
>>
>>Yes, after it was clear France was losing, the USA became eager to
>>begin peace talks, which went very slowly.
>
>It was really much more the appearance of the additional troops that
>made the difference.
England was war weary. They were not going to undertake the conquest
of the USA. The attacks in the Chesapeake were retaliation for our
attacks on York. Neither side was willing to put in enough effort to
win, but neither was willing to lose.
One may well ask whether, had the British won at New Orleans, the
treaty would have been abrogated. As events turned out, we will
never know. But, that battle does disprove your assumption about
"the appearance of additional troops". They had no influence at all.
Sadly, today history is all about spin, facts and events may be ignored.
Germans use the same word (Geschichte) for "history" and "story". Do
you?
Clayton D. Strand
wrote:
(( cuts ))
>But, granting the new citizenship in no way relieves the person
>of his obligations under his "old" citizenship.
Under the theory that a given individual is the property of the state,
and that people were subjects and not citizens, this would be true.
Most states who have citizens have an end to obligations when
citizenship is ended.
(( cuts ))
>Odd thinking. A neutral ship is harboring a fugitive. And that ship
>may not be boarded?
Well, certainly, aside from the King's ministers many in Britain
thought it unreasonable. No ship which can defend itself can be
boarded, to do so is an act of war under international law.
> Remember Panama? The USA invaded to capture its
>ruler. Because he violated some USA laws, or so we said. It seems
>that the USA feels it has some sort of 'super-authority". During
>the early stages of WWI and WWII were not neutral ships stopped and
>boarded to inspect their cargoes? Is not a blockade permitted in
>your mind? Does anyone else agree with you?
Actually, under international law, then and now, a blocade is an act
of war. A given country can do what it is powerful enough to do.
Britain lacked the power, or the will, it really doesn't matter which,
to continue its actions.
(( cuts ))
>Because when it became clear that the American judgement was wrong,
>it was time to settle the war.
Americans went to war for several reasons, and had little real hope,
without the Northeast, of winning the war. The war ended with
everything the same as when it started, only with the warring parties
agreeing to negotiate on all of the issues.
The Duke of Wellington flatly told the King and his ministers that it
was they who were wrong, not the USA, which had as much effect as
anything on ending the war.
(( cuts ))
>England was war weary. They were not going to undertake the conquest
>of the USA. The attacks in the Chesapeake were retaliation for our
>attacks on York. Neither side was willing to put in enough effort to
>win, but neither was willing to lose.
According to the British your comments here are in error. England
(Great Britain) sent veteran troops, fresh from victory over Napoleon,
to pursue the war with increased vigor. Their defeat at Champlain was
a shocking event to both the British Governemnt and the veterans of
the French wars alike.
The attack on the Chesapeake, according to extant writings of the
British participants was an effort to win the war. It was only after
the war and these self same men were being criticized so severely, and
the publich was clamoring for courts-martial, for getting their troops
slaughtered at New Orleans, that they remembered that the raid on
Washington was a retaliation for the American raid on the capital (a
city of less than 1000) of Lower Canada.
>One may well ask whether, had the British won at New Orleans, the
>treaty would have been abrogated. As events turned out, we will
>never know. But, that battle does disprove your assumption about
>"the appearance of additional troops". They had no influence at all.
According the Duke of Wellington, the British had absolutely no chance
for a victory at New Orleans as they, according to him, acted without
considering the military ramifications of what they did, only with the
booty from New Orleans in mind. The American defense of Washington
had been inept, the same force tried to raid Baltimore and was
repulsed, and they decided that the key to victory was landing
infantry. Wellington (whose brother-in-law took over command of the
force after they had landed) was quite harsh in his criticism.
>Sadly, today history is all about spin, facts and events may be ignored.
>Germans use the same word (Geschichte) for "history" and "story". Do
>you?
Who knows? Certainly the Duke of Wellington was the premier military
man in Great Britain at the time of these events, and certainly he had
a dramatically different opinion of them than you do, and certainly it
is somewhat difficult to see why he might have favored the USA over
his own King and country for some sentimental reason. But, who knows?
What we do know, according to him, is that Britain was quite anxious
to pursue the war after the French were defeated, to the point that
the British government asked Wellington to take command of the war
effort. He refused, not, I suppose, because he thought the war
unwinnable, but, rather, as he said, because he thought Great Britain
in the wrong.
You can read all about it in Longford's excellent two volume
biography...
Dave
cdst...@cpsidfw.com
http://www.cdstrand.com
Deborah A Tinsley
<7n7hvn$ttc$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
My point exactly. First someone defines what a war is and why it is
important.
Deborah
Fred Haines
George Hardy <geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote in message
news:379b9733...@news.remarq.com...
> In article <7n68sc$t12$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
> gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) says:
> Odd thinking. A neutral ship is harboring a fugitive. And that ship
> may not be boarded? Remember Panama? The USA invaded to capture its
> ruler. Because he violated some USA laws, or so we said. It seems
> that the USA feels it has some sort of 'super-authority". During
> the early stages of WWI and WWII were not neutral ships stopped and
> boarded to inspect their cargoes? Is not a blockade permitted in
> your mind? Does anyone else agree with you?
A blockade is considered an act of war under international law.
What does it mean to say 'a neutral ship is harboring a fugitive?' How would
a captain of a British ship of the line know, for instance, that an American
merchant vessel was harboring a fugitive? Would he have had a warrant for
the arrest of such a fugitive? Or would he merely have been running a
pressgang? I wouldn't argue that the invasion of Panama was legal, because I
believe it was an unprovoked act of war, but I don't think that a warship
can stop and board a neutral ship without probable cause either in 1812 or
today.
Fred Haines
ac...@lafn.org
Stephen Graham
George Hardy <geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote:
>In article <7n68sc$t12$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
>gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) says:
>
>of his obligations under his "old" citizenship.
Under English common law, it does.
>>And objecting to the Royal Navy boarding ships of a neutral nation
>>was perfectly reasonable.
>
>Odd thinking. A neutral ship is harboring a fugitive. And that ship
>may not be boarded?
Correct. Remember the Trent Incident?
>Remember Panama?
Remember that Panama declared that a state of war existed with the
United States?
>One may well ask whether, had the British won at New Orleans, the
>treaty would have been abrogated. As events turned out, we will
>never know. But, that battle does disprove your assumption about
>"the appearance of additional troops". They had no influence at all.
No, it disproves nothing. The British have a long history of actually
honoring their treaties.
J. Edward Tuttle
> Phil wrote:
> > ... the UK had to look for other sources of cotton,
>
> True, to a certain extent. Though other sources were alreaady being
> developed by that time. Especially in India where they were quite
> well established. ... It is, IIRC, an old world plant after all.
Herodotus, I believe, identifies it with India.
Greg
> If history belongs to the victors, why is there still such a
> burgeoning - and often frankly sympathetic - interest in the
> wartime American Confederacy, for example?
Because they won our hearts? :o)
But seriously, the viewpoint of the confederacy won out in US History
for a very long time. IIRC, from 1890s to 1950s, history textbooks used
in the South, and also elsewhere about the US, too, painted a
highly favorable picture of the confederate cause, glazed over the
abuses of slavery, and gave an especially distorted viewpoint of
the Reconstruction.
A great book on the topic of distortions in text books is "Lies My
Teacher Told Me". It's recent & still in print and should be required
reading for all HS history teachers, if not their students.
Anyhoo, the long standing tradition of giving the Ozzie & Harriet
version of the antebellum South and the Camelot version of the War
was incubated in the nostalgia of the partisan presentations of the
history of the Southland. This happened because, in fact, racism
was the winner in the South from the 1890s to 1950s. Prior to then
the textbooks, mostly published up north, pretty much demonized the
Rebel cause and linked slave-owning to moral indolence.
Since the 60s the trend is to give a more balanced view. But that's
partly coz the latest winners in history are the moral relativists.
--Greg Rea
foolsco...@hotmail.com
Gerard Foley
Distribution:
Mark D. Lew (mark...@earthlink.net) wrote:
<snip>
: It's not so much that we're taught history that is in inaccurate (though
: there's some of that), it's this pervasive notion that other countries are
: just countries, but America is a spiritual phenomenon.
In my younger days, I felt that this was not a uniquely American notion;
the common opinion in most countries seemed to be that they were the best. I
felt, however, that the Germans were different, in that they cared whether
others felt Germany was best, while most nationals felt that it didn't
really matter what those lowly foreigners thought. I attributed this to
the late rise of the German nation.
--
Gerry
Clayton D. Strand
(( cuts ))
>Anyhoo, the long standing tradition of giving the Ozzie & Harriet
>version of the antebellum South and the Camelot version of the War
>was incubated in the nostalgia of the partisan presentations of the
>history of the Southland. This happened because, in fact, racism
>was the winner in the South from the 1890s to 1950s. Prior to then
>the textbooks, mostly published up north, pretty much demonized the
>Rebel cause and linked slave-owning to moral indolence.
I wouldn't argue with your time frame here, and the fact that racism
in America became much more important in the 1890s. But that was true
both North and South. The list of states who fell under the Klan
knows no sectional boundaries, as an example.
Partisan presentations? Most textbooks of the period, one might be
tempted to say "all", were published in exactly the same places before
1890 and after 1950. The question, then, I would say, is what caused
the rise of racism in all textbooks in the country? What caused the
textbooks, published in the North, by, I would suspect without
evidence to the contrary, by people from the same areas as before and
after, authored by the same type people before as after.
These are quite interesting questions. In the 1890s, especially in
the American South, but also in the mid-west (Indiana, Ohio,
Illinois), Jim Crow laws were passed, the Poll Tax began in many
Southern states, and the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was
legal and, generally, blacks lost quite a bit of ground they had
gained in the 8-10 years after the War Between the States.
Woodrow Wilson, elected to the President as a Pacifist and Reformer,
was, I have read, an unrepentant racist and he was quite influential
as a paragon of moral correctness and a champion of freedom around the
world. He, for instance, drove blacks out of the civil service. I
have read that it was his history of the USA, and its view of
Reconstruction which was the basis for Birth of a Nation, which was
shown in the White House when it premiered. He, of course, was a
Southerner, but he had been President of Princeton, then Governor of
New Jersey, not a state, I would say, which has ever particularly been
associated with racism, especially when compared the the histories of
many other states.
Personally, I think WWII was the only reason Blacks were able to break
out of the legal chains which bound them, as the results of the
politics of racism in Nazi Germany came to national attention.
Certainly there was an almost complete about face regarding Jews in
America between the 30's and late 40's, and one would have to credit
that turnabout to the lessons of Nazism, and, particularly in the
1950s, Jews were in the forefront of the civil rights movement.
(( cuts ))
Dave
cdst...@cpsidfw.com
http://www.cdstrand.com
John McCarthy
the Civil Service? Was it a direct action or was it a side-effect of
some other action, like changing the examination requirements?
Robert ASF.
> Would Clayton Strand please explain about Wilson driving blacks out of
> the Civil Service? Was it a direct action or was it a side-effect of
> some other action, like changing the examination requirements?
I do believe he stated the facts correctly in his post! (yes i am
sucking up to the moderators! :-)) You can find all of this discussed in
Lies My Teacher Told me by James Loewan, Norton 1995. It was a direct
action.
Just Thought I Should Mention It
Peter Reiher
>
> Woodrow Wilson, elected to the President as a Pacifist and Reformer,
> was, I have read, an unrepentant racist and he was quite influential
> as a paragon of moral correctness and a champion of freedom around the
> world.
> have read that it was his history of the USA, and its view of
> Reconstruction which was the basis for Birth of a Nation, which was
> shown in the White House when it premiered.
"Birth of a Nation" was based on Thomas Dixon's novel,
"The Clansmen," and more directly on the stage adaptation
of that novel. It was a popular property on stage
nationwide before the film came out.
Less directly, the major influence on the film was
D.W. Griffith's own background. Griffith was a southerner,
and had the predominant white attitudes towards the
Civil War and its aftermath inculcated into him as a boy.
He never quite lost them, despite earnest attempts after
the release of "Birth of a Nation" to counter the attacks
made on his racism. "Intolerance" was meant as an answer
to his critics, but one form of intolerance not covered
in that mammoth film was racism against blacks. "Broken
Blossoms" very sympathetically portrays a Chinese man's
love for a white girl, but, again, blacks never got that
treatment from Griffith. Even into the 1920s, when most
filmmakers had abandoned the Broadway/film convention of
using white actors in blackface to play black roles,
Griffith still avoided using black actors in black roles.
Woodrow Wilson did indeed see "Birth of a Nation,"
but it didn't premiere at the White House. It premiered
in Los Angeles, where it was filmed. Famously, Wilson was
quoted as saying that the film was "history written in
lightning," a quote that lead to volleys of protest from
various anti-racist groups.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@cs.ucla.edu
<http://fmg-www.cs.ucla.edu/reiher>
dr...@panix.com
> Would Clayton Strand please explain about Wilson driving blacks out of
> the Civil Service? Was it a direct action or was it a side-effect of
> some other action, like changing the examination requirements?
Woodrow Wilson officially excluded blacks from civil service.
Andrew
Clayton D. Strand
>Would Clayton Strand please explain about Wilson driving blacks out of
>the Civil Service? Was it a direct action or was it a side-effect of
>some other action, like changing the examination requirements?
I am not Wilson's biggest fan. I will search around my library and
see where I got this from. As far as I recall he actually took jobs
from people who had them. Then, nor now, is there an examination
requirement for those holding jobs. Additionally, if I have my facts straight,
he flat-out barred Blacks from most civil service jobs.
Wilson was, I believe, in the 20s and 30s, looked at much differently than
today.
Today, Wilson is portrayed as something of a prophet of America
as a world power due to his advocacy of America joining the
League of Nations, and is, rightly I think, considered in many ways
an early and effective proponent of American participation in
world affairs.
He called himself a Pacifist, but the list of countries he invaded
because he didn't like their politics and for commercial reasons, is
long. Certainly his undeclared war in Russia in addition to his
many interventions in Latin America, even if American participation
in WWI is considered inevitable, define one of the most war-like
administrations in American history.
He routinely used troops and justified shooting strikers and can only
be described (fairly I think) as an implacable enemy of labor.
Wilson, as you might recall, jailed the Socialist Eugene Debs for
Debs' speaking out against American participation in WWI,
what I would describe as an attack on Freedom of Speech, at
least as bad as the Alien and Sedition Laws. Wilson then hypocritically
advocated Free Speech for everyone as essential for world peace
at the Peace Conference after WWI, with Debs still in jail.
Of course it was during his administration when JE Hoover first came
to prominence and began his long career in self-aggrandizment and
started the modern practice of encouraging people to spy on their
neighbors to root out subversives.
His chief of staff, Col EM House (if I recall the name correctly)
described Wilson as the most prejudiced man he had ever met. In the
early part of this century, in America, that, to me, is a damning
indictment, especially by someone who owed his prominence and power
and was a close supporter of Wilson and given the resurgence of racism
in the country.
Personally, I think few American politicians have done more evil
during their time in office, few did more to destroy American ideals
while mouthing platitudes otherwise, few are more deserving of our
contempt.
Dave
cdst...@cpsidfw.com
http://www.cdstrand.com
Clayton E. Cramer
news:7ni79o$11fi$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> Would Clayton Strand please explain about Wilson driving blacks out of
> the Civil Service? Was it a direct action or was it a side-effect of
> some other action, like changing the examination requirements?
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
It's mentioned in Thomas Sowell's book _Markets and Minorities_
that the Wilson Administration started the policies that led first to
segregation of civil servants in Washington, DC, and stopped admissions
of blacks to the Navy (though this didn't actually effect until after
Wilson had left office). _Strength for the Fight_, a history of blacks
in the U.S. armed forces, also discusses the motivations for pushing
blacks out of the military during this period.
Clayton E. Cramer
Clayton E. Cramer
> John McCarthy <j...@steam.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > Would Clayton Strand please explain about Wilson driving blacks out of
> > the Civil Service? Was it a direct action or was it a side-effect of
> > some other action, like changing the examination requirements?
>
>
I've read that he ordered segregation of offices so that blacks and whites
wouldn't be
working next to each other. This wouldn't necessarily exclude blacks from
civil
service, but if there's no practical way to segregate an office by race....
and...@my-deja.com
gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
<...>
> >But, granting the new citizenship in no way relieves the person
> >of his obligations under his "old" citizenship.
>
> Under English common law, it does.
<...>
On the contrary.
<begin text>
Justice Joseph Story declared in Shanks v. Dupont, "The general
doctrine is, that no person can, by any act of their own, without the
consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become
aliens.1" This contradiction gave rise to the Bancroft agreements
concluded between the United States and several European countries
between 1868 and 1923 guaranteeing the right of naturalised Americans
to be received as such in their countries of origin2. In Britain, the
Royal Commission of 1868 on the laws of naturalisation and allegiance
recommended the abolition of the feudal concept of perpetual allegiance
in Great Britain. Its report led to the enactment of the Naturalization
Act, 18703 in connection with the naturalisation convention of the same
year between the United Kingdom and the United States4. After the
Second World War, similar problems between the United States and
countries of origin of recent immigrants gave rise to the same
solution: conventions were negotiated between the United States and
Eastern European5 states from which displaced persons and other
migrants had come. Only sovereigns, not courts bound by municipal law,
could resolve such conflicts.
1 Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 242, 245 (1830).
2 E.g., Naturalisation convention, U.S. and Belgium, Brussels, 16 Nov.
1868, 1 Malloy 80 (1910).
3 33 & 34 Vict. ch. 14.
4 Naturalisation Convention, London, 13 May 1870, T.S. 130, 13
Hertslet's Comm. T. 960, 20 Marten III 524 (1875), denounced by the UK
on 15 Dec. 1953; repr. and discussed in Sir Francis Piggott,
Nationality: Including Naturalization and English law on the high seas
and beyond the realm, London, Clowes, 1906, vol. 1, p. 349; see Ann
Dummett & Andrew Nicol, Subjects, Citizens, Aliens and Others, London,
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1990, p. 88; Piggott, "Ligeance of the King",
83 Nineteenth Century and After 729 (1915).
5 Nemeth v. Etat Belge, Cons. d'Etat (3d Ch.), 26 June 1973, No.
15,941, R.A.A.C.E., 1973.539, 77 I.L.R. 384; Menon v. Esperdy, 413 F.2d
644 (2d Cir. 1969), 54 I.L.R. 248; R. v. Goldfarb, 52 Times L. Rep. 254
(1936), 8 Ann. Dig. 304.
<end text>
And Aeneas MacDonald, born in Great Britain of British parents, was
educated in France and eventually granted a French military commission.
Taken prisoner in England, he was condemned to death, a sentence
subsequently commuted to banishment. R. v. Aeneas MacDonald, (1747) 18
St. Tr. 858.
As for the latest (US) statutory attitude, see Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (H.R. 3103), Pub. L. 104-
191, 110 Stat. 2093, § 511, 26 U.S.C. § 877 (1996), “Expatriation to
avoid tax”. For the application of prior law see Di Portanova v. United
States, 690 F.2d 169 (Ct. Cl. 1982); for practical effect of new law,
see Barry Newman, “Renouncing U.S. Citizenship Becomes Harder Than
Ever”, Wall St. J., 28 Dec. 1998, p. 1.
Andy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Jerry Harder
during his Presidential campaigns for statements he had published about
recent immigrant groups. Also keep in mind that he grew up in Virginia and
was dependent on Southern votes in Congress to attain his political goals.
Good luck,
--
Jerry Harder
remove spamnein from address to reply
Clayton E. Cramer <clayton...@nokia.com> wrote in message
news:7nl1st$gtk$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
>
George Hardy
<7mni60$i9a$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>
<7nfk96$16eu$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu> <379c7ed1...@news.remarq
<7nn8nc$g0q$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>
Organization: Club of Anchor Friends
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.90.4
It happens all of the time. Example: Ted Williams was
known as the "Splendid Spitter", because he spit at fans
who had booed him at Fenway Park. Today, the nickname
has been altered to "Splendid Splinter", supposedly because
he was tall and thin. But anyone old enough to have seen
him play, as I am, knows it is a lie. But, the truth will
die with us.
Is not it widely stated that JFK was a much loved and
respected president? Well, the best proof of that lie is
that Barry Goldwater was a credible candidate against JFK.
Clayton D. Strand
wrote:
>Wilson had a number of prejudices, not limited to blacks. He was attacked
>during his Presidential campaigns for statements he had published about
>recent immigrant groups. Also keep in mind that he grew up in Virginia and
>was dependent on Southern votes in Congress to attain his political goals.
Wilson was no more dependant on the Southern Democrats, who I presume
you are speaking of, than any other democratic president who preceded
him (Grover Cleveland), or, in fact, succeeded him during this
century, ie, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter,
Clinton, all of whom had substantially better records regarding the
civil rights of Blacks. I recognize that it is true that the Southern
Democratic Party, as a force for segregation and oppression of Blacks,
was destroyed by Nixon, so Carter and Clinton have not had the
problems the earlier presidents did, but, I would assert Wilson, among
all these, is, I think, unique for his bigotry. In fact, when one
lists the Democratic Presidents since the Civil War, as above, he
stands alone for his prejudices against everyone with a different
political view, a different background and a different skin color.
But it is his hatred of blacks which stands out, packaged in a man who
styled himself as an intellectual and as a champion of freedom. Not
since Jefferson, I think, was a President such a hypocrite; did we
have a President whose words matched his actions so little.
Dave
cdst...@cpsidfw.com
http://www.cdstrand.com
Polar
Strand) wrote:
[...]
>
>But it is his hatred of blacks which stands out, packaged in a man who
>styled himself as an intellectual and as a champion of freedom. Not
>since Jefferson, I think, was a President such a hypocrite; did we
>have a President whose words matched his actions so little.
Whoa! A careless reading of your message might suggest that Jefferson
"hated blacks". Do you think so just because he was a slaveholder
(like most of the Founders)?
Please clarify.
--
Polar
dr...@panix.com
>>
>>But it is his hatred of blacks which stands out, packaged in a man who
>>styled himself as an intellectual and as a champion of freedom. Not
>>since Jefferson, I think, was a President such a hypocrite; did we
>>have a President whose words matched his actions so little.
> Whoa! A careless reading of your message might suggest that Jefferson
> "hated blacks". Do you think so just because he was a slaveholder
> (like most of the Founders)?
A careless reading, yes. But even a semi-careful reading tells us
that Strand was referring to Wilson as a hater of blacks. And that
(here's teh key word) *not since Jefferson* was a President such
a hypocrite.
Andrew
Polar
Strand) wrote:
[...]
>
>But it is his hatred of blacks which stands out, packaged in a man who
>styled himself as an intellectual and as a champion of freedom. Not
>since Jefferson, I think, was a President such a hypocrite; did we
>have a President whose words matched his actions so little.
Whoa! A careless reading of your message might suggest that Jefferson
"hated blacks". Do you think so just because he was a slaveholder
(like most of the Founders)?
Please clarify.
--
Polar
Mike Dana
> Whoa! A careless reading of your message might suggest that Jefferson
> "hated blacks". Do you think so just because he was a slaveholder
> (like most of the Founders)?
>
This may seem like a "nit-pick", and I realize that it was probably just
an "off-the-cuff" generalization, but *most* of the Founders? Hardly.
*Some* of the Founders were slaveholders; primarily those from Virginia
and other Southern States. Some of the Founders were of Abolishionist
sentiments; notably those from New England. The relative parity between
these factions is at least partly responsible for the issue not being
addressed by the Constitution. The "Virginia Faction" gets a lot of
attention, mostly because they achieved a certain measure of political
visibility (especially after the war), but Mass., N.Y., Penn., et al
provided their share of "Founders" as well.
--Mike
Clayton D. Strand
>On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 01:40:34 GMT, cdst...@cpsidfw.com (Clayton D.
>Strand) wrote:
(( cuts ))
>>But it is his hatred of blacks which stands out, packaged in a man who
>>styled himself as an intellectual and as a champion of freedom. Not
>>since Jefferson, I think, was a President such a hypocrite; did we
>>have a President whose words matched his actions so little.
>Whoa! A careless reading of your message might suggest that Jefferson
>"hated blacks". Do you think so just because he was a slaveholder
>(like most of the Founders)?
>
>Please clarify.
Clarify a careless reading? Actually I would characterize the
interpretation of what I said here as only possible when a paragraph
is taken out of context and the antecedent of a pronoun thereby
deleted.
The "his" in "his hatred" clearly refers to Woodrow Wilson which
reference was deleted from this snippet.
Jefferson was hypocritical, as I have said before, in a somewhat
different way than Wilson. Jefferson asserted that he hated slavery,
yet he used his slaves to finance what I have seen characterized as
one of the most lavish lifestyles in early 19th century America. In
fact he borrowed against them so heavily that he ensured that, after
his death, they would remain in slavery. This is, to me, a rather
hypocritical position.
Wilson styled himself a pacifist, yet invaded Latin American country
after Latin American country according to him, mostly, in order to
protect American commercial interests (i.e. assure that democracies
could not be formed because they had a tendency to heavily tax, if not
nationalize, the assets of companies like United Fruit), invaded
Russia in an undeclared war because he did not like the government
that had come to power there; took us into WWI despite the fact that
he was re-elected as the peace candidate in 1916; demanded that
freedom of speech be protected in Europe while he had Eugene Debs in
prison for speaking his mind, etc, etc and steadfastly refused to
pardon him.
Interestingly, after a general repudiation by many in their time, and
virtual anonymity for decades afterwards, the reputation of both men
in American History was later rehabilitated by people who knew them
not, rather only read what they wrote; Jefferson in the early part of
this century, and Wilson after WWII.
Dave
cdst...@cpsidfw.com
http://www.cdstrand.com
John McCarthy
wishing to do them injury, although both of them probably considered
them inferior to whites. The difference between the two attitudes is
non-trivial, and actual hatred requires considerable evidence.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
L77261
that term is used but I have no idea what it means. Can anyone explain?
Clayton D. Strand
wrote:
>I doubt that either Jefferson or Wilson hated blacks in the sense of
>wishing to do them injury, although both of them probably considered
>them inferior to whites. The difference between the two attitudes is
>non-trivial, and actual hatred requires considerable evidence.
I did not say Jefferson hated Blacks. I did say that Wilson did. I
base this on comments by his associates (Col House), his actions in
attempting to deny Blacks government jobs, and promoting the
"history" in "Birth of a Nation".
I'm not sure what your last clause above means. Hatred doesn't
require evidence at all. In fact, I would characterize it as not
rational, and, in that way, a rejection of evidence. I also think
your definition of hatred is restrictive. Under it, I would assert,
Hitler could not successfully be accused of hatred of the Jews as an
example. He just wanted them out of Germany, that's all. If not by
emigration, then by killing them. But, before he started killing
them, he tried to remove them, allowed them to try to find a new place
to live in Cuba, in the USA, etc etc. Of course it is well known that
he only resorted to the final solution after he demonstrated that
countries like these above were unwilling to allow emigration of large
numbers of German Jews.
I don't know how far Wilson would have gone had he thought he could
get away with it. As it was he was constantly criticized. It was
during his administration, if I recall correctly, that citizens found
it necessary to form the American Civil Liberties Union. In fact, had
not Theodore Roosevelt intervened in the 1916 election with bellicose
pronouncements, Hughes would probably have been elected Wilson's
public record was so dismal. Roosevelt managed to split the
Republican Party as he had in 1912, which swept Wilson into office in
the first place. Most Americans wanted peace, but a substantial
number of Roosevelt Republicans wanted the US to intervene in Europe.
For this reason Wilson was able to capitalize on the peace issue with
"He kept us out of War", and was able to identify the Republicans with
war, and most Americans wanted Peace more that Civil Rights for people
different from them. Needless to point out, I think, is that they
ended up with neither.
By the end of his second term, though he wanted a 3rd term, both his
health and his unpopularity worked against him, even the Democrats had
had enough. The Democratic nominee, Cox, couldn't separate himself
from Wilson's policies on civil rights, which included the suppression
of anyone who did not look like him, or who had different political
ideas than his. Cox lost in the worst election debacle up to that
time, which well might have been worse had not the South been so
solidly Democratic. In any case, even to this day, I think, Harding,
of all people, who was looked on as second-rate by his own party, won
what I think is still the largest percentage of popular votes amassed
in an American presidential election since 1832 when popular balloting
began to substantially replace previous methods of selecting
presidential electors.
Dave
cdst...@cpsidfw.com
http://www.cdstrand.com
Polar
wrote:
[...]
>Jefferson was hypocritical, as I have said before, in a somewhat
>different way than Wilson. Jefferson asserted that he hated slavery,
>yet he used his slaves to finance what I have seen characterized as
>one of the most lavish lifestyles in early 19th century America. In
>fact he borrowed against them so heavily that he ensured that, after
>his death, they would remain in slavery. This is, to me, a rather
>hypocritical position.
[...]
You raise an interesting point. Where can one look to find evidence
of Jefferson's borrowing, which -- you suggest -- ensured that his
slaves would remain in slavery after his death?
This, if true, is very different from Washington who, I understand,
arranged to free his slaves after his death. He, too, maintained a
"lavish" lifestyle, though he worked at being a planter, rising early
reach morning to ride through his vast estates, examining and dealing
with the most minute problems in detail. A visit to the Mt. Vernon is
most illuminating. New exhibits; others refurbished. A trip!
What information is there on the other Founders, as to whether they
(a) arranged to free slaves after their death or (b) freed slaves
during their lifetime or (c) did not have slaves?
--
Polar
Robert ASF.
> What is post-modernism? I have read many articles in this news group where
> that term is used but I have no idea what it means. Can anyone explain?
That question could fill a book!
Often, it is seen as a school of thought in Philosophy, with such
people as Foucault and Derida.
In history, it refers to time periods. The Modern Period starts
roughly with the French Revolution and goes until the near past. The fall
of the Berlin wall is one point people have used. Since the last period
was called modern, then we are in the post modern period. It should be
noted that some have started to use the post-post modern period as well.
such silliness is best left for philosophers :-0
As historical periods tend to simply be generalities based on a
series of date, those often being held in question, what does post-modern
mean? Nothing in and of itself. Always ask for dates.
Clayton D. Strand
(( cuts ))
>You raise an interesting point. Where can one look to find evidence
>of Jefferson's borrowing, which -- you suggest -- ensured that his
>slaves would remain in slavery after his death?
Any standard biography of Jefferson will do. I like Pursuit of Reason
by Cunningham (iirc), an unabashed admirer of Jefferson, in my
opinion, but the biography is well written and balanced, in my opinon.
Jefferson didn't borrow, as far as I know, for the purpose of keeping
people enslaved. Rather, despite the fact that he professed to hate
slavery, he borrowed against the value of his slaves to live a life
which included importing wine, exotic foods, building materials,
books, etc from Europe knowing full well that he could not afford this
luxurious lifestyle without borrowing against his assets, ie, the
slaves he owned.
>This, if true, is very different from Washington who, I understand,
>arranged to free his slaves after his death. He, too, maintained a
>"lavish" lifestyle, though he worked at being a planter, rising early
>reach morning to ride through his vast estates, examining and dealing
>with the most minute problems in detail. A visit to the Mt. Vernon is
>most illuminating. New exhibits; others refurbished. A trip!
My understanding of Washington is the same as yours. It is my
understanding, though, that Jefferson lived much better than
Washington.
It has been many years since I read a biography of Washington, but, as
I recall, he left blacks who wished to be free in Philadelphia during
his life and wrote his will in such a way that all of his slaves would
be freed on Martha's death, and that the rather heavy financial
obligation of the owner granting the freedoms would be met. He also
provided for the education of these people, which, I would assert, is
much different than many others who are considered champions of
American freedom, like Jefferson. Washington, in my mind, is one of
those historical figures, greatly admired today, who richly deserve
their accolades. The admiration for Jefferson (as opposed to what
Jefferson wrote) is a harder for me to understand, even by the
standards of his time.
>What information is there on the other Founders, as to whether they
>(a) arranged to free slaves after their death or (b) freed slaves
>during their lifetime or (c) did not have slaves?
This is the sort of thing one finds the most balanced views, in my
opinion, in biographies written during the last 25 years or so. There
are numerous treatments of slavery in America, but, personally, I find
them a little too anxious to press some agenda or another.
Dave
cdst...@cpsidfw.com
http://www.cdstrand.com
JDzik
>roughly with the French Revolution and goes until the near past. The fall
>of the Berlin wall is one point people have used. Since the last period
>was called modern, then we are in the post modern period.
All of this is a bit complicated in that post-modernism is a term also used to
describe a certain type of art, basically art that comes after Modern Art.
Post-modernism in art is characterized by heavy use of irony, taking
established cliches and violating them in some fashion. An example would be
the use of broken arches in architecture - one expects that an arch be
continuous, but a broken arch removes the keystone from the arch.
Of course, some of these touches (such as the broken arch) have become cliches
themselves!
In any event, post modernism in art has been around for at least 20 years now,
and probably longer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Joe Dzikiewicz
Anything worth doing is worth overdoing.
But not everything is worth doing...
J. Edward Tuttle
> where that term is used but I have no idea what it means. Can anyone
> explain?
I can try. Literally, it means "after modernism"; the opposite would be
prior-modernism, or "before modernism," which generally does not exist.
Generically, it's a temporal designation that turns on whatever
"modernism" means. "Modernism," by its syntax, is an "...ism" -- a
movement or style, just as communism, expressionism, materialism,
imperialism, fascism, and eclecticism are movements or styles.
Modernism is a movement or style because some pundit dubbed it as such,
and the label stuck. "Modern" means up-to-date, current, or
new-fangled, as opposed to something that's dated, obsolete, or
old-fashioned.
Although I haven't heard the term applied to automobile design, it
could've been. Early autos like the Maxwell and the Model T were
somewhat boxy or clunky. After WWII, cars became noticeably
streamlined, and this was a movement in automobile design that swept
throughout the industry. There's a noticeable difference in the lines
of a car from the 1950s as opposed to one from the 1930s.
The movement toward streamlining could have been labeled "modernist."
It wasn't, but it could have been.
Then, when styles change, what label do you use next? In automobiles,
the 1970s saw profound design changes prompted by the oil crisis, by the
need for fuel efficiency, by "downsizing" of the auto, and so on.
Detroit wasn't very prescient then, and the Europeans and Japanese made
big inroads because their designs were responsive to demands. Detroit
followed suit later.
But what do you call this new movement or style in automobile design?
How do you distinguish a car of the 80s from one of the 50s? You can't
say the newest design is "modernist," because that was already used by
an earlier generation. So they label it "post-modernist," meaning
"after modernism."
They didn't use this naming device with autos. Art is a prominent
example that comes to mind. If you look at the history of westerm art,
there was a trend toward greater realism (another "ism") over the ages
that culminated in the work of artists such as Courbet and Vermeer.
In the 1870s or a bit earlier, there was a movement away from greater
realism. It was labeled "impressionism" wiht Manet and Renoir as
examples. Soon after, Cezanne and Van Gogh used a "post-impressionist"
style.
Just before World War I, there was a decided breakpoint in the art
world. A haystack by Van Gogh looks like a haystack, but three women by
Picasso -- well ...
A lot of stuff in the first half of the twentieth century can be labeled
as "modernism" in art. It really broke with the past. But what comes
after modernism? The period after WWII is probably "post-modern" in
art, and that's where we'd find Andy Warhol and Frank Stella, for
example.
Architecture went through the same stages, and I suspect philosophy has
done the same.
Is there a post-modern society? I suspect there is, although we often
hear the term "post-industrial." Postmodernism in society may have
began around 1950 and may be linked to computers. The "modern age" in
society may be identified with the Industrial Revolution, although a
case could be made for "modern history" beginning circa 1450, with
postmodernism in history perhaps linked to a communications revolution
starting with the telegraph.
Polar
Strand) wrote:
[...]
>
>>What information is there on the other Founders, as to whether they
>>(a) arranged to free slaves after their death or (b) freed slaves
>>during their lifetime or (c) did not have slaves?
>
>This is the sort of thing one finds the most balanced views, in my
>opinion, in biographies written during the last 25 years or so. There
>are numerous treatments of slavery in America, but, personally, I find
>them a little too anxious to press some agenda or another.
Isn't there an "easier" (sic!) way to investigate this question than
to seek out and read "n" biographies of *each* of the Founders?
Hasn't there been a (preferably unbiased) scholarly study of this
very point -- slave ownership by the Founders?
If not, somebody should get his/her PhD by carrying out
such a study.
--
Polar
Clayton D. Strand
(( cuts ))
>Hasn't there been a (preferably unbiased) scholarly study of this
>very point -- slave ownership by the Founders?
>If not, somebody should get his/her PhD by carrying out
>such a study.
Personally, I've never seen anything on this exact subject, though
something may well be available. I don't think getting a handle on
American History is particularly easy, especially when one wants
answers to very specialized questions. You have been given some
general answers which I think were quite accurate, but your question
is so general it actually could use some definition. Who, for
instance, specifically were the "founding fathers"? The signers of
the Declaration of Independance? The delegates to the Constitutional
Convention? People who did both? There was quite a range of actions
which roughly coincided with the region of the country a person was
from. In the South, most prominent people (those who would have
participated above) owned slaves. Many of them, rhetorically at
least, deplored the institution but had no real solution for ending
it. Virginia gave up her claim to the Northwest Territories, though,
and conceded, at the insistence of the Northern States, that slavery
would be outlawed there.
It's a complicated question best solved, I would think, on an
individual basis, and a complete answer and understanding can only
come with a fairly detailed study of an individual. If one only read
what Jefferson wrote, one would be convinced that he was against
slavery and miss the nuances of his behavior, which, to be fair, is a
fairly accurate analysis of most High School American History Texts.
Dave
cdst...@cpsidfw.com
http://www.cdstrand.com
L77261
>power of half a continent in the uncontrolled office of the American
>President.
>It was a tragedy for the U.S., but for the world it was a disaster.
Why was the American Civil War a disaster for the rest of the world?
Mike Dana
<lots of good stuff snipped>
> It's a complicated question best solved, I would think, on an
> individual basis, and a complete answer and understanding can only
> come with a fairly detailed study of an individual.[. . . ]
Fortunately, if one is genuinely interested in pursuing such a study,
this was a very "literate" period and many (if not most) of these men
and women (Abigale Adams leaps to mind...) wrote prolifically. This
being seen as an "important" period in our short history has also
contributed to there being a great deal written *about* the period.
The book I have handy here at work is
"The Age of Federalism"
Stanley Elkins & Eric McKitrick
Oxford University Press, 1993
ISBN 0-19-506890-4
Its primary concern is the early, formative age of the US Federal Govt.,
and only peripherally mentions slavery, but the following attitudes are
mentioned:
Alexander Hamilton - was "vigorously" abolitionist.
John Jay agreed with him, though not so passionately.
Benjamin Franklin's last public act was to petition Congress to abolish
slavery. - (Penn. Quakers repeatedly petitioned Congress to abolish
slavery; NY & Mass., along with other Northern States, strongly
supported these petitions.)
James Madison, whose primary concern was preserving the Union, carefully
avoided speaking strongly on either side of the issue, but always voted
"with the Northern States" regarding abolition.
Thomas Jefferson, as Dave mentioned, was at least publicly friendly
toward abolition.
There's no depth or detail here -- as I said, this particular work isn't
more than marginally concerned with the issue. As Dave said: look to
the individuals. There is an abundant supply of biographies, and most
of the writings of people like the Adamses, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin,
et al are readily available.
HTH,
--Mike
JDzik
Add to it that Washington would not sell a slave without the slave's
permission, which was extremely rare in coming. As a result, Mt Vernon had
more slaves then it should have had to maximize profitability.
Personally, I think that Washington did about as well for his slaves as he
could, especially if one grants that his view that slaves needed to be educated
before they were ready for freedom was a reasonable view.
Peter Reiher
>
> There was quite a range of actions
> which roughly coincided with the region of the country a person was
> from. In the South, most prominent people (those who would have
> participated above) owned slaves.
Perhaps unintentionally, you've suggested that slave
ownership among our Founding Fathers was confined to
those from the South. I don't know for a fact that it
wasn't, but it certainly didn't have to be so. At least
New York, and very probably some of the other northern
states, still permitted slavery in the late 18th century.
According to "Gotham," a history of NYC through the 19th
century, many prominent New Yorkers owned at least a few
slaves (household servants, mostly) during the Revolutionary
period, and quite a few artisans also owned slaves who
worked in their businesses. I don't remember the text
mentioning it, and I don't have the book at hand, but
I wouldn't be surprised if Robert Livingstone owned his
butler or cook.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@cs.ucla.edu
<http://fmg-www.cs.ucla.edu/reiher>
Donald Phillipson
> What is post-modernism? I have read many articles in this news group where
> that term is used but I have no idea what it means. Can anyone explain?
Although the word emerged in the plastic arts (architecture before
painting I believe) it is now applied to may forms of literary and
political criticism including typically:
1. (From art history, or second-hand art scholarship):
the received wisdom of the day is automatically wrong.
2. (From linguistics:) it is impossible to tell the
objective truth.
3. (From politics:) most people who assert they are
telling the objective truth are either deceiving
themselves or trying to deceive you (concealing
their real "agenda.")
The best general statement of these paradoxes is in art
critic Robert Hughes's book (and TV series) The Shock of
the New, under the theme "the institutionalization of the
avant-garde."
A. Modernist pioneers in painting and poetry were usually
contrarians (cf. #1 above). Being avant-garde meant
disagreeing with current received wisdom, i.e. rebelling
against majority taste. They ascribed automatically
high value to anything that shocked orthodox opinion.
B. Two big social change between 1918 and 1960 were an
enormous increase in numbers reaching college-level
education and a change in the college-level curriculum
(reflecting teachers' commitment to modernism and the
avant-garde.)
C. Thus "rebelling against majority taste" became by
the 1960s the majority's preference. This is the
fundamental paradox.
D. The consequence for artists is that it becomes
increasingly difficult to shock orthodox opinions.
A current political analogue is "equal opportunity"
policies to repair earlier discrimination against
non-whites, women, etc. On traditional logical grounds,
these are difficult to distinguish from current discrimination
against other classes, e.g. whites or males. But this is
not usually debatable or not subject to political remedy, so far
as "postmodern" values have committed themselves more to
these remedial programmes than to earlier principles of
nominal equality between people regardless of sex,
race, origin, etc. This is facilitated by ##2-3 above.
I.e. postmodernist reformers find it easy to write off
earlier principles of equality as a deliberate fraud,
that we are now clever enough to see through: which
is supposed to justify extreme measures....
--
| Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, |
| Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 |
Matthew Harley
L77261 wrote:
>
> What is post-modernism? I have read many articles in this news group where
> that term is used but I have no idea what it means. Can anyone explain?
I would say that post-modernism was the application of Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle as a paradigm of human society; or alternatively
that the concept of physical indeterminism should also be applied to
society. To over-simplify, this would suggest that there are no rules
(at least not in the classical sense)!
Matt Harley
Rich Rostrom
> Harding... won... the largest percentage of popular votes
> amassed in an American presidential election...
Harding received 60.3% of the popular vote.
This percentage has been exceeded three times.
1936 Franklin Roosevelt 60.8%
1964 Lyndon Johnson 61.1%
1972 Richard Nixon 60.7%
It's interesting to note that of the four Presidents with
the largest "mandates", one died in the midst of scandal,
one was humiliatingly defeated for reelection, and one
was forced to resign.
--
Rich Rostrom | "Ah, White Lightning, that splits the skull and
| encourages the body and the sentiments!"
R-Rostrom@ |
mcs.net | -- R. A. Lafferty, _The Reefs of Earth_
Clayton D. Strand
>cdst...@cpsidfw.com (Clayton D. Strand) wrote:
>
>> Harding... won... the largest percentage of popular votes
>> amassed in an American presidential election...
>
>Harding received 60.3% of the popular vote.
>
>This percentage has been exceeded three times.
>
>1936 Franklin Roosevelt 60.8%
>1964 Lyndon Johnson 61.1%
>1972 Richard Nixon 60.7%
Note that in the part ypu snipped I mentioned an earlier date (massed
in an American...since 1832...). Please also note that all of the
people above came after Harding, not before. His majority was
astounding to people of the time, and, as I said, the largest mandate
of his time since the beginnings of democratically elected
presidential electors.
>It's interesting to note that of the four Presidents with
>the largest "mandates", one died in the midst of scandal,
>one was humiliatingly defeated for reelection, and one
>was forced to resign.
I search in vain for the name of the president listed above who was
defeated for re-election.
The point I was making about Harding was precisely that he was
considered by people of the time, both within his party and without,
to not be a particularly able politician, nor a particularly effective
leader, before or after his election to President.
Cox, on the other hand, had some standing. Unfortunately, for him,
the Republicans were able to hang Wilson around his neck, which was
widely credited then as the decisive issue in the election.
The others you mention are interesting studies.
Roosevelt was an outstanding success as President.
Johnson voluntarily decided not to actively seek the nomination prior
to any of the primaries. In the period it was relatively common for
people, especially sitting presidents, to wait much longer than today
before formally announcing their candidacy. Eugene McCarthy won the
New Hampshire primary with no active opposition, and Johnson saw that
he was in for a difficult, if not impossible, fight for the nomination
(whether the election would have been as difficult is hard to say).
Johnson, mandate and all, was a failure as President.
Nixon, also a failure as a President, did what he did to himself, it
seems to me, with little or no help from his political enemies who
were legion.
Another way to look at these people, and put Harding's outstanding
success into what I would assert is the proper context, is to note
that Roosevelt and Nixon were running for re-election, Johnson was the
incumbent based on the death of Kennedy. Of these Harding not only
ran for a first term, but his party was not even incumbent. A
remarkable electoral achievement, unique in American history, I would
assert.
Dave
cdst...@cpsidfw.com
http://www.cdstrand.com
Clayton D. Strand
wrote:
>"Clayton D. Strand" wrote:
>> There was quite a range of actions
>> which roughly coincided with the region of the country a person was
>> from. In the South, most prominent people (those who would have
>> participated above) owned slaves.
>Perhaps unintentionally, you've suggested that slave
>ownership among our Founding Fathers was confined to
>those from the South.
I appreciate your comment, but note that I said nothing of the kind.
I would assert that inclusion (In the South, most prominent people...)
does not necessarily exclude anyone. In fact, I would assert that it
is illogical to do so...(In Manhattan most people root for the Yankees
... could not, in my mind, imply that there are not many, many Yankee
fans around the country, or, in fact, in other boroughs of New York
City).
Most prominent people in the South owned slaves, most prominent people
in the North did not. I believe that historical actions ought to be
judged (if judge we must) based on the beliefs of the people of the
period in which the actors lived, therefore have always had a
difficult time criticizing anyone who owned slaves for that reason.
Dave
cdst...@cpsidfw.com
http://www.cdstrand.com
J. Edward Tuttle
> Most prominent people in the South owned slaves, most prominent people
> in the North did not. I believe that historical actions ought to be
> judged (if judge we must) based on the beliefs of the people of the
> period in which the actors lived, therefore have always had a
> difficult time criticizing anyone who owned slaves for that reason.
I think I agree. I just finished Herodotus and am halfway through
Thucydides, and I find that there'd be battles, sieges, winners, and
losers ... and losers were often enslaved if not killed, with the women
carried off.
dr...@panix.com
> toward abolition.
But it should be noted that Jefferson's problem with slavery
was that he believed that it made whites lazy and ruined the
character of whites exposed to slavery. His concern was never
for what slavery did to blacks.
Andrew
dr...@panix.com
> in the North did not. I believe that historical actions ought to be
> judged (if judge we must) based on the beliefs of the people of the
> period in which the actors lived, therefore have always had a
> difficult time criticizing anyone who owned slaves for that reason.
But during the Revolutionary period there was a nascent, but growing,
anti-slavery movement. Massachusetts and several other New England
states had banned slavery by 1776. So there is at least some
truth to the argument that slavery wasn't a widely accepted institution
in the late 18th century.
Andrew
dr...@panix.com
> The point I was making about Harding was precisely that he was
> considered by people of the time, both within his party and without,
> to not be a particularly able politician, nor a particularly effective
> leader, before or after his election to President.
He didn't even consider himself qualified for the job. He told one
White House visitor "I knew this job would be too much for me,"
and constantly told his aides that he wasn't cut out to be president.
Andrew
Donald Phillipson
> But during the Revolutionary period there was a nascent, but growing,
> anti-slavery movement. Massachusetts and several other New England
> states had banned slavery by 1776. So there is at least some
> truth to the argument that slavery wasn't a widely accepted institution
> in the late 18th century.
This seems confirmed by the United Empire Loyalists who moved to
Canada, mainly from NY and Massachusetts. Many brought household
slaves with them and it seems many slaves were freed on arrival in
Nova Scotia or New Brunswick as reward for their help. By 1800
(historian Robin Winks concluded) the institution of slavery had
largely withered away in British colonies and was no longer upheld
by the courts, the couple of times slave cases came to court in
Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. In Ontario, where some UEL went and
some may have taken slaves, it appears slavery was never recognized
at all.
(The new opera Beatrice Chancey is set in the Maritimes after 1800
but presents slavery (especially rape of female slaves) more or less
as in Uncle Tom's Cabin, i.e. the US South in the 1840s. This appears
anachronistic but is popular among some black Canadians.)
Mark D. Lew
(Clayton D. Strand) wrote:
> The point I was making about Harding was precisely that he was
> considered by people of the time, both within his party and without,
> to not be a particularly able politician, nor a particularly effective
> leader, before or after his election to President.
Harding's naivete, and especially his reliance on party bosses, is much
exaggerated -- owing to the fact that the pretense served all of the
interested parties.
As a candidate (though perhaps not as an executive), Harding was very
shrewd. His success in winning the nomination from a crowded field was no
accident; it was a deliberate and carefully planned campaign. His strategy
was based on the assumption that none of the leading candidates would be
able to secure a majority, and that each of them was too ambitious to be
the subordinate partner in an alliance.
Therefore, Harding's goal from the very beginning was not to build up a
following of supporters devoted to him alone, but rather to make himself
the *second* choice of the key supporters in the other candidates'
campaign. Harding's ultimate success was due to the fact that supporters
Lowden, Wood and Johnson all perceived Harding to be one of their own.
Toward this end, it was important for Harding to cultivate a persona which
was accommodating and unassuming. The idea that Harding was not very bright
-- and more important, not a shrewd politician -- fit in well with his
plan, so he encouraged it.
The commonly heard story that Harding was chosen by the bosses in a
"smoke-filled room" is a myth. The party bosses (ie, the Republican
National Committee, made up of the party's congressional leadership) wanted
to nominate one of their own, Will Hays, Indiana senator and RNC chairman
(better known now for heading the organization which applied a morals code
for Hollywood movies). The bosses had little enthusiasm for Harding. Many
senators later claimed to have "created" Harding's candidacy, but in fact
he was nominated in spite of them, not because of them, as a result of
pressure from the many delegates whom he had carefully cultivated.
The commonly heard anecdotes about Harding's lack of political ambition and
lack of smarts all derive from Harry Daugherty's self-serving biography.
Daugherty was Harding's longtime advisor, campaign manager, and eventually
his attorney general. No doubt he was a useful ally, but like many campaign
managers, Daugherty wanted the public to believe that he was the brains
behind the operation and Harding was merely his puppet.
Daugherty's writings date from the early 1930s, when he was discredited and
embittered by the scandals of the Harding presidency. Thus they should be
read with an awareness of the author's bias and checked against other
records of the events he describes. Harding himself had been dead for many
years and was in no position to rebut.
mdl
Mark D. Lew
> But during the Revolutionary period there was a nascent, but growing,
> anti-slavery movement. Massachusetts and several other New England
> states had banned slavery by 1776. So there is at least some
> truth to the argument that slavery wasn't a widely accepted institution
> in the late 18th century.
There was lots of anti-slavery sentiment in the north, as is easily seen in
the debates over the constitution, but the pro-slavery sentiment in the
south was just as vigorous.
As an industry, slavery was in decline at the end of the 18th century, even
in the south. It is during this period that slavery was phased out in
states like New York. After 1800, due to economic/agricultural factors,
slavery picked up again in the cotton south.
mdl
Clayton D. Strand
>(Clayton D. Strand) wrote:
>> The point I was making about Harding was precisely that he was
>> considered by people of the time, both within his party and without,
>> to not be a particularly able politician, nor a particularly effective
>> leader, before or after his election to President.
>Harding's naivete, and especially his reliance on party bosses, is much
>exaggerated -- owing to the fact that the pretense served all of the
>interested parties.
>As a candidate (though perhaps not as an executive), Harding was very
>shrewd. His success in winning the nomination from a crowded field was no
>accident; it was a deliberate and carefully planned campaign. His strategy
>was based on the assumption that none of the leading candidates would be
>able to secure a majority, and that each of them was too ambitious to be
>the subordinate partner in an alliance.
(( cuts ))
>The commonly heard story that Harding was chosen by the bosses in a
>"smoke-filled room" is a myth. The party bosses (ie, the Republican
>National Committee, made up of the party's congressional leadership) wanted
>to nominate one of their own, Will Hays, Indiana senator and RNC chairman
>(better known now for heading the organization which applied a morals code
>for Hollywood movies). The bosses had little enthusiasm for Harding. Many
>senators later claimed to have "created" Harding's candidacy, but in fact
>he was nominated in spite of them, not because of them, as a result of
>pressure from the many delegates whom he had carefully cultivated.
>The commonly heard anecdotes about Harding's lack of political ambition and
>lack of smarts all derive from Harry Daugherty's self-serving biography.
>Daugherty was Harding's longtime advisor, campaign manager, and eventually
>his attorney general. No doubt he was a useful ally, but like many campaign
>managers, Daugherty wanted the public to believe that he was the brains
>behind the operation and Harding was merely his puppet.
>Daugherty's writings date from the early 1930s, when he was discredited and
>embittered by the scandals of the Harding presidency. Thus they should be
>read with an awareness of the author's bias and checked against other
>records of the events he describes. Harding himself had been dead for many
>years and was in no position to rebut.
As you note the perception was that Harding was not a particularly
adept politician and he was made much fun of because of it. His
smashing electoral victory at the time was considered a repudiation of
Wilson and the politics of repression, as I noted, as he was not
considered particularly competent if I might paraphrase myself yet
again.
Harding was managed quite well by a group of Republicans from Ohio,
well skilled and experienced in manipulating Republican nominating
conventions. Whether any of the strategy above was hatched by Harding
rather than his handlers is speculation, I think. Generally, most
give credit to his very skillful managers, the same people who later
stole what they could and caused the scandals that Harding was totally
innocent, even naive, about.
Harding's character was examined over and over by many people,
particularly journalists, not just Harry Daugherty, after his death,
and during his presidency, as his administration began to unravel.
The anecdote which has Harding confiding to his secretary that he did
not understand all the economic arguments, but was sure the answers
must be written in a book somewhere but he had no idea where to go to
get the book, and couldn't understand it anyway is, so far as I know,
accurate.
This is not to say that Harding is appreciated for what he did.
During the period, with the Ku Klux Klan in the ascendency, and Wilson
using the Justice Department to ferret out and imprison people with
different political views and denigrating blacks generally, Harding
gave a courageous speech in Alabama, of all places, encouraging equal
rights for all.
The fact that the scandals occurred I think, speaks to Harding's
competence. He did not control his administration, a trait that most
would not associate with a particularly clever and adroit politician, and
the people in his administration served him badly. He was, in this
way, like Grant, who was no politician at all, rather was a
statue that the Republican party trotted out to lead their
presidential ticket and cover their financial shenanigans. Contrast
these two with Eisenhower, who also had the reputation of being
incompetent and not on top of things. Few more effective presidents
have served, though, and his administration was a credit to his
leadership, his ideals and generally worked the way he wanted it to.
Dave
cdst...@cpsidfw.com
http://www.cdstrand.com
Greg
> What is post-modernism? I have read many articles in this news
> group where that term is used but I have no idea what it means.
> Can anyone explain?
OK, you've read the smart guys' answers. Pretty complicated stuff.
Here's my rule of thumb for detecting post-modernism.
In historical terms, you can think of "Modernism" as big round things.
Hitler and Stalin and the Utopian architecture of the Nuremberg rally
and the Commie poster-art of the 30s and the simple bold lines of the
WPA mural art in the US.
Also, think about the vision of the future held in the 30s and 40s.
They thought everything would get bigger, but stay the same. They
envisioned omnibuildings that took up a whole city, and wars that
would be bigger and bigger. That's modernism. Futurized simplification.
Post modernism thinks the future will be increasingly more complicated.
So instead of classic Star Trek (Modernism as suggested by a WW2 vet
like Roddenberry), you get Bladerunner (postModernism, where even
technological progress will make things more complicated and harder
to figure out).
While LBJ was Modernism applied to political thinking (liberal who
does big things), Clinton is Postmodernism (moderate who achieves
liberal ends by doing lots of little things). Modernism is all hopeful
or all gloomy (FDR vs. Hitler) while postmodernism is an ironic
hodgepodge with subtle colorings and no clear rules (Letterman vs.
Stern).
In race relations, modernism wants either all the races separated or
it wants everyone to act like there are no racial differences at all
and eventually we won't even think about race. Postmodernism thinks
of racial divisions as with us on a permanent basis and doesn't worry
about multiculturalism as long as there is tolerance.
In crime, Modernism forsees bigger and bigger mafias conglomerating
until there's just one big Don running the whole country. Postmodern
criminals branch out into financial and internet and Wall Street and
even legitimate pursuits that aren't controllable by the big bosses.
In business, Modernism is Big 3 Auto. Postmodernism is little provider
plants around the country shipping their parts for assembly in Taiwan.
Mark D. Lew
(Clayton D. Strand) wrote:
> Harding was managed quite well by a group of Republicans from Ohio,
> well skilled and experienced in manipulating Republican nominating
> conventions. Whether any of the strategy above was hatched by Harding
> rather than his handlers is speculation, I think. ...
I'll buy that. It is indeed a matter of speculation. But the common
perception is that Harding's stupidity is a known fact, so I want to be
sure to show the other side.
There's no denying that his administration was poorly run, but I still
think he was a shrewd candidate, and I'm completely unconvinced by the
notion that he was simply a pretty face put forth by his handlers. People
said that about Reagan, too. Hogwash.
> This is not to say that Harding is appreciated for what he did.
> During the period, with the Ku Klux Klan in the ascendency, and Wilson
> using the Justice Department to ferret out and imprison people with
> different political views and denigrating blacks generally, Harding
> gave a courageous speech in Alabama, of all places, encouraging equal
> rights for all.
Amen. Also, as much as we now laugh at the slogan "return to normalcy", it
was a genuine accomplishment. The Wilson administration was very slow to
let go of wartime powers, particularly with the anti-communist sentiment
that followed the war. There was a real danger that things like control of
the economy, suppression of free speech, excessive police surveillance,
etc., might become business as usual for the United States government. For
whatever reason, Harding was the right sort of president to reverse that
trend.
By the way, has there ever been any serious investigation into the rumor
that Harding himself was one-eighth black? I've seen the assertion in some
contemporary accounts (generally as an accusation by Harding's enemies) but
I couldn't tell if it was just a fabrication or based on fact. Perhaps
it's unknowable?
mdl
Clayton D. Strand
wrote:
(( cuts ))
>By the way, has there ever been any serious investigation into the rumor
>that Harding himself was one-eighth black? I've seen the assertion in some
>contemporary accounts (generally as an accusation by Harding's enemies) but
>I couldn't tell if it was just a fabrication or based on fact. Perhaps
>it's unknowable?
Harding's comment to a newsman who brought it up was something like,
"Hell, Jim, I don't know, somebody might have jumped the fence way
back when".
Dave
cdst...@cpsidfw.com
http://www.cdstrand.com
Clayton E. Cramer
> that Harding himself was one-eighth black? I've seen the assertion in
some
> contemporary accounts (generally as an accusation by Harding's enemies)
but
> I couldn't tell if it was just a fabrication or based on fact. Perhaps
> it's unknowable?
His family tree is readily available. I was digging around a while back on
the ancestry.com web site, looking for my ancestors, and was surprised to
find Harding and I shared a common ancestor, Sir Thomas De Greene,
born in 1292 in Boughton, Northampton, England.
Clayton E. Cramer
Alan R Rosenfield
effect of Women's Suffrage? My guess is that the women who voted in that
election would tend to be from the socio-economic groups that lean
strongly Republican. Perhaps women form typical Democratic constituencies
came from more traditional families (e.g. immigrants). Is it also possible
that, starting with Al Smith in 1928, these Democrat-leaning women started
to vote in large numbers?
--
Al Rosenfield
1650 Ridgway Pl., Columbus OH 43212 USA
phone: 614/486-8892; fax: 614/481-8038
e-mail <aro...@gcfn.org>
Clayton D. Strand
wrote:
>With regard to Harding's massive victory in 1920, has anyone examined the
>effect of Women's Suffrage? My guess is that the women who voted in that
>election would tend to be from the socio-economic groups that lean
>strongly Republican. Perhaps women form typical Democratic constituencies
>came from more traditional families (e.g. immigrants). Is it also possible
>that, starting with Al Smith in 1928, these Democrat-leaning women started
>to vote in large numbers?
The turn-out in the election of 1920 was the lowest in many years, and
the turn-out of women still smaller. I think most observers of the
period would say they had no impact on the election.
Dave
cdst...@cpsidfw.com
http://www.cdstrand.com
Robert ASF.
Yes it has. according to one of my prof, in American History,
Steven Schinberg, the voting patterns of women has traditionally been
along the same lines as who they have married. It is only recently they
have started to become a factor.
Just Thought I Should Mention It
JDzik
it is, that Harding was selected in part because he was a bit of a lady's man
and the Republicans thought that this would help, given women's suffrage.
Mark D. Lew
(Robert ASF.) wrote:
> Yes it has. according to one of my prof, in American History,
> Steven Schinberg, the voting patterns of women has traditionally been
> along the same lines as who they have married. It is only recently they
> have started to become a factor.
This suggests to me that enfranchisement of women would tend to disfavor
two groups: (1) the party whose supporters were more likely to be
unmarried; and (2) the party whose supporters come from a social culture
which would discourage women from exercising their vote.
Probably this is just a curiosity, and the actual effect on election
results was negligible.
mdl
Alan R Rosenfield
: The turn-out in the election of 1920 was the lowest in many years, and
: the turn-out of women still smaller. I think most observers of the
: period would say they had no impact on the election.
Not so!! the presidential vote in 1920 was 43% higher than in 1916 (25.3M
vs. 17.7M). The Democratic vote was essentially unchanged while the
Republican vote increased 89%. These data tend to support my suggestion
that women's suffrage had a dominant impact on Harding's election.