by Valtin | 6/28/2009 09:30:00 PM

Cross-posted from The Public Record

A couple of recent articles have highlighted the unseemly fact that some past presidents of the American Psychological Association (APA), the foremost professional organization for psychologists in the United States, if not the world, had links to the use of torture, or at least to military research into coercive interrogations.

An article by Jane Mayer in the recent New Yorker on CIA Director Leon Panetta noted in passing the participation of a former APA president Joseph Matarazzo on the governing staff of the Mitchell, Jessen & Associates (MJA) torture firm. First identified as one of the "governing people" of MJA by Bill Morlin in a Spokesman Review article in August 2007, Matarazzo is now known to have also been CIA, as noted in an article by Physicians for Human Rights Campaign Against Torture director, Nathaniel Raymond (emphasis added):

Mayer notes, parenthetically, that she has learned from the CIA's Kirk Hubbard thatformer American Psychological Association president Joseph Matarazzo sat on the CIA's professional-standards board at the time when psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen were developing an interrogation program for the CIA, based on the US military's SERE training program.

This new information came at the same time as former APA insider Bryant Welch was publishing his own tell-all about APA and the Defense Department, Torture, Psychology, and Daniel Inouye. Welch singled out former APA presidents Gerald Koocher and Ron Levant, along with Senator Daniel Inouye's office, as key lobbyists for the participation of psychologists in interrogations (emphasis added):

One of Inouye's administrative assistants, psychologist Patrick Deleon, has long been active in the APA and served a term in 2000 as APA president. For significant periods of time DeLeon has literally directed APA staff on federal policy matters and has dominated the APA governance on political matters. For over twenty-five years, relationships between the APA and the Department of Defense (DOD) have been strongly encouraged and closely coordinated by DeLeon.

Another famous former APA president, Martin Seligman, was also linked with the government's recent torture program. According to Jane Mayer, Seligman taught his "learned helplessness" theories to the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape or SERE psychologists, who reverse-engineered it into the "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" used by the CIA and DoD to torture prisoners in "war on terror" prisons around the world. Seligman admitted lecturing at SERE, but has denied any role in torture.

The role of former APA presidents DeLeon, Koocher, Levant, Seligman, and Matarazzo in supporting the role of military psychologists in interrogations, even after evidence of torture by the U.S. government was manifest, is perhaps unequalled in the annals of professional societies, as providing political, and possibly organizational and theoretical or practical support to unethical procedures, especially torture. (Stephen Soldz has outlined some of this recent history in an article just posted at ACLU Blog of Rights.) One might think this a terrible offshoot of the former Bush administration's insane post-9/11 turn to the "dark side."

But that is not the end of the story; it is not even the beginning.

Before this set of military/CIA-collaborationist APA presidents, there was Harry Harlow, and before him, Donald Hebb. Both were famous, distinguished U.S. psychologists, and both had been presidents of the APA in the 1950s. Both engaged in research, some of it secret, for the military and CIA. Hebb was a pioneer in the study of sensory deprivation. Harlow's contribution was more synthetic: he helped construct an entire paradigm around the problem of how to break down an individual by torture.

In 1956, in the pages of an obscure academic journal, Sociometry, I.E. Farber, Harry F. Harlow, and psychiatrist Louis Jolyon West published a classic work on interrogation, Brainwashing, Conditioning, and DDD (Debility, Dependency, and Dread) (BCD). It was based on a report for the Study Group on Survival Training, paid for by the U.S. Air Force. (See West LJ., Medical and psychiatric considerations in survival training. In: Report of the Special Study Group on Survival Training (AFR 190 16). Lackland Air Force Base, Tex: Air Force Personnel and Training Research Centers; 1956.) This research linked Air Force "Survival" training, later called SERE, with torture techniques, and as we will see, use of such techniques by the CIA, something we would see again decades later in the Mitchell-Jessen "exploitation" plan.

BCD examined the various types of stress undergone by prisoners, and narrowed them down to "three important elements: debility, dependency, and dread".

Debility was a condition caused by "semi-starvation, fatigue, and disease". It induced "a sense of terrible weariness".

Dependency on the captors for some relief from their agony was something "produced by the prolonged deprivation of many of the factors, such as sleep and food... [and] was made more poignant by occasional unpredictable brief respites." The use of prolonged isolation of the prisoner, depriving an individual of expected social intercourse and stimulation, "markedly strengthened the dependency".

Dread probably needs no explanation, but BCD described it as "chronic fear.... Fear of death, fear of pain, fear of nonrepatriation, fear of deformity of permanent disability.... even fear of one's own inability to satisfy the demands of insatiable interrogators."

The bulk of BCD explains the effects of DDD in terms of Pavlovian conditioning and the learning theories of American psychologist Edward Thorndike. The consequence of the resulting "collapse of ego functions" is described as similar to "postlobotomy syndrome".

By disorganizing the perception of those experiential continuities constituting the self-concept and impoverishing the basis for judging self-consistency, DDD affects one's habitual ways of looking at and dealing with oneself. [p. 275]

BCD explains aspects of the U.S. torture program that otherwise to our eyes appear insane. (Not that it isn't on a moral level "insane.") Take the painful stress positioning of prisoners documented at Abu Ghraib and other U.S.-run detainee prisons -- most recently, at Bagram prison in Afghanistan. BCE explains: it's all part of inducing dependency through expectation of relief, but in a diabolical way. Forced stress positions are a "self-inflicted punishment", one which increases the expectancy of relief via "voluntary" means. But the latter is "delusory... since the captor may select any behavior he chooses as the condition for relieving a prisoner's distress" [pp. 276-277].

This form of carrot and stick torture may not seem that sophisticated, but it is the use of basic nervous system functioning and human instinctual need that makes it "scientific". The need for sensory stimulation and social interaction, the need to eat, to sleep, to reduce fear, all of these are used to build dependencies upon the captor, using the fact that "the strengthening effects of rewards -- in this instance the alleviation of an intensely unpleasant emotional state -- are fundamentally automatic" [p. 278]. This impairment of higher cognitive states and disruption and disorganization of the prisoner's self-concept, producing something like "a pathological organic state", was subsequently modified and used by the CIA in its interrogations of countless individuals. If more brutal forms of torture sometimes were used, especially by over-eager foreign agents or governments, DDD remained the gold standard, the programmatic core of counterintelligence interrogation at the heart of the CIA's own intelligence manuals.

Chapter Nine of the 1963 CIA KUBARK manual, "Coercive Counterintelligence Interrogation of Resistant Sources," describes coercive interrogation procedures as "designed to induce regression."

The anonymous authors of KUBARK quote the BCD article specifically:

Farber says that the response to coercion typically contains "... at least three important elements: debility, dependency, and dread." Prisoners "... have reduced viability, are helplessly dependent on their captors for the satisfaction of their many basic needs, and experience the emotional and motivational reactions of intense fear and anxiety"....

The subheads to the chapter are evocative of the DDD paradigm: "Deprivation of Sensory Stimuli", "Threats and Fear", "Debility", "Pain", "Heightened Suggestibility and Hypnosis", and "Narcosis". That this was all constructed, in part, by the demented genius of a famous U.S. psychologist and former president of the APA only contributes to a deep, dark irony that runs like a blood-red gash through the body politic of this country.

The 2006 rewrite of the Army Field Manual was lauded for banning the beating of prisoners, threatening them with dogs, sexual humiliation, performing mock executions, electrocution of prisoners, and waterboarding, among other "techniques." But in an appendix to the manual, the following procedures are authorized for certain prisoners: complete separation, sometimes with forced wearing of goggles and earmuffs, for up to 30 days (after which approval for more must be sought); limiting sleep to four hours a day, for 30 straight days (and more, with approval); and other concurrent techniques, including "futility", "incentive", and "fear up harsh". In the latter, fear within a detainee is significantly increased, through knowledge of the person's phobias, if possible.

In the press, and in the speeches of politicians on both sides of the aisle, the new AFM was praised as a model of reform. The CIA was urged to embrace the AFM's policies, but has demurred. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is studying the interrogation issue, but so far has advocated the AFM be the government-wide interogation standard. Why, one wonders, as it's evident the AFM has maintained a core DDD operational capacity (isolation, sleep and sensory deprivation, fear)? The Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Amnesty International and other human rights organization have called publicly for the Obama administration to rescind Appendix M and other offensive sections of the Army Field Manual.

It is important that all elements of the U.S. torture program be exposed and made illegal. If the country can not rise morally to this, then a terrifying future lies before us.

Also posted at Invictus

Labels: , , , , , , ,

 
by AndrewMc | 6/27/2009 08:26:00 AM
Tomorrow, June 28, is the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots in New York City. While other groups seeking civil rights had been quite active across the country, the GLBT community had not. As Wiki put it: "American gays and lesbians in the 1950s and 1960s faced a legal system more anti-homosexual than those of some Warsaw Pact countries."

[interesting note: as I was reading that part and clicking back and forth, this rather excellent section disappeared from the Wiki entry--edited out. It described the rampant persecution of homosexuals in the 1950s and 1960s. Gotta love Wikipedia.]

The Wikipedia article isn't bad, all things considered. But you'll also find good stuff here, here, and a documentary here.

Use this as an open thread.


Labels: , ,

 
by Robert Ellman | 6/21/2009 02:57:00 PM
The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

According to the World Bank, almost forty percent of humanity lives on a daily income of less than two dollars per day. Another 1.1 billion scrape by on less than one dollar per day.

How can anyone possibly survive or raise a family with such a meager income? In New York City, two dollars per day won’t even cover my daily Brooklyn/Manhattan round-trip subway commute. Yet billions of low skilled people put food on the table, educate their children, grapple with unexpected emergencies and even save money.

In Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live On $2 a Day, Darryl Collins, Jonathan Morduch, Stuart Rutherford and Orlanda Ruthven, compiled yearlong “financial diaries,” of villagers and slum dwellers in Bangladesh, India and South Africa. The diaries track penny by penny, how specific households manage their money with sophistication and resourcefulness. Recently published by Princeton University Press, Portfolios of the Poor, presents revealing data in an accessible seven chapters and 184 pages of text. The text is supported with an additional eighty plus pages of appendices, data tables and notes illustrating “the story behind the portfolios.”

In a tour de force of primary research, the authors report that the world’s poorest do not live hand to mouth and desperately spend what they earn just to keep from drowning. Instead, they utilize financial tools, rely on “informal” networks through relatives and neighbors and navigate perils such as medical calamities and political strife. Their stories are both inspiring as well as heartbreaking.



Although the world’s poorest are far more adept at financial management then previously understood, they’re confronted with what the authors describe as the “triple whammy”:
  • Low income
  • Irregularity of income.
  • Unpredictability about when they will earn income.
Hence, the authors assertively advocate for microfinancing as a means of empowering the world’s poorest with more secure and convenient instruments to access and manage money. Microfinancing is financial services for low income clients in the world’s poorest countries who are self-employed or operating their own businesses.

The authors argue in their book that microfinancing should also be extended to address the needs of exceptionally low-income wage earners as well. It is their contention that poor people in the countries they researched demonstrate on a daily basis that they are responsible money managers and would also be reliable clients of microfinancing services.

One of the authors, Jonathan Morduch, is a New York University ("NYU") professor of economics as well as a managing director of the Financial Access Initiative - a consortium of researchers at NYU, Harvard, Yale, and Innovations for Poverty Action. Morduch, agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about the book and our conversation was just under twenty-six minutes.

Among the topics covered was how his team earned the confidence of the people they interviewed, the informal market tools utilized by the world’s poorest in Bangladesh, India and South Africa and why he’s a proponent of extending microfinancing to the world’s poorest wage earners.

Please refer to the flash media player below.



This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

 
by AndrewMc | 6/20/2009 07:27:00 AM
On June 19, 1865, slaves in Galveston, Texas, received word of the abolition of slavery in the United States. Local celebrations of that day have evolved into a national remembrance of every "drop of blood drawn with the lash."

Some places to visit:
http://www.juneteenth.com/
http://www.juneteenth.us/

Use this as an open thread.

[Update] (by Jeremy): Our former contributor Gene Keyes (Esperanto42) sends us a historically-oriented critique of world maps by Buckminster Fuller and B.J.S. Cahill. A bit inside-baseball, but fascinating if you love maps.





Labels: ,

 
by AndrewMc | 6/17/2009 06:25:00 PM
I've been chewing on this one for a few weeks, not quite knowing where to begin. I could say "begin at the beginning," which is easy, in theory. If only I knew where the beginning was.

Is it the overall bad economy? Does it relate to trends in higher education that began back in the 1970s? Is it, somehow, Bill Clinton's fault? I'm not sure. What I do know is that over the past few months the Board of Regents for the Kentucky Community and Technical College System has begun to dismantle one of the foundational principles of higher education. And in turn various officials around the state have supported the decisions.





On March 13, 2008, the Board of Regents for the Kentucky Community and Technical College System voted to abolish tenure for all new faculty hired after July 1, 2009. Despite numerous resolutions condemning the vote from Faculty Senates across the state, despite appeals to the president of the KCTCS system [who was the one who pushed for the policy change], and despite many letters to the governor, it seems that this decision will stand.

In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find a great show of unity among institutions of higher education in any state on most any issue in the past few decades.

From editorials in major newspapers [pdf] in the state, to faculty resolutions, to resolutions from professional organizations, to online petitions, to negative publicity in the Chronicle of Higher Education (here and here) and Inside Higher Ed, this is not a quiet story.

But it is a complex one.

In my opinion, the decision by KCTCS reflects a long-term decline in both the valuation of faculty by Boards and administration-types, as well as a short-term change in how Boards are composed.

A few decades ago Boards of Regents positions were filled by a wide range of people in various positions--lawyers, doctors, businesspeople, community leaders, etc. While I haven't seen a survey to indicate the make up of Boards today (AHA? Have you done one?) my informal searches have turned up Boards comprised--by and large--of business owners. While they may have some kind of business savvy with regard to whatever business they run, they don't seem to know much about how to run a university. When was the last time the Board of Regents at your college voted down a proposal by your university president? How often does it happen? If they pay much attention at all to the workings of the school they're supposed to oversee, they tend to view the school as a business that caters to a "customer base"--the student. And the point of a business is to squeeze as much money from a customer (here in the form of tuition) while expending as little of that revenue as possible (here, on salaries).

They also tend to see faculty as little more than "hired help" to be managed in the same way as one might handle a fast-food employee--keep salaries to a bare minimum, scale back or eliminate as many benefits as possible, and eliminate "problem" employees who prevent the business from functioning efficiently. That is to say--
faculty are an obstacle to be overcome in the running of an efficient business.

Tenure falls into the category of "anti-efficiency," in the minds of some. It is a luxury at best, an impediment at worst. It prevents them from firing the Ward Churchills of the world, it prevents them from implementing serious cost-saving measures.

The place of faculty in a university, at least as far as many Regents are concerned, can probably best be understood by taking the words of Yevette Haskins, regent at Western Kentucky University. At an April meeting in which salary issues were being discussed, Regent Haskins responded to concerns over low faculty morale and potential resignations by commenting that there are plenty of other faculty looking for jobs. Her attitude indicates her belief that faculty are easily replaceable--nobody rose to disagree. While there are many faculty out there looking for jobs, one can't help but wonder at the regard with which she holds the skills of the faculty in her university. Another regent commented that any faculty who didn't like working at that university ought to leave, while at the same time justifying huge salary increases for some administrators by saying that it was important to retain quality people. It was easy to see where faculty ranked in terms of value to the university. I suspect this attitude reigns at many schools.

As far as the general public is concerned, this question is a non-starter. People who hold a "job for life" in the midst of this miserable economy have a hard time explaining why this system is important. Most people think tenure is some weird, outdated system. Some arguments against are predictable, others are fairly interesting.

The overall result: a decline in tenure-track jobs at the same time that overall faculty positions have increased. This is not a new trend. Universities, when run like businesses, will naturally look to minimize labaor costs, valuing the bottom line over something as nebulous as "quality education." This is especially true when the bottom line can be easily measured, while quality education is measured through flawed US News & World Report rankings [here and here] and misleading teacher evaluation tools.

Adjuncts will (and have already) tell us that faculty being treated as merely hired help is nothing new, either. Adjuncts have suffered this for years, and for them this whole issue may carry some "and when they came for me" shadenfreude. Yet tenure is valuable, as essayists and even courts have affirmed.

So, what is to be done? I don't know. Faculty have less of a voice in university governance than ever before, and the process is accelerating. In many states faculty are either unable or unwilling to unionize. This makes it hard to resist these changes. Senate resolutions are nice, but they don't mean much.

It will probably require faculty to make a greater effort to speak up, loudly, on their campuses. Faculty either have a voice, or they do not. Faculty either care to have that voice heard, or they do not. Faculty either want to have an effective voice on their campuses, or it is not particularly important to them. Faculty must decide. All faculty should be concerned with this and should ask some difficult questions of our universities. Faculty have to make clear to their communities--and themselves--why tenure is an important component of higher education.

Right now we are in an uphill battle. From Regents to university administrators to the general public, the system of tenure is under assault. We must decide if it is worth fighting for.

Labels: , , ,

 
by Winter Rabbit | 6/17/2009 07:36:00 AM
I’ll have a Big Mac, fries, and a medium Dr. Pepper.


Source

Custer rides again, although he's atop a plastic motorcycle and in a McDonald's Happy Meal box.




My wife wants chicken McNuggets and a Coke.


The 140th Anniversary of the Washita Massacre of Nov. 27, 1868

The Cheyenne women were "transported" by an officer named Romero to the other officers once they were prisoners at Fort Cobb.

Rape.


Custer "enjoyed one" every evening in the privacy of his tent. Presumably, he stopped raping the Cheyenne women when his wife arrived.


Source

Custer's wife, Elizabeth (Bacon), whom he married in 1864, lived to the age of ninety-one. The couple had no children. She was devoted to his memory, wrote three books about him, and when she died in 1933 was buried beside him at West Point. Her Tenting on the Plains (1887) presents a charming picture of their stay in Texas. Custer's headquarters building in Austin, the Blind Asylum, located on the "Little Campus" of the University of Texas, has been restored.



Jerome A. Greene. "Washita." Chap. 8, p.169.


Ben Clack told Walter M. Camp: many of the squaws captured at Washita were used by the officers...Romero was put in charge of them and on the march Romero would send squaws around to the officers' tents every night. [Clark] says Custer picked out a fine looking one and had her in his tent every night."


This statement is more or less confirmed by Frederick Benteen, who in 1896 asserted that Custer selected Monahseetah/Meotzi from among the women prisoners and cohabited with her "during the winter and spring of 1868 and '69" until his wife arrived in the summer of 1869. Although Benteen's assertions regarding Custer are not always to be trusted, his statements nonetheless conform entirely to those of the reliable Ben Clark and thus cannot be ignored."


I forgot to add the salad.


Source

The fast food chain's decision to circulate the toy in Indian Country is akin to circulating a Hitler figure in Israel, according to Laurette Pourier, executive director for the Society for the Advancement of Native Interests-Today. "It's insensitive and disrespectful."




The 140th Anniversary of the Washita Massacre of Nov. 27, 1868



Stan Hiog. "The Peace Chiefs Of The Cheyenne." p. 174

Moving Behind, a Cheyenne Woman, later stated: "There was a sharp curve in the river where an old road - crossing used to be. Indian men used to go there to water their ponies. Here we saw the bodies of Black Kettle and his wife, lying under the water. The horse they had ridden lay dead beside them. We observed that they had tried to escape across the river when they were shot."


Location of Black Kettle's death

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Warriors, eleven who died, rushed out of their lodges with inferior firepower to defend the village. Simultaneously, the overall noncombatants ran for their lives into the freezing Washita River.


(Taken with permission)

The words of Ben Clark, Custer's chief of scouts, brought the truth out after Custer distributed propaganda about one white woman and two white boys as having been hostages in Black Kettle’s village. There were no “hostages, a Cheyenne woman committed suicide. Speculating, here is why.

She didn't want her son mutilated by Custer or a 7th Calvary soldier; she didn't want her vagina ripped out and put on a stick, worn, or made into a tobacco pouch. So, she killed her son and herself first.


Jerome A. Greene. Washita. Chap.7. pp. 130-131

There, as the people fell at the hands of the troopers, one woman, in a helpless rage, stood up with her baby, held it out in an outstretched arm, and with the other drew a knife and fatally stabbed the infant - erroneously believed by the soldiers to be a white child. She then plunged the blade into her own chest in suicide.


(Location of the genocide at Washita, a few yards from Black Kettle’s death)
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The 7th hunted them down and murdered them. Although the orders were to "hang all warriors;" it was much more convenient to shoot them. All wounded Cheyenne were shot where they laid.

I want Ranch Dressing with that salad.



Source

The "Night at the Museum" toys are scheduled to be distributed at McDonald's through June 18.


No thankyou, I don’t want apple pie. Can you break a $20 bill?

You can't? Well, Burger King is right across the street. Besides, they don't "have a toy (that) in Indian Country is akin to circulating a Hitler figure in Israel."

I am never, ever, ever, eating anything at McDonalds again.
 
by Ralph Brauer | 6/16/2009 05:07:00 PM
The recent hijacking of a thread on this blog and then the hijacker’s defense of this act as “free speech” moves me to comment on a separate thread which I hope will stimulate a discussion of conduct on this blog and others.


Let us begin with the obvious—as well as know there is not now, nor ever has been, an absolute right to free speech in this country. We need not go into the long and fascinating history of First Amendment rights to know that at various times our government has seen fit to curb “free speech” and that some of those have proven misguided (the Alien and Sedition Acts) and some have stood the test of time (Lochner). The common thread that runs through government actions and court decisions hinges decisively on the concept of context. The argument is not over whether there should be pure free speech, but in what contexts and for what reasons should it be restricted.

To cite an example, we would not permit someone to stand in the middle of a busy intersection and shout away about some issue—not only for his or her own safety, but also for the safety of drivers and pedestrians. So the question is how to regulate speech in the context of blogs.

First, a blog is not a newspaper or television program; it is governed by the owner of that blog. This person may reject any comment or contribution she or he wishes and not give any reasons for it. That may drive away commenters and readers, but it is not a violation of free speech in either a constitutional or personal sense. If I invite a guest to my house and that person proceeds to behave rudely I may ask them to leave.

I believe this same principle applies to blogs. One reason stems from the unique nature of “speech” on a blog. People think of speech as something verbal, but in the context of a blog it is also time and space-related. Quite simply comments take up space and by taking up space they also take up time. Unlike a public square where I am free to ignore someone speaking, I am not free to do so on a blog.

Comments appear sequentially and like it or not I must scroll through that space to get to the next comment. If the comment is something I do not care to read I can scroll through it quickly, but I still have to scroll through it. Now one irrelevant or even obnoxious comment is easy enough to scroll through and ignore, but when an individual or group of people chooses to hijack a thread and continually publish comments that are totally off topic then that person is not merely a nuisance but threatening the entire community of the blog.

It means that every thread, every discussion on that blog is in danger of being disrupted by irrelevant comments. Since one of the prime attractions of a blog is the discussions such hijackings threaten the very existence of that blog. People quit reading the blog because every thread is hijacked. People quit commenting because their comments get swarmed over by the hijackers.

So what constitutes hijacking? Ruling out one off-topic comment is obviously a bit draconian. Some good discussions on this blog have resulted from comments that may have at the time seemed off-topic. No, hijacking consists of more than making irrelevant remarks—it consists of doing it again and again in the same thread and multiple threads.

Since this is a historical blog, a historical example may help. John Quincy Adams made a pest of himself with his constant petitions to the House of Representatives to suspend the “gag rule” that prohibited petitions against slavery. Adams would write his petitions and they would quickly be dismissed. What Adams did not do was to interrupt every debate in the House and launch into a speech in favor of his petition. He did not “hijack” House debates to push his own cause. As we know, eventually Adams prevailed and the gag rule was suspended.

Some people may have seen my comment about checking IP addresses as something out of 1984, but I was dead serious. The net is an anonymous place where one person under a variety of aliases and pretenses can hijack a thread all by themselves using as many names as they wish. The only way to stop such blog-threatening behavior is to track the source of the comments and see if they are all coming from the same person.

While the recent hijacking may be just an isolated case that may pass, it does give people on this blog a chance to discuss the etiquette of this community. One reason I came here is because the discussions are always high-quality and to the point. I would hate to see this blog become awash in hijacked threads.

That the hijacking should proceed from the most notorious and despicable historical fraud of the last half-century is especially disconcerting. A personal historical story may help explain why I feel so strongly.

One reason my grandfather was especially hated by the Nazis was that he campaigned to ban the brown shirts and other paramilitary armies from Weimar Germany. These gangs of uniformed thugs would roam the streets intimidating and sometimes physically assaulting anyone with whom they disagreed. Some political groups countered with their own groups of thugs. All this thuggery was defended as “free speech.” My family’s house was once machine-gunned on successive nights by the Communists and then by the Nazis.

To his death my grandfather maintained that Weimar Germany might have survived had the government acted decisively to curb this street violence, but they did not and it escalated into the Holocaust. As one of the leaders of post-World War II Germany my grandfather campaigned again to be sure that not only were groups like the brown shirts banned but also supported Germany’s strict anti-defamation laws.

So the question for this blog is how do people feel about hijacking? How do we define it? What can we do about it?


 
by Jeremy C. Young | 6/12/2009 09:01:00 PM
If you want to understand President Obama's soul, read his books. But if you want to understand his beliefs, read John Rawls. The Harvard academic, who died in 2002, was the most important philosopher of liberalism in the twentieth century, mostly because, in so many ways, Rawls' ideas describe the world we live in. That has never been more true than today, when our President has, consciously or unconsciously, exalted Rawlsian ideas to the position of the greatest possible good.

Care to hear more about this explanatory model that is so central to Obama's thought, whether he acknowledges the influence or not? Read on.



* * * * * * * * *

The big question that confronted liberal theorists in Rawls' heyday was the problem of pluralism. The old liberal theories -- those by Locke, Kant, J.S. Mill, and others -- were based on the idea that one set of values was "right" and others were "wrong." For Locke, an atheist or someone who didn't believe in the afterlife couldn't be trusted to hold to the social contract (because they wouldn't be afraid of divine retribution), so such people were cut out of his philosophy. Mill was okay with nonbelievers but considered non-Western peoples to be "barbarians" who had to be educated in rationality before they could enjoy the fruits of liberalism. In the modern, post-colonial world, such assumptions simply didn't hold water. So could liberalism be made to encompass the immense variety of peoples and beliefs in the world -- without either losing its punch or discriminating against vast numbers of people?

Rawls' first attempt to solve this problem, A Theory of Justice (1971), was fairly well-received. Rawls imagined a bunch of reasonable people deciding to form a society from scratch -- what he called the "original position". Given that these reasonable people disagreed on many things, what kind of society would they make that could accommodate all of them? Rawls thought they would agree on two principles. The first principle was that all of them would have as much freedom as they possibly could without infringing on the freedom of others. This wasn't a new idea; in fact, it came straight from Mill's writings a century earlier. The second principle was more interesting. Rawls said that there would be equality of opportunity with regard to positions of power. He also said that inequalities, which were necessary in a non-Marxist society, would "be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society." This last bit became known as the "difference principle." What Rawls was getting at, put simply, was that if someone was going to get a leg up from the system, it should be the least fortunate, not the most. A perfect example of this idea is affirmative action: since we can't make hiring and college admissions completely fair, they should be biased toward those who need them most.

A Theory of Justice was a good system, and it took into account a lot of the problems with earlier liberal theories. But soon critics, most prominently Michael Sandel, began to pick it apart. Rawls, they said, hadn't solved the problem of pluralism because he hadn't offered a theory that could supersede all other possible theories. Some people in the original position might choose Rawls' system, but other people would make other, equally valid systems. What made Rawls' ideas any better than anyone else's?

Rawls was stung by these criticisms, and he significantly reformulated his theory. The result was Political Liberalism (1993), a much more innovative and significant philosophy.

Rawls began Political Liberalism by acknowledging that his earlier theory was only one of many competing philosophies -- what he called "comprehensive doctrines" -- held by participants in liberal governments across the world. However, he noted that most liberals, whatever comprehensive doctrine they held, wanted at least some of the same things other liberals wanted. For instance, President Bush and President Obama (both "liberals" under the political theory definition) have strikingly different views on American politics, but they both supported the federal bailouts and stimulus packages. Bush's comprehensive doctrine is pro-business, and Obama's is pro-big government, but it didn't matter that they had different reasons for supporting the same legislation -- the bills got passed anyway, and both presidents were happy about it.

According to Rawls, a large majority of people with different views are able to form what he called an "overlapping consensus" -- a core set of policies and governing principles that are contained within all their comprehensive doctrines. So long as those people are "reasonable" -- that is, so long as they are rational and willing to work with other reasonable people -- there's no need for them to share the same comprehensive doctrine or agree on fundamental principles. They can govern just fine without any such philosophical agreement, just by passing laws that all or most of them can agree on for their own different reasons.

This is, of course, exactly how our government works: a bunch of people who disagree on ideas come together and agree on policies. But Rawls was the first to elevate this practical political solution to the level of a philosophy. Rawls' great insight was that our political system works precisely because of, not in spite of, the fact that we lack universal philosophical standards of right and wrong. The reason all previous liberal theories had run afoul of pluralism was that they had divided the world into right (those who agreed with the theory) and wrong (those who disagreed with it). Rawls replaced this dichotomy with another one: he divided the world into the reasonable (those who were willing to work within the overlapping consensus) and the unreasonable (those who weren't). Rawls' overlapping consensus was much more inclusive than previous theories, since only people with extreme positions would be unwilling to work with others in the overlapping consensus -- and it also meant that people could only be excluded from the consensus by choice, not for any other reason (deep-seated religious belief for Locke, incorrect beliefs for Kant, ethnic/racial/national origin for Mill). Anyone was welcome within the overlapping consensus unless they voluntarily absented themselves from it. And anyone who worked within the overlapping consensus had a voice in shaping what that consensus turned out to be.

* * * * * * * * *

I've given Rawls a lot of credit here, because I think Political Liberalism is one of the most innovative ideas ever formulated. But I also believe the Rawlsian system is fatally flawed. To understand why, we need to look at what it means to be "unreasonable" in a Rawlsian sense.

By definition, an unreasonable person is someone who's unwilling to work within the overlapping consensus. There are several reasons a person might choose not to work within this consensus. S/he may want to overthrow the system entirely, as Marx did from the left or Turner Diaries author William Pierce did from the right. S/he may object to some of the people working within the system and feel that she shouldn't have to work with such individuals. Or s/he may feel that the overlapping consensus is incapable of solving important problems within society. Let's take each of these cases separately to see the problems they pose for the Rawlsian model.

People who want to overthrow the system, like Marx and Pierce, are generally pretty extreme. And there aren't many people who are going to cry over the exclusion of either of these guys from the halls of power. But the problem with Rawls' theory is that it excludes them without providing any logical or moral reason for doing so. Rather, they are excluded precisely because their view differs from the mainstream (the overlapping consensus). Rawls' innovation was to eliminate the concept of a "wrong" political view, but in doing so he removed the justifications previous liberal theories had devised for excluding extremists from power. It's one thing to be told your opinions don't matter because they're morally and logically wrong; it's another to be told they don't matter because, regardless of their merits, most people think they're extreme. The latter option is familiar as mob rule, as the law of the street -- but no liberal philosophy has ever viewed this as a good thing, until Rawls.

Looking at the second case, we can quickly see that populism is not permitted in the Rawlsian world. "Throw the bums out," as Ross Perot put it, is a distinctly un-Rawlsian sentiment. You can't throw the bums out, because the bums want to be there and are willing to work with you. The only way to get rid of political figures you don't like -- not just to remove them from office, but to prevent them from exercising substantive political influence -- is to wait for them to retire. Rawls' overlapping consensus is so welcoming, so all-encompassing, that it denies the voting public the right to choose who influences their government. This is particularly problematic when it comes to powerful corporations and special interests. Corporate fat cats always want influence and are willing to work with anyone in power, so they can't be removed from a Rawlsian government, even though they usually don't represent the best interests of the people. Sure, you can vote the party in power out of office, but the corporations will just cosy up to the new party in power, and nothing will change. There's something profoundly undemocratic about a system where the people have to play Whack-A-Mole with nefarious characters who refuse to stay out of power no matter how many times they're sent packing.

As troubling as these cases are, it's the third case that poses the most problems. By doing away with the concepts of right and wrong, Rawls has ensured that the de facto "right" is what most people in power think at any one time. A government based on overlapping consensus operates within the Overton window -- the range of generally acceptable alternatives on any given issue. The problem isn't just that alternatives outside the Overton window are automatically devalued; it's that for some issues the objective truth lies outside the Overton window. Global warming is an excellent example. Most reasonable people (by the Rawlsian definition) agree that the range of possible alternatives ranges from no action (the Bush administration's choice) to the 5-7% carbon emissions reductions proposed by the Kyoto Protocol (at least theoretically Obama's choice). But the science clearly shows that only a 50% or greater reduction can stave off environmental holocaust. In the Rawlsian bizarro-world, the science is wrong because it disagrees with the overlapping consensus. Rawls gives us no way to move beyond the practical in order to achieve the necessary.

* * * * * * * * *

Sadly, we live in that Rawlsian bizarro-world. There have been plenty of presidents in our history who have elevated the overlapping consensus to a high art through the ideas of "bipartisanship" and "getting things done" -- think of Bill Clinton's "triangulation" or Eisenhower's inveterate moderacy. But few (perhaps only John F. Kennedy) have venerated the overlapping consensus as itself the supreme good of the nation in the way Barack Obama does. Few have failed to spend political capital on expansive policies, not because they feared losing reelection, but because they believed doing so would be breaking a sacred trust -- but Obama is one of those few.

Read his books and you'll see that, despite the fact that Obama holds strikingly liberal views on a variety of issues, his anger at the Bush administration is directed not at its policies, but at its politics. For Obama, Bush's supreme betrayal was in breaking the Rawlsian consensus. Bush's extreme partisanship, his utter disregard of the Democratic members of his government, turned Americans against each other and polarized the electorate. For Obama, that was Bush's greatest crime -- because to the President, we are a nation of consensus before we are a nation of laws or dreams or anything else.

It's the only interpretation that explains Obama's baffling and infuriating rejection of progressives and his embrace of the moderate wing of the Republican party. It's the only interpretation that explains his choice to elevate people like Judd Gregg, Ray LaHood, and John McHugh, who committed the unforgivable sin of voting to impeach a President because they didn't like him, to high posts in his administration. It's the only interpretation that explains his active support of Republican Arlen Specter against Democrat Joe Sestak. It's the only interpretation that explains his unwillingness to proceed in passing legislation without Republican support, or to pressure his party's Majority Leader to eliminate the Senate's pernicious filibuster rule and strip Republicans of their last vestiges of power. Obama does these things not because Mr. 68% in the polls needs the additional support, but because he truly believes that Republicans within the overlapping consensus are more important than Democrats outside it. The consensus, for Obama, is more important than the outcome.

John Rawls was a great thinker, and Barack Obama is a great man. But by excluding the unreasonable from meaningful political participation, they have ensured that only mediocrity can emerge from the political system they both venerate. And in these troubling times, mediocrity just isn't good enough. So I'm proud to declare myself a member of the unreasonable. It's the only place where great change happens, where democracy succeeds fully, and where populism reigns. In the Rawlsian world, where the practical defines the realm of possibility, the necessary simply cannot triumph.

Labels:

 
by Winter Rabbit | 6/11/2009 07:34:00 PM
There’s a reason Kevin Annett has a petition stating, "apparent refusal to investigate suspected crime sites related to the mass burials of children who died in Indian residential schools."


http://feminismfriday.wordpress.com/




The child was touched without permission, during this time the assailant was holding what we can easily refer to as a “deadly weapon” given that you could hypothetically be killed by a pair of scissors. In fact, it is not a stretch to imagine this happening.



Speculating, one reason for the petition is so that the horrid history of genocide, of which cultural genocide is included in my opinion, will stop repeating.


The child is native and therefore having long hair is not simply a fashion statement but rather something tied to the child’s culture. Cutting off the hair of male native children was regularly done at residential schools, where the goal was to “kill the indian and save the child“.





"If a First Nations teacher had taken the same actions with a non-native child, there would have been a swift and strong response," Falconer said. "The Crown attorney wouldn't be confused about the definition of consent and those non-native children would have been deemed worthy of protection.

"The message here is that First Nations children are somehow less worthy of protection than non-native children."



So, a teaching assistant trimmed the bangs of a seven year old First Nations child in order to "facilitate the child’s reading." The teaching assistant did so instead of contacting the parents, asking them to braid their child’s hair, or to have it tied back to facilitate the child’s education. There are aural means of teaching children to read, and it’s simply ridiculous to imagine the child’s hair was so long, their work could not be done. What makes this cultural genocide?


Falconer said the parents had come to the school in the fall after the same teacher's aide ridiculed their older son, who also keeps his hair long. They explained that the boys wear their hair long in order to participate in ceremonial First Nations' dancing.


That does. No wonder Canada and the US didn't sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.


In analyzing the individual parts of the Declaration, we see that all new rules of customary international law, as found in our respective surveys of state and international practice of 1999, 2001, and 2004, still remain part of the global consensus. As stated in 1999, “indigenous peoples are entitled to maintain and develop their distinct cultural identity, their spirituality, their language, and their traditional ways of life.” Most of the provisions of the Declaration go to the preservation of culture, language, religion, and identity; and state practice in the states with indigenous peoples largely conforms to these legal tenets. Due to the strength of the indigenous renascence throughout the world, the original goal of assimilation of indigenous cultures into the maelstrom of the modern world has largely been abandoned in favor of preservation and reinvigoration of indigenous cultures, languages and religions. The legal guarantees of these claims are, however, not the real bones of contention.



Source
The original draft of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, prepared by the United Nations (UN) Secretariat and based on the work of Lemkin, included definitions of physical genocide, biological genocide, and cultural genocide. The latter was defined as follows:
Destroying the specific characteristics of the group by:

• (a) forcible transfer of children to another human group; or

• (b) forced and systematic exile of individuals representing the culture of a group; or

• (c) prohibition of the use of the national language even in private intercourse; or

• (d) systematic destruction of books printed in the national language or of religious works or prohibition of new publications; or

• (e) systematic destruction of historical or religious monuments or their diversion to alien uses, destruction or dispersion of documents and objects of historical, artistic, or religious value and of objects used in religious worship.



To conclude, the reason that what the teacher’s assistant did was cultural genocide can be found conclusively in “(e).” If the specific tribe the child is a part of believes as I do, that my body is my only possession and that it is all I have to offer to the Creator or something similar,


Falconer said the parents had come to the school in the fall after the same teacher's aide ridiculed their older son, who also keeps his hair long. They explained that the boys wear their hair long in order to participate in ceremonial First Nations' dancing.


then that would by definition be "destruction or dispersion of documents and objects of historical, artistic, or religious value and of objects used in religious worship." Except for the fact, that the child’s hair is no mere “object.” Furthermore, until we respect all differences of culture, we will not achieve the peace we all so desperately want and need.


Newcomb: Dehumanization in U.S. Indian Law and Policy

The dehumanization of our Indian peoples has been manifested in many ways. The countless massacres, the forced removals, the boarding schools that tore Indian children away from their extended families, communities and nations, the sterilizations of Indian women in IHS hospitals in the 1970s, the attack on our languages, on our spiritual and ceremonial traditions, on our sacred places. These are just a few examples of the ways in which we have been continuously dehumanized by the United States.

- snip -

Why weren’t Indian peoples considered to have human rights? Simple; they weren’t considered fully human. Upon reflection, dehumanization is what made the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples imperative. Its adoption by the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 13, 2007, was a long-awaited endorsement of the fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples. It was the result of decades of work to put an end to the dehumanization of indigenous nations and peoples globally. Passage of that document sends the message that because indigenous peoples are fully human we possess and have always possessed fundamental human rights, including the collective right of self-determination, despite centuries of being regarded and treated as not fully human.

 
by Ahistoricality | 6/10/2009 10:26:00 PM
I thought of this line from Obama's Cairo speech today:
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful.

Nothing else I'm thinking about today's events is printable.

Consider this an open thread.

Labels: , , , ,

 
by AndrewMc | 6/08/2009 08:27:00 PM

For some months now we have followed the progress of the allegations and investigations into the troubles at the Office of the Historian at the Department of State.

PH has published articles here, and here.

There now seems to be some kind of resolution of the issue.




The Washington Post [free subscription required] reports that
The head of the State Department's Office of the Historian has been reassigned after an inspector general's investigation found "serious mismanagement for which the director must be held accountable."

The office has been the subject of several years of internal and external conflict. A report by Harold W. Geisel, acting State Department inspector general, said the turmoil could be resolved only with the transfer of the historian, Marc J. Susser.



The paper goes on to say that

Although it has not been publicly announced, John Campbell, a former ambassador to Nigeria, has been designated acting director of the office, according to an internal State Department memorandum.


While the entire incident is regrettable, and a bit of a blemish [IMHO] on the fine work that that office does, I'm very glad to see that the State Department seems to have worked things out, and is moving forward.

The FRUS series is an invaluable tool for historians, and any delays in its publication hold up the ability of researchers and the general public to have a close look at U.S. foreign policy decisions.

So, I'm glad that we seem to be moving past this.

Labels: , , , ,

 
by Robert Ellman | 6/07/2009 03:16:00 PM
The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

In the age of Barack Obama, both the Republican Party as well as the South appear marginalized and out of step with the rest of America. Yet it wasn’t so long ago that the South represented the foundation of America’s conservative hegemony. Starting with Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, the Republican Party prevailed in nine out of the next fourteen presidential elections with a reliable Southern base.

Specifically, the Republican Party exploited white Southern resentment against the cause of civil rights and integration. The "Southern strategy" as it was later called, enabled Republicans to end the Democratic Party's previous domination of the South following the Civil War. A key figure in that realignment was the renowned evangelist Billy Graham.

Historian, Steven P. Miller, first explored Billy Graham’s role in this realignment with his doctorate thesis entitled, “The Politics of Decency: Billy Graham, Evangelicalism, and the End of the Solid South, 1950-1980.” Miller later converted that thesis into his current book, Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South, recently published by the University of Pennsylvania Press. Miller’s book delineates how Graham allowed his iconic celebrity to be used by national politicians so they could make inroads into the South. His book also details how Graham capitalized on his leverage as a regional heavyweight to influence presidents and policy.



With President Dwight Eisenhower, Graham had an ideological soul mate as both valued “moderation” between segregationists and those who championed integration. Graham believed that racism could not be overcome through legislation and the heavy hand of federal power. Instead, he advocated changing the hearts and minds of people “one soul at a time” through his integrated “crusades” where he preached his love thy neighbor gospel.

Under the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, Graham straddled the fence between promoting racial tolerance and preserving local southern autonomy or “states rights.” In that regard, Graham was an intimate part of Richard Nixon's inner circle after he became president in 1968. Graham’s defenders argue that he helped the South transition from its shameful past while preserving stability. His critics claim that Graham was a cowardly apologist for white privilege who didn’t do nearly enough to advance the cause of civil rights. Personally, like many liberals, I'm partial to the latter argument.

Ross Douthat writes in his April 19th review of Miller's book in the New York Times that,
“Neither story is the whole truth, but both are true. And it’s a credit to Steven P. Miller that his ‘Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South,’ a study of the evangelist’s relationship to the cause of civil rights on the one hand and the cause of conservatism on the other, does justice to the tensions and complexities involved — for Graham, for the South and for the country. In Miller’s account, one of 20th-century America’s most important religious leaders emerges as a representative political actor as well, whose example is worth pondering less because he was courageous than because he often wasn’t.

The story of the civil rights era is usually told as a collision between heroes and villains: the marchers on one side and the K.K.K. on the other; the Martin Luther Kings and Lyndon Johnsons making the way straight for justice, and the George Wallaces and Bull Connors standing sneering in their way. But the movement’s successes and failures were ultimately determined by the choices of more unheroic men — men like Billy Graham.”
Miller, who earned a PH.D degree in history from Vanderbilt University and has taught at numerous institutions, including Washington University, Webster University and Goshen College, agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about his book and our conversation was just under thirty-six minutes.

Among the topics covered is the difference between hard core fundamentalism and evangelicalism, Graham’s role in facilitating Republican inroads into the previously reliable Democratic South, whether his middle ground on civil rights was courageous or cowardly, Graham's alliance with Eisenhower, his friendship with Lyndon Johnson, the intimate collaboration with Richard Nixon and the legacy he left behind.

Please refer to the flash media player below.



This interview can also be at accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”

Labels: , , ,

 
by Ahistoricality | 6/03/2009 02:50:00 PM
There's been a lot of discussion, primarily on conservative blogs, about the different reactions to the Tiller assassination and the Little Rock Army-Navy Recruitment Office attack which killed Private William Long. Most of the discussion is based on a logical fallacy: that one must be entirely consistent in one's condemnations to be taken entirely seriously on any of them. "But what about..." is a classic rhetorical tactic, shifting the grounds of an argument and sometimes derailing it entirely.

That said, though, I'm largely in agreement that all violence needs to be taken seriously -- I'm a procedural liberal who thinks that political processes need to be settled by political and legal means, and I want to be protected when I make unpopular stands.

Still, I think there's a reasonable question: what, if anything, are the differences between these cases that might explain different reactions? Some of this is, clearly, speculative, as we haven't gotten the full details on either (alleged? Seems unnecessary) killer yet, but I'm working from the information available.

First, the similarities:

  1. unmistakeably violent murders, illegal acts
  2. May 2009
  3. used legal firearms
  4. apparent religious motivation
  5. clear political motivation
  6. perpetrator seems to believe they are acting in defense of the innocent
  7. victim was a firm believer in their cause
  8. individual perpetrators without organizational support, no conspiracy
  9. targetting respected social institutions (medicine, the military)
  10. targets demonized by political partisans, in long-running, public and intense disputes
I may be overstating some of the similarities, but the parallels are strong, nonetheless. Now, the differences:
  1. abortion rights v. the military
  2. civilian v. military victim
  3. handgun v. assault rifle
  4. individual target v. institutional target
  5. individual target v. potential mass casualties
  6. mission-critical individual v. low-ranking support staff (or, to put it another way, tactical v. symbolic)
  7. high-profile target v. previously anonymous victim
  8. domestic policy v. foreign policy
  9. at church v. at work
  10. older family man v. younger unmarried

The conservative charge of hypocrisy is based on the assumption that difference #1 is the critical one, really the only one. But it's #6 and #7, I think, which actually drive media coverage: the immediate effects of these deaths are different, as are the likely long-term effects. To a large extent, I'd say that #8, because it directly impacts more people's lives locally, and #2 also, are significant factors. Not to downplay the tragic death of this member of the military, but it is an occupation in which violent death in the line of duty is less shocking.

My final thought is one which others have also made. Given the parallels between the cases, why have so many prominent conservative voices failed to call the Tiller assassination an act of domestic terrorism, and to address the implications of that for domestic politics?

[crossposted from Ahistoricality]

Labels: , , , , , ,

 
by Winter Rabbit | 6/02/2009 10:40:00 PM
My friend and spirit brother, Albert Gray Eagle, needs an author.




imaginativz@yahoo.com

algrayeagle@sbcglobal.net



Crossposted at Native American Netroots


Albert Gray Eagle is a noted flute artist and performer who is skilled in the craft of making traditional flutes along with regional forms of creative writing. Residencies with Gray Eagle may include the art of flute making and playing of the instrument while building on an understanding of history relevant to the Native American. He may provide storytelling for both children and adults that offer a perspective and philosophy of Native American culture of the past and present. Through his artistic talents and gentle nature for teaching, participants will be guided to develop their creative and artistic selves. As a U.S. Army veteran, Gray Eagle performs frequently for veterans events.



I met Albert Gray Eagle at Red Earth in Oklahoma a few years ago. Leaving out some details for identity reasons on my part, he taught me how to make River Cane flutes, and taught me a lot about the origins of the instrument.


I told him that he really needs to write a book last year, but he said he doesn’t know quite how to organize everything. He’s a walking encyclopedia of information, knows the oral history, and so on. That only scratches the surface. Anyway, I said the same thing to him this year, “Albert, you really need to write a book.” He told me the same thing, he needs help. I said, “Well, what if I thought I could find you an author, could I use your name and post your contact information?” “Yes,” he said.




So, please contact Albert Gray Eagle if you’re an author and are serious about documenting what he has to tell.


imaginativz@yahoo.com

algrayeagle@sbcglobal.net