by Jeremy C. Young | 8/30/2009 11:44:00 AM
Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." -- Kevin Spacey, The Usual Suspects


The greatest trick Karl Rove ever pulled was convincing the world he was the Devil.

The real Karl Rove was a political strategist of decidedly ordinary ability. I'll never dispute his ruthlessness, but it's equally indisputable that not a single one of his masterstrokes achieved any tangible results.



Let's look at the record. Rove first appeared on the national stage as the political genius behind George Bush in roughly 1999. Rove attempted to sell Bush as the inevitable frontrunner for the Republican nomination. However, Bush came shockingly close to losing to an upstart Senator named John McCain who had barely any name recognition and next to no money, and whose own home-state Governor had endorsed Bush. Bush eventually defeated McCain on the strength of his fundraising ability and the connections he had inherited from his father, things Rove had nothing to do with.

Bush then barely triumphed over Al Gore in one of the closest elections in history, again because of his superiority in fundraising and because his opponent ran one of the most dysfunctional campaigns of all time. Rove had little to do with any of this.

In 2004, Bush defeated another lackluster Democratic candidate, John Kerry, partially because of a wickedly effective dirty trick, the campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. However, this campaign was run by a group of people who had nothing to do with Rove and whose leader, Jerome Corsi, was a member of the far-right Constitution Party and didn't answer to Rove in any way. Bush's most successful Rovian trick therefore had nothing to do with Rove at all.

Rove had some involvement with the Valerie Plame affair, in which the Bush administration attempted to shut up a low-ranking foreign service official whom no one was paying attention to by outing his wife as a CIA agent. Rove's plan backfired in his face, turned Joe Wilson into a national celebrity, gave him a perfect platform from which to launch further critiques of the Iraq War, and made Rove look like a grade-A jackass. Epic fail in the evil genius category.

Rove's most important secret plan was to maintain perpetual Republican control of Congress by pushing politically-motivated prosecutions of Democratic elected officials by the Justice Department. This plan was a tremendous failure that not only resulted in an expose that took down the Attorney General of the United States, but it also achieved not a single electoral victory for Republicans. Let's examine two cases in particular.

In New Mexico, Rove wanted U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to indict Patsy Madrid before she defeated Congresswoman Heather Wilson. Rove's strategy was to fire Iglesias when he refused to comply and replace him with a supportive political appointee. However, that process took several years and was woefully inadequate in discrediting Patsy Madrid in 2006 (Heather Wilson defeated her anyway). Not only was Madrid not indicted by Rove's flunkie in 2006, she still has not been indicted by that same U.S. attorney in 2009, though signs indicate that she soon will be. Had Madrid won the election in 2006, then, it would have taken Rove at least three years to have her removed from office through his master plan.

In what is generally considered Rove's most successful political prosecution, he railroaded former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman into federal prison on trumped-up corruption charges. However, Siegelman had already lost reelection when he was indicted, and there is no indication that he would have regained his seat in a rematch. What Rove did is to railroad a washed-up former elected official who had little chance of ever again holding public office.

Meanwhile, the one politician who was successfully run out of office on politically-motivated charges by a U.S. Attorney on Rove's watch was -- a Republican, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. So much for Rove's master plan.

The record shows that Karl Rove was a decidedly average, possibly well below average, political strategist. But Rove did one thing extraordinarily well: he made Democrats believe that he was a great strategist. He did more than that: he made them believe that he was invincible.

Look at this January 2003 article by Ron Suskind, a piece that played no small part in the making of the Rove mythos. It illustrates from first to last how Rove did it, how he created the image of himself as an unbeatable evil genius. There's Rove shouting at an aide, "We will fuck him. Do you hear me? We will fuck him. We will ruin him. Like no one has ever fucked him!" -- then flashing a smile and telling the reporter, "Come on in!" There's Rove telling all his friends from way back that he wanted to grow up to be Mark Hanna, the greatest of the great evil strategists. There's John McCain telling Suskind that in Rove's absence, most people assumed, "Oh, he's out ruining careers." There's John Weaver, Rove's arch-nemesis in the Republican Party, spreading vague and disturbing rumors of a falling-out between himself and Rove back in the eighties. The best line comes from a White House insider just after the 2002 elections, when the Republicans picked up seats. "It’s unbelievable," says the source. "Could Karl be that smart? Could anyone?"

So there is the myth, and it's a doozy; but there too is the record, and it's pretty lackluster. Do you see the disconnect between them? This is what we historians do: we find a disconnect, a gap, a mistake, something that shouldn't be there but is, and explain it. The explanation for this one is clear. This is a man who spent his entire career making people think he was a monster, for good and all. Karl Rove is extraordinarily good at only one thing: spinning a story that instills irrational fear in others. In another life, he would have made a fine horror novelist: the the dark fantastic creatures that devour children in their beds at night are at home in his fevered mind. As a political strategist, he was no great shakes. But as a character out of his own terrifying imagination, he was a superstar. He had Democrats running around in circles for years, afraid of their own shadows, looking over their shoulders for fear that Karl Rove might be standing behind them. No plan was so good that Rove could not foil it; no plot was so secure that Rove could not divine it; no victory was so assured that Rove could not turn it into defeat. It was all poppycock of course, but in politics perception was reality, and that was the perception. Rove won elections not because he was a good strategist, but because he gave birth to today's weak-kneed Democratic political class.

Karl Rove indeed deserves a place in the pantheon of great American evil strategists, with the likes of Mark Hanna and Lee Atwater. Rove defeated Democrats not by out-organizing them as Hanna did, or by out-sliming them as Atwater did, but by convincing them he was the Devil. He then sat back and watched as they defeated themselves. In a way, Rove was the most insidious evil strategist of them all.

Labels: , , , , , ,

 
by AndrewMc | 8/28/2009 07:00:00 AM

Look, my first computer—a Terak 8510/a. I got it right before the Apple II/e that I had for years. That was followed by a Mac SE, then a Mac 7200, then an iMac. But that Terak was a workhorse, and I learned to program in Pascal on it. That was a great beginner language--easy to learn, easy to use.

What was your first computer?




Labels: ,

 
by Joel Tscherne | 8/27/2009 07:00:00 AM

How much should historians pay attention to Hollywood and media coverage of historical events and figures? I bring this up after my first graduate class last night, a reading seminar on the American Revolution. When another student asked the professor about the HBO John Adams miniseries, the instructor responded, "I don't have cable", clearly showing no interest in even discussing the subject. But can historians afford to let screenwriters and producers make movies and TV shows that clearly plays fast and loose with history?



I bring this up as we approach the 70th anniversary of World War II (in a few days) and the 150th anniversary of the United States Civil War (in a few years). The media is always big on commemorating anniversaries and these will not be an exception. Steven Spielberg is in development on a biography of Abraham Lincoln, set for possible release in 2011, with Liam Neeson signed on to play the president. In addition, Robert Redford has just announced plans to make The Conspirator, a movie featuring the story of Mary Surratt, one of the Lincoln assassination plotters, the first woman executed by the Federal government.

Obviously there have been a large number of movies, documentaries, and TV shows that have used historians as consultants. Unfortunately, many of these works have been heavily criticized by historians for both the way they often play with facts and their misunderstanding of the events they mean to present. Of course, the problem is that more people are likely to see a movie or watch a show than read either university press books or even history best sellers.

So how can we juggle our desire to make sure that Hollywood gets it right with our belief that it isn't worth the time or trouble when it?s unlikely that anyone is going to listen to us anyway? And while you're thinking about it, consider this: Oliver Stone has signed with Showtime to create a 10-part miniseries on the secret history of America. No matter what you think about his films or his politics, doesn't that still give you pause for thought?

Labels: , ,

 
by AndrewMc | 8/25/2009 08:12:00 PM
In a wonderful coup, the editors here at Progressive Historians were sent a leaked copy of the newly-released torture memos. All I can say is "Wow!"

More below.




From the office of [redacted] in the [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted]. On this day, [redacted] [redacted], [redacted].

Our report, which clearly [redacted] a number of [redacted] [redacted], can only be understood in the context of [redacted].

We have utilized the [redacted] method of [redacted] on the following suspected [redacted]ists:

1. Mohammed [redacted]
2. Abu [redacted]
3. [redacted] [redacted]
4. [redacted] ibn [redacted]
5. [redacted] Mohammed [redacted]
6. [redacted] [redacted] Mohammed
7. [redacted] ibn abu Mohammed [redacted]
8. [redacted] [redacted] [redacted]
9. Joe Smith
10. B[redacted] H[redacted] O[redacted]

Our success rate is astonishing. With over [redacted]% [redacted] [redacted], we have found that [redacted] effectiveness is [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted].

The following operations were [redacted] intercepted:

[redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] in [redacted] [redacted]. To that end, [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] except [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] to the [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] fourth [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted].

As you can plainly see, [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], and of course, [redacted].

We hope this clears up any confusion.

[redacted],
Dr. [redacted] [redacted]


Labels: ,

 
by AndrewMc | 8/24/2009 07:00:00 AM

According to research published in the August 13, 2009, edition of the journal Nature, paleotempestologists argue that the current upswing in hurricanes and cyclones is part of a long cycle stretching back more than a thousand years to the Middle Ages. That cycle peaked around the year 1000. The New York Times has a piece on the article, which for the most part argues that the medieval peak was a probably bigger than what we're seeing today.

Interesting field, paleotempestology. To some degree it relates to history in much the same way that dendrocrhonology does. Perhaps paleotempestology will contribute to some long-standing historical questions in the same way that dedrochronology helped us understand the Roanoke and Jamestown disasters a bit better.

I'm not a historian of the Middle Ages, but I teach Western Civilizations prior to 1648, and I use that period of climate change and some other events that occurred around the year 1000 as a way of tying together some themes that I use throughout the course. Briefly, I have my students think about the massive changes brought on by the agricultural revolution of thousands of years ago, and then place them in the context of the massive change in the medieval period in order to get them to think about change over time, historical context, contingency, etc.

The article in Nature got me to thinking about a comparison between the context of climate change in the medieval period, and the context of climate change today. The parallels aren't exact, but they are somewhat instructive.







Scientists sometimes refer to the period from 800 – 1300 as the “Medieval Warming Period.” While many believed that this was a global phenomenon, new research indicates that the warming effect may have been localized to Europe. Whatever the case, it is well-documented that temperatures rose in Europe, and that rainfall increased to some degree. The warmer, wetter weather made for better harvests.

At the same time that Europe was getting warmer and wetter, Europeans saw a number of “technological” changes that greatly improved their ability to grow food. Two of these improvements, in particular, went hand-in-hand.

The first advance was the gradual replacement of oxen with horses as draft animals. Horses may not seem like “technology,” but in a sense they are a kind of bio-technical improvement. Horses eat less than oxen, but can work faster, longer, and harder than can oxen. For farming they are a vast improvement over oxen, which are slower, require greater care, and eat more.

At the same time, Europeans finally discarded the old Roman-stye scratch plough—called an ard—in favor of an iron plough with a coulter. The scratch plough worked well in the Mediterranean area, where the soil was sandy. The plough, pulled by a team of oxen, scratched the surface, laying open a furrow which could be seeded. But in the heavy soil of Europe, the scratch plough was inadequate, and farmers often had to supplement the scratch plough with extra digging by hand. Use of the scratch plow also tends to cause "panning" where the soil below four inches becomes caked from the repeated disruption of the above soil. This can lead to less water absorption, and can restrict root growth to the shallower areas. Both effects reduce crop yields.

The iron plough—called a carruca—changed things dramatically. The coulter broke the tough soil while the ploughshare lifted the soil and flipped it over. It had the effect of aerating the soil and of bringing nutrients to the top. It was more labor intensive and required a larger team of animals (eight for a carruca, versus two for a scratch plough), but it vastly improved the quality of the soil.

The final improvement is less a kind of technology than a farming practice. Farmers had for many centuries practiced field rotation (not necessarily crop rotation), where crops were grown on one field while another lay fallow. This meant that any one time, half the fields were growing food. Beginning in the Middle Ages farmers began to practice three-field rotation. Spring crops would go in the first field, fall crops in the second field, and the third field would lie fallow. So in any year two-thirds of the fields would be under cultivation. During this period Europeans also greatly increased the amount of land available for farming by clearing vast forests.

So, the warmer, wetter weather in the Middle Ages was accompanied by—or perhaps better said, was coincidental to—a series of innovations and practices that greatly increased food production. The result was a population explosion. Figures are, of course, difficult to come by. But most estimates seem to agree that the population went from something like 30 million Europeans in the year 1000 to about 60 million in the year 1200. Accompanying this were a great number of societal changes that I won’t get into here.

But what about today? We have documented global warming. The scientific community is in near-total agreement that the earth is warming. We have also seen about a century or so of technological change that has fundamentally reordered human society. The big difference between the two is that in the 20th and 21st centuries technology isn’t accompanying global warming and environmental change—it is causing it. From increased carbon dioxide levels in the air and the oceans, to warmer weather worldwide, the planet is experiencing a warmer that seems unmatched in human history.

Aside from that, man-made technology, such as synthetic long chain polymers, is causing environmental changes that we don’t yet fully grasp. At the same time, other man-made chemicals in food, in manufacturing waste, and in other products, are causing changes in human DNA.

It’s hard to imagine that the changes of this confluence of technological and environmental change will be positive for humanity. Just as Europeans eventually suffered famines and the onset of the Black Death in the fourteenth century, 21st century humans seem headed for a hard fall.



Labels: , , , ,

 
by Gordon Taylor | 8/23/2009 02:11:00 AM
Lake Urmia: Six out of nine were buried here.

The piece that follows was written for the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies. The readers of that journal, small as it is, would know immediately the name of Justin Perkins. Justin Perkins, D.D., was a pioneer American missionary in Iran, then still known as Persia. For the Nestorian Christians (now called Assyrians) of Urmia and the mountains of Hakkari, in Turkey (the snow-flecked mountains in the above photograph), he made a revolution, working with native helpers to create a written version of their modern Syriac dialect, and translating into that new written language the ancient Aramaic texts which they used in their church services but could not understand. Besides the New and Old Testaments in modern Syriac, Perkins translated numerous religious tracts, as well as texts for the mission school in geography, natural science, and history. In English he wrote several accounts of his mission years in Persia, the most useful of which is Eight Years in Persia (1841).



Deep Waters
Life and Death in the Perkins Family, 1834-1852

Like snow upon the desert’s dusty face…
--Fitzgerald: The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

In a letter dated 29 January 1849, Justin Perkins, senior missionary at the American Mission in Urmia, made one of his regular reports to the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in Boston.[1] Among other things, he discussed the recent conquest of Hakkari, central Kurdistan, by Ottoman Turkish forces. Perkins exulted in the Turks’ defeat of Nurullah, the last independent Kurdish Mir of Hakkari. Calling Nurullah a “monster, ” Perkins said of his downfall, “The right hand of the Most High has at length put a ‘hook’ in the nose of this modern ‘Assyrian.’” Besides this interesting choice of label, Perkins’s 29 January letter contained news of a more personal nature. His youngest child, Fidelia, he revealed, had died only six days earlier. This meant one more heartbreak for Perkins and his wife, Charlotte. Fidelia, aged eleven months at her death, was the fifth child that they had buried in Persia. Charlotte’s previous child, Jonathan, born just three years earlier, had lasted only two months. The remaining Perkins children, Henry, age five, and Judith, soon to be nine, continued to thrive. But the fact was, these were only two out of seven.[2]

For Justin and Charlotte Perkins, trouble began at the dock before their missionary careers had even started. Perkins, deathly ill and having almost missed his embarkation, had to be carried aboard in a litter on the day, 21 September 1833, that their ship sailed from Boston. To add further insult, immediately out of port the ship was hit by storms. Still, after a rapid passage and a winter in Istanbul, by June 1834 Justin and Charlotte Perkins (aged 29 and 25 respectively) were aboard caravan horses riding from Trebizond to Tabriz, by way of Erzurum.[3]

News of murders by the Jelali Kurds, raiding along the caravan route west of Ararat, led to a detour into Russian-held Georgia and Armenia. This detour, projected to last six days, stretched to four weeks as Russian officials did everything they could to harass, rob, and delay the unfortunate newlyweds. Charlotte spent her twenty-sixth birthday (Aug. 2) in quarantine with her husband, listening to travellers being flogged by the Russian police just a few feet from their tent. For the rest of his life Justin Perkins would contrast the behavior of this “Christian” power with that of the Turks, whose kindness and hospitality he always appreciated.[4]

August 14 found the two stranded again, without passports and in a new quarantine, by the banks of the river Aras (Araxes). Two hundred feet of rapidly moving water separated them from Persian territory. Daytime temperatures reached 110 degrees F. outside their flea-ridden tent. In desperation Perkins wrote an appeal to the British Ambassador, in residence with the Persian Court at Tabriz, and gave it to a Persian courier who was crossing the river. That night, to their surprise, the Russians returned their passports. By the end of the next day they had been ferried across the Araxes, and soon help came in the form of a letter from Sir John Campbell, H.M. Ambassador to Persia. They had travelled but a short distance when the Embassy’s physican, Dr. William Riach, arrived on horseback to assist them. By August 23 the Perkinses were ensconced in the British Embassy, Tabriz, where Campbell told the Americans, “My house is open to you.”

Charlotte Perkins, however, had by then fallen gravely ill. Only three days later, without any previous hints (e.g., ‘expectant,’ ‘delicate condition’) from Perkins to alert the reader, he announces (in Eight Years in Persia) that she was delivered of a baby daughter. Prostrate with convulsions, vomiting, and fever, Charlotte was not aware that she had given birth until three days later. Thus was born their first Persian child, Charlotte Nisbet Perkins.[5]

Baby Charlotte died within months, and she was buried in Tabriz. According to Justin Perkins, his wife never really recovered from the accompanying sickness. By 14 April 1836, when Charlotte Perkins gave birth to her first son (named William Riach, after the physician who rode to their rescue on the Araxes), the missionaries had set up permanent quarters in Urmia, on the western shore of the lake. Dr. Asahel Grant and his wife Judith arrived in 1835, and they were followed by William Stocking, Albert Holladay, and their wives.

Here began the great labors, and here too came the unending bouts of illness. Accounts by Perkins and Dr. Grant make it clear that, during those first years, the Americans were never truly in good health. In January 1839, Judith Grant, wife of the good doctor, became the first to succumb. She left behind three children. On July 23 of the same year, Charlotte Perkins’ second son, Justin Humphrey, eleven months, expired as well. The year 1840 began with the Children’s Holocaust. First, one after the other, went the twin daughters of Judith and Asahel Grant, seventeen months old; then, on January 31, Charles Stocking, eighteen months; on February 2, Catharine Holladay, nineteen months; and finally, on February 7, William Riach Perkins, aged three years ten months, went to his grave.

Faced by this loss the mission lay “desolate,” as Perkins wrote, and once again Charlotte Perkins found herself childless. But she was also pregnant, and on 8 August 1840 she gave birth yet again, to a daughter named Judith Grant Perkins, named not only after Dr. Grant’s wife but also after her maternal grandmother. By this time, however, the body and spirit of Charlottle Perkins had begun to crumble. In early 1840, Justin Perkins wrote to the American Board informing them of his wife’s condition:

“Probably few, if any, have left America with health and constitutions more perfect than Mrs. P. possessed when we came to this country. And few, you are aware, have been subjected to exposures and trials to surpass hers, particularly in the early part of our missionary experience. The result is that her originally fine constitution is broken down, and an alarming disease seems to be settling upon her. You may recollect the sufferings which Mrs. P. encountered on our way to Persia, and the very severe sickness she experienced immediately after our arrival at Tabreez. Recovery from that sickness seemed entirely beyond the reach of hope for some time; nor did she ever fully recover from the effects of it. Though she has since enjoyed tolerable health much of the time, still, to one previously acquainted with her, it has always been obvious that her constitution was irreparably injured by her sickness at Tabreez. The climate of Oroomia has affected her seriously. Often has she suffered severe attacks of fever; and she has been so much afflicted with ophthalmy, during a considerable part of our residence here, as to be unable to read and write. Mrs. P.’s repeated bereavements, in the death of our three children, have also borne heavily upon her already impaired constitution. Each has been more severe than the previous, in proportion to the increased age of the loved object removed, and has given to her system a correspondingly more serious shock.”

Perkins now goes on to deliver the most alarming news of all:
“The result of these sicknesses and trials is that for the last two years and a half, Mrs. P. has had symptoms of epilepsy, and within the last two months she has had two severe attacks of that disease. The last occurred a few days ago, since the death of William, our only child. The symptoms have appeared when her system has become febrile, which is very often the case with us all, in this climate.”[6]

In this context “epilepsy” probably means “fits” and little else. It’s hard to know what to think of this diagnosis, which must have been made by Asahel Grant. Grant was an early nineteenth-century physician, which is to say that he basically knew nothing. Grant himself suffered from almost daily vomiting caused by an overdose of calomel (mercurous chloride) which he had taken while stricken with cholera.[7] Another clue is the word “febrile,” which refers to the malaria that was endemic to Urmia, and which affected all the missionaries. Severe malaria can produce effects beyond fever, including delirium, coma, convulsions, and, of course, death. On the other hand, it may not have been malaria at all. Perkins may have found a medical word, epilepsy, to disguise reality; namely, that under the hammer blows of disease, birth, and bereavement his wife was simply going mad.

In any case, Perkins knew that he had to get Charlotte out of the country if he was going to save her life. Dr. Grant, feeling the same way about his only remaining child, a son, left the mission on 7 May 1840 to carry the boy to safety in America. For neither man was it an easy decision. Justin Perkins, as senior missionary and chief of of the Biblical translation effort, felt keenly the pangs of guilt. When he left America, he declared, he had intended never to return, barring a “calamity.” On 17 November 1840 the other members of the mission wrote to relieve him of his guilt. In a jointly signed letter the four ordained missionaries plus Edward Breath, their newly-arrived printer, urged him to take “our dear afflicted sister” back to America “by the first safe opportunity.” That opportunity did not come until 5 July 1841.

Nothing yet had come easily to Justin and Charlotte Perkins, and the journey back to the United States proved as troublesome as anything they had so far endured. Stolen horses; rough roads; fleas and vermin; the return of Mrs. P.’s illness as they crossed the Black Sea mountains; all these were bad enough: but the voyage from Smyrna in the brig Magoun laden with 15,000 drums of figs set new records for futility. A passage estimated at sixty-five days maximum by their captain, twice the normal eastbound speed, stretched out to one-hundred and nine days before they reached New York, as storm after storm barred their way west. At last, on 11 January 1842, Justin and Charlotte Perkins, their bouncing toddler Judith, and Mar Yohannan of Gavalan, Perkins’ great friend and associate, arrived at dockside in New York and “sallied forth into Broadway.”[8]

By 21 December 1844, when her third son, Henry Martyn Perkins, was born, Charlotte Perkins had lived more than four years without giving birth or seeing the death of a child. It was the longest such period in eleven years of married life. By then the Perkins family had returned to Urmia, where the myriad tasks of mission administration, translation, and preaching once more took over Justin Perkins’s life. But this time their situation was different.

After Judith Grant’s death in 1839, in the face of continuing deaths and disease, the Americans determined to build a ‘health retreat’ somewhere near Urmia. They chose Seir, a low mountain just west of the city. Seir had what they needed: proximity, altitude, and separation from the alleged ‘miasma’ below. A Kurdish village existed nearby, as did a powerful spring of clear water. (The latter, though they didn’t know it, was surely the healthiest thing about the place.) In the first months of 1841, before their departure for America, Justin Perkins spent nearly every day supervising the construction of the mission buildings at Seir. As one who had spent the first eighteen years of his life on a farm in Massachusetts, he knew how to work, and he knew how to build. The result—missionary residences plus a boys’ seminary for the training of native preachers—would be home for himself and his family during their remaining years in Persia.[9]

These were years that saw an explosion of activity at the mission. Edward Breath and his press had begun operations, eventually turning out not only religious tracts but books on mathematics, geography, and natural sciences, translated into Syriac. Fidelia Fisk arrived, and with her the expansion of girls’ education. Perkins’s Biblical translations were published, the New Testament in 1846 and the Old Testament in 1852, and David Tappan Stoddard brought out his Grammar of the Syrian Language (1855). At regular intervals religious fervor gripped the schools, while from 1844-45 the family of Mar Shimun (Auraham XVII), seeing their power threatened, began a campaign of threats and violence against the missionaries and their supporters.

Through all this, in accounts of the mission’s work, Charlotte Perkins remained invisible, which is to be expected. We have already seen, in Eight Years, the extreme reticence with which Justin Perkins treated his wife’s existence, particularly regarding the baby which miraculously emerged when they reached Tabriz. And Charlotte was, after all, a nineteenth-century missionary wife, little given to notoriety. But Charlotte is still there in the grim statistics of child mortality, giving birth and watching as more of her progeny find an early grave: Jonathan Edwards Perkins, 22 January 1846 to 14 March 1846; Fidelia Fisk Perkins, 8 February 1848 to 23 January 1849. Which brings us once again to that grim statistic: five out of seven.

But two of her children, Judith and Henry, continued to prosper and defy the odds. Judith, who turned ten in 1850, was the special light of her parents’ eyes. This was the little girl who had learned to walk on the deck of the fig-laden Magoun, as the brig fought its way westward in the autumn of 1841. To her, at the end of Eight Years in Persia, her father devoted an entire paragraph, the only one of his children to receive the honor.[10] She was, he said, “contented and happy to the last” on the ship, skipping about even in gales. Now growing up rapidly, the model of youthful good looks, intelligence, and politeness, she was becoming the child they had always dreamed of, and simply because I have singled her out for attention the reader will know that she is doomed.

Her story is told in The Persian Flower: A Memoir of Judith Grant Perkins, written and compiled by Joseph G. Cochran (the first of that distinguished family to serve in Persia) and published in Boston in 1853. Modern readers find the book a hard slog, as long accounts of someone’s goodness and perfection, overladen with Victorian religiosity and a style which belabors the obvious, do not make for lively reading. Yet beneath its surface lies a story that deserves retelling. And Judith’s story is, without doubt, the climactic event of the Perkins family tragedy.

In early September 1852, immediately after the events related in The Persian Flower, Justin Perkins sat down and wrote a letter to the American Board.[11] Across the top, in a hand which appears to be that of Perkins, someone has written “Job 19:21.” The word ‘Job’ is not a good omen, and indeed the verse cited reads, “Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me.” What follows is surely one of the most painful letters that any parent has been forced to write.

Judith Perkins, aged twelve in August, embraced the summer of 1852 with all the enthusiasm a child can summon. A new teacher, Miss Martha Ann Harris,[12] had come out from the United States to establish a school for the mission children. These now numbered seventeen, eleven of whom were old enough to go to school. So excited was Judith at news of her teacher’s arrival that she was allowed to ride to Khoi, several days away, with a welcoming party to escort her into Urmia. To Judith’s delight, for seven weeks thereafter she enjoyed the privilege of attending school with a real professional teacher. In the middle of August the Perkins family received distinguished foreign visitors, members of a military commission sent to determine the true line of the Persian-Ottoman border. These included Col. Fenwick Williams, R.A., who only a few years later, during the Crimean War, would earn fame as Williams Pasha, commander of Turkish forces during the Siege of Kars.[13]

Toward the end of August word came that three members of the mission, returning from America, had arrived in Trebizond (Trabzon) on the Black Sea and would be making their way toward Persia. It was customary for the Americans to send a party to meet their associates along the caravan route, and since no one else was available Justin Perkins agreed to undertake the journey. He was reluctant, having ridden the same “weary” route so many times before, and being then in the midst of printing the Old Testament in the dual-column Peshitta-Syriac translation. Also, cholera had been present that summer in Urmia, and he felt misgivings about leaving the health retreat at Seir. He agreed to go on condition that he could take his family, “for the benefit of Mrs. Perkins’s health.” Judith, of course, was ecstatic at the prospect of an adventure.

Leaving Seir on 30 August 1852, the Perkins family proceeded northward in short stages. By September 2 they were camped outside the city walls of Khoi, where, despite news that there was cholera present, they sent an attendant inside to replenish their supplies of water. I write “despite the news” because now, of course, we know that cholera resides in impure water. In 1852 they knew no such thing. (Robert Koch, future discoverer of the cholera bacterium, was then only nine years old.) Instead, they saw pestilence in “the slight haze of the cholera atmosphere,” in the phrase of Fidelia Fisk.[14] At sunrise the next morning, the family moved on.

The ascent from Khoi was some ten miles long, and very gradual. Justin Perkins had already described the pass in Eight Years in Persia, when in 1841 he, Charlotte, and the baby Judith had ridden up the mountain while enroute to America. The route taken by the Perkins family is now a forgotten track through an area where the peaks rise over 3000 meters. A newer motor road lies somewhat to the east. In the present political climate no one would venture where the Perkins family rode unless he planned to cross the mountains illegally into Turkey. In 1852, however, it was the standard way from Urmia to the main Trebizond-Tabriz caravan route, which it joined south of Mt. Ararat.

All was happiness as the four Americans made the gentle ascent of the pass. Just before the summit, Perkins reported meeting two French leech merchants, entering Persia in search of that commodity, by then hunted to near-extinction in Europe. In his account of the journey Justin Perkins remembers everything—meals, food, scenery, villages, people, and above all Judith’s reactions to all she experienced. At the summit there was a view to the north, where Judith was overjoyed at the sight of Ararat in the glow of a rising sun. Some two hours after that, on the rocky downhill ride, the ordeal began.

Several miles after a mid-morning stop for refreshment, Judith, gone deathly pale, announced that she felt ill. Within seconds she had jumped from her pony and doubled over with vomiting. The spasms, repeated over and over, left the girl barely able to stand. Justin and Charlotte, frightened, managed to get Judith back on her horse, and soon they were in pursuit of their muleteers, who were some 3-4 miles ahead at the village of Zurabad (which they called “Zorava”) with the group’s tent and supplies. After an anxious ride, Perkins carried his daughter into the hastily-pitched tent and set to work.

Justin Perkins was a literate, observant man, and probably no better account exists of Asian cholera, experienced in all its nineteenth-century horrors. By then the disease had only been known for a few decades, having spread from its home in northeast India through the opening of trade routes and increased pilgrimage. Cholera spread its particular terror because of the power of its symptoms and the swiftness with which they overcame the victim. Vomiting and watery diarrhea, so severe that over a pint of fluid per hour may be lost, take hold of the patient and squeeze him dry. Unless the fluids are replaced, the patient soon goes into shock and dies of dehydration.

Zurabad lies on the banks of the Aq Chai, a stream flowing from nearby mountains which mark the Turkish frontier. There, quite literally in the middle of nowhere, Perkins attempted to treat his daughter. At his command were potions no better than a peddler’s snake oil, yet sanctified by the fact that physicians used them regularly. He gave Judith laudanum, then camphor, and she continued to purge. Calomel, a purgative—surely the last thing needed—came next. Diarrhea, which Perkins called “evacuations,” shook her repeatedly. By this time Justin knew that the disease must be cholera, yet Charlotte continued in denial. At one point, in his frenzy Perkins dropped the vial of laudanum. Frantic searching ensued, but it was lost in the jumble and turmoil of the tent. Perkins gave her paregoric (camphor and tincture of opium) instead. Most helpfully, he gave her as much soda water as she could take, but the convulsions continued. “The disease,” he wrote, “moved on like a giant, with irresistible force.” Holding up a cross, Perkins directed his daughter to fix her eyes on it. “Yes, Poppa, I will try,” she told him in a hoarse, raw voice.

Morning gave way to afternoon and then to evening. Their attendants and muleteers grew restless. Cholera carried a powerful curse, with which no one wanted to be associated. In Zurabad news of the sickness had spread, and panicked villagers, refusing to sell them either food or fodder, ordered the travelers to move on. At one point Perkins found a villager willing to take a message to Urmia, but the others in Zurabad, fearing any association with the diseased girl, refused to let him go.[15]

As light lengthened on the peaks, Perkins remained “almost crushed with anxiety,” yet he worked on. Judith’s system had gone into shock. The purgings came less often, as there was little left to purge. Eight-year-old Henry had remained outside, frightened and alone, during the worst of the crisis. When he came inside the tent a wrenching scene ensued, as the boy found it hard to accept his older sister’s possible death and wished, as did all of them, that the trip had never happened. Other such scenes marked the coming hours: weeping; professions of faith; further attempts to revive and comfort Judith; a spreading numbness in her limbs; admonitions to goodness and faithfulness; farewells; prayers for miracles and forgiveness; even a terrifying symbolism, as night fell and a wild beast (a bear or wild boar: they never knew which) prowled the darkness just outside their tent.

At three A.M. Saturday, 4 September 1852, Judith Perkins took her last breath. It had been seventeen hours since the onset of symptoms. Justin and Charlotte, sobbing and exhausted, fell asleep beside the wreckage of their daughter.

At daylight Charlotte rose to wash Judith’s body and dress her for burial. Late in the night, Judith, in a whispered request, had asked to be interred beside her little sister Fidelia. Despite the distance—and the summer heat—her parents never considered anywhere else but Seir. So Judith returned home on the back of a mule, wrapped inside a thick felt shepherd’s cloak that was lashed tight with willow whips. An extortionate muleteer had to be paid off, and a mob of villagers, threatening to stone them, had to be kept at bay; but at last, about ten o’clock, the procession set out for Urmia.

Not until the morning of the sixth did Austen Wright, the mission doctor, receive the note. “We are in deep waters,” Perkins had written. “Our precious Judith is just gone of the cholera.” Consternation erupted, but the missionaries, riding quickly to meet them, held out hope. A longer note confirming the girl’s death arrived as they made their way northward. The terrible caravan arrived in Urmia the next morning. On Tuesday afternoon, September 7, Judith was laid in her grave on the slopes of Mt. Seir.

The aftermath can only be imagined. “My pen refuses to tell the desolation of our home,” Perkins wrote to Boston in his letter. It was the ultimate blow. He added, “Arrived at such an age, she had become as our right hand, as well as the joy of our hearts.” He at least would have duties to busy himself, as the Old Testament translation was still making its way through the printer. With Charlotte it was different. Out of seven children she had one left. She was forty-four years old, and would never have another. Five years later, which seems an eternity under the circumstances, she left Persia “enfeebled” by bad health, her missionary life finished at last. Henry accompanied her. Justin followed in 1858.

But for Justin Perkins, missionary life was not finished. After an interlude in America, and a round-trip by steamer to England, during which he lectured at Oxford, he set out again for Persia in 1862. Not until 1 June 1869 did he leave Urmia for the last time. He left Persia as he had left America in 1833: very ill and not knowing if he would live or die. But this time the transport was different. After the overland trip to Trebizond, it was steam all the way: to Istanbul, Smyrna, and Marseilles; by train to Paris and the Channel; and finally, by steamship from Liverpool to New York. And when he arrived in Brooklyn, by now deathly ill, who should be there to nurse him but his wife, Charlotte. With Charlotte at his side, Justin Perkins died in Chicopee, Massachusetts, on 8 December 1869.[16]

The last chapter in the life of Charlotte Perkins seems almost impossible. But it is there on page 113 of the Missionary Herald, March 1898 (Vol. XCIV, No. III). Under “Deaths” it reads: “December 15, 1897, at Woolwich, Maine, Mrs. Charlotte Bass Perkins, widow of the Rev. Justin Perkins, D.D.” Born in 1808 in Stowe, Vermont, residing with her son, Rev. Henry Martyn Perkins and his family, in Woolwich, Maine, “in the ninetieth year of her age, she passed to the heavenly home.” Charlotte had outlasted them all. Despite a torrent of sorrow and disease, born during the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson and died in that of William McKinley, she had almost spanned the century. And it is not too much to hope—indeed, it seems likely—that during her final days she was blessed with the presence of Henry’s oldest child, an eighteen-year-old girl named Judith Grant Perkins.[17]

_________
1. Missionary Herald, June 1849. Vol. XLV, No. 6.
2. List of graves at Seir cemetery by George Moradkhan of Urmia, 1957. Letter to author by Mary Cochran Moulton, 14 February 2003.
3. Justin Perkins. A Residence of Eight Years in Persia. Andover, 1843.
4. Eight Years, p. 108; pp. 111-112; p. 122.
5. Named not only for her mother but for Charlotte Nisbet, wife of an English army officer, who cared for the baby during her mother’s long convalescence.
6. Eight Years, p. 461-2.
7. See Gordon Taylor, Fever and Thirst, p. 79-80
8. Eight Years, p. 491.
9. Eight Years, p. 421. Entry for June 21.
10. Eight Years, p. 491.
11. Papers of the ABCFM (microfilm). Research Publications: Woodbridge, Conn., 1982-85. Reel 555, Item no. 199.
12. Martha Harris latter married Rev. Samuel Audley Rhea, d. 1865. In 1856, in the company of her husband, she became the first Western female to visit the Assyrian ashirets of Hakkari. (Not even the great English travelers Isabella Bird, Gertrude Bell, and Freya Stark, went this far into the high mountain districts of Kurdistan.) She is buried in Memikan, Gawar (near Yuksekova), where she died in 1857.
13. See, among many sources: Humphry Sandwith, M.D. A Narrative of the Siege of Kars. London, 1856.
14. Persian Flower, p. 117.
15. In the end he did leave the following morning.
16. Henry Martyn Perkins. The Life of Justin Perkins, D.D., Pioneer Missionary to Persia. Chicago, 1887.
17. The Missionary Herald for the year cited now available online at Googlebooks. Judith Grant Perkins, Henry’s firstborn child, is first seen in the Census of 1880, when her father was a preacher in Illinois.

Labels: , , , ,

 
by Jeremy C. Young | 8/22/2009 07:00:00 AM
From the train-wreck of an interview Betsy McCaughey did with Jon Stewart Thursday night, we find this gem:

MCCAUGHEY: All I can say is, I've been reading legislation for thirty years -- I have a Ph.D. in this field, constitutional history -- and I've read this bill very carefully ... so I'm not an inexperienced student of this topic.


Right. And by that logic, I'm an expert on early Gnostic texts because I wrote a paper on Billy Sunday.

N.B. McCaughey apparently was a pretty impressive historian. Her dissertation at Columbia on William Samuel Johnson won the Bancroft Dissertation Prize there (according to Wikipedia. I don't really know what that says about the sanity of historians.

Labels:

 
by midtowng | 8/21/2009 03:27:00 PM
"We must break the Money Trust or the Money Trust will break us."
- Louis D. Brandeis, 1913

When the economy appeared to be melting down last September, Wall Street bank representatives began showing up in Congress like mobsters walking into a mom-and-pop business looking for protection money.
"Nice economy ya got here.(crash!) It would be a shame if something were to happen to it."

Mobsters and Robber Barons have a lot in common.
Neither has any respect for the law or morals, only for power. Neither can ever be satisfied with any amount of wealth. They will always need to steal more and more and more until they've completely bankrupted their victims.

We are now at the mercy of modern Robber Barons, and if history is any judge, it is either them or us.



Bank Wars

"The great monopoly in this country is the money monopoly. So long as that exists, our old variety and freedom and individual energy of development are out of the question."
- Woodrow Wilson, 1911

On February 28, 1913, the House of Representatives released a report with the most banal name imaginable - Committee Appointed Pursuant to House Resolutions 429 and 504 to Investigate the Concentration of Control of Money and Credit.
In spite of the long-winded and innocuous title, the testimony in the report revealed to the world an unseemly and corrupt conspiracy of Wall Street bankers that threatened the very foundations of our democracy. Despite the dangers, many of the recommendations of the Pujo Committee were ignored until after the 1929 Crash.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Arsene Pujo

As a species and a nation, we seem to be doomed to repeat our mistakes.

Dirty political battles between Washington and eastern bankers are not a new concept in America. The Bank War between President Jackson and the Second Bank of the United States is the most obvious and public of these exchanges. Nicolas Biddle, the Second Bank's President, purposely caused the 1834 Depression, by restricting the money supply, to use as leverage against President Jackson.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Src: The Smoking Argus Daily, Allison Bricker
Unfortunately for Mr. Biddle, his arrogance regarding his ability to cause an economic collapse allowed his ego to get the best of him. He continued boasting, now publicly that relief would only come if Congress renewed the bank’s charter. When Pennsylvania Governor George Wolf, a previous supporter of the central bank was made aware of the bank President’s sentiments, he immediately came out against extension or renewal of the bank’s charter.
When someone mentions trusts and trust-busting, people tend to think of John. D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, J. P. Morgan's Northern Securities railroad company, and Andrew Carnegie's U.S. Steel.
What frequently gets forgotten is the Money Trust of Wall Street. The reason that it isn't mentioned is because it was never totally broken. Instead the decision was to regulate it via the creation of the Federal Reserve. Nicolas Biddle's dream was finally realized.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Src: The Smoking Argus Daily, Allison Bricker

Our Financial Oligarchy

"Far more dangerous than all that has happened to us in the past in the way of elimination of competition in industry is the control of credit through the domination of these groups over our banks and industries."
- Pujo Committee

"The dominant element in our financial oligarchy is the investment banker. Associated banks, trust companies and life insurance companies are his tools...Though properly but middlemen, these bankers bestride as masters America's business world, so that practically no large enterprise can be undertaken successfully without their participation or approval."
- Louis D. Brandeis, 1913

What frequently gets lost in economic discussions is that the current depression is different from all other post-WWII recessions. All previous recessions were caused intentionally by the Federal Reserve.
The Fed would raise interest rates in order to choke off inflation. Once the inflation was contained they would lower interest rate. Consumer demand, which was artificially suppressed by the Fed's high interest rates, would then be released and the economy would boom.

That didn't happen this time.

The Fed didn't raise interest rates to choke off inflation. There was no consumer demand that was artificially suppressed, thus there was no pent-up demand that was waiting to be released when the Fed cut rates.
What little "less bad" news that we've heard with home and auto sales has been almost exclusively to do with the tax rebates for first-time home buyers and the cash-for-clunkers program. Both of these programs are limited in time and scope, and both bring future demand to the present, which will leave an even bigger gap in demand once they are finished.

What happened this time was an economic collapse that emanated directly from Wall Street. It's source was bad loans that the bankers and rating agencies pushed onto the financial markets of the world, knowing full well that it was only a matter of time before they blew up and took down the world economy.
The economy didn't collapse because of government regulations. It didn't collapse because the government taxed too much or spent too little.
It wasn't because the American consumer stopped spending.

It was because the financial system knowingly overpriced a major financial asset class, and then leveraged itself against that asset class in the vain hope that the Day of Reckoning never came.

The whole financial crisis only came to light because of what amounts to a falling out amongst thieves.

War Between the Ruling Kleptocracy

"Gentlemen: You have undertaken to cheat me. I won't sue you, for the law is too slow. I'll ruin you.
Yours truly, Cornelius Vanderbilt."

- 1853

It is sometimes forgotten that the 19th Century Robber Barons spent much of their time wasting resources trying to crush each other.
For example, the Erie War crippled what should have been the most profitable railroad in the nation, not to mention the cost from the corruption of the entire New York Assembly. An even more colorful battle involved the Albany and Susquehanna Railroad that resulted in hundreds of paid goons crashing trains into each other and engaging in shooting wars.

History has proven that the unrestrained greed of an unregulated economy is neither fair, nor efficient. It also often leads to economic crisis.

Wall Street knows that you can make enormous amounts of money during an economic crisis, and no crisis is more fortunate than the failure of a leading competitor. The perfect example of that is the Panic of 1907.
John Pierpont Morgan again used rumor and innuendo to create a panic that would change the course of history. The panic of 1907 was triggered by rumors that two major banks were about to become insolvent. Later evidence pointed to the House of Morgan as the source of the rumors.
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
J. P. Morgan

J. P. Morgan's false rumors created a real panic and it threatened to bring down the entire financial center. Morgan then nobly contacted his European sources and managed to borrow $100 million worth gold bullion in order to stem the panic. History remembers Morgan as saving the day, and also helping to convince the public that we needed a central bank in this country.
Morgan didn't save the system from a crisis of his own creation out of the goodness of his heart.
Of course Morgan did not go unrewarded. Recall from our story of two weeks ago that Teddy Roosevelt, despite his antitrust proclivities, allowed Morgan to purchase the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company for about $45 million when the true value was closer to $700 million, thus expanding Morgan's steel empire.
If this sounds somewhat familiar, it should. Recall the failure of Bear Stearns.

Bear Stearns had been unpopular with the rest of the Wall Street oligarchy since it refused to participate in the bailout of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998, despite helping to create the problem.
The most suspicious fact of the Bear Stearns failure was the massive increase in short positions on March 10 and 11, with only five days left before expiration. Some insiders knew something they shouldn't have. John Olagues makes a strong case that it was insiders at JP Morgan Chase that were shorting Bear Stearns and helping to create a "run" on their stock, knowing full well that they would be taking over the bank with the Fed's help.

How would people at JP Morgan Chase know that ahead of time? They were in position to make the deal.
The Fed and U.S. Treasury brokered a deal for J.P. Morgan in haste without question. Usually, such huge deals or mergers would go through committees or FTC oversight, but none of that here –a quick weekend jaunt in the park. It was not surprising that no red flags were raised about J.P. Morgan’s chairman, James Dimon holding a board seat at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York when the deal was made.
Bear Stearns was bought by JP Morgan Chase at a price of $2 a share. A week later it was raised to $10 a share. Was it shame or a guilty conscience to caused JP Morgan Chase to give back a small amount of their quick profits?
JP Morgan Chase was in a position to profit from Bear Stearns demise, and another profit from its taxpayer-funded acquisition, just like in 1907.

Later on that year, JP Morgan Chase managed to purchase Washington Mutual, a bank with $307 Billion in assets, for the price of $1.888 Billion after the FDIC seized the bank.
Back in April JP Morgan Chase offered to purchase WaMu at a far, higher price, but WaMu refused.

"You should have sold to JPMorgan Chase in the spring, and you should do so now. Things could get a lot more difficult for you."
- Treasury Secretary Paulson to WaMu CEO Kerry Killinger, August 2008

A Naked Coup

"We're moving to an oligopolistic situation."
- Kenneth Guenther, Independent Community Bankers of America, 1999

"The goose that lays golden eggs has been considered a most valuable possession. But even more profitable is the privilege of taking the golden eggs laid by somebody else's goose. The investment bankers and their associates now enjoy that privilege. They control the people through the people's own money."
- Louis D. Brandeis, 1913

It's too big of a coincidence that the biggest winners on Wall Street are also the most politically connected, and no one is more connected than Goldman Sachs.
Bush’s Treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, is a former Goldman C.E.O., and his replacement at Treasury, Tim Geithner, was mentored by Goldman alumni. Mario Draghi, who is leading the crisis response for the E.U., is a former Goldman vice chairman.

Merrill Lynch C.E.O. John Thain was once Goldman’s co-president, and Wachovia chief Robert Steel was a vice chairman. Ed Liddy, the new C.E.O. of A.I.G., was Goldman’s vice chairman. World Bank president Robert Zoellick was a managing director. Even Neel Kashkari, the 35-year-old tapped to oversee the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program, served at Goldman as a vice president.
And the list goes on. Robert Rubin, President Clinton's former Treasury Secretary, was once the co-chairman of Goldman Sachs. Jon Corzine, now the governor of New Jersey, is a former Goldman Sachs CEO. A top aide of Tim Geithner is former Goldman lobbyist Mark Patterson.
It's so obvious, so in-your-face, that one must assume that Goldman Sachs feels itself invulnerable.

By now everyone should be aware that Goldman Sachs was the biggest beneficiary of the AIG bailout, to the tune of $12.6 Billion, and will be the winners again if AIG finally goes under.
With Paulson in charge of the Treasury at the time, it appeared that Goldman Sachs was bailing out Goldman Sachs. Rich bankers were bailing out rich bankers, and working-class taxpayers were footing the bill.

America has been purchased in a leveraged buyout. For about $5.2 Billion Wall Street has purchased the complete deregulation of the the financial sector, and unprecedented political influence that even now allows them to defeat any new regulations they choose. It's actually a very good return on investment.

“America’s economic system is where it is today because gambling became the financial sector’s principal preoccupation. The pile of chips grew so big that the Money Industry displaced real businesses that provided real goods, services and jobs.”
- Harvey Rosenfield

This corrupt collusion between financiers and government officials was spelled out in no uncertain terms in Simon Johnson's article, The Quiet Coup. Simply put, America is following the path of petty Banana Republics.
elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.
Johnson goes on to say that chaos and confusion are very much in the interests of the ruling oligarchy, as it lets them take things, both legally and illegally, with impunity.
This message is echoed by Matt Taibbi in his article The Big Takeover.
The mistake most people make in looking at the financial crisis is thinking of it in terms of money, a habit that might lead you to look at the unfolding mess as a huge bonus-killing downer for the Wall Street class. But if you look at it in purely Machiavellian terms, what you see is a colossal power grab that threatens to turn the federal government into a kind of giant Enron — a huge, impenetrable black box filled with self-dealing insiders whose scheme is the securing of individual profits at the expense of an ocean of unwitting involuntary shareholders, previously known as taxpayers.
It seems hard for you and I to believe that anyone, any group, would purposely engineer an economic crisis for personal benefit. That's because you and I aren't consumed with ego, greed, and lust for power like the bankers on Wall Street are today. History has shown, time and time again, that this is exactly what these people do. Why should now be any different?
Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase have already benefited from the crisis.

The spirits of Nicolas Biddle and John Pierpont Morgan are alive and well today in the plush offices of Wall Street.

Labels: , ,

 
by AndrewMc | 8/21/2009 12:00:00 PM

Each morning at 9:15am sharp, some of the faculty in my department and a couple of others get together to have coffee and talk about stuff. There are some conservatives, and some liberals, and the conversation can be quite lively. I don't go, largely because I'm not a coffee drinker, and largely because I tend to teach at that time of day. The crowd trends a bit older, as well, and I'm not up on my 1950s football players. Still, it's a cool gathering that people have been doing for as long as anyone can remember (which means, before 1966 when one of the faculty arrived and "coffee" was going on).

Similarly, each Friday afternoon, some of the faculty in my department get together to have beer and talk about stuff. There are no conservatives--they don't drink because they're religious conservatives as well as political and social conservatives. Too bad for them. I do attend Beer Friday, and I make sure that my teaching and meeting schedules don't conflict with this event. We're usually joined by some folks from the Anthro, English, Soc., Art, and Philosophy/Religion departments. It's lively, and very informal. I understand that many other departments on my campus have their version of this tradition (Math does "AfterMath" each Friday, Biology does their thing, etc). It's a nice tradition (ours began in the early 1970s) and helps socialize the faculty.

Drinking liberally. Now there's an organization I can get behind.

What's on your mind this fine Friday afternoon?




 
by AndrewMc | 8/19/2009 07:00:00 AM
My university has an internal e-mail list for general discussion. Populated by a subset of the faculty and staff, it is in no way reflective of the general opinion of the university at large. But it's an interesting place, and it has some value. It is a forum for generalized discussion, criticism of the university administration, and a place where faculty and staff occasionally generate some good ideas for university initiatives.

The "forum for criticism" function is especially useful to the administration. Not because they get feedback that they can act on. No, I think that the mailing list serves as a kind of safety valve, where the activist faculty raise issues and speak out. A few others join in (never the staff, who are afraid of retaliation) and some issue gets hot for a few days, and then it dies down. So the mailing list is a place where faculty blow off steam without ever taking concrete action, which is safe for the administration.

I should say that anyone who thinks that college campuses are bastions of liberal thought should come to my school. Outside of the humanities the faculty are mostly conservative; the staff more so. And right now our internal mailing list is seeing a repeat of a fairly regular discussion—"The Founders were Christians."




This discussion comes up once or twice a year, usually at the behest of one of the conservative faculty or staff upset that, according to them, the United States "was founded as a Christian nation," or that "the Founders were Christians."

The complaint is a kind of jeremiad—we've strayed from the original intent, and now look at the mess we're in. It carries with it, of course, a subtext that goes beyond the claim that the United States no longer acts in a Christian manner (assuming it ever had). The subtext is that we've let all these weird foreigners and their weird religions into the United States, and "those people" have screwed the place up. If we could just cleanse America of Muslim and Buddhists, and send the Jews back to Israel to help bring on the Millenium, things would be OK again.

Little addendum follows the moaning, and any attempts by people to offer contrary evidence is met with either silence, or "you don't know what you're talking about" or "of course liberals say that," or, best of all, a barrage of quotes from the Founders that make it look as if their original point is correct.

History's kind of interesting that way. People believe that it's not like math or chemistry, where there is usually a concrete answer, and where a deep understanding of the subject requires years and years of specialized training. As we all know from talking to Civil War buffs, amateur historians can be well-versed in their subject. But more importantly, the general public thinks that specialized study in history isn't necessary. And public figures encourage this. It's just names and dates, right? All you need to do is read a book about the American Revolution, and you'll know everything you need to. Or, best of all, "it's just your opinion, your interpretation."

The last point isn't too far off the mark. History is interpretive. We all have scholars with whom we disagree, and yet for the most part we're all looking at the same evidence (except in cases where new evidence is discovered, of course). But the "America was founded as a Christian nation" kind of analytical narrowness is a hallmark of the far-right and its public discourse. And each time the point gets raised on our internal discussion list
and in public for that matterpeople engage the right wingers in an attempt to prove that the Founders weren't Christian, that the U.S. wasn't founded as a Christian nation, or some other fine point of history.

And there's the problem. Just engaging in the debate concedes victory to conservatives on an important point: That the religion of the Founders matters. Even slightly. Except as an object of study that might help us understand what went into the creation of the Republic.

Within that context, here are my main issues with the claim that the "Founders" were Christian."

1. The "Founders" were every man, woman, and child
black, white, red, yellowwho helped contribute to independence. To argue anything else is to take a narrow, elitist view of the United States and the struggle for independence. It's pretty un-American, in my opinion, to suggest that the Founders were only the people who wrote the Constitution.

2. The religion of the people who wrote the Constitution is similarly irrelevant. Despite what some conservatives would like to see or believe, the America of 2009 is not the America of 1787
and we should be glad it isn't. To buy into the debate over the religion of the Founders is to implicitly buy into the concept of originalism. No thanks.

3. Most importantly, the United States is a continuously evolving nation, which is as the people who wrote the Constitution intended. They planned for it to evolve. And it has. So irregardless of their religion, it is our religion
&mdashor lack of it&mdashthat matters.


The debate over this comes and goes, and to a large extent is only a concern of the base. But since the Republican party is evolving into a party "of the base," we can expect to hear a lot more in the future about why this matters.

Labels: , , , ,

 
by Joel Tscherne | 8/17/2009 07:00:00 AM

Whenever I study a major historical event, I am struck by the amount of myths, legends, and misunderstandings crop up about the event. In August of 1969 a throng of young people descended on a farm near a small town in upstate New York to attend the Woodstock Music & Arts Fair. The event had been heavily publicized and the subject of a number of news stories, but nobody involved expected the huge attendance. Hailed by many as the culminating event of the 1960s, forty years later it is back in the news with new books, magazine articles, and recordings. Yet much of the new information has proven that like many major news events, it was a product of hard work and planning, but also a product of a great deal of luck. And like many other events, much of it is the stuff of myth.




The myth is largely built on the soundtrack and film released the following year. Both presented a festival that had problems (mostly because of the large crowds), but was successful due to the spirit of working and living together. The film opens up with lush and idyllic views of green grass and the building of the festival area. When the people begin to arrive, they’re shown as happy young people being welcomed by townspeople who, with few exceptions, talk about how nice the kids are. Looking below the surface though, it becomes very clear why something like it never happened again.

Michael Lang had very little experience as a concert promoter, but had a vision of a festival that would include art, recreation, as well as major rock acts, all together in a tranquil location. He was able to gather backers, as well as a crew built largely of experienced people in all the major facets needed to put it on. Barely a month before Woodstock was to happen, the promoters lost their planned location. Without the help of farmer Max Yasgur, the festival would likely have suffered a premature death with an ensuing financial disaster. Time and again, Lang and his organization had to deal with new potential roadblocks and come up with new ways to ensure success. However, it is also clear that they dodged a number of potential bullets that would have drastically changed Woodstock’s place in history.

The stage area was never finished and the crew constantly worried about the light towers and other parts of the structures, particularly because of the amount of rainfall during the weekend. The group of moonlighting New York City policemen who were hired to help work traffic control never came because they were forbidden at the last minute to be there by their superiors. The local National Guard had to get involved to help with transporting supplies and medical personnel. The festival area was inundated with a variety of recreational drugs that could have drastically affected the health of many of the attendees.

Yet both the film and soundtrack both tend to obscure just how much went wrong behind the scenes. For example, early on in the film, there is a scene of people “breaking into” the festival by climbing over damaged fences, followed soon after by the famous “It’s a free concert” announcement. However, days before Woodstock even started, people had already begun camping out on the festival site because no major barriers had been erected. Broken fences or not, it would have been impossible to stop the onslaught of attendees, so the decision to open the festival to all was largely a moot point. In the same way, as great as much of the music was, many acts were subject to logistical and technical problems often brought about by the fact that much of the site was never properly completed. As magical as the concert is considered, some of the bands still will not discuss their participation with any sense of good memories and at least two of the performances on the soundtrack weren’t even recorded at the actual festival (Arlo Guthrie's Coming into Los Angeles and CSNY's Sea of Madness).

Still, the careers of some artists were made because that weekend. Joe Cocker and Carlos Santana readily admit that much of their enduring fame was because of Woodstock. Yet two of the festival’s major headliners, Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin, as well as Alan Wilson of Canned Heat, would be dead a little more than a year later, victims of the hard and fast life almost reveled in at Woodstock.

As much as many want to remember Woodstock with nostalgic memories of a different time when things were better, forty years on maybe it might be better to accept it, not as any kind of turning point in American history, but as a part of the country’s cultural history, warts and all.

Labels: , ,

 
by AndrewMc | 8/16/2009 05:00:00 PM
I'm happy to introduce a new contributor to Progressive Historians.

Joel W. Tscherne is a retired librarian, having worked in a major urban library for over thirty years. He is currently an adjunct faculty member teaching an introductory course in information literacy and research. He is also a masters degree graduate student in history at Cleveland State University. His research interests include recent American history, particularly the 1960s, as well as media and popular culture coverage of historical topics. He is the senior web editor and a series producer for The Conversations Network, a leading non-profit podcast network.

Joel will make his first contribution Monday morning, with a post about Woodstock. Please welcome him aboard!




Labels: ,

 
by AndrewMc | 8/16/2009 07:00:00 AM
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. And that these decisions are part of a trend.





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 gauging the opposition to this move, one would be hard-pressed to find a greater show of unity among people working in 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, university faculty and even staff worked to get this decision overturned. To no avail.

But they were fighting against more than the KCTCS Board of Regents' decision. Faculty at institutions of higher education suffer a barrage of negative publicity in newspapers about so-called "liberal faculty," the public's general assumption that higher-ed faculty work a few months out of the year and then take the summers off, there is a general devaluation of faculty in general, and a public hostility towards tenure.

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. Nowadays many Boards are staffed by political appointees who come from the world of business. These folks see the university as a business, and to them faculty and staff (or "labor") are an obstacle—a problem to overcome in the management of a business.

I recently had the opportunity to attend a couple of meetings of some Boards of Regents. It was not unlike watching sausage get made. The process is ugly, and I think most faculty wouldn't want to see what goes into it.

At one university meeting during the semester the issue of faculty compensation came up. Given the deep budget cuts, faculty at that particular institution will not receive raises in the coming fiscal year. As the president of that university explained, nobody would—the financial situation was too dire, and the state had directed that no state employees would receive a raise.

Except that when the Board published its meeting agenda, it turned out that several administrators and a few well-placed faculty would receive raises in amounts up to $30,000 per year. It also turned out that other state employees would, in fact, receive raises—despite the claims by that university president.

As you might expect, when word of the raises leaked, there was a great deal of outrage. At the Regents' meeting for that university the faculty regent expressed her outrage and noted that the university had already lost three faculty from a single department because of what was seen as a lack of concern for faculty on the part of the administration, as well as because of salary issues. In response one of the Regents pointed out that those faculty were easily replaceable, and that a university needed people who were going to be loyal. There was no dissent.

A few minutes later, when the discussion turned to the administrators' raises, the Regents began praising the work of the administration, and noted that sometimes salary increases were needed in order to retain high-quality people.

At the next meeting of that same board, one of the administrators who received a hefty raise also received a fairly substantial series of bonuses, which elicited the comment from one regent that "this nice little bonus" recognizes the hard work that people do.

Fast forward and change places to the meeting of another board, which I also had the opportunity to attend. Here the Trustees sat through presentation after presentation from different units on that campus. And in fact the presentations on what they had achieved were quite interesting. From sustainable landscaping to dorm retention rates to a series of absolutely fascinating academic initiatives, the faculty and staff of the university were clearly moving in the right direction. Most of the academic presentations were justified by "this isn't going to cost us anything." At the end of each presentation the Trustees either said nothing, or gave a polite "Thank you."

Then came the presentation from the Athletic Director. It was mostly a litany of what will be achieved in the future, and "look at that shiny object over there" moments to distract from the fact that the athletic program is losing money. At one point the faculty representative to the Board of Trustees asked to see a balance sheet for how much had been spent versus how much money was coming in. This was met with indignation and cries of "what an athletics program brings to a university is so intangible."

When the presentation ended the Trustees fell all over themselves praising the athletics director for having such a fine program, for such a great presentation, and for being such a great guy. It bordered on the sycophantic.

I know that this sort of thing isn't confined to a couple of regional schools. It's endemic. Universities have become more top-heavy as non-educational services have increased. Anyone who has read Beer and Circus knows what athletics is doing to higher education.

And yet I can't hep but notice a larger trend wherein universities are simultaneously touting their educational bone fides in terms of the undergraduate "experience," distance education, and continuing education, while at the same time devaluing the faculty who serve as the backbone of that learning experience.

Or are they, in fact, the backbone? The recent decision to eliminate tenure by the KCTCS is a harbinger of things to come. Not a year goes by without the AHA publishing a report on the increased use of adjuncts for teaching. And those adjuncts have it crappier than ever.

The devaluation of our profession is worse than you think. Here's some homework for you. Check to see if your university employs high school teachers to teach college-level courses. And I use the word "employ" pretty loosely here. Many universities have developed programs where high school teachers pay the university to teach for-credit college courses to high school students, and then the teachers receive credit for teaching the class.

That's right, the university is being paid by high school teachers for the privilege of teaching classes. These are usually 100-level classes that fulfill a Gen-Ed requirement of some sort. You are being replaced by high school teachers in the name of economic efficiency, and with a budget crisis and university priorities such as "outreach" and continuing education as an excuse. Can it be much longer before administrators use this as a bargaining tactic with departments and faculty? "You know, you can be replaced by someone who will pay us to teach."

As administrators continue to devalue the work of faculty, our jobs are going to get tougher, and a whole host of attendant problems will manifest themselves. Already faculty have largely lost their voice in university governance, in many cases to students who are seen as customers and who therefore ought to have a voice in university affairs all out of proportion to the experience.

I don't know what the solution is at this point, but I'm all ears. My natural reaction is that faculty ought to unionize, but that apparently doesn't help any more.

What do you think?

Labels: , , , , ,

 
by Winter Rabbit | 8/13/2009 08:59:00 PM

To start, let's put Apocalyptic Christianity into a historical perspective.



Native American Holocaust - Sex, Race and Holy War. Excerpts from the book: American Holocaust by David Stannard Oxford University Press, 1992


From the moment of its birth Christianity had envisioned the end of the world. Saints and theologians differed on many details about the end, but few disagreements were as intense as those concerned with the nature and timing of the events involved. There were those who believed that as the end drew near conditions on earth would grow progressively dire, evil would increase, love would diminish, the final tribulations would be unleashed-and then suddenly the Son of Man would appear: he would overcome Satan, judge mankind, and bring an end to history. Others had what is generally thought to be a more optimistic view: before reaching the final grand conclusion, they claimed, there would be a long reign of peace, justice, abundance, and bliss; the Jews would be converted, while the heathens would be either converted or annihilated; and, in certain versions of the prophecy, this Messianic Age of Gold would be ushered in by a Last World Emperor-a human saviour-who would prepare the way for the final cataclysmic but glorious struggle between Good and Evil, whereupon history would end with the triumphant Second Coming.



Trail Of Tears: Moving Beyond The Myth Of America



Are there generalized demonizations of liberals within the genre of fundamentalist Christianity?

The liberal media is not only the devil's best device for corrupting human society; it's his most diabolical device.


I believe Satan is behind all liberal movements.


Liberals Must Die.com


Liberal Democrat's Satanic Overlord

These liberals, from Nancy Pelosi's home, consider morality and religion dangerous. They openly protest and fight against efforts to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, and suicide.
 

-snip-

Who but Satan could run a city and a political party that fights against morality, and specifically considers efforts to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, and suicide "fascist" and dangerous?





Ship of fools: Johann Hari sets sail with America's swashbuckling neocons


"A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralize the country," she says. "Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get."
She squints at the sun and smiles. "Then things'll change."




'The Surge Won't Work, But Concentration Camps Might Do The Trick'


Make no mistake: those means were cruel. I have stated previously that I endorse cruel things in war â?" to eschew them is folly. The British achieved victory over the Boers by taking their women and children away to concentration camps, by laying waste to the countryside, and by dotting the veld with small garrisons in blockhouses at regular intervals.



Read these two excerpts and draw your own conclusions, remembering thatNazi War Criminals came to the U.S. after WWII.Temporarily, substitute the word "Liberal" for the word "Jew" in an effort to draw correlations from past to present. To accentuate, I mean temporarily. These are amongst the most evil words ever spoken. They are from the time of the Jewish Holocaust. Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism" is included afterwards. If the rhetoric of now weren't so comparable to the rhetoric of then and even glorifying it, then I wouldn't think it would be appropriate. It is appropriate to today on American soil in a comparison of the rhetoric, yet some say we are inching closer and closer.
There are instances, such as the Rwandan Genocide, in which it is completely comparable. I can't accentuate enough the spirit of respect and appropriate context in which it must be compared.

Continuing, Hagee has stated indirectly that it is not "Jews" (who are "The apple of God's eye," he said) who are "poisoned," it is "liberals" who are "poisoned." Hagee and those like him are against the ideas of liberalism, and have demonized people with liberal philosophies. Brace yourself as you read "The Decent Jew" by the Nazi Hanns Oberlindober from the year 1937 and the "Doctrine of Fascism" by Mussolini himself from the year 1932 (bold and underline mine).




Kingdom Coming:

The Rise of Christian Nationalism. Michelle Goldberg. p. 73


"The Decent Jew." By the Nazi Hanns Oberlindober. 1937.

To the following source:

The "Decent" Jew A Letter to an Englishman, 1937


Despite the sensitivity of the democrats to the world's moaning and groaning, the warmongering incitement of the so-called world press and the agonized howls of those of your nature and religion, the National Socialist people's and state leadership has only done its simple duty to the German people, namely to investigate and determine the results and consequences that the "good Germans" and "decent Jews" have left behind for the German people, and to ensure that there will never again be a time of unlimited or concealed Jewish domination.


I say Jewish domination intentionally, for there is no more dreadful tyranny than when world Jews enslave their host people through their willing, bribed, and obedient democratic lackeys.



Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere.




Thomas Jefferson:

If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.



There's a fire to put out.


(Bold mine)



The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism

Dr. James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told us that when we were his age, he was then close to 80, we would all be fighting the "Christian fascists."

The warning, given to me 25 years ago, came at the moment Pat Robertson and other radio and televangelists began speaking about a new political religion that would direct its efforts at taking control of all institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government. Its stated goal was to use the United States to create a global, Christian empire. It was hard, at the time, to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously, especially given the buffoonish quality of those who expounded it. But Adams warned us against the blindness caused by intellectual snobbery. The Nazis, he said, were not going to return with swastikas and brown shirts. Their ideological inheritors had found a mask for fascism in the pages of the Bible.

- snip -

He saw in the Christian Right, long before we did, disturbing similarities with the German Christian Church and the Nazi Party, similarities that he said would, in the event of prolonged social instability or a national crisis, see American fascists, under the guise of religion, rise to dismantle the open society.
He despaired of liberals, who he said, as in Nazi Germany, mouthed silly platitudes about dialogue and inclusiveness that made them ineffectual and impotent. Liberals, he said, did not understand the power and allure of evil nor the cold reality of how the world worked...



Labels: , , , , ,