by AndrewMc | 12/29/2009 06:45:00 PM
We're fast approaching the end of the aughts. What are your highlights and lowlights?






Labels: ,

 
by Unknown | 12/21/2009 10:32:00 PM
As Andrew wrote two weeks ago, my friend John Russell (aka Bastoche at ProgressiveHistorians) has died. John was a lovely man and a talented intellectual whose sharp analysis of neoconservative ideology was virtually without peer in the blogosphere or elsewhere.

As a tribute to John, I've compiled his online writings and made them available at The Political Writings of John Russell. If you haven't had a chance to read his insightful analysis, please do so -- you'll find it time well spent.

Labels: ,

 
by Winter Rabbit | 12/20/2009 08:20:00 AM
Photobucket

The Sand Creek Massacre and the Washita Massacre both led to the Wounded Knee Massacre. The Sand Creek Massacre brought the realization that “the soldiers were destroying everything Cheyenne - the land, the buffalo, and the people themselves,” and the Washita Massacre added even more genocidal evidence to those facts. The Sand Creek Massacre caused the Cheyenne to put away their old grievances with the Sioux and join them in defending their lives against the U.S. extermination policy. The Washita Massacre did that even more so. After putting the Wounded Knee Massacre briefly into historical perspective, we’ll focus solely on the Wounded Knee Massacre itself for the 119th Anniversary of the Wounded Knee Massacre.




Black Kettle, his wife, and more than 150 Cheyenne and Arapaho had just been exterminated, and Custer’s 7th was burning the lodges and all their contents, thus stripping them of all survival means. Sheridan would wait until all their dogs had been eaten before “allowing” them into subjugation, then Custer would rape the women hostages in captivity.


Jerome A. Green. “Washita.” p. 126.


Far across the Washita Valley, warriors observed the killing of the animals, enraged by what they saw.


Photobucket

What did they see, feel, and think?


http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_8_i4RoC-c4C&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&sig=PzXXLM0CyHIihEXH2rAS7cmyOIg&dq=Half+breed+-+the+remarkable+story+of+george+bent-+caught+between+the+worlds#PRA1-PA95,M1"

And so, when the Chiefs gathered to decide what the people should do, Black Kettle took his usual place among them. Everyone agreed Sand Creek must be avenged. But there were questions. Why had the soldiers attacked with such viciousness? Why had they killed and mutilated women and children?

It seemed that the conflict with the whites had somehow changed. No longer was it just a war over land and buffalo. Now, the soldiers were destroying everything Cheyenne - the land, the buffalo, and the people themselves.



See it? Feel it?

They witnessed and felt the Sand Creek Massacre happen, again.


Consequently, a number of Cheyenne who were present at Washita helped defeat Custer at Little Bighorn.

So, let us proceed from the Sand Creek Massacre,

Why does this say Battle Ground after there was a Congressional investigation?
Photobucket



and from the genocide at the Washita “Battlefield” –

No, it was a massacre.
Photobucket





Petition to Re-name
The Washita Battlefield National Historic Site toThe Washita National Historic
Site of Genocide


AND WHERE AS:

According to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

WE, the undersigned members of the Native American community and the public at large, request that this site of the attack by the United States military against 8,500 Plains Indians camped as prisoners of war along the Washita River in 1868 be designated as the Washita National Historic Site of Genocide.




- to the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890.

Photobucket





Harjo: Burying the history of Wounded Knee

But Wounded Knee was 14 years after Little Bighorn. Would the soldiers have held a grudge that long and why would they take it out on Big Foot? They blamed Custer's defeat on Sitting Bull, who was killed two weeks before Wounded Knee. The Survivors Association members had the answer: ''Because Big Foot was Sitting Bull's half-brother. That's why Sitting Bull's Hunkpapa people sought sanctuary in Big Foot's Minneconjou camp.''


The Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890


The first intention of the U.S. Army in part was to detain Chief Big Foot under the pretext that he was a "fomenter of disturbance," remembering that Native Americans did not have equal rights at that time in the Constitution.

In addition, the real intention was doing a "roundup" to a military prison camp, which would have become an internment and concentration camp in Omaha after they were prisoners. Colonel James W. Forsyth had orders to force them into going there.

Speculating, I bet at least part of the rationalization for the massacre was so the soldiers wouldn't have to transport them to the military prison in Omaha. Murdering them would have been easier. Then, they could've had another whiskey keg, like they did the evening right before this massacre, when they celebrated the detainment of Chief Big Foot. The soldiers may have even been hung over, depending on amount consumed and tolerance levels; moreover, if the soldiers were alcoholics, tolerance levels would have been high.


massacre:

n : the wanton killing of many people [syn: mass murder] v : kill a large number of people indiscriminately;

"The Hutus massacred the Tutsis in Rwanda" [syn: slaughter, mow down]



Source

White officials became alarmed at the religious fervor and activism and in December 1890 banned the Ghost Dance on Lakota reservations. When the rites continued, officials called in troops to Pine Ridge and Rosebud reservations in South Dakota. The military, led by veteran General Nelson Miles, geared itself for another campaign.



Source

Big Foot and the Lakota were among the most enthusiastic believers in the Ghost Dance ceremony when it arrived among them in the spring of 1890.



Chief Big Foot's arrest was ordered by the U.S. War Department for being a "fomenter of disturbance." Chief Big Foot was already on his way to Pine Ridge with his people, when the 7th U.S. Cavalry with Major Samuel Whitside leading them approached him on horses. Big Foot's lungs were bleeding from pneumonia.

Blood froze on his nose while he could barely speak. He had a white flag of surrender put up as soon as he caught glimpse of the U.S. Calvary coming towards them. At the urging of John Shangreau, Whitside's half-breed scout, Whitside "allowed" Big Foot to proceed to the camp at Wounded Knee. Whitside wanted to arrest Big Foot and disarm them all immediately. Ironically, the justification for letting Big Foot go to Wounded Knee was that it would prevent a gun fight, save the lives of the women and children, but let the men escape. The Warriors wouldn't have left their women and children to perish, but since the following was reported to Red Cloud:


Red Cloud


"...A white man said the soldiers meant to kill us. We did not believe it, but some were frightened and ran away to the Badlands.(1)


I believe Whitside didn't want the Warriors to have such an opportunity, under direct orders by General Nelson Miles.


(1): "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown, pp. 441-442. (December, 1890).


"Later in the darkness of that December night (Dec. 28) the remainder of the Seventh Regiment marched in from the east and quietly bivouacked north of Major Whitside's troops. Colonel James W. Forsyth, commanding Custer's former regiment, now took charge of operations. He informed Whitside that he had received orders to take Big Foot's band to the Union Pacific Railroad for shipment to the military prison in Omaha.


Then, came the disarming.


..Colonel Forsyth informed the Indians that they were now to be disarmed. "They called for guns and arms," White Lance said, "so all of us gave the guns and they were stacked up in the center." The soldier chiefs were not satisfied with the number of weapons surrendered, so they sent details of troops to search the tepees. "They would go right into the tents and come out with bundles (sacred objects) and tear them open," Dog Chief said. "They brought our axes, knives, and tent stakes and piled them near the guns." Still not satisfied, the soldier chiefs ordered the warriors to remove their blankets and submit to searches for weapons...


Yellow Bird, the only medicine man there at the time danced some steps of the Ghost Dance, while singing one of it's songs as an act of dissent. Simultaneously, the people were furious at the "searches" when Yellow Bird reminded everyone of their bullet-proof shirts. To me, this was the void in time when the Ghost Dancers chose peace over war, and made it possible for the resurgence of their culture to occur in the future. A psychological justification for my saying so, is the Ghost Dancers would also have been Sundancers. Part of the well-known intent behind the Sundance is "that the people might live."

Continuing on; next, was false blame.


...Some years later Dewey Beard (Wasumaza) recalled that Black Coyote was deaf. "If they had left him alone he was going to put his gun down where he should. They grabbed him and spinned him in the east direction. He was still unconcerned even then. He hadn't pointed his gun at anyone. His intention was to put that gun down. They came and grabbed the gun that he was going to put down...(1) in proceeding paragraph, p.445.




Source

...The massacre allegedly began after an Indian, who was being disarmed, shot a U.S. officer.



Source

Hotchkiss guns shredded the camp on Wounded Knee Creek, killing, according to one estimate, 300 of 350 men, women, and children.



My Journey to Wounded Knee

More people survived if they tried to escape through this tree row, because there was more tree cover.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

More were massacred if they tried to escape through this tree row, because there was much less tree cover.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket



Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photobucket




The truth has still been tried to be slanted and concealed, even after over one century ago, because the old sign said that there were 150 warriors. The truth is, there were only 40 warriors.


It was nothing less than false blame, deceptive actions, and blatant lies by the blood-thirsty troopers that started the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890. In recognition of the governmental policy of using smallpox infected blankets as germ warfare against Native Americans since the first presidency, the Sioux Wars, and all the "successful" extermination by the U.S. government prior to this last "battle;" would they have had the atom bomb, they would have used it too.


For that would have been more convenient, than loading their remaining victims (4 men and 47 women and children) into open wagons and transporting them to Pine Ridge during the approaching blizzard for alleged shelter at the army barracks, then to the Episcopal mission "unplanned." They left the survivors out in that blizzard in open wagons for who knows how long, while "An (singular) inept Army officer searched for shelter."(1)

What that tells me is: they didn't plan on having any survivors. They planned on exterminating them. Of course, there wasn't any room at all in the army barracks for 51 people, so they had to take them to the mission. Well...if they'd been white, they would've found room for a measly 51 white people.




Source

"...A recurring dream in the mid-1980s directed a Lakota elder to begin the ride as a way to heal the wounds of the 1890 massacre. It continues today to honor the courage of the ancestors and to teach the young to become leaders...The Big Foot Ride began in 1987 at the urging of Birgil Kills Straight, a descendant of a Wounded Knee Massacre survivor. Each year, the riders have come together to sacrifice and pray for the 13-day trip from the Standing Rock Reservation beginning on the anniversary of the death of Sitting Bull and ending at Wounded Knee on Dec. 28, the day before the anniversary of the massacre..."



Source

"...The two-week Ride started in 1986 after a dream told one of its founders that it would "mend the sacred hoop" and heal the wounds of the famous massacre. For the first four years, the ride was led in intense cold by Arvol Looking Horse, keeper of the White Buffalo Calf Woman pipe bundle in Green Grass, S.D. It is now carried on by youths from the Lakota nation, starting in Grand River near Mobridge, S.D. on the Standing Rock Sioux reservation and continuing south 200 miles to Pine Ridge..."

Labels: , , ,

 
by Joel Tscherne | 12/14/2009 07:00:00 AM


Every year around this time, certain media outlets (particularly those named after a certain animal) complain about how some people are trying to do away with Christmas. It's also the time of the year when I re-read one of my favorite books.



Tom Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry, published The Trouble With Christmas in 1993. The book deals with the problem of a religious holiday in a supposedly secular society. Flynn reviews the history of Christmas, showing how its current "traditions" have little to do with how it was celebrated in the past (ask yourself, for example, why anyone was working on Christmas in The Christmas Carol). He also reviews many Christmas symbols and shows their actual origins. Flynn also presents a list of what those who are unhappy with its celebration should do.

While he clearly has a point of view, Flynn presents a great deal of great information that can be used to counteract any argument from those who want us to believe that they have a right to celebrate the holiday as an American and world-wide tradition.

There are also a number of good audio interviews of Flynn available from various podcasts. My favorite is from Skepticality, the podcast of Skeptic magazine. Have a listen if you have time, and maybe feel a little better if you are one of those who don't celebrate the holiday.

Labels: , , ,

 
by Winter Rabbit | 12/13/2009 07:00:00 AM
The extent to which a Nation denies the genocide it has committed is a measure of that Nation's social conscience. The social conscience of the United States is infected with numerous rationalizations that keep the dark light from shining. Federal and state institutions are named after mass murderers, and the land tells a story of massacres and atrocities that occurred. But the truth is not forgotten, it is denied.





Source

8. DENIAL is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile.


Genocide is not just denied in the United States, it is celebrated.



Source

The term “redskins” actually refers to the Indian skins and body parts that bounty hunters had to show in order to receive payment for killing Indians, the National Congress of American Indians argued in a brief filed before the high court.



What we shall see, is that denying the genocide of the American Indian is for ideological or economic reasons. What we need to know, is how specifically people deny the genocide of the American Indian.


Leonard Crow Dog and Richard Erdoes. “Crow Dog.” pp. 6-7.

Only when we saw them building roads through our land, wagons at first, and then the railroad, when we watched them building forts, killing off all the game, committing buffalo genocide, and we saw them ripping up our Black Hills for gold, our sacred Paha Sapa, the home of the wakinyan, the thunderbirds, only then did we realize what they wanted was our land. Then we began to fight. For our earth. For our children. That started what the whites call the Great Indian Wars of the West. I call it the Great Indian Holocaust.


Ideological reasons are a motive for denying genocide. For example, "A nation ashamed of its past will fear its future;" and, "Such attitudes, which dominate the councils of the elite, are the single greatest threat to our survival." Does the dominant culture's survival really depend on denying that "battles" were massacres and Hitler was inspired by "actual U.S. examples?"




Source

And...quoting from Chapter 5 - The Earth Is Our Mother from the book The State of Native America, Genocide, Colonization and Resistance, edited by Annette Jaimes, ISBN 0-89608-424-9:

- snip –

..Even the the nazi tactic of concentrating 'undesireables' prior to their forced 'relocation or reduction' was drawn from actual U.S. examples, including internment of the Cherokees and other 'Civilized Tribes' during the 1830's before the devastatingly lethal Trail of Tears was forced upon them, and the comparable experience of the Navajo people at the Bosque Redondo during the period 1864-68.





Of course the dominant culture's survival does not really depend on denying that "battles" were massacres and Hitler was inspired by "actual U.S. examples." Remembering the dominant culture is a mindset, at least one author and possibly his readers do feel some sort of survival instinct in connection with their genocide denial. We'll see those specific examples shortly. But we also know there are economic considerations, namely being held accountable, that motivate some to deny genocide.



http://www.mail-archive.com/futurework@scribe.uwaterloo.ca/msg08639.html\

Newspapers of the day publicized bounty notices on current “uprisings.” A 1922 article in the Rocky Mountain News reported a $25 reward for those who defeated “efforts to sign the roads into the Navajo reservation ... The redskins are said to tear out or carry away all sign-boards.”

The Rocky Mountain News had political and proprietary interests in the Colorado gold and in clearing the territory of Indians to get at it. The newspaper started a drumbeat against Cheyenne Dog Soldiers and other “hostiles” that culminated in the Sand Creek Massacre of a peace camp of Cheyenne elders, pregnant women and children on Nov. 29, 1864.

The News celebrated the “Battle” of Sand Creek, lauding the Colorado Volunteers’ “Bloody Thirdsters” as having “covered themselves with glory.” By contrast, the U.S. Army officers on site reported it as the Sand Creek “Massacre” and described the soldiers as “barbaric” and “covered with gore.”




Until now, we have discussed some "whys," which can be simplified into ideological or economic reasons.


Denials Of The Genocide Of Native Americans

There are many other examples of denial by perpetrators who wish to escape negative reactions to their deeds. More troubling are the later denials by people not directly involved in the genocidal events but who appear to have ideological reasons for their denials.



But Michael Medved and Don Feder and give us some clear examples of genocide denial, in addition to labeling massacres as battles. Medved "Claim(s) that the deaths were inadvertent," while expressing ideological reasons.



http://www.bluecorncomics.com/stype796.htm

By Michael Medved
Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Moreover, the real decimation of Indian populations had nothing to do with massacres or military actions, but rather stemmed from infectious diseases that white settlers brought with them at the time they first arrived in the New World.

- snip –

A nation ashamed of its past will fear its future.




Twelve Ways To Deny A Genocide

3. Claim that the deaths were inadvertent.

As a result of famine, migration, or disease, not because of willful murder.


Yes, 90% to 95% of villages were already depopulated because of disease, but that does not excuse the killers who exterminated the indigenous survivors.

In a different tone but still denying genocide, Feder " Rationalize(s) the deaths as the result of tribal conflict, coming to the victims out of the inevitability of their history of relationships." But Feder substitutes white encroachment for another tribe. He minimizes the Great Indian Holocaust, as Crow Dog calls it, as merely "every nation includes its share of invasions, dispossessions and injustices." Next, he supplies his own ideological reasons for denying the genocide as previously mentioned.

(My insertion)

Pilgrims Pilloried in streets of Plymouth


Twelve Ways To Deny A Genocide

5. Rationalize the deaths as the result of tribal conflict, coming to the victims out of the inevitability of their history of relationships.



This was a witty rejoinder to my observation that the history of every nation includes its share of invasions, dispossessions and injustices.

- snip -

Plymouth protesters insist that America was a tragic mistake, our history is ignoble and the only valid reason for our continued existence is to provide racial reparations. Such attitudes, which dominate the councils of the elite, are the single greatest threat to our survival.



The extent to which a Nation denies the genocide it has committed is a measure of that Nation's social conscience. The social conscience of the dominant culture does not want to lose its power, so it restrains its own humanity with ideologies and anything that points the finger the other way.



http://www.facinghistory.org/resources/facingtoday/confronting-genocide-denial

Denial of genocide is the final stage of genocide. It is what Elie Wiesel has called a "double killing." Denial murders the dignity of the survivors and seeks to destroy remembrance of the crime. In a century plagued by genocide, we affirm the moral necessity of remembering.


But the real power the dominant culture loses is the power to be caring human beings. Much more needs to be researched and written about this topic.



Labels: , ,

 
by Ralph Brauer | 12/09/2009 09:05:00 AM



It seems like the press can just never get it right especially when it comes to history. In the wake of You-Know-Who's new book tour, several publications, including the venerable New York Times, which should know better (especially if they read their own archives), are referring to the woman who guarantees to give Tina Fey a healthy income for quite some time as a--get this--Populist. The Times even ventured to compare her to none other than William Jennings Bryan!


Palin as Populist

Over the past few years I have tried to correct the misapprehensions of Bryan that still circulate among large numbers of Americans. Now the Times really messes things up with one of the most absurd paragraphs they have ever written.
Whatever else it said about America, her return brought into focus a big question for Republicans as they watched the intense reactions she generated: To what extent should they try to energize their electoral prospects by hitching themselves to the powerful but volatile strain of populism — characterized by anti-elitism and deep skepticism of government — that Ms. Palin has come to embody?

The Times goes on to provide a bizarre list of "populists" ranging from Bryan to Joseph McCarthy and George Wallace to--get this--Richard Nixon.

Sam Tanenhaus comes up with an equally bizarre list in this week's New Yorker.
Populists, from William Jennings Bryan and Huey Long through Joseph McCarthy and George Wallace, have always been divisive and polarizing. Their job is not to win national elections but to carry the torch and inspire the faithful, and this Palin seems poised to do.

Tanenhaus calls Palin "the first woman to generate populist fervor on such a scale" and thus a figure of "historic consequence."

Real (as opposed to reel) Populism

Somehow in their inevitable watering down and distorting of American history, the mass media have come to endow the term "populism" with such broad meaning that it has become meaningless, in consequence rendering an important chapter in our nation's past equally meaningless and muddled. In the media's terms a populist seems to be anyone with a popular following who is not from the East Coast.

In fact, as any high school history student knows, Populism with a capital "P" was a nineteenth century political movement that advocated a very specific platform and ideology--one far from the fans of Sarah Palin. In fact, to endow Palin with a term like populist is to raise her to a level where she does not belong and belittles the accomplishments of the real Populists.

The original Populists said little about big government, but had a lot to say about their main enemy--- big business. Anyone seeking to define Populism should start with the party's 1892 platform. The preamble to the People's Party of America (the official title of the Populist party--populist was the name given to members) platform has an uncanny contemporary ring to it.
The people are demoralized; most of the States have been compelled to isolate the voters at the polling places to prevent universal intimidation and bribery. The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, business prostrated, homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of capitalists. The urban workmen are denied the right to organize for self-protection, imported pauperized labor beats down their wages, a hireling standing army, unrecognized by our laws, is established to shoot them down, and they are rapidly degenerating into European conditions. The fruits of the toil of millions are badly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of mankind; and the possessors of these, in turn, despise the Republic and endanger liberty. From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed the two great classes—tramps and millionaires. The national power to create money is appropriated to enrich bond-holders; a vast public debt payable in legal-tender currency has been funded into gold-bearing bonds, thereby adding millions to the burdens of the people.

The 1892 platform also contained planks Joseph McCarthy, George Wallace, Richard Nixon and others on the New Yorker and New York Times lists of so-called populists would find hard to stand on. These included a graduated income tax, government ownership of railroads and the telephone and telegraph systems, and the demand that “all land now held by railroads and other corporations in excess of their actual needs be reclaimed by the government and held for actual settlers only.” The platform also called for a constitutional amendment to limit the President and Vice President to one term and demanded the abolition of “a large standing army of mercenaries, known as the Pinkerton system.”

As you can see, there is little in the Populist platform that Sarah Palin could support and quite a bit she would find positively socialistic.

Opposition to big government that the New Yorker and the New York Times equate with populism came with what I termed in The Strange Death of Liberal America the Counterrevolution, a Republican movement which adopted much of the anti-federal stance that was articulated in the Southern Manifesto authored by Strom Thurmond and other Dixie Congressman in opposition to Brown v Board. With Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy and later the election of Ronald Reagan, Thurmond's anti-government views became the ruling philosophy of the Republican Party.
Reagan’s genius lay in taking Thurmond’s states’ rights philosophy and dressing it in respectable clothes, turning it into opposition to “big government.” What some saw as unsophisticated prejudice received a makeover worthy of one of those television shows that turns a wallflower into a magazine cover. Employing anti-government rhetoric that mirrored Thurmond, the GOP reversed the country’s perceptions about government as a force for equity and turned it into the enemy of the people. (The Strange Death of Liberal America)

Palin and Bryan

If Sarah Palin is not a Populist, is she the heir of William Jennings Bryan as both the Times and the New Yorker imply? In word, no. Actually, this comparison is even more ridiculous and dangerous than the Populist one. In their defense the two mass media giants could fall back on the muddled and watered-down contemporary understanding of populism, but in the case of comparing Palin to Bryan, the historical record allows no such leeway.

Much as the press was using a loose contemporary definition of populism, its comparison of Palin to Bryan seems to rely more on Stanley Kramer's melodramatic Inherit the Wind than it does on the real Bryan. Originally a theatrical representation of the Scopes Trial that sometimes heavy-handedly preached its underlying theme of opposition to McCarthyism, Inherit the Wind portrayed Bryan as an egotistical, narrow-minded rube.

The film's characterization of Bryan is still held by many Americans. Even those who do not see Bryan in such extreme terms might know that he ran for President three times, but few are aware that Bryan proposed and advocated principles and programs that essentially laid a foundation for the American Century.

These included three constitutional amendments: voting rights for women, the income tax, and direct election of senators. Bryan opposed our intervention in the Philippines as “imperialism,” defended collective bargaining and fought for a minimum wage, demanded that candidates reveal the source of their campaign contributions, proposed a cabinet position for labor, championed the idea of insured bank deposits and banking system like the Federal Reserve, attempted to implement a foreign policy based on arbitration which anticipated the League of Nations and the United Nations, and spoke out for the public financing of campaigns, government subsidizing of farm prices, an end to the gold standard, limiting Presidential terms, and the perils of a large military establishment.

There is not much in this menu that Sarah Palin would find palatable.

The Brain Factor

Like it or not, one of the implied factors in the media comparison of Palin and Bryan has to do with the perception both are/were not exactly the brightest people to run for higher office. Do a search for "Palin" and "clueless" to get some idea of what many feel about Palin's grasp of the issues. On the other hand nobody attached the label "clueless" to William Jennings Bryan.

To imply Bryan lacked intelligence is to show a total lack of knowledge of his career. To understand this, forget that he delivered all his speeches from memory or extemporaneously or that he was one of the most feared debaters of his era (contrary to the image in Inherit the Wind), and go back to Bryan's first Congressional speech, which ranks as one of the most auspicious debuts in Congressional history.

It is a far cry from Sarah Palin's stumbling press interviews, her scripted speeches, and her lack of knowledge of domestic and world affairs. Even more than “Cross of Gold,” this speech remains Bryan’s most spectacular, for it has few parallels in American history. In three hours, the New York Times proclaimed, Bryan “Jumped at once to the front rank among speakers of the House.” (“Mr. Bryan at Washington,” New York Times, July 20, 1896)

The rules allotted Bryan only an hour, but Michigan Republican Representative Julius Burrow, whom Bryan biographer Michael Kazin describes as “bedazzled,” moved to give him more time. Several times Bryan attempted to conclude only to have the crowd shout, “Go on! Go on!”


When her husband took the floor Mary Bryan anxiously looked upon a half-empty chamber, because most representatives had left the floor during one of those arcane discussions—this one on how much to spend on copies of speeches-- that still has people muttering about Congress. Perhaps Hollywood best captured the spirit of Bryan’s debut in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, for like Jimmy Stewart’s famous filibuster, Bryan’s speech began as a seemingly minor matter only to strike sparks that would flame across America, with Mary Bryan playing the Jean Arthur role of gallery support, prompting him, and, if the transcript is any indication, may have even sent him information as he spoke.

Bryan’s subject was the tariff, which at that time had all the flammability as an issue that taxes do today. The Democratic Party under Grover Cleveland supported the Republican concept of taxing imports to protect business much as contemporary Democrats have shown little inclination to oppose the GOP’s call for cutting taxes. A few choice passages from Bryan’s speech illustrate how he totally reframed the tariff issue, a break with the past that helped to lay the foundation for the American Century. Instead of arguing over tariffs on particular goods, which had been the main Democratic strategy, Bryan became one of the first Democrats of his era to condemn ALL protective tariffs:
This system is sustained simply by the cooperation of the beneficiaries of a tariff, and that they are held together by “the cohesive power of plunder.”…You can impose no tax for the benefit of the producer of raw material which does not find its way, through the various forms of manufactured product, and at last press with accumulated weight upon the person who uses the finished product. ( William Jennings Bryan and Mary Bryan, Speeches of William Jennings Bryan, New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1913. pp. 3-78.)

Later in his speech hBryan articulated what would become a guiding principle for Democrats from Woodrow Wilson to John Kennedy:
Why are we right? Because, Mr. Chairman. We are demanding for this people equal and exact justice to every man, woman and child. We desire that the laws of this country shall not be made, as they have been, to enable some to get rich while many get poor.

After three hours of speaking (imagine Sarah Palin being able to talk without notes for even half an hour) Bryan did not disappoint with a conclusion that anticipates “Cross of Gold:”
The day will come, Mr. Chairman—the day will come when those who annually gather about this Congress seeking to use the taxing power for private purposes will find their occupation gone, and the members of Congress will meet here to pass laws for the benefit of all the people. That day will come and in that day, to use the language of another, “Democracy will be king! Long live the king!”

As Mary Bryan remembered it, the speech began uncertainly, but it did not take long for her husband to find his voice. As Bryan continued to speak, those in the chamber began streaming down the halls of the Capitol to summon their colleagues, their excitement testifying that something extraordinary was taking place. The New York Times, which at that time was not favorable to progressives, wrote:
The speech was like a beam of sunlight. It abounded in apt illustration. It was full of quotations, showing that the author of it had read, and occasionally there were passages that were so stirring that they quite betrayed the usually well-behaved audience in the galleries into storms of applause.

To those who had not heard him before, he was indeed a prodigy. Few men so young ever had held the House so long and so intent. His illustrations, humorous and sentimental, including quotations of poetry, were apt and they were well-delivered.

Maybe the Times should have checked their archives before they made their ridiculous comparison of Bryan and Palin. Unlike Palin, who does not seem to have much data in her head, Bryan packed his speech with enough statistics that even today these data provide an important portrait of our nation in 1892. Bryan cleverly alternated these with punchy anecdotes:
The number of sheep has continually decreased, until now if every woman in the State [of Nebraska] named Mary insisted upon having a pet lamb at the same time, we would have to go out of the state to get enough lambs to go around.

The 1892 speech is even more remarkable than “Cross of Gold” because most of the second half of it is a prolonged and spirited debate with his Republican rivals, the likes of which no one has ever seen on CSPAN, in which Bryan speaking without notes recites long passages of poetry and the Bible, quotes at length from documents such as Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures and weaves in a wide variety of primary sources including census data and economic reports.

In this speech Bryan also showed he could think on his feet with barbed come-backs to those who sought to discredit him. One exchange with New York Representative John Raines captures the spirit of that memorable afternoon. Raines was well-known for his ability to skew his opponents with rapier-like slashes that sometimes left them visibly wounded.
RAINES: I want to say to the gentleman that no trade paper was ever printed that could contain a list of all the tinplate liars of the United States.

BRYAN: I suppose that paper, then, has no biographical sketch of my friend from New York. I asked my friend from new York if we had any tin industries in this country—I have here a statement that the average price of tin plate for 1888 was $4.45 a box…The average price for 1891 was $5.68 a box…And I will place this on record as my authority that no article could be mentioned upon which the price had been increased.

For those who would disrespect Bryan by daring to compare him to Palin, that single exchange should show how absurd it is to place the two of them on an equal plane. First, note how Bryan parried Raines' thrust--and this after speaking for over an hour--with one of his own. But the real gem in this exchange is Bryan's ability to cite the relevant data with no prompting. There is no way Palin could pull this off.

The Advocacy Factor

The speech also highlights yet another important contrast between Bryan and Palin--their values and vision. If anyone out there can tell me what Palin's vision is for America please feel free to comment--and please when you do so cite something she has said, not a paragraph from a ghost-written book.

One example of the inability of Palin's supporters to focus on her vision for America comes in another Times piece, this a December 7 online commentary by Stanley Fish that favorably reviews Palin's book. In his entire essay, Fish says nothing about Palin's policies or what she believes in, but gives it a thumbs up because her book does a good job of suggesting the kind of person she is.
For many politicians, family life is sandwiched in between long hours in public service. Palin wants us to know that for her it is the reverse. Political success is an accident that says nothing about you. Success as a wife, mother and citizen says everything.

In other words, Palin's main asset is that she is s good mother. This may be commendable, but it hardly qualifies her to be President since it is a trait she shares with millions of other American women.

Plain's supporters appear to share Fish's view. The infamous video clip of MSNBC correspondent Norah O'Donnell interviewing Palin supporters at a Michigan book signing has been circulating all over the Internet and in emails.



If Palin's supporters seem to go tongue-tied when asked to name specific policies she advocates, few people at the turn of the nineteenth century did not know what William Jennings Bryan supported. A major reason for this is Bryan's tireless advocacy for those issues. The 1896 Presidential campaign is notable not because of the "Cross of Gold" speech but because it was the first time a candidate actively campaigned for the White House.

Bryan knew that the only way he could beat William McKinley was to take his case directly to the people. While McKinley ran what became known as the "Front Porch Campaign," Bryan embarked on a whistle-stop tour across the country. The sheer statistics of the 1896 campaign dwarf those of Harry Truman’s all-out 1948 effort: he traveled 18,000 miles, stopping in 26 states, averaged 80,000 words a day, and spoke to at least five million people.

Contrast this even with Palin's book tour, which is now laboring under the revelation that Palin does not travel from signing to signing in a bus painted especially for the occasion, but in a private jet.

Clothes Make the Man and Woman

Nothing says more about the difference between William Jennings Bryan and Sarah Palin and their underlying political philosophies than their choice of clothing.

There is little doubt that Sarah Palin loves clothes and loves to be seen in them. She wants to be a cover girl, her picture peeking out from all those supermarket magazine racks. Despite her attempts to finesse the much-discussed 2008 campaign clothing expenses controversy in her new book, MSNBC asked the question puzzling many Americans in this observation about Palin during the 2008 campaign:
Can a candidate who portrays herself as a woman of the people spend this much on clothes and remain credible?

Even during the book tour, the Palin clothing controversy will not go away. Writing of Palin's wardrobe, Financial Times fashion editor Vanessa Friedman observed:
Her mouth may be saying no to Palin for President in 2012, but her clothes are saying maybe.

Bryan, on the other hand, deliberately dressed unfashionably. His "uniform" became an alpaca coat and a bow tie.



Character

There is one final and important contrast between Bryan and Palin that is especially germane to today's Era of Bad Feelings. During Bryan's lifetime, America experienced some of its most divisive economic, social and political conflicts and Bryan was at the frontlines of many of these. Yet despite the rancor of the times, Bryan had few genuine enemies.

The Times would acknowledge about Bryan:
He would have no enemies on the floor of the House. Search The Record during the two sessions of Congress he was entitled to occupy its pages, and not an instance can be found where he made a reply to an antagonist that would prevent him from meeting his opponent face to face in a moment after the debate.

Contrast this with Sarah Palin's famous nickname "The Barracuda." Pollster Dave Dittman, who worked for her gubernatorial campaign, told the conservative Weekly Standard magazine in 2007:
The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah.

The "Sarah Barracuda" nickname perfectly captures Palin’s contradictions. Sarah is your next-door neighbor become a celebrity, a person millions of Americans believe is just like them. The Barracuda nickname embodies the anger felt by those same millions who are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore.

The Antis

This is a growing and disturbing contemporary American trend, heard in the hard edged rants on talk radio and in blogs of all political persuasions. The angry rant, complete with four-letter words has become the discourse of choice for many to argue about politics. If you want to characterize this group with any of those catchy titles cluster analysts love to use, you could call them the Antis.

In interviews with Palin supporters it comes through in no uncertain terms that the Antis on the right believe Palin finally gives them a voice. But the question is how long can Palin ride that tiger?

She found out that the Antis can quickly turn ugly when she walked away from a book signing in Noblesville, Indiana (something BTW Bryan would have never done) setting off a wave of anger that had an angry crowd gathered outside her bus, some of them loudly booing her. Palin hunkered down inside the bus, refusing to come out and address the crowd. In Palin's defense her staff may have felt it was unsafe for her to confront the crowd, but the scene still leaves an uneasy feeling.

If Sarah Palin can stir up such mob-like emotions and then prove unable to control them, what will happen if her supporters turn their anger on someone else or become a real mob?

A Final Word

Perhaps the most damning aspect of the portrait Stanley Kramer painted of William Jennings Bryan was to imply he was the instigator of a mob. Inherit the Wind wanted to show what can happen when zealotry gets out of control, trying to draw a warning about the excesses of McCarthyism, but in doing so it cast Bryan in a role he never played.

As the most electrifying speaker of his time--and perhaps in all of American history--it would have been very easy for Bryan to become the head of a mob. That certainly was at the root of the fear he inspired in the tycoons of the Gilded Age who worried that Bryan would lead a crusade against them that would turn violent.

Given the tone of an era characterized by two Presidential assassinations, pitched battles during the Homestead, Pullman and other strikes, the incendiary rhetoric of various radicals, and a sensationalistic and partisan press that makes Faux News look tame, such fears are understandable. Yet the irony is that for all the plutocrats' worries about the mob, Bryan disdained mob politics as much as they did.

Bryan was well aware of his ability to move a crowd. After the "Cross of Gold" Bryan would write in his memoirs, “The audience acted like a trained choir.” Yet he never incited a crowd in the fashion of prairie firebrands such as "Sockless Jerry" Simpson or Mary "Yellin" Lease.

The question is whether Sarah Palin will show the same restraint. If not, we may learn what happens when millions of people go rogue and America turns rouge.

Labels: , , , ,

 
by AndrewMc | 12/07/2009 08:17:00 AM
Today is the day, of course, that Japan attacked the United States of America, leading to the official entry of the United States into World War II.

Around the country, Americans will mark the anniversary with flag-raisings, ceremonies, and various remembrances.



Franklin Roosevelt gave what might be the most famous speech in American history:


[transcript here]


But I wonder: Does this anniversary still hold the same sway that it did even ten years ago? I remember when I was young that Pearl Harbor Day was marked in schools with a big program where we studied the events of the day, listened to the speech, made flags, and participated in other remembrances. I don't see that so much any more.

Is this because of the passing of the WW2 generation? Or is there something else going on?


Labels: ,

 
by AndrewMc | 12/06/2009 08:56:00 AM
It is my sad duty to report the passing of one of our longtime contributors, John Russell, aka Bastoche. His longtime struggle with cancer ended Saturday morning after visits from close colleagues, friends, and students.

He will be missed. His writings here included two long-time series--"Cowboy Nation" and "History and the Kagans: Paradise and Power."

As many know, it takes a great deal of commitment in order to post regularly to a blog. It takes even more to post a regular series. To publish a pair of them--the rough equivalent of a couple of journal articles in length--speaks to John's commitment to, and passion for, advocating for progressive causes and subjects.

Inasmuch as John was a committed progressive, he was also an extremely gifted writer. Nowhere was this on greater display than in his essay "Our Window of Opportunity," in which a flowing narrative served as the backdrop for a sharp, insightful examination of the meaning of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

John also contributed to Daily Kos. He will be missed.

The announcement read as follows:

Dr. John Russell, Senior Professor in the English/Fine Arts/Modern Languages Department, passed away early this morning, after a long illness.

Friends may call at Dooley's Funeral Home, 218 North Avenue, W., Cranford, on Monday, December 7 from 2:00 - 4:00 pm, and from 7:00 - 9:00 pm.

The funeral service will be held on Tuesday, December 8 at 10:00 am, also at Dooley's, followed by internment at Fairview Cemetery, Westfield.

The family has asked that donations be made, in lieu of flowers, to the Cancer Research Institute, One Exchange Plaza, 55 Broadway, Suite 1802, New York, NY 10006, in the name of John Joseph Russell.

A valued and long serving member of the ENG/FIA/ML Dept., he will be missed by his colleagues, students and friends.

Prof. Robert Comeau
Coordinator of Credit English





Labels: , ,

 
by AndrewMc | 12/04/2009 12:01:00 PM
I have the feeling that the country is on the edge of historic health care reform that will fundamentally transform the nation, moving us forward in ways that we can't quite envision.

Either that, or we're in for Epic Fail.


Anyone else tired of the Obama/LBJ comparisons? Follow me.



The "Obama-as-LBJ" meme is getting an amazing amount of play in the press, although it started literally the day before the election. And continued right after.

But here's a truncated list:

NPR: LBJ Arm-Twisting? Not Really Obama's Style

"Noted Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin [who couldn't possibly have an LBJ-o-philiac horse in the race, right?]": Doris Kearns Goodwin Wants "More LBJ" From Obama When Dealing With Congress

Op-Ed News: "Obama's LBJ Moment"

The American Spectator: "Obama's LBJ Syndrome"

CNN: "Five Questions for Obama on Afghan War"

That doesn't even count the blogosphere, where LBJ-Obama comparisons grow like weeds in spring. It's amazing. And it's an awful comparison for a number of reasons. Heck, even the American Spectator made the point.

Let me say that I understand why reporters like it: it's easy. It takes very little effort to make the connection, because you don't need to do any research whatsoever. You can easily, and unthinkingly equate elements of major events in both administrations:

Afghanistan? Easy! It's just like Vietnam! Large war with native insurgency, no clear strategy for victory, corrupt local puppet government, growing cadre of anti-war groups.

Health Care Reform? Easy! Just like the Great Society programs! Trying to bring health care to more people who can't afford it.

Except it is, of course, not that easy. And I'm not sure that the situation is made any better by the historians advising him, many of whom came of age in the Vietnam anti-war movement during LBJ's presidency. And many of whom have authored books on LBJ, or served on his staff.

I'm gonna get in big trouble for saying this, I'm sure, but more than any other generation, people who grew up in the 1960s have a much greater tendency to see the world through the lens of their own experiences, and to see the 1960s as one of the seminal periods in American history. I disagree, but then again I'm a colonialist. [Obama as Hamilton? as Gibbon? as François Quesnay? Those would require some work, and a populace educated enough to move past their 8th-grade history texts.].

The oversimplification is maddening, disingenuous, and lends a relevance to a time period that may not, in fact, be all that important in this case. Does it hold lessons for us? Yes, of course. Should it be central to our understanding of Afghanistan and health care and financial reform, and all the other things we need to accomplish? I don't think so.

By linking Obama so closely with LBJ in the public mind, we might be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Anyway, that's my ramble on the subject. Once again, I refer to a wonderful piece "Who Owns the Sixties," which appeared in the old magazine Lingua Franca, which highlights the struggle of historians, and by extension the United States, to get out from under the long shadow of that era.



I taught kindergarten for a while. If I was to teach anywhere but college, this would be it.



Faculty governance is important, even the little things. The number of arguments I've had with administrators here over what "faculty representation" means on a committee. "Faculty Representation" means "someone picked by the duly elected representative body of the faculty [ie. the Faculty Senate], not "someone handpicked by the administration" [ie. some tool who's going to agree with whatever the President wants. It may sound like a small issue, but if administrations want their initiatives to be taken seriously, there has to be true faculty representation.




This is a bit worrisome.




Sanity prevails at Hofstra.

After a comprehensive review, the Board of Trustees has, at my recommendation, voted unanimously to eliminate our intercollegiate football program in order to redirect those resources toward academic initiatives and need-based scholarships.


I love college football. But for some schools it's just not right.




Beer of the week? Yes, Samuel Adams. But no, not the regular Sam Adams Boston Lager in the blue-label bottle that, while good, is now just an ordinary beer.

Instead, I'm thinking of some of the more radical beers that they produce. The picture at left is of the Sam Adams Triple Bock, which came in a small 8 oz. bottle and was produced in the 1990s. This is a gigantic, robust beer with an absolutely astonishing taste. I still have about six or eight of these, and I have about one a year. It's like sipping brandy.

Or, go for a Millennium, a bottle of which sold for nearly $5000 at a charity auction [not to me, unfortunately]. Sam Adams brewed the Millennium for the Y2K celebrations, and only made 3000 bottles of it. You can still find them occasionally on eBay, where they go for about $1000. The style of beer insures that it will store and age for about 10 years. It's a 40-proof beer, so you'll only need one.

You could also try a Utopia, a 25% abv beer. They go for a few hundred a bottle, last I checked.

Closer to a normal price range is the Sam Adams Chocolate Bock, which sells in many liquor and grocery stores. It's got a very rich flavor. For a beer that I'd agree is only "decent" it is a bit pricey.

Or, simply go for one of the many, many "normal" beers they make.





Labels: ,

 
by AndrewMc | 12/01/2009 11:28:00 AM
From last Tuesday through Sunday early morning I was without any internet access whatsoever. It wasn't planned--I stayed in a house that didn't have it, and I could neither pull in any wireless from nearby, nor did I have time to go to a local wi-fi spot.

I know some people find this liberating, but in the middle of the peak of grading season, I don't. I would rather have gone without indoor plumbing. How's that for a pampered western-elite perspective on what's important?

What's on your mind?





Labels: ,