by Joel Tscherne | 2/15/2010 02:14:00 PM

Every year, a member of the United States Senate reads Washington's Farewell Address on Presidents Day. Yet, it seems obvious that nobody really listens to it, given their willingness to ignore it.



Early in the address, Washington argued the importance of unity to the country. He believed that the main purpose of disunity is to gain power and take control. He particularly warns about obstructionists who try to weaken government in the name of the people as a way to place power into the hands of unjust leaders.

Of course, Washington also discusses the dangers of political parties. Factions consistently try to gain power instead of promoting liberty. He disdains the distractions from governing caused by political parties. I can't help thinking that this must be a tough section to repeat today.

Political leaders love to state the importance of listening to the founding fathers, but they invariably ignore opinions that don't jibe with their desire for power.

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 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 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: ,