CLIOPATRIA: A Group Blog
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Before Bush v. Gore: Hawai'i 1960
Considering the potential for post-election voting rights and voting count challenges to drag on, I am wondering whether we will actually hear a concession speech on Tuesday night (or early Wednesday morning)? Even if we do, it has the potential to be the least sincere concession speech of all time, unless the candidate declares an immediate end to voting challenges.
There was a remarkably interesting historical article [registration required, but it gets you access to the entire line of Stephens Media Group local papers] in this morning's usually insipid Hawaii Tribune-Herald, about the last election in which a VP candidate campaigned in the state [emphasis added].
Debacle of 1960 vote is recalled
By HUNTER BISHOP, Tribune-Herald staff writer
Elections officials are hoping to avoid anything resembling the 1960 presidential election in Hawaii, the first in the state's history. Sen. John F. Kennedy, who eked out an election night victory in Hawaii by 92 votes, saw that victory overturned within days following an "audit" of precinct tally sheets by Republican Lt. Gov. James Kealoha. The audit led to a prolonged series of recounts before Kennedy eventually won the state's three electoral votes -- even after Gov. William Quinn had certified the election result in favor of Vice President Richard Nixon. Hawaii's three votes were very nearly crucial to the outcome of the presidential race, which at the time was the most closely contested in the 20th century.
By Nov. 17, Nixon emerged from Hawaii's audit -- not a recount --with a 141-vote lead out of more than 184,000 ballots. Democrats demanded a recount and filed a lawsuit charging irregularities, including uncounted ballots and, in districts such as the Manoa Valley on Oahu, more votes were counted than cast. Circuit Judge Ronald Jamieson ordered a recount in 37 of 240 precincts, a total of more than 32,000 ballots.
As the laborious recount dragged into mid-December, Republicans were arguing as they did in Florida in 2000 that the electors needed to be certified six days before the Electoral College meets to cast their ballots for president. (Supreme Court Justice [Stephens; see comments] cited the Hawaii case in his dissent in the Gore v. Bush decision four years ago, which resulted in the election of George W. Bush.) Judge Jamieson was determined to find the actual winner in Hawaii, however, and ordered recounts in seven more precincts after Nixon's lead fell to 61 with 34 precincts recounted. By Dec. 16, with four more precincts recounted, Kennedy pulled ahead of Nixon by 21 votes. Kennedy's lead grew to 57 after 20 more precincts were recounted.
Meanwhile, Republican Gov. John Quinn had already certified Nixon the winner and appointed Republicans to cast their ballots in the Electoral College. When Kennedy's lead grew to 96 after recounts in 95 precincts, Jamieson ordered recounts in all 240 precincts on Dec. 19, the day before the Electoral College convened. Gov. Quinn allowed both the Republicans and Democrats to cast electoral votes for their candidates at Iolani Palace on Dec. 20. If Kennedy eventually won the full recount, only Congress would be able overturn Quinn's certification of the GOP electors because the deadline had passed.
After the total recount, on Dec. 27 Judge Jamieson declared that Kennedy had won the election in Hawaii by 115 votes. The Kennedy win was made a part of the official record and Hawaii Sen. Oren Long, and then-Rep. Daniel Inouye, argued on the floor of Congress to certify the Massachusetts senator the winner in Hawaii.
On Jan. 6, 1961, the roll call of electors in Congress was uneventful until it came to Hawaii's turn. The conflicting sets of electors became a problem that was tossed to Nixon, who presided over the Senate in his role as vice president. Sen. Long and Rep. Inouye made it clear they were prepared to spark a heated floor fight in Congress to defend the selection of Kennedy's electors, but Hawaii's Republican Sen. Hiram Fong did not object. Neither did Gov. Quinn, who had already sent an affidavit to Congress on Jan. 4, 1961, asking for the certification of Hawaii's democratic electors based on the final recount.
By then, Kennedy had an insurmountable Electoral College lead and Hawaii's three votes (today Hawaii has four) wouldn't have affected the outcome. After Kennedy eked out razor-thin, controversial victories in Illinois and Texas, the election was his. But if those states hadn't gone Nixon's way [Ed. - does he mean Kennedy's way?], or if Nixon's campaign had contested the results, Hawaii's controversial vote could have tipped the balance nationwide -- one way or another.
In the end, Nixon wisely avoided the battle over electors, choosing to accept Gov. Quinn's Jan. 4 certification which made Kennedy the winner despite failing to meet the Electoral College deadline. The ill-fated young senator was inaugurated in Washington, D.C., as the nation's 35th president on Jan. 20, 1961.
The sportsmanlike conduct of the Republican governor and senator, not to mention Nixon himself, are quite striking in contrast to the deeply partisan nature of voting administration as we know it today. [Rick Shenkman pointed me to this David Greenberg article which details some of the other states in which Nixon's campaign was much more aggressive in challenging vote counts and electors. It wasn't all sweetness and light, to be sure, but a modicum of dignity was preserved.]
There's really good reason to hope that it doesn't come down to Hawai'i: our election system is in some flux and the technology and administrative processes are still shaky. If Hawai'i really is close, the challenges here will be at least as difficult to resolve as anywhere else. And we have local precedent which is at odds with the current national precedent (I know, Bush v. Gore wasn't supposed to be a precedent for anything....) which will make the legal situation here even more complicated than elsewhere.
"Defining Europe" and History itself
In a post titled "Defining Europe" over on H-World, Alexander Engel of Goettingen University raises some oh-so-interesting questions about the current debates on the past and future of Europe. In a nutshell, he points up that the historical construction of Europe is increasingly at odds with the move to include Turkey and other more "eastern" (dare I say Oriental?) states. He includes several interesting excerpts from the Draft Constitution of the European Union -- among which is the geographically erroneous notion that Europe is a "continent."
This brings up a wider point that I've been mulling over for some time -- regarding our tendency to use modern constructions (such as "Europe") and impose them upon our analyses of the past. Goodness knows the neither the Ancient Greeks nor the Romans ever thought of themselves as "Europeans" as we understand the word's meaning today. Indeed, if either group had been forced to identify a "world" to which they belonged, it would have almost certainly been built around the Mediterranean... and thus included many "non-European" regions. Thus, because we (or certain groups of us) tend to invest identity and meaning in these more modern constructions -- be they "Europe" or even "Africa" -- we then impose that identity upon the past. Such a situation suggests that our current meta-organization of knowledge in the form of "Area Studies" and "Ethnic Studies" programs does much to obscure the reality of history by imposing modern boundaries on the pre-modern world.
"Dwarves" and Folktales
In reply to my fellow Jonathan below, there was a brief thread on H-Africa a few months past regarding folktales of "Mysterious Dwarves" in various parts of Africa.
It's Halloween, Folks ...
This year you can go as the worst history prof you ever had! Thanks to Mr. Sun!
Humanity and Diversity
We can't even live with ourselves terribly well most days. How well would we co-exist with another sentient, or semi-sentient, species? Not very well, suggests anthropologist Desmond Morris [via Butterflies&Wheels], but the real crux of his argument is two-fold: did Homo sapiens sapiens kill off Homo floresiensis (I'm not terribly fond of any of the currently popular 'nicknames' for this species, and I won't use them), and does our relatively recent co-existence with this species of humans affect our definition of humanity? There's some stuff in there about religion and evolution, too, but that's not what I'm terribly interested in. The best "Floresiensis for dummies" I've seen so far is anthropologist John Hawks' [via Panda's Thumb], who speaks directly to an issue which came up in my mind immediately: is it a hoax, like Piltdown, etc.? He says no, with some authority.
The question of whether a 'lesser' human (floresiensis was certainly not as intelligent, on average, as well as being smaller, though we can't speak to their wisdom or judgment or culture) can or should have full civil and legal rights is, mostly, an abstract one at the moment. But in the not-so-distant past we did make stark legal distinctions based on relatively minor genetic variations (and we still do, in certain circumstances). [Side note: if other species of humans, with clearly distinct abilities and features, were more widespread, would there be less racial thinking among ourselves? Or would it have come up sooner and stronger? Would racial categories be more meaningful in that case?] Aside from the upcoming (you can call it science fiction, but it's just a matter of time) issue of artificial intelligences, we haven't dealt terribly well, overall, with the issue of rights or responsibilities for individuals with physical or developmental or mental disabilities, not to mention indigenous peoples with non-agro-capitalist lifestyles. Those models would suggest some form of protective custody arrangement....
The second, historical, question is: is this where elves come from? Dwarves, gnomes, leprechauns, whatever you want to call them, but stories of forest-dwelling, elusive and irritable "little people" are deep rooted in our human civilization. Local folktales could very plausibly be the result of contacts as recently as 13-15Ky bp (This article also implicates Homo sapiens in the extermination of several other human species.). It's possible that these are just myths, imaginary tales with no basis in fact. It's also possible that they are based on contacts with non-human species like chimps and monkeys and apes. But this is a tantalizing find, and it suggests (proving anything at this distance is terribly hard) that some of our ideas, myths, etc., really do have roots that go back tens of thousands of years.
Milestones ...
Generous links yesterday from Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, David Beito at Liberty & Power, and Jim Lindgren at The Volokh Conspiracy sent Cliopatria soaring past 100,000 visitors since her birth last December. Thanks to them and to the family of blogs to which we are related: first, those of our group members, Chapati Mystery, Early Modern Notes, Easily Distracted, Hugo Schwyzer, Little Professor, and Rhine River; secondly, to Cliopatria's "children", Frog in a Well, Rebunk, and Time Travel is Easy; and, thirdly, to the other blogs we've developed a strong relationship with over the last year: Abu Aardvark, American Amnesia, Angry Arab, Baraita, Blogenspiel, Brian's Study Breaks, Cranky Professor, Critical Mass, Crooked Timber, Deltoid,
Examined Life, Far Outliers, Gnostical Turpitude, Mode for Caleb, Scott McLemee, Siris, and The Weblog. Finally, Cliopatria's looking forward to encouraging a broader network of history bloggers. Scroll down her right hand column, again. There's a world of history at your fingertips.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Tuesday
As a congressional historian, I follow races for Congress, especially for the Senate, with great interest. Excluding Texas, which is in flux because of redistricting, there's a very good chance that more Senate seats could switch parties than House seats, something that (I believe) has never before occurred in American history. I continue to think that Melissa Bean will oust Phil Crane in Illinois, and wouldn't be surprised to see Connecticut's Rob Simmons become the only other Republican incumbent to lose, although Heather Wilson in NM and Max Burns in GA also could fall. Potentially strong Dem challengers in Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada have seen their candidacies fizzle. Meanwhile, right now no Democratic House member is trailing in polls, although Utah's Jim Matheson and Oregon's David Wu have been slipping noticeably, the latter after revelations that he had been punished for a sexual assault while at Stanford nearly three decades ago.
The race for control of the Senate is potentially more interesting. Right now, six seats seem likely to change hands: Illinois, Colorado, and Alaska from Republican to Democratic; Georgia, SC, and Louisiana from Democratic to Republican. Of these six, the only one that is a missed opportunity is LA, where the Democrats seem to have been overconfident that they could prevail in a runoff and allowed Republican David Vitter to amass too large a lead. (It now appears as if Vitter might win on Tuesday without even needing the runoff.)
Beyond this list, only four seats--Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Kentucky--seem like possibilities to change hands. Potential Republican efforts in Wisconsin and Washington have not gained steam, and Oklahoma appears likely to elect (arguably) the most conservative Senate delegation since the institution of direct election for senators by choosing Republican Tom Coburn to join Jim Inhofe. Three historical patterns seem relevant to predictions on these seats: (1) that generally close contests tend to break toward one party; (2) strong Dem candidates in the South generally can run at least 5 points ahead of their national ticket; and (3) there's always at least one Senate upset. (2) suggests that Dems Betty Castor in Florida and Erskine Bowles in NC should prevail; Kerry figures to get at least 45% in NC and, at worst, close to 50% in Florida. I didn't think the race in SD would be as close as it has been, but still find it hard to believe that the state will oust Tom Daschle, one of the most talented politicians of the last quarter-century. Daschle began his career, by the way, by capturing a House election by less than 200 votes, so he knows how to win close races. He also has some important endorsement: from the unified leadership of the state's Indian tribes, and from the state's largest paper, the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, which enthusiastically endorsed Bush earlier in the campaign. Finally, in Kentucky, Jim Bunning has done just about everything he could to lose this race (his latest was claiming that the WTC attacks occurred on November 11th), and Democrat Dan Mongiardo seems to have all the momentum. He certainly is the target of this year's most vicious smear in a congressional race, as two prominent Kentucky Republicans publicly termed him "limp-wristed," a "switch-hitter" and not a "man."
If Mongiardo and Daschle both prevail, the resulting Senate would be split 50-50, casting all eyes on Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee, who has already announced that he won't vote for Bush and would be a candidate to mimic Jim Jeffords and declare himself an independent.
I think the presidential election is too close to call, but if forced to choose, would lean toward Bush, for two below-the-surface reasons. The first involves the anti-gay backlash. The attacks against Mongiardo, who is straight, were no accident: Kentucky is one of the states with an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment on the ballot, and the most recent poll shows the measure with the approval of 76% of the voters. Bush, obviously, will carry Kentucky in any case, but in one state, a surge in Christian right turnout associated with an anti-gay marriage amendment could make a major difference: Michigan, which polls have shown surprisingly close (Bush is actually ahead in the most recent Zogby poll), and a state that Kerry absolutely needs to prevail.
The second hidden issue is Ralph Nader. He's clearly not going to get much of a vote in 2004. But if--as appears likely, at least right now--Ohio and Florida split between Bush and Kerry, the race will be decided by Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, three states where Nader polled very well in 2000 and where, if he gets 2% in 2004, he could tilt the election to Bush. This gets at one of the stranger issues of this year's election for me--the trend of these three states toward the Republicans, which began in 2000 and has continued this year.
Thank you kindly
Let me initiate my posting here at HNN with a short word of thanks to Ralph and the rest of the Cliopatrians for inviting me to take part in this fine and scholarly blog. It is indeed an honor and a pleasure, and I look forward to what the process may bring.
While much of my historical career to date has reflected a fairly “traditional” approach to scholarship (study – research – think – teach – write – publish), I have also been deeply impressed by how new forums, such as H-Net (“the conference that never ends”) and such on-line journal/resource centers as World History Connected can enhance scholarly exchange and growth. The Center for History and New Media and the History News Network provide academics with a valuable means with which to engage one another and the wider public – and do so in increasingly critical “Internet time.” Again, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to this venture. My own contributions may be infrequent over the next few weeks, as my wife and I are expecting a child in the near-term, but I will see what I can manage nonetheless.
Welcome to Cliopatria ...
Cliopatria is pleased to welcome Jonathan Reynolds to our group. Now an associate professor of history at Northern Kentucky University, Professor Reynolds did his undergraduate work at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, his graduate work at Boston University, and has taught previously at the University of Tennessee, Livingstone College and elsewhere. He is the author of The Time of Politics (Zamanin Siyasa): Islam and the Politics of Legitimacy in Northern Nigeria, 1950-1966 (1999), with Erik Gilbert, of Africa in World History (2003), and of many articles. Professor Reynolds is editor of H-Africa and an advisory board member of H-Hausa. He has also traveled extensively in Europe, the Mediterranean, and west Africa. Apart from many academic honors, Jonathan Reynolds is a truck drivin', fishing lovin' kinda guy whose recordings of the Blues can be bought at a reasonable price. The brother of our new Cliopatriarch of Cincinnati is Glenn Reynolds, who teaches law at the University of Tennessee and has a modest reputation in the blogosphere. "He's the smart one; I'm the good looking one," says Jonathan.
September 12th Thinking
One of the rhetorical tics of the Republican campaign has been to contrast Senator Kerry's "September 10th" view of terrorism with President Bush's "September 12th" view of terrorism.
But September 12th, 2001, is probably not the best day to model ourselves on, frankly. On September 12th we were victims, just barely beginning to think about the day after, absolutely unsure of what to do and what to think. We would have killed anyone, destroyed anything, to assuage our hurt and fear. We were hunkered down, we were paralyzed, we were in shock. Emotions were intense, raw, unfiltered by time or perspective. We were focused on one thing and one thing only: our pain, and our sense of embattlement.
That's how I remember it. I remember trying to teach, or rather, having a discussion with my students about Islam, military policy, the history of terrorism, who they knew and what had happened to them, what they'd heard and what they hadn't heard and what they needed to hear. I remember checking in with our college chaplain to see if our Muslim student population needed support or protection (Cedar Rapids, home to the oldest Mosque west of the Mississippi, had no anti-Muslim incidents, as it turned out, nor were our students harassed). I remember watching a lot of TV, listening to a lot of special reporting, having a little trouble calling family (my mother was stuck on the west coast on business) but generally trying to puzzle out what was going to come next. Absorbing the dozens of stories, and reporting and guesswork. We were six weeks from the birth of our son, and that was a powerfully sustaining and distracting component of our lives.
As an experiment, I did a google search using "September 13, 2001" and got a sampling of opinion and reporting which pretty well reflects what I remember from September 12.
Ann Coulter: "It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
Daily Utah Chronicle: Normal life suspended while investigations, personal and professional, proceeded and emotional healing began.
Texas A&M Battalion: international students fear backlash; Dallas Mosque shot at.
Colin Powell on Jim Lehrer: Saddam Hussein isn't supporting our efforts against terrorism, but everyone else is. Osama bin Laden one of the few terrorist leaders with an organization capable of these attacks [Ed - and if we knew that, what were we doing about it?]. Deflecting attention from the Saudis, but promising a long, hard campaign against not just al-Qaeda but all terrorist organizations (at least the ones that target Americans) and their state supporters.
Newsweek: Shock, trauma, global war,
Leonard Pitts in the Miami Herald: Resist the temptation to lash out against those who resemble those who we think hurt us. [I think I remember reading this article, actually]
UCLA Asia Institute Roundup of Asian News Sources: Sympathy, tempered with great concern at the likelihood of Presidentially promised retribution creating backlashes large and small and critiques of pre-existing US foreign policy.
Matthew Yglesias (yes, the same one) in the Harvard Independent: Harvard's memorial services, community events, panel discussions, heightened security, but classes resumed.
There's more, of course. It's a mixed bag, for sure. Is it a good metaphor for what we want to be? Are the decisions we made that day the ones we want to be our lasting legacy? Does the Bush administration policy adequately reflect our real mindset on September 12th, 2001, or does it just reflect their own recollection of that sensitive and shaky time?
Univac: What went wrong?
In 1952, a Univac computer, with some relatively primitive algorithms and less less raw computing power than most modern appliances, correctly predicted the results of the election hours before final returns were known and in stark contrast to the predictions of human experts.
Somewhere along the way, we lost that ability: polling in the last few election cycles has been pretty weak as a predictor, and we've got millions of times more computing power and immensely denser and better data to work with. Even the most direct comparison, election-night exit polling, failed miserably last time, and not just in Florida.
Are the races really tighter? Is that the problem? Or are we outthinking ourselves: has the Heisenberg effect (I know, physicists hate it when social scientists use this shorthand, but it's not going away) overwhelmed our statistical models so that the ubiquity of polling is its own downfall?
The Kuzniki Project ...
In an addendum to his "Historical Method and Blogging" at Positive Liberty, Jason Kuzniki takes exception to my characterization of his proposal for an Historical Wikipedia. In order to guarantee quality, he would allow only those "with some historical expertise" to post to it. I think he skips too lightly over a very difficult issue, which has much broader implications than this project alone. The fact is that anyone can hang out a shingle and call themselves a historian. The gatekeepers exercise some control over who may practice within the academy and what credentials they must have, but some of our most celebrated practitioners write and work entirely apart from the academy. Kuzniki, himself, intends to pursue a career apart from the academy. Who does the gatekeeping among them?
Having said that, I recommend his further thoughts on "Historians and Technology." They are especially accessible to those of us who are more at ease with historical practice than technological innovation. Scroll past his initial remarks to his paper, "Engaging the User: The ‘Encyclopedia of Diderot and d'Alembert: Collaborative Translation Project' and New Scholarly Paradigms," which takes Dena Goodman's Project at the University of Michigan as a model for future work in history. The Encyclopedia's authors believed that one could encompass human knowledge in a single massive enterprise and that additions to that knowledge might take the form of appendages to it. Much of what we do does follow that form. Much of what we do doesn't conform very readily to it. Even so, Kuzniki is an able twenty-first century advocate of the Enlightenment's vision.
Listening to Our Wars Abroad and At Home ...
I heard Terry Gross's remarkable interview with Captain Josh Rushing on NPR's "Fresh Air" yesterday. Ted Barlow at Crooked Timber recommends and took notes on what the former spokesman for American military operations in Iraq had to say. You can listen to it here.
Wretchard at Belmont Club has a transcript of the newly released tape of Ossama bin Laden. I disagree with what Wretchard makes of it, but appreciate his having made the transcript available.
So, the October surprise is -- not the revelation of the capture of Ossama bin Laden – but the revelation that he is alive and well, capable of addressing the American public on the eve of its national election. Unlike Ed Cohn, I can't see how this benefits the administration's case for re-election. If anything, it underscores the administration's massive mismanagement of "the war on terror." If the bin Laden tape sways a fearful and terrorized electorate to re-elect George Bush, the case for democracy, itself, is weakened.
Friday, October 29, 2004
The Limits of Academic Freedom?
As Cliopatria readers know, I am concerned with the application of ideological litmus tests in the hiring and curricular processes, and this week, we’ve seen two major stories on this front. The first involves the wildly anti-Israel sentiments among Columbia’s Middle Eastern Studies faculty, a topic about which I have previously written: the latest permutation, first broken and then amplified in a journalistic scoop by Jacob Gershman, chief education reporter for the New York Sun, has now received coverage in the New York Times and generated a lead editorial in the New York Daily News.
The issue: a film put together by a pro-Israel group, The David Project, featuring former Columbia students recounting their experiences in Middle Eastern Studies classes. Middle East Studies Professor Joseph Massad demanded to know how many Palestinians one student, a former soldier in the IDF, had killed; another student quoted Massad as saying, "I will not have someone in this class who denies Israeli atrocities.” In another case, a student asked his language professor about using the verb “prevent” in Arabic, and received the following response: "Israelis prevent ambulances from entering refugee camps.” Massad did not deny making the comments, but instead charged “This is a propaganda film funded by a pro-Israel group as part of a racist witchhunt of Arab and Muslim professors,” and he noted that “neither Columbia University nor I have ever received a complaint from any student.” Columbia’s existing system required students concerned about bias to contact either Massad himself or the chair of the department, Hamid Dabashi, a figure who hailed the Columbia “teach-in” at which one professor hoped that US soldiers in Iraq would experience "a million Mogadishus” as the “revenge of the nerdy ‘A’ students against the stupid ‘C’ students with their stupid fingers on the trigger” and has described Israel as “nothing more than a military base for the rising predatory empire of the United States.” No wonder no complaints were filed.
To his credit, Columbia president Lee Bollinger is now investigating the matter.
Based on their public reactions to date, neither Massad nor any of his colleagues see anything inappropriate in their behavior, they see it as part of their job to orient their classes around their views of what the appropriate policy of the US and Israel in the Middle East should be. When departments are allowed to employ ideological litmus tests in the personnel process, as seems to have been the case in Columbia’s Middle Eastern Studies department, it should hardly be surprising that professors approach their job as Massad has done. Under no definition of “academic freedom” can a professor refuse to provide instruction to a student until that student answers a question such as “how many Palestinians did you kill”?
If possible, an even more bizarre conception of academic freedom has come from Cal.St.-Long Beach, where an English professor named Clifton Snider has claimed, “The special nature of universities protects professors from being question[ed] about their lectures.”
This assertion forms part of Snider’s defense after he came under attack by Town Hall columnist Mike Adams for ideologically biased assignments in his Introductory English class. Snider, in a remarkably similar situation to the Vinay Lal “Democracy in America” course UCLA about which I’ve previously written, listed a variety of suggested topics for a required opinion essay.
Some of Snider’s suggested topics are ideologically neutral; others are blatantly one-sided, all in one direction: i.e., “Energy (nuclear, solar, fossil, synthetic fuels, etc.). A related topic is Dick Cheney's secret conference on energy policy. Why hasn't the administration revealed who participated and should it reveal this information? Also important is the fact that, as Kevin Phillips writes, "four generations of the [Bush] dynasty have chased [oil] profits through cozy ties with Mideast leaders, spinning webs of conflicts of interest”; “The Economy (tax cuts, the military budget, education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, etc.). Under President Clinton, the Federal Government had a handle on the national debt. Now the Bush administration is passing that debt on to the post-baby-boom generation”; “Should Justice Sandra Day O'Connor have been impeached for her partisan, political actions in the Bush v. Gore case of December 2000?”; “George W. Bush's time in the National Guard presents important questions about the character of a man who has sent hundreds of Americans to their deaths in war and killed and maimed untold thousands of others”; “Is it right for the Bush Administration to use the War on Terrorism for political or commercial purposes?”; “What evidence do we have that Mr. Bush and his cronies lied to the American people and the world in promoting the war with Iraq?”; “Discuss how the war has effected [sic] our relationship with other countries in the Middle East.”
More alarming—this is, remember, in an opinion essay requirement—Snider excludes students from writing about a host of positions that would be considered “conservative,” such as support for prayer in public schools, opposition to same-sex marriage, support for “the so-called faith-based initiative,” opposition to abortion, and opposition to hate crime laws. These are topics, the professor informs his students, “on which there is, in my opinion, no other side apart from chauvinistic, religious, or bigoted opinions and pseudo-science.” In an even more chilling statement, he adds, “Neither homophobia nor racism can be tolerated in civilized, rational debate; therefore, I will not accept either as arguments, however disguised, in your papers.” Except for hate-crime laws, I personally agree with Snider’s position on all of these issues. But to inform students that in an opinion paper, taking positions that disagree with those of the professor can constitute “homophobia” or “racism,” “however disguised,” is astonishing. To date, the administration at Long Beach has done nothing about the issue, but obviously no student who disagreed with Snider on political issues could run the risk of expressing their viewpoints in the class assignments.
The Massad and Snider cases are reminders that academic freedom is not an absolute right. First, as Snider seems not to have realized, it carries with it a presupposition that professors specialized training gives them a right to teach their subjects free from outside interference. When, as Snider seems to be doing, professors simply attempt to force students to agree with their political opinions, politicians can legitimately ask why they don't have a right to ensure balance--at least at public universities. Meanwhile, academic freedom is not a right solely possessed by professors--students also have the right to a college education free from ideological intimidation by professors, something that Massad and his cohort seems to have forgotten. My sense, unfortunately, is that problems like these two cases will become increasingly common, as departments that employ ideological litmus tests in the hiring process grow increasingly isolated from any dissenting viewpoints, and so they come to believe that behavior such as Massad's or Snider's represents an appropriate approach to the job of a college professor.
Swing Aloha!
What do Dick Cheney, Al Gore and Alexandra Kerry have in common? They're coming to the latest and oddest entrant in the "look at me, I'm a swing state!" category: Hawai'i. Clinton did video chats with our TV stations, too. Hawai'i has been a solidly Democratic state, so reliable that only incredibly popular incumbent Republican presidents (Nixon, Reagan) have won here since statehood forty-five years ago. The last time a member of the national ticket campaigned here was in 1960: VP candidate Richard Nixon visited Hawai'i. But now we have a Republican governor (inexplicably endorsed by my own faculty union, for all the good that did us), Linda Lingle, who is campaigning hard for Bush/Cheney here and nationally, and the game is afoot.
The combination of strong labor unions (Hawai'i is still, I think, the most unionized state in the union, so to speak) and a solidly Democratic Japanese American community (the largest ethnicity in the state) has kept this state one of the least contested, most political machine-like in the country. But demographics (rising Caucasian numbers in particular, plus a softening of Japanese American support for the Democrats), the relative decline of union strength, the centrality of military affairs to the islands and the rise of a more diverse business community (which routinely votes its own state as the worst in the nation for doing business) has produced a tidal shift. Democrats still control the state legislature, but not as overwhelmingly as they used to.
There are some more specific issues at play in Hawai'i. As the AP story above notes, "With the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, Hawaii has none of the economic problems that many states on the mainland have. The islands are in the midst of a construction boom. Tourism is soaring after recovering from the Sept. 11 attacks." [Rant-On] Of course that's not what we were hearing from our governor when we were negotiating, but it's the story she tells in post-debate 'spin alley.' I still think we should have had the strike vote. [Rant-Off] That doesn't mean that anyone can afford to live here, of course, and that's a point that the new crop of TV ads is targeting. Lots of Hawai'i-based military forces are in, or are training for, Iraq and Afghanistan, and though they are considered generally pro-Bush, there's some undercurrents of concern as well, particularly among our heavily mobilized National Guard population. Democrats say, nervously, it's still a strong Kerry state; Republicans are crowing about being competitive and pulling out the stops in local campaigns (I've gotten a whole bunch of automated phone "poll" calls and my mailbox is dripping with Republican flyers). All I can say is that I feel sorry for you folks on the mainland if you have to wait until our polls close at 11pm Eastern Time.
p.s. Here is the single weirdest (non-terrorist related) election scenario I've read yet: Acting President John Edwards.
p.p.s. Adam Kotsko has some proposals for the next election cycle. He's an idealist, as am I, but that doesn't mean we're wrong.
History Exams, Pre-History, and A Great Shout ...
I was amused yesterday by the comment at Peasants Under Glass that "Grading your first midterms is probably kind of like the feeling you get the first time your son or daughter calls and asks you to post bail." Yes, well, I suppose so. I know what grading mid-terms feels like, but my mother didn't tell me how it felt when she got that call.
Over at Baraita, Naomi Chana had the Red Sox in mind when she asked what event from the Hebrew Bible most closely parallels the final victory in the World Series. For chronology, she suggests the restoration under Zerrubabel (Ezra 3 ff; Zechariah 4 ff); but, in terms of reaction, Chana suggests that Elijah's confrontation with the prophets of Baal (I Kings 18:25 ff) may be more appropriate. Not satisfied with either analogue, she solicits suggestions and asks if it would be a fair extra credit question on a test.
Micah, one of Chana's readers, was reminded of an extra credit question in a high school course on pre-historic people in "Early World History." "What proto-human does your instructor most resemble?" The multiple choice options included: Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and Australopithecus, says Micah, but everyone who read the book knew that Mr. ****** looked exactly like the picture of Australopithecus. It was one of those "I know that you know that I know" moments, Micah continues, but do you check the right answer, get the extra credit, and admit that you'd thought of the resemblance already or do you opt for "none of the above" out of respect? In any case, Mr. ****** was one of Micah's favorite teachers and he thinks that he gave the right answer. For some reason, Mr. ******'s question reminded me of the discovery of homo floresiensis, but I suppose Mr. ****** was more than three feet tall.
Micah suggests that the children of Israel's repeated marches around the walls of Jericho (Joshua 6) may be the best analogue to the Red Sox victory. "So the people shouted, and the trumpets were blown. As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpet, the people raised a great shout, and the people raised a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city." (6:20) It's odd that I thought that I remembered "the people raised a great shout" of rejoicing after the walls "came a tumblin' down." Their shouts preceded it, summoning stone from stone. So, the faith of Boston fans, year in and year out, presaged victory at the last.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
From the History Bloggers ...
From Peasants Under Glass: "Grading your first midterms is probably kind of like the feeling you get the first time your son or daughter calls and asks you to post bail."
At No Loss for Words, Danny Loss reflects on a lecture by Richard Evans about what we can know.
Michael Tinkler, the Cranky Professor, contemplates "Numerology" as a way of structuring an introduction to European Studies.
In this election season, AJ at No Great Matter interviews Francis Parkman, who is a bit grumpy about several things.
Nathanael Robinson at Rhine River and Brandon Watson at Siris are discussing the "Massachusetts Liberal Senator" and "Texas Republican Fundamentalist" tropes. Nathanael also has an interesting post on the social production of space.
At Mode for Caleb, Caleb McDaniel explains why "family values" are not Christian values.
Over at Chapati Mystery, Manan Ahmed looks at efforts to ban "honor killings" in Pakistan.
At Rebunk, Derek Catsam has the net's best post on the Red Sox winning the World Series.
Noted Here and There ...
Our colleague, Hugo Schwyzer, has been doing a little modest bragging about his syblings. Of particular interest to Cliopatria is the publication by his brother, Philip Schwyzer of the University of Exeter, of Literature, Nationalism, and Memory in Early Modern England and Wales.
As Andrew Sullivan notes, the debate about Abraham Lincoln's sexuality will be renewed in March when Free Press publishes C. A. Tripp's book, The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln. Doug Ireland has a foretaste of it in the LA Weekly. Color me skeptical.
Phil Carter, who does a well respected blog called Intel Dump, has an important article in the Washington Monthly, "The Road to Abu Ghraib". He begins by saying that "A generation from now, historians may look back to April 28, 2004, as the day the United States lost the war in Iraq. On that date, CBS News broadcast the first ugly photographs of abuses by American soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison." Read the whole thing. Thanks to Abu Aardvark for the tip.
The competition for attention at History News Network is getting intense. Rebunk just won the World Series for the first time in 86 years. Liberty & Power just welcomed Nicholas von Hoffman as a guest blogger. They've also got some new mystery blogger over there named "Tex" who no one seems to know. I ‘spose that if a family gets large enough, there may be someone in it you haven't actually met yet. But von Hoffman. Hmm. I'd forgotten just how sharp his tongue could be. What must Cliopatria do to keep up with all this competition? Win the Miss Collegiality Award at the AHA Convention in Seattle, maybe? Well, jeez, KC Johnson already almost lost tenure at Brooklyn College for not showing enough leg on that score! What if we recruit David Brooks? Probably not. He's occupying some real expensive real estate already and the recent reviews of his work aren't actually all that good. Christopher Hitchens, perhaps? Boy, has he learned to game the system! He figured out that you can get a royalty from the Nation by endorsing Bush; and a royalty from Slate by endorsing Kerry! (Tip o' the hat to Jim Lindgren at Volokh) Is Hitchens the original flip-flopper or is it Christopher/drunk v Hitchens/sober? If it's the latter, which is which? And, as for the competition at HNN, let's ponder that ...
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Magic, Real Magic, in the Academy
Muhlenberg College has spent tens of thousands of dollars developing courses and bringing speakers to study, and to use as an inspiration to learning, stage magic.
There's elements of popular culture studies, cognitive and perceptual psychology, theater, philosophy as a search for meaning, and apparently a few other things in there.....
Claptrap? Inspired Pedagogy? Edutainment?
And if that doesn't get your attention: Who owns your work? Congress has made it easier for Universities to own intellectual property produced by its members (including students), and it's paying off. So, if you write a textbook, or a popular history, how long before the University is looking for a cut?
The Foam at My Mouth ...
Like Jimmy Carter, my friend, Clayton Cramer, is at it again. He asks: Is The History Profession In Deep Trouble? It's a legitimate question, but then he says: "Dr. Ralph Luker started to foam at the mouth a while back because I made it clear that there were serious problems of politicized inaccuracy (I'm being polite) in the profession." Did I foam? Perhaps it was the drool of an aged historian. I'm known in some circles as a slob. Maybe it was slobber. A bit of froth from my beer, perhaps. But thanks for the reminder, Clayton. I'll remember to tidy up for gun-loving Idaho sophisticates.
Just to remind you, I took exception to Cramer's attack on historians like Jonathan Dresner and Greg Robinson for their criticism of Michelle Malkin's dreadful book on Japanese internment, to his sweeping charges against "the vast majority of history professors teaching in the U.S." as not adhering to "professional standards", to his claim that "the Communist Party, USA still has a significant fraction of college professors as members", and to his use of Professor Laurence Tribe's embarrassment on plagiarism charges as evidence of pervasive abandonment of "professional standards" by academic professionals.
I would not foam about these things, except that Brother Cramer makes broadscale accusations like these, without offering convincing evidence, to a substantial public audience. He gives us a clue that his motivation for all this may lie in his resentment of the academic community, which has apparently not renewed his adjuncting contract at Boise State. That M.A. from Sonoma State just doesn't seem to cut it with the boys in Boise any more. But, ahh, sweet vindication now for Clayton when someone with "the right credentials" says "the same thing" Cramer's been saying all along. And so he quotes from Matthew Price's "Hollow History," a review of Peter Hoffer's Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Fraud -- American History from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis, and Goodwin for the Boston Globe:
In his new book, "Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Fraud -- American History from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis, and Goodwin" (PublicAffairs), Hoffer contends that his profession "has fallen into disarray" and aims a polemical blast at his fellow historians for condoning sloppy scholarship and an anything-goes ethical climate.There is no denying that Hoffer offers a severe indictment of the practice of American history, but he does it with the discipline learned by its professional training. He makes an argument and offers substantiating evidence. There's no hint of post-McCarthyite smear of professors making up a significant part of the CP, USA; there's no generalizing from one embarrassed professor of law at Harvard to the whole academic community; there's no broadscale indictment of "the vast majority of history professors teaching in the U.S." Hoffer would be quick to recognize that Clayton Cramer's labeling Dresner and Robinson a "truth squad" intent on burning Malkin's book is amusing, in light of his own one modest accomplishment, helping to expose Michael Bellesiles's Arming America as a fraud.A specialist in Colonial history and American jurisprudence, Hoffer is a respected scholar whose previous work has generally earned the esteem of his peers. Now, setting himself up as judge, jury, and executioner, Hoffer puts historians in the dock -- and throws the book at them.
"American history," he writes, "is two-faced" -- split between celebratory popularizers who often value rousing narrative over scholarly rigor and academic specialists whose jargon-riddled, often dour monographs ignore the ordinary reader. Meanwhile, Hoffer accuses the American Historical Association (AHA), where he has served as an adviser on plagiarism and a member of its professional standards division, of abdicating its responsibility to enforce basic scholarly principles in both realms.
Incidentally, my young friend, Andrew Ackerman, who covered the Bellesiles story when he was editor of the Emory Wheel, wasn't impressed by Price's "Hollow History." You can read his criticism of its account of the Bellesiles story at Outside Report. Oh, and the Reporters need to correct their masthead. Andrew's a hobo no more. He's gainfully employed at The Nation. There's a dig to be dug there (hint: what national journal was most supportive of Bellesiles's case long after all was lost?), but the guy needs the job.
But, enough of the big, bad wolf, go over to Mode for Caleb and think with Caleb McDaniel about Perry Miller and "Essays, Pieces, and Posts." It's more nourishing.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Northern Great Plains History Conference
Starting Wednesday, the annual Northern Great Plains History Conference meets in beautiful Bismarck ND This year there’s a major focus on the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. In fact, regional history usually dominates the conference, but the range of topics is wide. As an example, I’m giving a paper on the suppression of a slave revolt in South Carolina. Good scholarship and good people make it a pleasurable part of each Fall.
The Conference is a movable feast. Last year it was in Fargo; before that Minneapolis. Next year it will be hosted by UW-Eau Claire, one of my campuses.
I am sure politics will be a big part of the lobby and bar talk, unless the Cardinals do us a favor and prolong the series. In any event, I get a day or two away from my home phone. That's good, because these days it is under constant assault from the forces of virtue, who are getting out the vote and panhandling for way more than a dime.
Take care.
History and Science: Sunspots
It's easy to forget how long people have been doing science. For example, we have decent sunspot data going back at least four hundred years:
Of course, people didn't really know what sunspots were until quite recently, and I don't think we're quite sure of their function/role in stellar development quite yet, but we do have a much better sense of what they are and what they do. And it matters: as the article points out, sunspots and other solar activity sends radiation and ionization through the whole solar system, affecting communications and, for those select few, travel.
The article isn't about history of science, except insofar as it's about the refinement of the 11-year sun cycle theory. But the chart caught my eye (particularly that late 17c lull).
World Opinion in US Elections
If the whole world could vote in the US elections.... we'd probably need more lawyers.
Seriously, though, I don't think there's ever been a presidential election in which the opinion of the rest of the world was as important as this one. I have very mixed feelings about that, to be honest, but if the president of the US is 'the leader of the free world' (and whatever other countries we deem allies of convenience) then we have to at least note what our words and actions mean to the rest of the world.
With that in mind, I offer two sources on world opinion, one serious and one worthless internet poll. For decent reporting on world affairs, the World Press Review Online remains the gold standard: not quick or comprehensive, but selective and effective reporting. They have two articles of relevance: "Poll shows 8 out of 10 countries back Kerry" and the "US Elections 2004" page which samples opinion from a variety of sources.
For a wildly imprecise snapshot, there's nothing like an on-line poll. An Australian friend forwarded me a link to http://www.betavote.com/, where anyone can identify their nationality and cast a vote. George Bush is leading, as of this moment, in Lichtenstein and Niger, and within striking distance (their idea of "statistical tie" is anything within ten percentage points, apparently) in Afghanistan, Barbados, the Cocos Islands, Comoros, Congo, the Cook Islands, Iraq, Kiribati, North Korea (DPRK), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mayotte, Montserratt, Myanmar (Burma), Niue, Norfolk Island, Pitcairn, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Turkmenistan, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the Western Sahara (Only Afghanistan exceeds 400 votes cast at this point). Bush is showing strongly in Africa and on small islands, in other words. Yes, I know it's nearly worthless data -- if it was worth anything as a real poll, it would show Bush leading in Israel and Russia and a tie in the US -- but it's data nonetheless.
Our standing in the world really is at stake. First, if we can't clean up the election process, we're going to have to put up with a lot of pointed comments about our hypocritical attempts to spread a dying system of representative democracy. Second, if we reelect George Bush, we're clearly going to have to make our case to the world all over again, and other nations will increasingly take the lead in regional and perhaps even world affairs. Don't be fooled: Kerry will give greater attention to the opinions of our allies and the world in general as a way of making our agenda theirs, but Bush will be ignored, except where he can bribe and bully, and our ability to do those things is slipping away by the hour.
Update: For what it's worth, Tom Friedman agrees with me:
I have been struck by how many foreign dignitaries have begged me lately for news that Bush will lose. This Bush team has made itself so radioactive it glows in the dark. When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world. When much of the world detests George Bush, America has less power. People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade
If the Bush team wins re-election, unless it undergoes a policy lobotomy and changes course and tone, the breach between America and the rest of the world will only get larger. But all Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney have told us during this campaign is that they have made no mistakes and see no reason to change.
Are we Americans?
The Senator from Massachusetts has become so insulting in politics that one wonders whether the state is actually American. The Gadflyer's Paul Waldman examines how "Massachusetts" figures into the rhetoric of the presidential campaign, capturing some of the frustration that people are feeling out here (something Robert Reich noted months earlier) at the constant disparaging of the state. Will we soon question whether or not the Senate is American?
Update: Tom Toles cartoon from the Washington Post.
Carnival Time
Brandon at Siris has posted the call for contributions to Carnivalesque #2:
The Early Modernists' Carnival, Carnivalesque, is coming to Houyhnhnm Land (pronounced "whinnim" or "hwinnimn"), my other weblog. The date will be November 5 (subject to change). If you have written a post in September or October (the first few days of November will be OK, too), or have in surfing the blogosphere come across a post, on the early modern period (broadly conceived - from about 1450 to 1850), send it my way. You can email me through the "Email" link at Houyhnhnm Land, or directly through the following address:
branem2[at]branemrys[dot]org
(With @ for [at] and . for [dot], of course.)
Since H.L. is devoted primarily to early modern philosophy, posts in that area, or in the general history of ideas in the early modern period, will be especially welcome; however, this is in no way a requirement. Also, if you have a post that's primarily on the late medieval period, or on the post-early-modern period, which would be of interest to early modernists in any way, we're interested in that, too.
Anyone who is not quite sure what a blog carnival is, please do visit the Carnivalesque page for some information and links to established carnivals.
Now, what about a History Carnival? I mean, look at all those history blogs over there in the blogroll...
History Blogroll ...
This summer, I learned of a large number of blogs by younger historians and graduate students. Their efforts ought to have greater visibility in the blogosphere, I thought. So, early in September, I posted about some of them at Cliopatria. Some people called attention to others and I did some more looking. Thanks to HNN's Rick Shenkman, Cliopatria now has a new "History Blogroll". Look in the right hand column and scroll down below "Other Media." There's a cornucopia of over fifty history blogs to be explored there. Many of them are old friends of Cliopatria; others of them will surely be new to you.
Monday, October 25, 2004
On Scatology ...
I'm usually more into eschatology than scatology, but I'm also feeling the urge on this one. Yesterday, I sent HNN's Rick Shenkman a link to this BBC story about German archaeologists having found the lavatory in which Martin Luther was said to have labored through his problems with, well, his justification and realized finally that he was justified by faith alone. I asked Rick to handle the story gently, because I do love my Luther! So, Rick kindly posted the story over on the HNN mainpage with no comment. Now one of Andrew Sullivan's readers sends him this note about the story:
Having mis-spent my youth in grad school studying late medieval and early modern European intellectual history, I can now -- 20 years after leaving academia -- shed some valuable light for you and your readers (as well as for the BBC News).I'm obliged to tell you that I've got a decent seminary education. I've read a number of Luther biographies, but I'm no expert on the subject. If some of our medieval or early modern European historians or church historians could convincingly show us what is "s***" and what is "S******", I'd appreciate it.
When Luther said he made his discovery 'in cloaca' (literally translated 'on the toilet'), he was using one of a long list of late medieval theological-scatological phrases that meant 'in deepest humility' or in a state of profound 'worthlessness' (i.e., like shit).
So when Luther described arriving at his big theological conclusion 'in cloaca', he (like hundreds of other theologians of the time) was not making a literal reference to his bathroom routine. If this sounds strange ... today, it shouldn't. The English language still uses lots of scat lingo (e.g., 'up shit creek without a paddle') to express extreme emotions or for emphasis. ('No shit!', you might say).
So once again, on major matters of import, the BBC News doesn't know 'shit from Shinola' or its 'ass from a hole in the ground.'"
Muslim Vote
In today's column, Will Safire writes that the majority of Arab Americans will be voting for Kerry. But the majority of Jewish Americans will also be voting for Kerry! His overall point is that the Jewish Americans should vote en bloc for Bush because Kerry's policies are mere me-toos while Bush has a record as a staunch ally of Israel. Safire can make that point without mentioning at all the Muslim Americans but he makes the implicit argument that if the Muslim/Arab voters can have a collective understanding, why can't the Jewish voters do the same?
The truth is that there is no real difference in the policies of either candidates with regards to Israel. Kerry panders as much as anyone else for the Jewish vote. On the other hand, at least one group, the media-savvy Muslims for Bush claim that Kerry has not pandered enough to the Muslim bloc and, hence, does not deserve their vote. In their view, it is Bush who has consistently supported Muslim Americans while Kerry never even met with any Muslim groups and is, also, weak on the Patriot Act [How is the guy who enacted Patriot Act better?]. A quick web search on the respective candidates' official websites disproves that. There is no page for Arab Americans or Muslim Americans on georgewbush.com. There is no statement on civil rights or the Patriot Act (the site's search kept crashing on account of having to search through so many internets, maybe). There is, at least, a page on John Kerry's website for Arab Americans, as well a statement on the beginning of Ramadan. There are also a bunch of links on Kerry's commitment to anti-profiling, fair adjudication etc. There is even a fact-sheet.
Back to the Muslim bloc. The party claiming to represent the Muslim American bloc is the American Muslim Taskforce. They are an umbrella organization over the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and various smaller groups. Last week after much hemming and hawing, they finally unveiled their qualified endorsement for Kerry. The qualification was that Kerry has not done enough to protest the civil right abuses under the Bush administration:
Following careful consideration of overall U.S. interests, interaction with presidential campaign officials and extensive input from the Islamic community, the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections - Political Action Committee (AMT-PAC) is calling on Muslims nationwide to cast a protest vote for Sen. John Kerry. While the Kerry campaign has critiqued a number of Bush administration polices, it has so far failed to explicitly affirm support for due process, equal justice and other constitutional norms. We are also disappointed that his campaign has shied away from expressing unambiguous support for principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution that prohibit use of ex post facto laws, secret proceedings and secret evidence.Seems like the AMT is hedging its bets and not wanting to seriously piss off the Bush administration. They say they got to this endorsement by doing town hall meetings in more than 70 mosques and community centers across America. Maybe they should have asked Zogby whose Sep. 22nd poll showed a 76% support for Kerry. Pretty unqualified in my opinion.
My anecdotal reading is that the Muslim American community is largely culturally conservative and would tend to go Republican BUT Ashcroft has scared them off at least this administration (on a side note, I will be Ashcroft this Halloween!). I do not think that the Democrats will hold this bloc that easily. They will need solid civil liberties re-assurance as well as some movement on the Immigration reforms.
Will the Muslim Vote, like the NASCAR Fathers, the Security Moms be the demographic du jour for the next few days? Let's see. One thing is for sure, it will play a role in Michigan and Ohio.
Noted Here and There ...
I'll trade you two Walter Benjamins for one Derrida. Nathanael Robinson at Rhine River calls attention to the trade in theory cards. Get yours early, before Adam Kotsko corners the market. That, by the way, is a link to AK's endorsements for president and vice president, but do not follow his advice. Votes for "John" Stewart and Belle Waring will not elect the comedian you want as president, though it would elect one of the smartest people west of Singapore as vice president. We hope AK used spell check on his graduate school applications. [AK has corrected his post. He recommends Jon Stewart and Belle Waring.]
Meanwhile, one of the smartest people east of Singapore, the Cliopatriarch of Wales, is still giggling about our "twiddle diddles." I'm thinking of bringing her up on charges of having impure and uncliopatriarchal thoughts.
Do not even consider the possibility that the Red Sox could take a 3-0 lead in the World Series and then lose it in seven. Just thinking about the histrionic thrashing and moaning over at Rebunk is more than I can bear.
More seriously, Eugene Volokh is absolutely clear-headed about free speech rights. Your free speech rights include the right to say whatever vile, disgusting, and idiotic thing you choose to say; and my free speech rights include the right to say that it is vile, disgusting, and idiotic. Free speech rights are protections from restraint by governing authority. They do not exempt you or me from criticism for what we have said.
My friend, Richard Morgan, objected to my fellow Methodists charging our denominational kinsmen, George Bush and Dick Cheney, with "crime, immorality, disobedience" to the order and discipline of the church here. I assume that he will have similar objection to Andrew Sullivan's charge of "criminal negligence" here.
Ed Cohn at Gnostical Turpitude, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, and the HNN mainpage call our attention to Matthew Price's "Hollow History," a review of Peter Hoffer's Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Fraud -- American History from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis, and Goodwin for the Boston Globe. I'll have more to say about both it and Ron Robin's Scandals & Scoundrels: Seven Cases That Shook the Academy in a review essay for Christian Century and HNN. In the meantime, of course, there is evidence that some of us are still "scandalizing our name." It looks like the academic zoo needs a sign that says: "Do not feed the ditto heads!"
Finally, I recommend Scott McLemee's NYT review of Gertrude Himmelfarb's The Roads To Modernity: The British, French, and American Enlightenments and an interesting discussion of it at Crooked Timber. McLemee's been "woo hooing" about getting removed to the "Lumber Room" at Crooked Timber. That's apparently not the same as getting taken to the wood shed.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
"Flip-Flopping" Newspapers
For those who've missed it, Editor and Publisher keeps a running update of newspaper editorial endorsements. Thus far, 33 newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000 have endorsed Kerry in 2004, while only two that went for Gore in 2000 have urged a vote for Bush this year. Newspapers endorsements don't have the effect that they once did, but in a state such as Florida, where all the major papers have now come out for Kerry, this can make for a very effective campaign ad.
Meanwhile, lest he be bested by Tom Coburn, Alan Keyes returned to his usual peculiar ways in a debate late last week with Barack Obama. Among Keyes' better lines: "the persecution of our Christian citizens," "social self-destruction," "the use of the body in this way is ... an abomination," "no one has the information necessary to avoid incest," and "gun-control mentality is ruth-less-ly absurd." He also compared women who seek abortions to slaveholders. (In Oklahoma, James Dobson is doing what he can to ensure that the Coburn campaign continues to lead the way in bizarre commentary. At a rally for Coburn, Dobson claimed that gay marriage "will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth"; of Vermont senator Patrick Leahy, he remarked, "I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people.")
Meanwhile, the year's potentially biggest House upset might occur in Illinois, where longtime GOP representative (and 1980 presidential candidate) Phil Crane appears to be in trouble, despite representing a strongly Republican district. Last week, the normally reliably Republican Chicago Tribune endorsed Crane's Democratic challenger, Melissa Bean, a few days before it issued a truly glowing endorsement of Obama, which was far more enthusiastic than its recommendation of Bush's re-election.
Finally, Oregon has a long tradition of being a bit too goody-goody in the electoral process. Among the first states to adopt the initiative and referendum, most recently it made news when it became the first state to go to all-mail ballots. Secretary of State Bill Bradbury dismissed concerns of fraud--and thus far has not been forced to eat his words.
In the name of providing voters with the maximum amount of information, Bradbury's office also recently instituted a policy of allowing prominent policymakers and organizations to include position statements for or against referenda questions. The "pro" side on the anti-gay marriage referendum makes for interesting reading, since a satirist created a variety of anti-gay marriage organizations and then submitted statements that somehow got by the secretary of state's office and were included in the voters' guide as real positions. I'm not sure, however, that there's anything here with which Alan Keyes would disagree.
Pardon My Cancer ...
I'm six weeks late in writing about this, because September was Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. It tends not to get as much attention as it ought to have, but I have it. I'm not a very good patient and the procedures can be unpleasant. At one point, I was on the verge of unimaginatively yelling "Fascist Pigs!" at my care givers. But, fortunately, if you will, it's been a long ordeal. I had surgery about six years ago. The surgeons couldn't get all the malignant tissue, so in the meantime I've had radiation therapy; and I am now on hormone therapy. Most of the time, I don't even think about it because I'm a survivor in remission, but the other day my pharmacist called me aside. He noticed that I was on a medication that his doctor had recently prescribed for him, when a bone scan revealed that the malignancy was now in his spine. "I wouldn't worry about it," I said. "You've got a whole life to live ahead of you." That's my attitude; but take my advice. Men over forty should have regular checkups and do what the doctor tells you. If you live long enough, you probably will have prostate cancer at some point. You have choices to make about it; you have more work to do and more life to live.
Another [bleep] Baseball Analogy, or, We are the Yankees
While most of us breath a sigh of relief at the defeat of the Major Leagues Hegemonic Power (I have family reasons to favor the Cardinals in the World Series; a Red Sox win, would however, end four score and six years of Bostonian groaning over structural deficits compounded by a statistical aberration, and that would be a great boon to all of us), let me offer a sobering thought: We are the Yankees. Americans, I mean. Still not getting it? Our pleasure at seeing the consistently dominant and very annoying Yankees defeated is a near-perfect parallel to the satisfaction so many in the world get when the United States is set back, hurt, humiliated.
We live in the biggest economy in the world, we suck talent and resources away from the rest of the world, and in head-to-head competition we beat everyone the vast majority of the time; worse, we do so with great pride, mocking their fallen and faulting our own only when we lose. We win, which makes us interesting, noteworthy, but not terribly attractive except as a teaching tool and testing bench. Our leaders strut and tinker, with great power but little moral authority, block reforms that would make the game more interesting because that would mean a dilution of our power.
Now, we've come on strong, delivered a series of devastating defeats to our enemies.... but the series isn't over yet and our power may not be a match for their endurance, their will, the accumulated humiliation and rage. This isn't a game; this isn't a fantastic analogy, either; but if we think the world loves us because they pay attention when we're on the field, then we are not paying attention to whom they are actually rooting for.
[comments disabled on this post]
Jokes, Certitude, and Last Words ...
For my friends on the secular left who've opposed or favored the American invasion of Iraq, I'd like to cite several very different statements. First, there is this initiative by two of my fellow Methodists that calls on our fellow Methodists, George Bush and Dick Cheney, to repent of their "crime, immorality, disobedience to the order and discipline of The United Methodist Church (UMC), and dissemination of doctrine contrary to the established standards of doctrine of the UMC." Naive, yes; provincial, maybe; but it is a legitimate call to accountability within our denomination. It is irritating that Oxblog's David Adesnik says it is probably not "a joke," while mocking it as the work of "damn intolerant Christian fundamentalist liberals." He follows with an urbane secular humanist's condescension about what is and what is not legitimate doctrinal debate. Given conditions in Iraq and Adesnik's certitude that the invasion was the thing to do, it is interesting to have record of it and what is and what is not a "politicizing" of Christianity. Finally, there is Norm Geras's "The Last Word on the Iraq War." "There was," he argues, "no persuasive moral case against the Iraq war." That is consistent with his long held position. Odd that it is unqualified by all that we have subsequently learned.
Why do secular people tend, almost inevitably, to dismiss all of us who take religious belief seriously as "fundamentalists," even when we clearly are not? What pleasure do they find in the spectacle of the children of G_d killing and maiming other children of G_d, in whatever cause? So long as the killing goes on, Norm, there is no "last word." It is not ours to pronounce. Of all the parties in our current discussions, David, I should think that Christian liberals might be the last to deserve to be called "damn intolerant." The belief that absolute certainty is hidden in the inscrutable mind of G_d is a powerful restraint on all claims to pronouncing the "last word." When and if it is given, the joke may be on you.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Will the real W please stand up?
Two interesting sources deal with the abstractness of President Bush, his ideas and the idea of Bush himself. Mark Kaplan of Charlotte Street reads W into Joyce's description of Parnell:
The blankness of Bush, his emptyness, the absence of distinctive qualities... these are not to be thought of in contradiction to his status as 'leader'. On the contrary, they are essential components. Bush is nobody and everyone, a template that any American might fill. He can act as a cypher, a mouthpiece for other's voices (and this is of course given an uncannily literal twist).
On the more irreverent Fafblog, Medium Lobster concludes that Bush makes powerful use of ideas that transcend the limits of reality:
Any leader could have made the war on terror into a tedious, ongoing struggle to unearth and uproot a multi-tentacled terrorist organization while attempting to heal the rifts between the Muslim world and the West. But George Bush didn't just see the task: he saw the grand idea behind the task, and better still, the vague abstractions behind the grand idea. And he was willing to fight those vague abstractions. Terror, weapons of mass destruction - they may not have been really in Iraq, but the idea of them most certainly was. And that was an idea the world's only superpower had to confront with real troops...
Indeed, in time it may become possible that the distance between President Bush's ideas and his reality becomes so vast that he achieves pure abstraction - so that he himself is an idea, leading America not from the White House but from the Platonic Realm of Forms, where with but a thought he can eradicate the concept of Terror altogether. And that, my friends, is an idea worth standing for the concept of fighting for.
God's on My Side
As a Red Sox fan, I thoroughly enjoyed the recent series with the Yankees (unlike many of my students), although one event struck me as odd. After his remarkable Game 6 victory, when he played on an injured tendon in his ankle, Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling was asked to explain his performance. His response: before the game, “I prayed and prayed.” (Apparently, Schilling, a born-again Christian, hadn’t prayed enough before his disastrous Game 1 start, the most important game, to that time, in the team’s season.) I await the time when a reporter asks an athlete who gives such a response whether this means God didn’t help out the opposition player, or whether God allowed both sides to play to their utmost ability, but simply had endowed the victorious athlete with greater physical talents.
Nicholas Kristof’s column in this morning’s Times reminded me of Schilling’s comment. As Kristof observes, the Bible can be a flexible document, able to provide a rationalization for almost any political position, and he faults supporters of gay marriage for not engaging in the religious aspect of the battle. It would be hard, indeed, to argue that the Bible’s condemnations of homosexuality appear more often than calls to help the poor, for example.
Kristof’s column provides a reminder of what remains a potential hidden factor in this year’s election: the gay marriage debate. Anti-gay marriage amendments are on the ballot in two critical states for Kerry: Oregon and Michigan. Perhaps it’s a coincidence, but polls from both states show Bush staying surprisingly close. Huge Christian turnouts in either or both states could be enough to tip the margin to Bush. When added with a stunning poll in this morning’s Honolulu Advertiser showing Bush ahead of Kerry in Hawaii, the first state to outlaw gay marriage through a state constitutional amendment, the Kerry camp has ground for pause. (A poll at a comparable time in 2000 showed Gore ahead of Bush by 20 points in the Aloha State.)
The state constitutional amendment strategy, in reality, has an audience of one: Anthony Kennedy, since Kennedy would have to provide the fifth vote for any Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage. Anti-gay marriage activists clearly hope to pressure Kennedy into preserving the status quo by showing him that a decision allowing gay marriage would invalidate a host of state constitutional provisions. In this respect, the anti-gay marriage movement is even more aggressive than the opponents of civil rights from the 1950s and 1960s, who by and large refrained from going the state constitutional amendment route. The few states that did take this approach are still dealing with the consequences: a 2002 referendum to remove from Alabama’s state constitution the prohibition on interracial marriage (a ban illegal since 1967) passed with only 60 percent of the vote. This year, the state has a similar vote on removing references in the Alabama constitution to segregation by race.
Perhaps it’s God’s mandate for the United States to deal with the gay marriage issue for a prolonged period of time.
Notes on Higher Education ...
I hope you did not miss Hala Fattah's "The Politics of Mobility in Baghdad" yesterday at Cliopatria. (Thanks, by the way, to As'ad at Angry Arab and Brandon Watson at Siris for the links.) We're looking forward to hearing more from Hala in the near future about reform of higher education in Iraq.
When Eszter Hargittai posted at Crooked Timber about Duke's release of time to degree and rates of completion information in its doctoral programs, my colleague, Jonathan Dresner, took up the discussion at Cliopatria. At Positive Liberty, Johns Hopkins' graduate student, Jason Kuzniki, looked at the average of nine years it took Duke students to complete a doctorate in history and the graduate school's 64% completion rate and declared: "This, my friends, is obscene." His concluding point:
The academy is the last economic sector still based essentially on the rules of medieval guilds, where masters get labor out of journeymen, and journeymen get the promise of one day becoming a master. And the academy suffers precisely the same problems that its economic ancestor did: oversupply of labor, conventionalism, inflexibility with regard to market demand, and just plain insularity (Honestly, how many people read academic history books anyway?). One way or another, ending the guild system would end all of these problems.The whole self-confidant rant is worth reading, but it gets even more interesting when David Bell, the director of Kuzniki's doctoral program, comments on the post. Unsurprisingly, they agree that arrangements for graduate students in history at Johns Hopkins are not so bad, after all, but that graduate students at a place like Ohio State "do indeed become indentured servants of the worst kind." Is anyone at Ohio State paying attention to this? The whole discussion reminded me of many discussions we used to have at Invisible Adjunct and that the Ohio States are much more characteristic of American higher education than the Johns Hopkins are.
Finally, I have to take note of this particular bit of idiocy cited over on the HNN mainpage. Some hapless reporter at the University of Alberta begins her breathless story: "The long-held belief that we are living in the 21st century is under fire, as new research suggests that traditional dates may be off by about 1000 years." Natalie, dear, we do not have universal concurrence in a calendar that calls this the 21st century. It's an arbitrary construct based on Christian, indeed Western Christian, assumptions, which are off by a matter of five or six years, but no millenium. Whatever conclusions the Russian scientists may reach, they won't modify those assumptions. It surprises me when someone is so unknowingly captive of such a view of history and thinks it is being challenged in ways that don't really challenge it at all.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Ferguson
I hate to displace Hala’s excellent post from its deserved place at the top of the blog, but Niall Ferguson’s article in the Hoover Digest is a bit surprising. His recent re-examinations of empire have been enlightening. Now they may have crossed the lines of playful reassessment:
the alternative to a single superpower is not a multilateral utopia but the anarchic nightmare of a new Dark Age. … We tend to assume that power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. In the history of world politics, it seems, someone is always the hegemon or bidding to become it …
Anyone who dislikes U.S. hegemony should bear in mind that, rather than a multipolar world of competing great powers, a world with no hegemon at all may be the real alternative to U.S. primacy. Apolarity could turn out to mean an anarchic new Dark Age—an era of waning empires and religious fanaticism; of endemic plunder and pillage in the world’s forgotten regions; of economic stagnation and civilization’s retreat into a few fortified enclaves.
This article will take some time to digest. Initially, I am not convinced by Ferguson’s argument. He offers the world the choice between fragmentation and American hard power—the Bush doctrine is better than the alternative (perhaps I am overinterpreting). However, he (of all people) should realize that every hegemonic power must establish itself within its milieu, adjusting to new technologies, socio-political configurations and geo-political networks. The best empires use hard power sparingly.
The Fox News/NPR Effect
The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland has a fascinating poll, completed in early October, on how the source of citizens’ news and their political affiliation affects their views on factual issues. Some of the findings:
---47% of Bush supporters still believe that Iraq had WMD, while 25% more believe that Iraq had a major program for developing the weapons;
---57% believe that the Duelfer Report concluded Iraq had a major WMD program;
---56% think that most experts argued that Iraq had WMD;
---55% think that the 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
Kerry supporters have the overwhelmingly opposite viewpoints on each of these questions.
What’s going on here? To a considerable extent, such numbers are one effect of the changing nature of the media—what could be called the “Fox News” effect, or, in reverse, the “NPR effect”—in which voters can now receive news that fits their ideological inclinations. Such seems to be the case with Kentucky senator Jim Bunning, who admitted yesterday that he had not heard about the U.S. reservists who had refused an order to go on a dangerous patrol in Iraq. According to the senator, “I don't watch the national news, and I don't read the paper. I haven't done that for the last six weeks. I watch Fox News to get my information.”
This type of political climate—extreme partisan polarization, partisan news sources—is not unprecedented in American history, making it worth going back to one of the finest books in political history, Michael McGerr’s The Decline of Popular Politics. McGerr set out to explain the decline in voting participation between 1868 and 1924, contending that as an independent media and issue-oriented politics replaced a more emotional, party-oriented political culture, a substantial bloc of voters was marginalized. As signs point to an increased turnout this November—perhaps a vastly increased one—I wonder whether we’re currently experiencing a reverse of the phenomenon that McGerr described. Ironically, despite the healthy voter turnout rates, we don't usually consider the Gilded Age to be a high point in American politics. I wonder whether those who have lamented the poor voter turnout in the past will start recalling the 1970s and 1980s as the good old days in light of the contemporary political climate.
Thanks to Steve Jervis for the PIPA reference.
Jews v. Republicans
David Bernstein has been soliciting opinions on why American Jews tend to be not only Democrats, but fiercely anti-Republican. There's lots of decent, or at least half-decent reasons, but a lot of them are more presentist explanations than historical ones. So I'd like to offer not an ideological explanation, but a geographic one.
The cities in which most Jews initially settled were heavily Democratic (as most cities seemed to be in early 20c America), and part of the assimilative process would have been integrating with and absorbing the views of local politics. Once those biases were in place, they were sustained by mid-20c Republican positions targeting urban decadence, internationalism, civil rights movements, secularism, leftist politics (not to mention a rhetorical tendency to identify Jews with these positions), which would tend to confirm Jews' impressions of Republicans as hostile to Jewish identity and interests.
That the Jewish-Democratic bond is breaking down is no surprise. Bernstein correctly identifies some issues on which some or even many Jews might now (and most of these positions are pretty recent) prefer a Republican position to a Democratic one. But political affiliation, like Jewishness, is still more inherited than chosen for most people, and it's only recently that heavily Jewish communities have shifted toward balanced or majority Republican positions and Republicans have shifted their positions to be friendlier to Jewish interests.
I realize that it sounds a bit like Jews are chameleons and assimilators: that's not true. Rather, that's not more true for Jews than for any other immigrant group or strongly coherent religious or ethnic identity group. Politics, particularly political identity, is not an entirely rational process; the more we study it, the less rational it seems, in fact. It is tied up with culture, family, community, competing value systems, media and education. In a way, it's remarkable that we're as rational about it as we are....
The Politics of Mobility in Baghdad
Upon my return from Baghdad, I found a note from Ralph Luker and a query as to whether things were any better in the country. He ended up by saying: “It's awfully hard here to get a decent picture of what's going on in Iraq. Some sources report only positive things; some sources report only negative things”. I think the way to answer this question is to look at the context of daily life in Baghdad, and to arrive at conclusions warranted by the evidence, and any evidence is better than none.
On my recent trip to Baghdad, I was confronted with a number of paradoxes. On one level, I daily heard bomb explosions at night, and people often began the day asking each other where the latest violence had occurred. On another level, there was an air of low-key normality that affected everyone I talked to, whether they were janitors, Directors of Museums or shopkeepers. If you didn’t bring up the question of the violent attacks inflicted on parts of Iraq both by the Coalition and the insurgents, you’d rarely hear it mentioned by people on the street or in offices. I think this is a result of two reasons. First, many of my meetings were with professional educators, librarians and Museum directors; I asked specific questions and received specific replies (except where a highly garrulous administrator would wend and weave about the inadequacies of the higher education sector in Iraq). Second, and quite unlike my first trip to Baghdad immediately after the war in June 2003 when strangers were accosting our delegation with their ideas on the past, present and future of Iraq, most people did not confide in strangers as easily, even if they were Iraqis who lived outside of the country. From my family members, I heard horrific stories of near misses on Ministry buses taking employees to work, kidnappings of university deans and the stratospheric increase in corruption on all levels. But on the formal level of Ministries and Research departments, the conversation was all about funding the future, and whether the world community really cared enough to invest in Iraq the billions promised last winter at the Donor’s conference.
Compounded to this sense of unreality was the geographic scale of Baghdad, and the vast problems affecting the transport of state bureaucrats and employees to their daily work. Baghdad is a very large city, and its transport infrastructure is at death’s door. Although many of the traffic lights were working this time, and policemen were everywhere directing traffic, the amount of cars imported over the past year only added to the decrepit vehicles still chugging along the roads and belching black smoke; predictably, they caused massive traffic jams. Being confined to a car on a heavily packed road in the city is not conducive to the usual daydreaming; in Baghdad, where suicide bombers have been known to plow into National Guards’ headquarters on crowded streets, this can be an enervating experience. But my Baghdad-based friends claim that cabs are the most reliable form of transport in Baghdad because, while your misfortune may have you passing by when an explosion has ripped through a police post, suicide bombers would not target a cab deliberately. This is the logic of Baghdad natives who have lived, and are still living, through very violent times, and I am forced to respect it.
So, too, is the emphasis on not leaving the house till after nine o’clock in the morning, or returning before five. Baghdadi residents have timed the explosions; they usually occur at seven or eight o’clock in the morning, and a further reprise may take place at six or seven o’clock in the evening. Even though nothing can be taken for granted, its better to be at home during those hours. In fact, I am told that precisely because of the heavy traffic jams and the timing of explosions, few administrators are lecturing their employees about punctuality.
Finally, it must be recalled that, throughout the past five months, two large city quarters have been pounded almost daily by American guns. Sadr city (consistently referred to by Iraq’s interim government as Revolution city or madinat al-thawra, its older name) is a huge slum that borders some very important real estate (the UN headquarters that was leveled last August 29 was situated close by). Haifa street, meanwhile, has been under attack almost daily by American troops; it too neighbors high-value districts, the Iraqi Museum neighborhood being only one of them. Through it all, Baghdadi residents are grimly going to work, shopping for food, visiting relatives in hospitals and sending their children to school. If you can imagine Brooklyn up in flames while the rest of New York daily goes about its business, you will understand the scale of the daily horror that is being visited on Baghdad.
Although those are my quick impressions of a city in perpetual turmoil, they are but that, impressions. I am lucky not to have seen the violence up close. But for all those Iraqis that were less fortunate than I, whose lives have been wrecked by misdirected bombings, hidden mines, nighttime raids and vindictive revenge killings, I have nothing but the utmost admiration. They are carrying on with a courage that is all that much finer and nobler because their travails are a daily occurrence, and not a rare foray into a danger zone.
Of Republicans and Civil Rights ...
Rick Perlstein's "The End of Democracy" in the Village Voice is not to be missed. My colleague, Tim Burke, shares related grievances in "Class Warfare: The Republican Party's New Favorite Sport," for which he is gently chided in "The Dude Has His Crassitude" by John Holbo and Ambrose Bierce. Being both a Republican and an Evangelical, I had thought to post my own reply, "Why is Tim Burke Normal?", but I thought better of it.
Speaking of my Republicanism, this letter by former United States Senator Marlow W. Cook of Kentucky brought back memories. At 16, I was a Republican activist, already a precinct captain and 1st Vice President of the Young Republican Club of Louisville and Jefferson County. Alas, I was also very naive and didn't protect my flanks, so I was defeated in a bid for re-election by an ambitious young attorney, Marlow Cook. Subsequently, he became the chief executive of Jefferson County and served in the United States Senate from 1968 to 1975. We were both raised in the moderate Republican tradition of former Kentucky Senators John Sherman Cooper and Thruston Morton, so Marlow's letter comes as no great surprise to me. "I am not enamored with John Kerry," he says, "but I am frightened to death of George Bush." It is a very powerful conservative argument against the Bush administration. Read the whole thing. Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.
For a good laugh, don't miss Ted Barlow's "To Blog a Mockingbird" at Crooked Timber. If Mickey Kaus had a reputation, it won't soon recover.
But, of course, race relations in the South are more tragic than comic. I mentioned earlier that both Liberty & Power's David Beito and I have been working with the FBI's inquiry into what more can be known about the 1954 murder of Emmett Till. Sunday evening, CBS's "Sixty Minutes" will focus on the renewed inquiry. At Liberty & Power, Beito, whose research turned up a key surviving witness to the 50 year old murder, has more on the story.
Finally, regarding our discussion of the Wikkipedia, Tim Lambert has an amusing post up about it. Apparently, Mary Rosh (remember him?) has apparently repeated tried to "correct" its record about John Lott (remember her?). "Jonathan" asks the relevant question at Deltoid: What does one have to do to get fired at the American Enterprise Institute?
Thursday, October 21, 2004
On Englishness
England is the country that 'dare not speak its name' (registration required)
Dr David Starkey, the historian and broadcaster, is calling for a revival of English patriotism that recognises the country's unique role in shaping the modern world.
Dr Starkey, 59, believes that the reluctance of the English to champion their own homeland means that England "is now the country that dare not speak its name".
He also claims that English national identity is in danger of "going down the pan" because of a post-war obsession with the idea of being "British".
Dr Starkey's patriotic rallying cry coincides with his new 24-part television series on the nation's kings and queens, which begins on Channel 4 tomorrow night and will continue over four years. Monarchy will profile every English monarch from the year 400 to today at the rate of six a year.
The series is as much a defence of the English and Anglo-Saxon culture as a series of personality portraits. "This series is about the history of England," said Dr Starkey. "Yes, England - the country that dare not speak its name. In England we have this dreadful inhibition about talking about ourselves. England is a historic country which has shaped the world we are in. It is arguably the very origins of modernity. That is something we should celebrate, not be ashamed of."
Dr Starkey believes that the English need to celebrate their national identity in the same way that the Scots celebrate theirs. England, he argues, is much more important than Scotland, which is a "tiny" country that "does not much matter".
You can imagine what the Scots think of that last bit. (Has Starkey never heard of the Scottish Enlightenment?) Scotland is a tiny country whose impact on the wider world, both as a nation in itself and as part of a wider Britain, has been out of all proportion to its numbers or wealth. And it ought to be quite possible to champion England without stooping to insults against its neighbours.
Moreover, whatever Starkey thinks, it is Britain as a whole that has mattered in modern world history. England on its own was, frankly, a deeply insignificant political entity - and that's regardless of whether we consider the early middle ages before the Norman Conquest (after which for some centuries it was simply a minor element in a much larger European empire, don't forget) or the later middle ages before the process of conquests and unions within the Isles that created the modern British state. And so as those other parts of the British Isles have broken away and re-asserted their own identities and varying degrees of political independence, it's hardly surprising that English identity is left staring at a vacuum.
It is not a modern 'obsession' with being British that's causing the problem with Englishness - it's the English habit (for several centuries, and not dead yet) of conflating 'England' and 'Britain', while failing for generations to create of and for ourselves anything that was new. Now the (old) non-English Britons are taking back their own, refusing to accept English appropriation and condescension (and boy, how that upsets the English in itself). And we have large numbers of 'new' Britons whose origins lay far beyond these islands: do you hear anyone calling themselves 'Black English'? Alternatively, as indeed they have always done, English people turn to the regional identities that mean more, more intimately, to them. Londoners, Scousers, Geordies, Brummies, Cornish, Suffolkers (that's me, by the way)... there is a world of thriving English regional and local identities out there, far more variegated than the stereotypes of English national identity (white cliffs of Dover, anyone? What the hell is that supposed to mean to me?).
The trouble is not that England dare not speak its name. The problem is that we, the English, have no idea what to call ourselves that does not sound parochial, insular, conservative (not to say reactionary), dated and deadly dull.
Reflections on peer evaluations
This morning, I spent the better part of an hour in a colleague's classroom, observing him as part of the "tenured faculty evaluation process." For those of us who have tenure, once every three years we are required to undergo the TFEP. Our division dean visits our classroom, our students fill out evaluations (in two classes that we get to pick), and we also have peer evaluators whom we select from the ranks of our fellow tenured professors.
While the student evaluations may not always be accurate or have merit (and in the age of professor rating sites on the net, one wonders), I think there is very little usefulness in peer evaluation. Most of the time, we tend to select folks reciprocally. I'll ask a friend to come to my classroom; I'll go to his. The unspoken quid pro quo is obvious: we each write glowing summaries of the other's teaching. These are folks with whom I will spend the rest of my career, and I haven't the slightest intention of putting competence before collegiality. That sounds irresponsible, but honestly, the irresponsibility is within the system itself.
This is not to say I don't ever criticize my colleagues. I once had a student approach me about a faculty member whom she felt was harassing her; I did indeed go and have a sit-down talk with him at once. Where student safety is concerned, I'm not afraid to get in anyone's face. But when it comes to teaching methodologies, lecture strategies, and syllabi choices -- I prefer to "let my colleagues be" because, by gum, I want them to "let me be" in return.
Even our division dean is part of this. After all, division deans are faculty members too, selected from within the department. If they anger tenured faculty, they are removed from administration rather rapidly. Though they can afford to be candid with adjuncts and the untenured, wise administrators ignore all but the most flagrant cases of incompetence in the ranks of the permanently employed.
That being said, in the end I suppose that student evaluations (informally on the 'net or formally in the classroom) are more likely to be honest reflections of teacher performance than any other instrument.
More Noted ...
What Derek Catsam and Daniel Drezner said.
According to the New York Sun, an unreleased underground film about anti-Semitism at Columbia University is causing considerable stir there. It has, apparently, been screened for President Judith Shapiro and Provost Alan Brinkley, but their offices refused comment. Tip of the hat to David Nishimura at Cronaca.
Jason Kuznicki and Caleb McDaniel have been comparing blogging with doing history. A blogger's post is subject to immediate challenge. A historian's blunder is liable to go unchallenged on the library's shelves for decades before it is corrected. In this new electronic age, why not submit the historian's work to immediate challenge and correction on the net via a "wiki", they ask. Undoubtedly, we can speed up the process of fine tuning a text on the net, I think, but the complexities of history are such that it's a whole lot more complicated than creating a Wikipedia. Read any entry in the area of your expertise in that original wiki. How many errors or misconceptions do you find? Do you want to spend time and energy correcting them? Only to have someone, maybe someone who knows less than you do, come along behind you to correct your corrections? In the process of correcting you, do they import mistakes of their own? That is what we historians do in slow motion. Kuznicki and McDaniel merely suggest that we might do it in real time.
Finally, there's Tom Bruscino's example of a blogger's fact-checking. He finds former President Jimmy Carter making "so un-freaking-believably dumb" claims about combat casualties in the American Revolution, the War in Iraq, and other American wars. I'm afraid Bruscino's got the numbers on the sage from Plains, but at least Carter didn't claim that there would be no casualties.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Convivencia comes to an end
The hope that Muslims in Alsace would find some accommodation with school authorities has been dashed. Two girls have been expelled from two lycées in Mulhouse (southern Alsace) for wearing veils and bandanas as a sign of religious devotion, and two more cases are pending in Strasbourg (via Talk Left).
Alsace does not operate under the French secular laws that prohibit religion in public schools. There is a special regime that allows religion to be taught in Alsatian schools for Christian denominations and Judaism. Muslims in Alsace had hoped to use that fact to introduce Islamic education into public schools and to circumvent the headscarf that attains the rest of France. School officials in Strasbourg have been lenient applying the law concerning religious dress because of the special circumstances in the région. The headscarf issue is already contentious. These expulsions will bring into question religious education in Alsace, and probably the legality of regionalism in France as well. I guess it is back to France one and indivisible.
Update: The original law against the veil (loi de 15 mars) specified that religious attire was prohibited. The students attempted to meet the law half way, wearing bandanas as a means of keeping their heads covered in lieu of "Muslim veils". Education officials ruled that the bandanas had taken on religious significance because of their constant use and because they cover the entirety of the scalp. The ministry of education considers the bandanas to be an evolution of religious symbols.
Pat Robertson on George Bush's "Blessed Assurance ..."
If you had any doubt about the accuracy of Ron Suskind's "Without a Doubt," remove it. It's actually worse than Suskind told us. Take, for example, this report about Pat Robertson's endorsement of Bush's re-election.
Appearing on CNN's "Paul Zahn Now," Robertson recalled meeting with President Bush in Nashville before the United States invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The president was, said Robertson, "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life." He had, said the evangelist, what Mark Twain called "the serene confidence which a Christian feels in four aces." Now, Pat Robertson is no stranger to la-la land himself, but even la-la land had its forewarnings about Iraq. "I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy," Robertson said. Apparently the Lord hasn't yet learned that the strong noun, "a disaster," is better left unqualified by a weak adjective, "messy." Nonetheless, says Robertson, "I warned [Bush] about casualties." "I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "
Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
Allen Brill at The Right Christians thinks that Samuel is cutting King Saul loose.
Red Sox, Yankees, and Globalization
I’m at best a casual baseball fan.
Making literally no hits in three years of grade school YMCA baseball still haunts. “Y” rules required the coaches to play me. A few years ago my father confessed that every time I went to bat he prayed that I would get a hit..
But like many people, I’m caught up in the Red Sox—Yankees stuff. Drama, heroes, villains. All that’s left is for the God to come out of the Machine and set things right (whatever “right” means in this context).
So I’ve been reading sports stories. Today I came across this one in the New York Times (registration required) by Dave Anderson. This passage riveted me:
Schilling questioned whether he would be able to pitch in the series again, but Reebok quickly assembled several new shoes.
"When Curt aggravated his tendon in the division series against Anaheim, I was in Hong Kong when I got a phone call that he wanted a more substantial shoe," Don Gibadlo, the director of promotional footwear for Reebok, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the company's Canton, Mass., headquarters. "That's when I got our people in China working on a hightop shoe to give him more support."
Another hightop shoe was assembled at the Canton plant and in the hours before Game 3 at Fenway Park was rained out Friday night, Schilling threw in the Red Sox bullpen.
Is this Globalization or what? A company founded in Great Britain that does much of its marketing with American stars, has its shoe experts in Hong Kong redesign a shoe, which is then assembled in Canton.
So, excepting the obviously biased Bostonians, is this example of Globalization good news or bad news?
Noted Here and There ...
I pay attention when both John Holbo and Scott McLemee suggest that Daniel Green's essay at The Reading Experience may be the best assessment of Derrida's work on the net. And what do I find when I read Green's essay? He builds on points made by my fellow Cliopatriarchs, Miriam Burstein and Tim Burke. All hail deconstructing Cliopatriarchs!
Speaking of my colleagues, Jonathan Dresner has joined in launching the Japanese history group blog, Frog in a Well. After Time Travel is Easy, which continues at Fenland, and Rebunk, Cliopatria acknowledges Frog in a Well as her third off-spring. As you may have suspected, she's a promiscuous girl. They really are the result of the creative energies of Claire George, K. M. Lawson, and Derek Catsam. By the way, prayers are in order for Catsam and the Red Sox. You would not want to jinx the thing by saying that, well, that they could make history.
If you enjoyed the first episode of "Little Jewish Grandmother Bubbie's Adventures", you'll want to follow her second episode. Forewarning: Bubbie is being deconstructed at, ahem, This Blog is Full of Crap. Tip of the hat to Patrick Belton at Oxblog.
If you wondered where the Cliopatriarch of Pasadena has been, he's been doing over a hundred miles by bicycle. Would you believe it was done on a Penny Farthing? No, you wouldn't. Anyway, he's got the dry heaves and it wears me out just thinking about it. Where are my cigarettes? ...
Finally, for all the reasons not to go to graduate school in history these days, there's nothing quite like the excitement of the first few weeks there. For tastes of it, try Munnin and No Loss for Words. Munnin's K. M. Lawson has just entered graduate school at Harvard and No Loss for Words' Danny Loss has just entered Cambridge. Loss has some good tips for graduate students, which the rest of us might take to heart, and enters graduate study in history already knowing that "The Past Is Lost."
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Election Night Guide
As we inch closer to Election Night, it’s worth thinking of how much politics has changed since the last time an incumbent Texan was standing for re-election. (It's hard to consider George HW Bush a "Texan," since his residence is pretty clearly in Maine.) 1964 was the last presidential election without the substantial use of exit polls, and in this clip (which lasts around 4 minutes, and for which the transcript is here), Lyndon Johnson and aide Bill Moyers attempt to read the tea leaves regarding the election, with the first polls closing around 20 minutes thereafter.
One item that has remained constant since 1964: we still don’t have a uniform national poll-closing time. In addition, the same three states—Indiana, Kentucky, and South Carolina—are the first three to begin tabulating their votes (each by 7.00pm EST). For the coming election, George Bush is all but certain to carry all three states, and so we’ll gain little insight on the night to come from the presidential totals. At the congressional level, however, it’s a different story.
Indiana and Kentucky each have two somewhat competitive House contests. Two GOP incumbents, Anne Northrup of Kentucky and John Hostetler of Indiana, represent marginal seats; both are currently narrowly ahead, and should either lose, it might signal a broader Democratic tide than is anticipated. In Indiana’s 9th district, Democratic congressman Baron Hill’s narrow margin in 2002 anticipated his party’s poor showing around the country. And Kentucky’s 4th district, held by retiring Democrat Ken Lucas, is the most GOP-oriented seat in the country currently represented by a Democrat. The Democrats have nominated a strong candidate (the father of actor George Clooney); if they can hold the seat, it would be a good sign.
The first three states to report also will give some sense of how the battle for Senate control will conclude. Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning has seen a large lead evaporate in recent days, largely due to self-inflicted gaffes. Bluegrass State voters aren’t exactly seeing a replay of the Webster-Hayne exchange; here’s how Roll Call commentator Stuart Rothenberg describes recent events:
Anyone who watched the recently televised Kentucky Senate debate may well have concluded that neither Sen. Jim Bunning (R) nor challenger Dan Mongiardo (D) deserves to be in the Senate.When asked what legislation he would like to see the Senate pass, Bunning said he’d like to make everyone free. Omigod! And most of his other answers weren’t much better.
Mongiardo, on the other hand, looked as if he came from another galaxy. Who did his make-up, Elvira? Throughout the debate he promised more for less so often that I figure he believes in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and even Hanukkah Harry.
That said, if Mongiardo can win, Democrats would have a good chance of reclaiming the Senate.
Meanwhile, in South Carolina, Democrat Inez Tenenbaum has stayed surprisingly close to Republican congressman Jim DeMint in the race for Democrat Fritz Hollings’ seat: depending on which poll you believe, Tenenbaum either narrowly trails (3-6 points) or is even ahead by 3 points.
Soon after the call with Moyers ended, Johnson learned that he had carried Kentucky and traditionally Republican Indiana, previewing the overwhelming triumph that would be confirmed later that evening. But results from South Carolina were delayed amidst breakdowns of voting machines and allegations of voter suppression in precincts where African-Americans had registered to vote for the first time. I guess that some things never change.
A Cultural Mission to Civilize
Cliopatriarch Jonathan Dresner asked yesterday whether or not we should compare current American politics to fascism. I am usually cautious in this matter: it’s too easy to vilify a person or nation by identifying them with history’s greatest villains. However, historians might have to start using the “f” word more critically.
HDS Greenway wrote an article for Friday’s Boston Globe that compares the foreign and defense policies of the Bush administration with the eagerness of German nationalists to prove their ascendancy to the world:
One has to wonder if, among those discontented intellectuals of the Bush administration, there was not a similar impatience with America's "belle epoque," the decade of peace and plenty between the end of the Soviet Union and 9/11. Some of the Republicans close to Bush today called themselves "the Vulcans" after the Roman god of fire. Did they perceive a moral decay and a lack of imperial will in that brief, fin de siecle age of Bill Clinton, whom they despised? Did they perhaps see in the sloppy Clinton White House, culminating in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the modern equivalent of an Oscar Wilde age waiting to be swept away by the harder values of the right?
Did the German plans for war in 1914 and the German dream of spreading Kultur to other nations by force have their echo a century later in America with the pre- 9/11 plans to invade Iraq in order to spread democracy and American Kultur to lesser breeds without the law? If so, then the assassination of the Austrian archduke in Sarajevo in 1914 and Sept. 11, 2001, provided both sets of narcissistic idealists with the crisis they needed to put their plans into action.
On the surface I would say that Greenway’s argument is a stretch. Certainly Bush believes in a version of democracy that is rooted in the “homeland”, and it is closer to German Kultur than French civilisation.
There are limits to how much democracy can be spread around the world. Tony Judt notes that democracies tend to make poor empires. The electoral process makes financing imperial projects difficult. Citizens of democracies tend to be uneasy about spreading democracy by means of empire (see the Barbarians in the Roman Senate or the Germans in the French Revolution’s National Assembly). Furthermore, American power is virtual: based on financial and political influence. Bush’s “homeland” democracy is a worse product for the world market: it is entwined with the peculiarities of rural American life, open spaces and fundamentalism. The democracy that the administration has exported has been abstract.
There are other comparisons that could be useful, such as the French Revolution. Matt Yglesias offers Putinization. However, I have my doubts that we should not talk about Fascism. Regardless of what version of American values will be distributed throughout the world, whether or not they are in conflict with Bush’s vision of democracy, they are the result of the will to remake the world–internally and externally. As Suskind quoted an administration aide over the weekend:
We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.Arrogance of will has no bounds. The determination to actualize American superiority resembles German imperial policies from the naval build-ups all the way to the Third Reich. (Of course, Germany was a better world power in virtuality than in actuality).
Is it too early to start talking about Fascism? Stay where you are, Jonathan, I am coming over to your side.
When You Get A Bad Review ...
Sharon Howard at Early Modern Notes led me to think about how a writer should respond when he gets a bad review. It happens to all of us at some time or other. The only people that I know of who've never had a bad review are people who haven't published a book. So, if you haven't published your book yet, you had best get ready because your baby will be paraded before people who don't think she's so beautiful.
Good general advice, I think, is to ignore a bad review. It appeared in such an inconsequential rag that you hadn't even noticed. But some rags can't be so easily dismissed. Even then, it is awfully difficult to respond to a bad review in a way that makes a good impression on other readers. I recall wincing deeply when one of my graduate school mentors wrote a letter to the editor in response to a harsh review of his book. Almost inevitably, the author of the book sounds defensive and seems to engage in special pleading. However correct your points may be, however justified your protest, it is very difficult to lodge it in such a way that you win bystanders' support.
If the criticism of your book is so biting and unfair that you must respond, the short dismissive note to the reviewer is the best revenge. If the lines are memorable, they'll pass by word of mouth into the treasury of retorts. Take Max Reger's reply in 1906 to a savage review by Rudolph Louis in the Muenschener Neueste Nachrichten, for example. Reger said:
I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me. In a moment it will be behind me.What an elegant dismissal! Shunning vile language, it is deeply contemptuous and absolutely clear in its meaning.
Of course, if you do this well enough, you run the risk of your lines becoming better known than you are. Max Reger was a relatively obscure 19th century German musician. There's some consolation to him and all of us who get bad reviews that no one recalls who Rudolph Louis was. Unfortunately for Reger, his reply to Louis was so good that it is now better known than its author is. The all-knowing Google tells us that Reger's fine quip gets attributed to: Johannes Brahms, Anton Bruckner, H. L. Mencken, Channing Pollock, Jonathan Swift, Voltaire, and Oscar Wilde.
My conclusion from all of this is that it may be best to ignore a bad review. If you can't ignore it, don't burden readers with point-by-point refutation. Most of those issues are too obscure to be of interest, but the memorable dismissal becomes triumphant when it is passed along by word of mouth. Your only problem then is to become so famous that the quip doesn't outshine the reputation of its author. Otherwise, it may become the property of those who are noted for such things.
Ph.D. Programs: Rare Quantitative Data
Just when I'm about to give up reading them, someone at Crooked Timber posts something useful: Duke University's Ph.D. Completion and time-to-degree data.
The completion rate for history students admitted in the early 90s was 64%, nicely in line with their social science division average (which is exceeded only by bio-science; everyone else was around 60-62%). However that figure was arrived at by including two-thirds of students from the 1992-1995 entering classes who are still enrolled: history had nineteen of these 'tenured students' (we're talking people in the 9th to 12th year of their program) the most of any department (in fact, that beats three whole divisions). Now I'm not one to point fingers, having finished in the twelfth year myself, but I do wonder if two-thirds is a reasonable completion rate for this population?
For reference, the Duke History time-to-degree figures show that the median (this is for Ph.D.'s received, so its a different population, but it's still interesting) was a very respectable 6.5 for the early 90s, but it shot up to 8.0 in the late 90s. The national average also rose, though only from 8.6 years to 9.0, but that's still a troubling trend.
Duke is doing reasonably well, but let's talk about that nine-year national average, shall we? My understanding is that just about every major Ph.D. program was working on streamlining the process, building structure into it (more group seminars, dissertation prospectus presentations, multiple advisors) and providing more support (financial aid, teaching, career counseling, etc) so that students would finish in a more reasonable time; instead the number is increasing.
We've talked about the overproduction of Ph.D.'s before; now we need to talk about the training and support they get.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Hideous Coded Fragments
"Though we say that we cannot see the future, its conditions lie all around us. They are as if encrypted. We cannot read them because we lack the key (which will be in our hands only when it is too late to use it). But we see their coded fragments and must call them something. Many aspects of our own contemporary culture might be called premonitory shivers: panicky renderings of unreadable messages about the kind of society we are creating. Our dominating passion, after all, is to give life meaning, even if sometimes a hideous one." (Philip A. Kuhn, Soulstealers: The Chinese Sorcery Scare of 1768, p. 1)
Karl Rove is a political advisor to the president and his campaign. Expect dirty tricks.
George W. Bush campaigned falsly as a moderate and has never acted like one in office. Expect more.
Republicans, who have campaigned against homosexual rights at almost every turn and turned many a blind eye to attacks on relatives of Democrats, managed to use faux outrage at Kerry's mere mouthing of the name of a political operative who happens to be related to a candidate to obscure the fact that Bush can't win a debate to save his life.
Bush's favorite Supreme Court Justices are Scalia and Thomas: what if he appoints more like them? If he's elected, it's highly likely that the Senate will remain in Republican hands.
The NYTimes says that the US military is non-partisan. HNN commenters have asserted that Kerry's election would likely result in an exodus of career servicepeople (didn't they say the same thing about Clinton? Anyone remember what happened?), National Guard units are refusing orders due to safety concerns, and the Army's best training soldiers have now been detailed to Iraq not for training duty, but because we've used everyone else. Expect more trouble.
Fascism? I'm still waiting for someone to convince me we're wrong to make comparisons to pre-fascist situations. It can happen here, unless we don't let it: there is no 'process' or 'historical trend' or 'core value' that will stop it if individuals don't make real efforts.
Of The Salvation of America and Other Illusions ...
The note from H-Teach yesterday says that, in 1844, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote: "The salvation of America and of the human race depends on the next election, if we believe the newspapers." Maybe he did write it; maybe he didn't. All kinds of things get attributed to poor Ralph that he never said. But, if he wrote it, it puts things in a little historical perspective. You have to wonder at the audacity of the notion that the right outcome of any of its elections would secure the salvation – not only of the United States – but of humanity. If you buy anything in Ron Suskind's "Without a Doubt," you know the president believes it. If you listen to his opponents, you know that we do too.
As Tom Friedman suggests, the problems ahead are so massive that the best we can hope for is a meliorating management of them: a) unfunded entitlement liabilities at $74 trillion far exceed our total national wealth; b) aspiration and improved education in India, China, and eastern Europe guarantee that both low and high-skill jobs will continue to be outsourced from the United States; and c) the Arab middle east has among the highest rates of population growth and unemployment in the world. Do read Friedman's column if you haven't already. His opening and closing warning that American students need to be prepared for rough seas ahead might usefully be read in conjunction with Emory historian Patrick Allitt's new book, I'm the Teacher, You're the Student: A Semester in a University Classroom. Allitt knows that he is working with an elite group of students. They average 1375 on the SAT and have remarkable accomplishments. But they cannot write properly. That sounds familiar.
I also want to recommend also three pieces by Scott McLemee: "Gods and Monsters" on the Gilgamesh epic, "National Insecurity" on the National Book Award nominations, and, especially, the revised and expanded version of his obituary for Jacques Derrida.
Finally, blogging offers all sorts of opportunities. I thought about that when I found that Cliopatria has had its first reader from among the 630 residents of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. You don't know where they are? I didn't either until then, but now you do. More importantly, blogging allows me to work with other historians, including especially David Beito at Liberty and Power, to assist law enforcement authorities' re-opening of the case of Emmett Till's murder. The case is a half century old now and there seems little hope of new indictments, but there is hope of tracking down crucial historical documents so that his violent death can be more fully understood in future generations. The other important opportunity is to work with other historians in holding us responsible. Many thanks again to those of you who have suggested important instances of our plagiarism, beyond those that are already well known. If you know of additional cases, please send them to ralphluker at mindspring.com. You will hear more about this in the near future.
Minamata Justice
Japan's Supreme Court ordered the government to pay compensation to additional victims of one of the most egregious and troubling cases of environmental injustice: Minamata Bay mercury poisoning. The actual pollution happened in the 1950s, and the relationship between environmental mercury and neurological and mutagenic damage was recognized almost immediately. Minamata Bay residents became increasingly organized and radicalized in the 1960s, as the government and the responsible company put off their claims and refused to deal substantively with the issue. In the late 1960s and early 1970s the Minamata movement was one of the linchpin issues in the growing environmental movement in Japan, a movement that was blunted by the government's adoption of rigorous clean-air laws in the mid-70s. But the failure to address Minamata directly led to the filing of a lawsuits for responsibility and compensation in the 1980s. A settlement in the mid-90s failed to address the issue of government responsibility (in an echo of Japan's ongoing "comfort women" problem) and left out some victims who had not been so designated in an earlier round of bureaucratic management (an echo of Japan's continuing problem with non-citizen [i.e. Korean forced labor] and late-classified hibakusha [atomic bomb victims]). In typically slow fashion, the case has finally been addressed by the highest court.
In Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's Good Omens we encounter the Four Horsemen (on motorcycles, real Hell's Angels) of the Apocalypse: War, Death, Famine and .... well, Plague gave up when vaccinations and sulfa drugs started taking the fun out of disease (and missed out on some real fun), but he was replaced by Pollution, who takes immense pride in the much more pervasive and permanent damage done by heavy inorganics like arsenic and mercury..... Did I mention that it's a comedy?
This case has gone on so long, that it's history: Tim George, a gentleman historian and fine scholar, did his Ph.D. dissertation and first book on the Minamata activists. This is not unusual in the Japanese courts: it took almost thirty years for Ienaga's textbook case to make it through the courts, and the cases involving Tanaka Kakuei were eventually dismissed due to the fact that he had died in the interim. This ruling is interesting, as the justices were quite direct and damning in their statement that the government should have known and should have acted much earlier than it did. I don't think they're done prosecuting the Aum Shinri Kyo (Tokyo Subway Gas Attack) cases yet, and that was almost ten years ago now.
[Crossposted at Frog In A Well]
Non Sequitur: HNN intern Alex Bosworth's article on Truman's use of scare tactics to pass the Marshall Plan is now up, and the article is great, but the Matt Wueker cartoon at the top is far and away my favorite history-related cartoon of the year.....
Sunday, October 17, 2004
The New Math
At Brooklyn, we’re in the process of replacing the college’s Core curriculum (a combination of required courses in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, along with one interdisciplinary non-Western course) with a new Core oriented around an “enhanced role for global studies.”
To my knowledge, no universities grant a Ph.D. in “global studies.” Several of the 20 or so institutions that have established “global studies” majors—alarmingly—have allowed this “discipline” to subsume history departments. (An example is Cal. St.-Monterey Bay.) For a sense of the “literature” of the “discipline” of “global studies,” take a look at the sorts of papers offered at this year’s Global Studies Association conference:
---The 2004 Elections: War, Terrorism and the Need for Regime Change
---"We Don't Torture People in America": Coercive Interrogation in the Global Village
---War, Imperialism and Resistance From Below
---Resistance to Public Higher Education in Trade Agreements
---Lessons From Seattle, Resistance to Globalization, the Media and the State's Response
At least the “discipline” doesn’t hide its political and presentist orientation.
Brooklyn’s “global studies” initiative is based on a resolution that implemented the college’s “Diversity Plan”, whose prime curricular demand is “restructuring of science, mathematics, and other courses to broaden the focus and to integrate the constructs of class, race, gender and gender orientation, and diverse cultural perspectives across the curriculum and throughout the academic life of the college.”
For science courses, the preferred approach seems to be offerings in science and morality (i.e., the immorality of the atomic bomb) and environmental science—the latter a perfectly legitimate field, but one that can be, for those so inclined, easily bastardized into an anti-corporate screed. Brooklyn’s provost, for instance, has written that, as “teaching is a political act,” colleges should structure their curricula to persuade students to support “empathetic” policies on such science-related public policy issues as the depletion of the ozone layer, not recognizing, of course, that once the college starts designing courses around telling students what political positions to take, politicians who are on the other side might decide to stop funding the college.
For math, though, it was harder for me to see exactly what the preferred new approach might be. A couple of examples, however, have emerged. At Portland (Oregon) State, a so-called “capstone” course, of which all PSU students must take one, is entitled “Family Mathematics” (whose instructor, ironically, isn’t even listed as among the Math Department’s faculty). Even more on point is a course at Northeastern designed for public school teachers, Teaching "Mathematics for Social Justice," which seeks to allow students to “conceptualize a socially just mathematics curriculum and instruction.” Among the course topics: “student empowerment,” “mathematics for social action,” and “ethnomathematics.” One plus one equals the white corporate elite?
Oklahoma's Good Doctor
This morning, the AP has caught up with Oklahoma Senate candidate Tom Coburn, who polls today show still (narrowly) trailing Democrat Brad Carson in the race for retiring Senator Don Nickles’ seat. The AP story resurrects a comment Coburn made in 1997, during the second of his three House terms. He deemed NBC’s broadcast of the film “Schindler’s List” an outrage to "decent-minded individuals,” citing "the violence of multiple-gunshot head wounds, vile language, full frontal nudity and irresponsible sexual activity."
Thanks to the Library of Congress’ superb website, Thomas, the Congressional Record since 1990 is easily searchable, and so I browsed through to get a better sense of Coburn’s political positions. He was, for instance, one of the co-sponsors of the Defense of Marriage Act, which he championed by citing “studies to say that over 43 percent of all people who profess homosexuality have greater than 500 partners,” which proved that “homosexuality, the act of homosexuality, not the individual, is immoral, it is wrong.” “We hear about diversity,” the congressman noted, “but we do not hear about perversity,” and people needed to understand that “no society . . . has lived through the transition to homosexuality and the perversion which it lives and what it brought forth.” (July 11, 1996)
Coburn was a congressman unusually preoccupied with sex-related issues. On February 6, 1995, he demanded a surgeon general who would preach for abstinence, since “the basis for our illogical predicate of safe sex is to rationalize our own lack of self control and sexual promiscuity.” He regularly championed legislation to require mandatory partner disclosure of the AIDS virus, which most practitioners believed would discourage people from testing. As a trained doctor, he also came out against needle exchange programs, noting, “One of the precepts in treating alcoholism today in our country is do not enable the patient to fail by enabling their alcoholism. We need to apply that same thing when it comes to drug addiction in this country.” (Sept. 9, 1997)
On other social issues, the Oklahoma congressman was one of the original co-sponsors of the movement to outlaw late-term abortions, describing the procedure as “murder. This has nothing to do with medicine. It has to do with murder at the convenience of the abortionist.” (Oct. 8, 1997) (He later advocated the death penalty for surgeons who performed the procedure.) In 1998, he started lamenting a decline in public morality, caused by “the liberal media, a debased entertainment industry, voter apathy, and Presidential scandal.” (March 26, 1998) Coburn also called for the United States to withdraw from the World Trade Organization, which he claimed had the power to “thwart the will of the American people and overturn American laws.” Coburn promised not to “stand by while foreign judges of the World Trade Organization rule on the validity of the American environmental and labor laws. I will not surrender our sovereignty to the World Trade Organization, nor should we.” (January 25, 1996)
The irony: if Coburn wins, he quite possibly would not be the most radical member of Oklahoma’s Senate delegation, since his colleague would be Jim Inhofe.
Thirty Years of Dungeons&Dragons
The prototype, the ur-game, the original Dungeons&Dragonstm is thirty years old [via my father]. That wonderful mishmash of Tolkien, high medievalism, Beowulf, Homer, and dice poker is three decades embedded into American culture and now World civilization is feeling the effects. The original creators of the game now work in the computer game design industry.... yes, what was a bizarre little hobby once is an industry now. There are all kinds of imitators, and the game itself has gone through two major overhauls that I know of (and innumerable little tweakings at the hands of hundreds of players) to make it more interesting, realistic, accessible and challenging all at once.
I got my starter set in 1980, plus or minus a year. My whole family played together, which made things interesting at times: my father was a fantastic Dungeon Master, drawing on decades of fantasy and science fiction reading and a talent for puzzles and storytelling to create real adventures. My favorite characters were a fighting monk and a nameless assassin-inventor (with a penchant for modifying crossbows and mounting them on interesting things). I also played, a bit, a science fiction offshoot, in which you could design not just characters and adventures, but ships, worlds, interstellar governments..... And I still have the books, the characters, the dungeons, the now-illegal lead figurines...
I haven't had the time or energy for role-playing much the last few years, but I understand the impulses: companionship, safe adventure, storytelling, identity games, competition with low stakes but subtly high psychological consequences. What's interesting, though, is the way in which this model of play has become ubiquitous, aided in large part by advancing technologies of communication and computation. Also very interesting is the way in which the concept of 'subculture' -- once a sort of mystery cult in which adherents together ate, drank and worshipped a god of life and death -- has blossomed to the point where all hobbyists have a culture (some of them several subcultures) and all hobbies are industries and nobody has to be quite the same person in all contexts.
A few years ago we did a free evening course in origami at MIT, and learned something very important. The course started with basic shapes, moved through some fascinating modular designs, and ended with high-end animal models. There was a presentation from the engineer who folded a quarter-millimeter sheet of metal foil into a crane, and from a man who made a living teaching origami and custom-making origami models of carp, often from photographs of people's favorite fish. What we learned, after spending half-a-dozen evenings with people who built third-order fractals from business cards, and who thought nothing of folding a frog for over an hour, then unfolding it so they could reverse some folds, then folding it back up again just to get the toes right is that no matter what you do, there is someone more obsessed with it than you, someone for whom it is their defining activity, and there's also some way to make a living at it if you are willing to be that person.
Interestingly, with the rise of D&D and other gaming milieux, that obsession is not just hobbying, but actual identity shifting. And that obsession has become more and more popular, more and more common, to the point that entering into any new activity is fraught with a certain sense that you're not putting enough into it, that you're not really serious about it, and that it is a character flaw to seek balance, diversion, a level of comfort. As much as I enjoyed gaming, I wonder how much it contributed to this pseudo-professionalization of leisure, or perhaps, more likely, it was just a symptom of our shift to services and entertainment (a subsector of the service industry that actually is a sector unto itself) as core economic activities.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Dangerous Thoughts: Non-Voters' Power
In the spirit of asking dangerous questions, I offer a simple thought. There's a lot of talk about voter fraud and vote suppression, and you can count me among those who find the problem very troubling on any side.
But you won't find me among those who are surprised. A bit surprised, perhaps, that it still goes on so frequently, and that people still get away with it. But not terribly surprised about that, either. Political parties are partisan groups. Yes, they claim to be for 'all the people' when they're campaigning, but both parties know that there are some people who support them and other people who oppose them, and lots of people who don't care for either party terribly much; and both parties are aggressive about getting 'their' voters to the polls (figuratively: absentee ballots are increasingly important), both parties are aggressive about keeping 'the other' voters away from the polls. And both major parties are wake-up-screaming terrified at the thought of a real mobilization among the roughly half of the electorate that doesn't vote at all.
Think about it: if sixty percent of the non-voting eligible voters wrote in "Jon Stewart"... he'd be president, because that would be thirty percent of the total electorate, and neither of the other guys is going to get more than 27%. Non-voters have no track record, no allegience, no pattern; political operatives hate unpredictability.
I know that voter turnout is a tricky thing, and that non-voters are probably pretty poorly informed on issues.... so far. But, as much as I despise dirty tricks and abuse of the system, don't expect me to be surprised by what the major parties do to minor parties, to each other's base voters, etc. Rather, this is why the duopoly is so troubling: the interests of the parties are not necessarily the interests of the people.
Must-See TV
Everyone needs to see this clip of Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire. (Perhaps everyone already has.)
As many others have noted already, the interesting thing here is the obvious discomfort of Carlson and Begala, which I think goes beyond the normal social discomfort of having a popular, smart person tell you that something you're doing is stupid. What Stewart says is obvious--it's practically the marketing campaign that CNN uses for Crossfire. But somehow saying so in the way Stewart does--it's like a mobster breaking the code of omerta or something. Carlson comes off especially badly--Begala at least has the sense to just kind of shut up and let it all happen.
To be honest, some of what Stewart says is how I feel about blogging on my bad days, that here's this marvelous medium where everyone can publish interesting thoughts at no cost, and what do so many do instead? Serve as a partisan echo-chamber, parroting whatever the talking points of the day are from campaigns and political parties--which are talking points crafted to appeal to what each party thinks particular audiences want to hear. There's something painful in it all: audiences who already know what they think straining to hear their thoughts regurgitated back to them by spin masters so that the audience itself can then respew the spew right back out again.
I know, and I think Stewart does too, that there's some kind of middle ground between the hackery of Crossfire and some kind of turgid safe-for-PBS borefest with polite intellectuals modestly disagreeing. It would take finding the few honest political commentators out there, the people who might actually say something that contradicts the authorized party line or refuse to rise to the proferred bait.
On the other hand, the historian in me wonders, "When was it ever thus?" It's not like the circumstances that Stewart is complaining about are new. It's easy to rhapsodize about the Golden Age of public intellectuals, but only if you wear some rosy-colored glasses. Dirty tricks are not the invention of Karl Rove or the Nixon White House: "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" comes from the 19th Century. The traditions that we criticize today are old, though sometimes in new forms. The stakes may be higher today than they ever were, the mass media more resplendent in its unused potential, but if we want substance, then we're really talking about creating a new dispensation than restoring one gone to seed.
Of Queer Things ...
Alice took up the fan and gloves, and, as the hall was very hot, she kept fanning herself all the time she went on talking: `Dear, dear! How queer everything is to-day! And yesterday things went on just as usual. I wonder if I've been changed in the night? Let me think: was I the same when I got up this morning? I almost think I can remember feeling a little different. But if I'm not the same, the next question is, Who in the world am I? Ah, THAT'S the great puzzle!'Yesterday, we thought we knew how things were. The Republican president urged a constitutional amendment to protect Adam and Eve from Adam and Steve; and Republican senatorial candidates in Illinois and Oklahoma warned of the dangers posed by gay people's "selfish hedonism" and of two girls getting caught in the same restroom at the same time. It was the Democrats who were stuck with the queer albatross. "I wonder if I've been changed in the night?" Today, principled metero-sexual Republicans streamed out of their closets like cockroaches at 3:00 a.m. What a difference a debate makes!
-- Lewis Carroll
Anthony Smith's post at The Weblog, "Pontifical Standing Committee for Continental Philosophy in the Liturgy: The Death of a Young Jewish Saint," transports me from the ridiculous to the sublime. "I wonder if I've been changed in the night?" I am neither Jewish nor Catholic, but I know enough to know that it risks offense to both. Nor have I been a great admirer of Jacques Derrida's work, but I know enough to add my quiet "Amen."
Friday, October 15, 2004
Higher Education and Politics
This week's Chronicle has a couple of interesting stories on some of the lesser-known political aspects of higher education. In light of only the second occasion in which all four presidential/VP debates were held at college campuses, this piece examines what colleges get (and do not get) out of such arrangements. Former HHS secretary Donna Shalala, now president of the University of Miami, is clearly a big believer in the benefits of sponsorship, but to me, it's hard to see how these events work to a university's advantage. I can't imagine anyone thinking that UMiami or Arizona State are more serious academic institutions because a presidential debate occurred on campus.
The other article explores the practice of state elections for university regents/trustees. Currently, four states (Colorado, Nevada, Michigan, and Nebraska) have elections for regents. In theory, this seems like a good idea, as a way of reinforcing the idea that trustees should serve as the people's representatives in higher education, and should feel empowered to act when colleges and universities depart substantially from their states missions. In practice, however, as the article makes clear, electing trustees doesn't seem to work very well--it's very hard to get people to pay attention to the issues, and it seems more likely to produce trustees who are seeking to build future political careers (as in one NV trustee who opposed any proposal to increase any aspect of university funding, as a way of building a record as a low-spending politician) or have ties to parts of the university most removed from the academic side of things (as in the Colorado trustees who are openly supportive of the university's beleaguered football program).
Finally, Ralph Luker, below, linked to an important student free speech case at UMass. The general issue of speech codes is treated in broader perspective in this month's Reason in an article that college administrators would do well to peruse.
Does the President Matter? (Part 2)
Now that the debates are done, and we have looked into their souls (and found the other guy wanting), this seems like a good time to revisit the question of whether we are overestimating the importance of the president himself. I don't mean that it doesn't matter which candidate is elected: on the contrary, it matters more than most people realize. But that is because the president sits at the top of a massive and powerful bureaucracy, the preeminent branch of government. That bureaucracy is largely staffed with civil service employees, career officials, but the top levels (most of those that matter) are political appointees.
Presidential transition expert Paul Light said in 2000 that "The next president will make more than 6,000 appointments in his first term, including roughly 600 Senate-confirmed Cabinet and sub-Cabinet members, another 600 non-career members of the Senior Executive Service, and 1,500 personal and confidential assistants." (There's over 3000 appointments unaccounted for here, I know.) Another Brookings scholar said "No one ever argued that the federal government would work better with thousands of political appointees filling its top and middle-management layers. That, however, has been the unintended consequence of years of accumulation of independent and disjointed legislative and administrative decisions," not to mention increasingly entrenched party machines and revolving-door lobbying practices.
You could argue that the president is important because he appoints all these people, but that's not really true, either. The president is, in these matters, largely a representative of his party, and the powers within it, rather than an independent actor. Whatever the president's stated views and plans, a great deal of the operation of the federal government is going to be in the hands of partisans allied with, but not necessarily loyal or obedient to, the president.
So in addition to thinking about the person we want to be president, we also must take into account the party and extra-party forces which support and will be included in the administration which bears his name.
Noted Here and There ...
The J. Paul Getty Museum's on-line exhibition of 19th Century Photography of Ancient Greece is excellent. Have a look at it. Hat tip to wood s lot.
Whether the United States is the new colossus or not, we need to understand earlier builders of empire. See: Victor Davis Hanson on Alexander the Great; and Alexander Rose on Genghis Khan. Did you know that the latter's last heir was not deposed until 1920?
If you loved "Pogo," you'll want to read John Crowley's "The Happy Place" in the Boston Review.
Brandon Watson at Siris distinguishes between being right and being reasonable. Both take effort, he says. And, at Mode for Caleb, Caleb McDaniel has a thoughtful essay on "Dissertation Glaucoma." We've been there.
Derrida memorials continue at Adam Kotsko's The Weblog. Elsewhere, Tim Burke, Scott McLemee, and Mark C. Taylor published important reflections.
Eugene Volokh takes note of a very interesting case of administrative action against students' free speech rights at the University of Massachusetts.
Finally, thanks to those of you who responded to my request for examples of plagiarism committed by historians or other academics -- other than those that are already well known. There is remarkable diversity in our perversity. If you haven't yet sent me your contribution, there is still time to do so.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Of Presidents and Prizes ...
If you missed last night's debate, the transcript is here. The early consensus seems to be that there were no knock out punches, but that the third debate ended in advantage Kerry. For amusing commentary, see Mr. Sun! and Wonkette.
After nearly a year of stony silence, MobyLives again! Adjust your browsers accordingly. Moby notes that Edward Champion is taking a break from his Return of the Reluctant blog ("withholding brownies from Sam Tanenhaus since September 2004"), but not before taking inspiration from a Deborah Solomon interview with Edward P. Jones to create a Deborah Solomon interview with Deborah Solomon. First question: "You're a moribund NYT journalist who can't even treat Pulitzer Prize winners with anything close to respect. Do you smile much?" Ouch! Bob Schieffer's first question to John Kerry, "Will our children and grandchildren ever live in a world as safe and secure as the world in which we grew up?" was almost as bad, though it wasn't meant as caricature. You'd think Schieffer forgot all about World War II, the Cold War, bomb shelters, and learning to hide under our desks.
Anyway, the National Book Awards interested me more than presidential debates or baseball playoff games. For the first time, women took all the nominations for fiction: Sarah Shun-lien Bynum, Madeleine Is Sleeping; Christine Schutt, Florida; Joan Silber, Ideas of Heaven: A Ring of Stories; Lily Tuck, The News From Paraguay; and Kate Walbert, Our Kind: A Novel in Stories. The non-fiction nominees are: Kevin Boyle, Arc of Justice: A Saga of Race, Civil Rights, and Murder in the Jazz Age; David Hackett Fischer, Washington's Crossing; Jennifer Gonnerman, Life on the Outside: The Prison Odyssey of Elaine Bartlett; Stephen Greenblatt, Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare; and The 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States-Authorized Edition. The 9/11 Commission's report gets the headline. Maybe its authors should be commissioned to rewrite the IRS tax code to make it next year's winner.
Finally, you are in Jeopardy if you think you know the difference between a rake and a ho. Do not miss the erudite comments. Hat tip to the senior Volokh.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
What Mythological Form Are You? ...
You are Form 2, Angel: The Pure.
"And The Angel rose as holy protector for all that was created. She fought with honor and valor to serve the good of the world. But the coming of the mankind was her downfall; and end to purity."
Some examples of the Angel Form are Michael (Christian) and Hercules (Greek). The Angel is associated with the concept of virtue, the number 2, and the element of wind. Her sign is the zenith sun.
As a member of Form 2, you are a person of your word. You generally keep your promises and give everything you do your best. Although
some people see you as overbearing sometimes, you know that you have to stay true to yourself and do what's right. Angels are the best friends to have because they are brutally honest.
Which Mythological Form Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
O.K., I can live with that, but what are those bloody things coming out of my head? Hat tip to Another Damned Medievalist.
Delivering on Brown ...
My friends, Glenda Gilmore at Yale, Tim Tyson at Wisconsin, and Vernon Burton at Illinois, send this request via H-South:
Dear Colleagues:In many parts of the South, desegregation led to the withdrawal of white students from public schools and, consequently, underfunding of public school systems. Private efforts such as this cannot, alone, overcome systemic problems, but they can help.This year, we have all likely remembered Brown v. Board with campus events and articles. Now, we write to you to take action to deliver a piece of the promise of Brown to the students who have inherited the legacy.
Over 50 years ago in Summerton, South Carolina, Levi Pearson, an African American farmer, petitioned for a school bus for his children's 9-mile trip to Scott's Branch High School. When the request was denied, he went to Rev. J.A. De Laine to ask for help. Rev. De Laine organized the community to sign a petition for equal schools in Clarendon County, SC. Harry Briggs, a Navy veteran, was the first to sign. That petition began the lawsuit Briggs v. Elliott, argued by Thurgood Marshall. The Briggs case was the first of the five legal cases that became known as Brown v. Board of Education.Today, Clarendon County is part of another legal case -- Abbeville School District v. State of South Carolina. Clarendon is one of eight counties with high minority, high poverty population that is suing the state of South Carolina for the resources to meet the minimum standards for basic education in the state.
Scott's Branch High School is still the public high school in Clarendon County. And today, 50 years after Brown v. Board, the school remains over 98% African American and serves many students from low-income families. Budget cuts have hit the schools in Clarendon very hard. The computer labs have closed because the teacher's assistant position for the lab was eliminated. In such tough economic times, the school library has not purchased new books in years. The county library is in Manning, over 10 miles away from Summerton-out of reach for students and families with limited or no transportation during the workday.We are asking you to donate one copy of your published works to the Briggs-De Laine-Pearson Foundation in Clarendon County so that they can then donate the books to the high school. These books will become great resources for teachers who aim to plan engaging lessons and for students who are developing research and writing skills for college.
The Briggs-De Laine-Pearson (BDP) Foundation was founded by the children of those whose parents courageously brought the first of the five cases that became Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas. The Foundation exists today with the vision to develop Clarendon County into a thriving community that recognizes the historical contributions of all its citizens and that provides opportunities for each individual to make positive contributions for the common good. The BDP Foundation will donate the books to the school library as they come in.The BDP Foundation is a nonprofit organization with 501c3 status. Gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible and may be mailed to:
Briggs-De Laine-Pearson Foundation
1578 Gov. Richardson Road
P.O. Box 155
Summerton, SC 29148
You may learn more about the Foundation and its work at www.bdpfoundation.org. Please contribute your book(s) to help the children of those who fought for equality and excellence in the nation's public schools. Also, please share this project with your colleagues in other departments -- all books in all disciplines are appreciated. In this 50th anniversary year of Brown, you can honor the legacy of Rev. De Laine, Thurgood Marshall, and so many other trailblazers by sending books to the children who continue to learn in underfunded schools.
Thank you for your consideration and your donation.Sincerely,
Glenda Gilmore
Yale UniversityVernon Burton
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignTimothy B. Tyson
University of Wisconsin
Plagiarism ...
Yesterday, I spoke with a reporter for a major periodical who is doing a report on academic plagiarism – not the plagiarism that you find your students doing – but the plagiarism that other historians may have done or are doing in their published work. It seems likely that there are more instances of it than the half dozen cases that have recently drawn so much attention. During the conversation, the reporter spoke of the hesitation of colleagues, employees, employers, and publishers to confront literary and intellectual thieves with charges of theft. If you know of cases of plagiarism and have hesitated to identify the offending party or parties, please send information about the case to me at ralphluker at mindspring.com. I'll need to have very specific information and be able to compare texts to verify the charge. Otherwise, do not waste your time or mine. If I find that the accusation holds up, I will forward it to the reporter. Unless you ask me to do otherwise, I'll report the finding without identifying the source or sources of the information.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The Latest from the FCC
Apparently, the newly active defenders of morality are going to fine FOX a whole lot of money, over a million dollars, for excessive reality on its series “Married by America. To quote from this high quality link:
The morality mavens at the conservative watchdog group the Parents Television Council took offense at Married by America's match-and-mate shenanigans, which included contestants cavorting at a bachelor party with strippers and topless prostitutes and licking whipped cream from each other's bodies.
It is hard not to chortle at this turn of events: conservative group nails the fair and the balanced for being the lewd and the topless. But, alas, the card-carrying ACLU Civil libertarian in me keeps whispering that this is not all to the good.
Think about it. These fines that are busting out all over are doing strange things to our national wasteland. Auto race coverage, which for decades has promised us the possibility of death and dismemberment, live, at every turn, is now on a delay so that grown men can be bleeped. The same is being done at other sporting events. We can slow-mo a knee bending the wrong way over and over (before and after the Celebrex ad), but we’ll nip in the bud the sound that the player may have made.
Speaking of ads, in between the new cuss-proofed coverage, they apparently can promise men (and the women in their laps) a real lift. Women smile as a rejuvenated devil levitras his way back into the hubby’s leer. But if Janet Jackson even approaches a football stadium again, security will pick her up and deport her. Who knows; she may end up with Cat Stevens.
But, hey! This delay stuff has its advantages. A friend of mine had her TV picture on the Packer game Monday night, (Will the FCC fine the Packers? Someone should.), but she had the sound on from the radio coverage. Because the radio was not delayed, she was able to get some work done. Why? Because whenever the crowd cheered on the radio, she could look up from her work see the play they cheered on her TV. Live. Sort of.
The Alan Keyes Award . . .
We haven't heard much from the Illinois GOP Senate nominee lately, but he might want to start piping up: another candidate is giving him a run for his money for the nuttiest statements of the year.
Yesterday, a tape was released showing Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn, the GOP's nominee for the seat being vacated by Republican senator Don Nickles, justifying his opposition to gay marriage with the following assertion: "Lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?" To date, the Coburn campaign hasn't identified which schools practice this policy, and state education officials say they had never heard of any such thing.
The remark comes on the heels of Coburn describing the contest between him and conservative Dem congressman Brad Carson as a showdown between the forces of "good and evil"; reports surfacing that Coburn, an M.D.-turned-congressman, once sterilized a woman without her written consent; and the nominee publicly terming residents of the state's capitol, Oklahoma City, "crapheads."
There is, however, one major difference between Keyes and Coburn. While Keyes is now running 50 points behind (and polling less than 20 percent of the vote), according to the latest Daily Oklahoman poll, Coburn trails Carson by only two points. With Bush expected to carry the state by a 2-1 margin, there's a pretty good chance Coburn will be carrying his campaign against school bathroom pass policy to the Senate.
Electoral Maps
Having raised some questions about the relationship between history, geography and partisan support in the US last week, the same questions are being raised in Germany. Two German states, Saxony and Brandenburg, have seen a rise in support for Rechtextremismus–reactionary right political groups. The success of the DNP in recent elections raised the specter that fascism was on the rise in Germany. The social conditions appear to mimic those of the early 1930s: deindustrialization, poor economic growth, unemployment. German politicians feared that the same circumstances might lead to an oppressive turn in the country.
I don’t think that the Bundesrepublik will make the same mistake as Weimar. The major parties, where necessary, are forming coalitions with each other in order to shut out extremists (this would include communists as well as ultra-nationalists). In Cologne, the Christian Democrats even attempted a coalition with the Greens.
The truth is that Rechtextremismus has been limited to the eastern states of Germany–those that made up the former DDR. Recent elections in North Rhine-Westpahlia did not show growing support for fringe political parties. One NY Times report notes how a city in the Ruhr has resisted extremism, even as the residents question the leadership of the Social Democrats whom they have followed for decades. In parts of Germany where the Christian Democrats dominate, residents question its leadership. Support for the major parties is wavering, but most voters are looking to smaller parties that are not on the fringes: notably the Greens and the FDP. Together, these smaller parties are joining coalitions with larger parties in order to solidify the center of the political spectrum.
The appeal of Rechtextremismus appears to be limited to the children of the children of the people who came under Soviet domination. These “children of the myth” were not denazified in the same manner as West Germans. Instead, they were told that attaining communism solved the problems that caused Nazism; the content and psychology that led to Nazism were not dealt with. Current partisan divisions were formed by the failure of commemoration in one part of Germany versus another. Consequently, they have no problem expressing their political concerns with the fullest aggression.
Three Recommendations ...
Instead of the New York Times train wreck of an obituary for Jacques Derrida, read Scott McLemee's article for the Chronicle of Higher Education. Why wouldn't the newspaper of record understand that an intellectual's obituary should discuss his ideas, as one for a politician would pay attention to her record or an artist of his work?
John Kerry's Secret Weapon? A Jewish Grandmother. Hat tip to Patrick Belton at Oxblog.
In the spirit of Cliopatriarchal bi-partisanship, here's a link to Daschle v Thune, the blog of South Dakota State University historian, Jon Lauck. Memo to David Horowitz: a Republican history professor, who is not forced into discrete silence. He even writes for National Review.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Sectarian Terror
On October 2nd, in Sialkot, a suicide bomber walked into a Shi'a mosque and killed at least 30 people. On October 7th, in Multan a car bomb killed 40 at a commemoration gathering for the slain radical Sunni cleric Maulana Azam Tariq. On October 9th, in Karachi, two senior-most clerics at Banuri Town madrasa - a Sunni enclave - were shot dead. On October 10, in Lahore, another suicide bomb blast in a Shi'a mosque in Mochi gate killed 4 people.
Is this the return of Shia-Sunni sectarian violence in Pakistan? By a rough estimate, the Shi'a community is 20% of the population. Sectarian conflict did not become the issue it is today until the Islamization processes of General Zia ul Haq (1977-1988). In 1980, with fear that the Sunni, Hanafi laws will pre-dominate, the Shi'a community began political mobilization. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran was a great ideological boon to the community. The organization at the forefront of this mobilization was Tahrik-i Nifaaz Fiqaah Ja'fariyya or Tahrik-i Ja'fariyya (Movement for the Implementation of Ja'faria Law - TJP). Created largely to protect Shi'a community from unfair Islamization laws, the TJP quickly expanded into a full-fledged movement for the Shi'a in Pakistan. Its confrontational style sowed seeds of dismay in the Sunni majority. A founding leader, Allama 'Arif Husain al-Husaini, was assassinated in 1988. The Sunni counterpart was the Sipah-i Sahaba (Soldiers of the Companions of the Prophet) established in 1985 in Punjab. It was constructed explicitly to combat Shi'a power in Pakistan and to make Sunni Islam the official religion of the state. For example, to counter the Muharram processions, it tried to celebrate the death anniversaries of the first four caliphs. This organization was militarized as well in the Afghanistani and Kashmiri conflicts. Maulana Azim Tariq, the prominent leader, was assassinated last year.
With roots, and membership bases, in rural areas, these organization spread to the urban populations in the mid-90s and brought with them their militant sectarianism. Between 1984-2003, there were over 1800 events of sectarian violence.
It is entirely conceivable that these recent episodes are a continuation of this decades old sectarian war but I think there is some evidence to suggest otherwise. First, is the nature of the new attacks -suicide bombings. Throughout the 90s, drive-by shootings, assassinations and remote detonations was the modus operandi of sectarian violence. In 2003/2004, they have been overwhelmingly suicide bombings. And al-Qaeda, a organization with long standing ties to such sectarian groups is a prime suspect.
Even more so, when one considers that on September 26, in Nawabshah, Amjad Farooqi was killed by Pakistani security forces. He was a member/leader of Jaish Muhammad and Harkat al-Mujahideen two organizations closely related to Sipah Sahaba. There is evidence that he was involved in sectarian acts, the execution of Daniel Pearl, and in the various assassination attempts on Musharraf. I don't think it is unfeasable that the bombings were triggered after his death. The explosive material seems to be similar in the Sialkot and Multan cases. Once flamed, the violence does not need further input from al-Qaeda to flourish.
It is no secret that al-Qaeda wants to depose General Musharraf. Osama b. Laden and Ayman az-Zawahiri have both released video edicts to take him out. With the army and intelligence focused on al-Qaeda/sepratist forces in Waziristan, this would be an opportune time to start a new sectarian war in Pakistan. The army, after all, is the only police in the country. The crucial issue is that Musharraf has been playing a dangerous game where he has placated the West that he is fighting terrorists but doing so only in the cases that directly bolster his grasp on power within Pakistan. He has not, and cannot, take on the hardline mullahs. He has not, and will not, counter the jihadist organizations. The Bush administration is happy that Pakistan has banned jihadist organizations and put them on a terrorist list (BIG on lists) and doesn't even care that almost all the organizations on the list simply conduct public business under different names. And, hence, this recent wave of violence finds plenty of willing participants.
Juan Cole has used the Multan bombing to argue that the War on Terror is failing. I do agree that Iraq has strengthened the hands of al-Qaeda operating in Pakistan, at the very least.
Does the President Matter? (Part 1)
In a discussion of Catholic voters, Notre Dame Dean Mark Roche writes:
During the eight years of the Reagan presidency, the number of legal abortions increased by more than 5 percent; during the eight years of the Clinton presidency, the number dropped by 36 percent. The overall abortion rate (calculated as the number of abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44) was more or less stable during the Reagan years, but during the Clinton presidency it dropped by 11 percent.This is fascinating, but problematic as history. During most of the Reagan years, Democrats controlled Congress; during most of the Clinton years, Republicans controlled Congress. And neither of them were really about expanding the "social safety net" but about dismantling and reforming it, in decidedly bipartisan ways. Abortion is a social issue which is going to respond in the short-term only to legal and technological changes; social patterns change more slowly, are are rarely well bounded by presidential terms. Have you ever heard of someone considering the president in the process of deciding about an abortion?
There are many reasons for this shift. Yet surely the traditional Democratic concern with the social safety net makes it easier for pregnant women to make responsible decisions and for young life to flourish; among the most economically disadvantaged, abortion rates have always been and remain the highest. The world's lowest abortion rates are in Belgium and the Netherlands, where abortion is legal but where the welfare state is strong. Latin America, where almost all abortions are illegal, has one of the highest rates in the world.
The comparative study is also worth a second look. There are other differences between Latin America and Northern Europe besides welfare: machismo vs. feminism being the one that comes to mind first; These numbers don't control for economic effects, either, and my understanding is that abortion is generally more common among lower-income populations.
As much as I'd like every swing voter in America to pick Kerry, I can't abide bad argumentation. But Roche raises an issue that I will come back to soon: the President, and the platforms, matter less than we think.
Let Me Sum Up
There’s a complicated, multi-blog discussion of heroism, culture and interpretation that has unfolded in the past week. It started with Paul Berman saying that “The Motorcycle Diaries” is a lousy movie because it views the youthful Che Guevara as heroic, which spurred Matthew Yglesias to cry foul, which then led Chris Bertram to do Yglesias one better, which then led Brad de Long to argue that it is impossible to view Lenin or Guevara or Achilles as heroic, which then led Henry Farrell to reply and de Long to reply to the reply.
As Inigo Montoya says in The Princess Bride, “Let me explain…no, there is too much. Let me sum up.”
1. As Farrell noted, in literary or even historical terms, “hero” can simply mean protagonist, or it can mean “admirable figure”. These are distinct uses of the word. A protagonist is a person whose choices drive the drama of a story. A protagonist does not have to be admirable, though if they’re one-dimensionally villainous (or one-dimensionally goody-goody) they often are pretty boring as protagonists.
2. When you’re reading an old text, literary or otherwise, it’s important to respect what it meant to the people who wrote it and to the people who have read it when it was written and over the years since. Achilles was both the hero and the protagonist of the oral epic which Homer eventually collected into a text. Modern readers don’t tend to view Achilles as an admirable figure any longer, as de Long notes. But I’m not sure that contemporary readers could view anyone in The Iliad as a hero in that sense, even Hektor. In the second half of the twentieth century, classicists emerged from the fugue state of trying to make the Greco-Roman condition the foundation of all that was good and right about “Western civilization” into a much richer appreciation of how strange the classical world is to modernity, particularly the Greeks. There are still “universal” or “timeless” readings to be mined out of The Iliad, but read with sensitivity, it’s largely a journey into an alien culture and mentalite. In the highly constrained sense that de Long or Berman use heroism, we cannot find anything heroic in it, even Hektor.
3. I’m with Yglesias and Bertram that there is something unbelievably reductionist about insisting that all the things we might say about individuals whom we recognize as having done great harm or having made very bad decisions have to come down to reiterating the badness of what they did. Historians face this problem all the time, and I’ve come to find it very irritating to have to stick a disclaimer up in the classroom or in my writing every time I want to discuss the choices or actions of any individual that I recognize as having been a willing participant in a morally dubious institution. Do I have to wave a big flag if I’m talking about a bureaucrat in the British Empire in the 1920s? No? Why not, given all of the repugnant activities the Empire was centrally involved in, from routine racial discrimination to massacring peaceful demonstrators? So does a film about the young Che Guevara have to constantly remind us of the moral failure of the slightly older Che Guevara, have to rigorously reject any favorable portrayal of Guevara? No. Though it might be more interesting still if such a film were to ask how it is that idealism transforms into oppression, hardly a unique alchemy in modern history, the film is not required to ask such a question.
On the other hand, Yglesias and Bertram need to be clear what they’re implying. Bertram has a hard time clearing himself of the charge of special-case pleading on behalf of revolutionaries, because this is not the first time he’s carried a kind of heavily-qualified torch for Lenin. Indeed, much of the underlying context of this whole discussion is the continuing rear-guard struggle of Marxists and ex-Marxists to preserve the morally positive idea of revolutionary action even if conceding the morally dismal record of actually-existing revolutionary circumstances. That's what Berman was complaining about and the bait that Bertram was rising to. Yglesias was widening the conversation somewhat by bringing in the larger "philistianism" that I agree does seem to be at large these days, where all texts seem reduced to nothing more than a hatch mark in a balance sheet of good and evil.
The implication of a firmly anti-reductionist interest in past (and fictional) individuals as protagonists and possible heroes means that we ought to apply such an interest evenly. It means, as Inga Clendennin has suggested, we need to be just as interested in the ordinary humanity of Heinrich Himmler as we might be of Che Guevara, that a more even-handed perspective on heroism is also, of necessity, a more even-handed perspective on villainy. There’s almost no one in history who has viewed themselves as a monster: everyone is the hero of their own story.
I’m fine with this more open-ended curiosity. I also think de Long ought to take the lyrics of the song from Mad Max 3 more seriously. Heroes in the sense of people who we regard as so unusually admirable that they are a model for us to imitate or follow, are pacifiers we should leave in our collective cribs. Heroes in the sense of historical protagonists whose actions and ideas, small or large, have helped to produce a better future, are found in the most surprising places and moments—and it is hard to think of such a hero whom we could not damn simply by choosing the darker sides of their time on Earth to emphasize. I’m interested simply in talking about what it is that people do in the world, and about a full appreciation of all the consequences of their actions, all of them. In the space of that interest, there’s room for Mohandas Gandhi the racial chauvinist of South Africa, a young and idealist Che Guevara on a motorcycle, Hitler in a trench in World War I, a “native commissioner” taking an earnest interest in his African subjects, a liberty-loving American revolutionary who owns slaves, and maybe even for the awful attractiveness of a long-ago mythical figure in an epic poem who petulantly slaughters other men for the sake of his own egotism.
Football and the university -- personal reflections
I've been thinking about football today. My beloved California Golden Bears fell just short in their game against USC on Saturday. Though Cal dominated the game statistically, 'SC won where it counts -- on the scoreboard. I don't place much stock in moral victories, though I am proud of my alma mater and excited about our prospects for the remainder of the year.
It's impossible to be simultaneously a gender studies professor and a football fan without periodically reflecting on this most violent and American of games. As a child, I was fond of watching pro football; I only became a real fan of the college game after going off to Berkeley in 1985. My freshman year, I had a student pass to all the home games, and went and cheered with wild enthusiasm.
Cal's 1986 season coincided with my sudden and ardent interest in women's studies. For the first time, I encountered folks who had serious, principled objections to this brutal game I loved so much. I began to ask questions about the colossal expense of college football programs, about the poor academic record of many of our recruits, and most importantly, about the link between football and violence against women.
An on-campus incident at the start of the academic year affected me deeply. After the first home game of the '86 campaign, four members of the football team were charged with raping a female student in a dorm room. (She had apparently consented to sex with one of them, and then he invited in his friends.) The incident was the talk of the campus. There was outrage when the coach refused to suspend the players unless they were charged criminally, which they never were. (The district attorney found insufficient evidence -- 1986 was apparently "pre-DNA" for all practical purposes.) As a "new feminist", I saw the case through new lenses; I was among those who marched and demanded that the four (three defensive players and a running back) be suspended immediately. I had become convinced that college football programs fostered a sense of entitlement among athletes, a sense that included the right of unrestricted access to young women's bodies. Though I was angry at the individual players (one of whom I had met briefly my frosh year), I also believed strongly that 18 and 19 year-old men who were recruited for their aggression and size and taught daily to "hit hard" were not entirely to blame when they had difficulty distinguishing defenseless human beings from their on-field opponents. Upshot? Hugo did not go to any games during the dismal 1986 football season until the "Big Game" with Stanford. Cal upset the overwhelmingly favored Cardinal, 17-11. My delight at having been present for the thrilling win brought to an end my boycott of the game. My doubts about football remained. When I came to grad school at UCLA, I found that many grad students made extra money by serving as athletic department tutors. The pay was excellent: $15-20 an hour, which was outstanding compensation in 1991. In some cases, it was more than what we were making as teaching assistants! I spent two quarters during the early 1990s working for the UCLA athletic department. I had friends who worked for the department for much, much longer.
One term, I was assigned one specific task: to help UCLA's dimwitted placekicker pass a famously easy course. I won't name the kicker, though anyone who has access to old Bruin media guides could probably find out who the fellow was. The course was Introduction to Russian Culture, taught by a Professor Vroon. I was paid for the following services: three days a week (the class was MWF), I met "my kicker" outside the lecture hall before the class and then sat with him during the lecture. Though he was to be encouraged to take notes, I took notes as well. We met weekly to review the notes and prepare for tests. He had no interest in school, but it had been impressed upon him that if he did not earn at least a "C", he would not be kicking the following season (which was to be his last year). I spent countless hours with him. He was bored by school, bored by the class, bored by me. I wanted him to pass very badly, largely because I knew I would get rehired and get still more money if I could prove to the athletic department that I could "get the job done."
My kicker passed the class. I made him write the first draft of his term paper by himself, and then I "cleaned up" all the grammar and made him the gift of a thesis. I was never told directly to write papers for him. Publicly, the athletic department insisted that the grad students like me were just "tutors", and all the real work was done by the players themselves. That may well have been true for some. But my placekicker would not have survived Professor Vroon's course had it not been for my "extra help". And I can assure you that privately, the director of the athletic tutoring program had made it clear to me that I was to do what was necessary to get that young man a C. I did as I was asked, and was paid handsomely. I made over $1200 for that passing grade, and as a poor grad student, was grateful for the opportunity. Had I not been given the editorship of UCLA's journal for Medieval and Renaissance Studies the following year, I might well have continued to work for the athletic program. To be fair, I also met some football players at Cal and UCLA who were bright, hard-working, and motivated. Some of these knew they would never make a living at pro football, and were grateful for the chance to get a free university education. Some did quite well. But in my limited experience, they were the exception rather than the rule. As a teaching assistant at UCLA, I had athletes from other programs in my classes, including a whole bevy of softball players. I found that there were no discernible differences between non-football playing athletes and other students (though I heard anecdotally that the men's basketball team had some real academic duds). The women athletes in particular often did better than their non-athlete fellow female students. The problem seemed to lie primarily in the football program. (Yes, there was and is a racial dimension to all of this, one that I am uncomfortable addressing.)
I still love college football. I have no particular love for UCLA, though they paid me well. My love is for Cal, even as I suspect that conditions in Cal's "tutoring program" are probably not all that different than at UCLA. I question the tremendous expense, and above all, I am troubled by the apparent link between football and violence against women.
But for now, at least, I'm still cheering. Go Bears!
Noted Here and There ...
As students of regional studies, my colleague, Nathanael Robinson, and Geitner Simmons have been trying to help us understand why this map of the electoral college vote in 1896 (scroll down) looks so much like this projection of the electoral college vote in 2004. George W. Bush as William Jennings Bryan? John Kerry as William McKinley? This will take some explaining!
One plausible explanation for Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech at the March on Washington is that he was delivering a fairly uninspired text built on the metaphor of a "bad check," until Mahalia Jackson called out from behind him: "Tell ‘em about the dream, Martin!" With that, King abandoned his text and launched into a version of a well rehearsed oration Jackson had heard him give weeks earlier in Detroit. I thought about that again as the blogosphere mulled over George Bush's truly bizarre pledge last week not to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who would approve of the Dred Scott decision. As you may know, one plausible explanation for it is that of Paperwight's Fair Shot. In pro-life circles, the argument goes, Dred Scott is so commonly identified with Roe v. Wade that George Bush's handlers knew that he could cite Dred Scott and it would be understood by the base as a figurative reference to Roe, without antagonizing pro-choice voters. Put that together with speculation that Bush was wired for radio communications from his handlers (scroll down; see also: Wendy McElroy's post at Liberty & Power) and you get Karl Rove as Mahalia Jackson calling out: "Tell ‘em about Dred Scott, George!"
My colleague, Jonathan Dresner, has a fine essay, "Revising Hawaiian History for an Unambiguous Age", over on the HNN mainpage.
The new Common-place is up. Of particular interest are Suzanne Lebsock's meditation on history and fiction, Anne G. Miles, "Slaves in Algiers, Captives in Iraq", and Matt Childs's review of Randy Sparks's new book, The Two Princes of Calabar: An Eighteenth Century Atlantic Odyssey.
At Gnostical Turpitude, Ed Conn cites a number of goodies, including a profile of historian and conservative activist Michael Ledeen in the Boston Globe, Richard Posner's review of The Annotated Sherlock Holmes for TNR, Joshua Glenn's rather mean speculation in the Globe about why Posner was so critical of Holmes's deduction, Lynn Barber's profile of historian David Starkey as "the meanest man in Britain," Scott McLemee's review of a psychiatrist's interviews with Nazis at the end of World War II, and Catherine Kodat's review of new books on the cultural Cold War for the Boston Review.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Why I'm So Glad You're Grading Student Essays These Days ...
We all know about fraternity filing cabinets (so 1950s) and term papers for sale on the net (so 1990s), but this internet trick takes the cake. You go to Essay Generator and type in any subject. It instantly generates a 400 word essay, including a chart and three endnotes. It is created from a template and a barrel of cliches. I thought that I might stump the generator with the word "Cliopatria". Not a chance. If I didn't like its first offering, I could repeat the process again and again until it yielded a more acceptable product. Try it out, with any key word or words you like. The essays are cliche ridden and often non-sensical, but I've graded worse that I'm sure were generated by a sensate human being. If you are grading student work in an environment in which the assumption is that anything submitted that cannot be proven to be a fraud gets a passing grade, my heart goes out to you.
Beyond the remarkable technology of this bloody thing, however, I found its sponsorship even more interesting. I learned of Essay Generator from H-Scholar's Diane Calabrese who referred to an article about it in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette for 10 October and to this web address: www.essaygenerator.com. Calabrese and, apparently, the reporter for the Post-Gazette didn't pursue the matter beyond the remarkable technology. If you click on that address, you are referred to: www.radioworldwide.gospelcom.net/essaygenerator. If you look around the site, it becomes clear that Essay Generator comes to you by the grace of Campus Crusade for Christ. Try their Random Person Generator. You'll be invited to compare yourself with a computer generated "person" and, if you follow the links, you'll eventually be assured that, unlike RPG, you have a unique place in the order of creation. So, the picture I get is of some poor freshman schlemiel, like I once was, desperate to fulfill a class requirement. The desperation and curiosity eventually leads to a gospel message. Don't get me wrong. I'm an evangelical and I believe in evangelism, but if you'll pardon the expression, this is a crock ...
Free Speech at UNC
Last week, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights issued an important ruling touching on many of the ideological divisions affecting the academy. The matter involved a case at the University of North Carolina, in which an English professor named Elyse Crystall ended a class by asking whether heterosexual men felt “threatened” by homosexual men. One student (an evangelical Christian) responded that he would not want to take his son to a baseball game where two men were kissing, and that a Christian friend of his was propositioned by a gay man and found the experience “disgusting,” but that “threatened” would be too strong a word for the feeling.
The next day, Prof. Crystall sent an E-mail to the entire class saying that “what we heard thursday at the end of class constitutes ‘hate speech’ and is completely unacceptable.” She apologized “to those of us who are now feeling that the classroom we share is an unsafe environment,” and promised to do her “best to counter those feelings and protect that space from further violence.” The student’s remarks, she continued, constituted “a perfect example of privilege. that a white, heterosexual, christian male . . . can feel entitled to make violent, heterosexist comments and not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable is what privilege makes possible.”
Upon learning of the E-mail, Crystall’s department chairman met with her and the student, stated that the E-mail was inappropriate, and monitored the remainder of the class to ensure that the student suffered no formal or informal retaliation.
The OCR investigation held that the student was targeted for "criticism in part because of his protected status”—since white and male are "both protected classes under the laws enforced by OCR"—and that such an act “constitutes intentional discrimination.” Additionally, the office ruled that the employer is responsible for "ending the discrimination and preventing its recurrence.” Since it found that the UNC administration had acted properly in this case, the OCR requested no further action. As North Carolina congressman Walter Jones noted, the ruling recognized that “a student's constitutionally granted First Amendment right to free speech was trampled upon by an instructor with the power to intimidate,” and it established a limit on future such acts (albeit a limited “limit,” since faculty ideologues were only prohibited from referencing race or gender when attempting to apply ideological litmus tests.)
The ruling resonates on three broader levels: 1.) Administrations matter. The UNC administration, which doesn’t have the greatest record on academic free speech issues, in this case seems to have acted entirely properly. (Alas, the faculty leadership’s subsequent actions—suggesting that the OCR’s inquiry chilled academic freedom--suggests some backtracking.) And although the department chairman’s response might seem like common sense, it’s not difficult to imagine an opposite reaction. For instance, at my own institution, President C.M. Kimmich received a letter from a women’s history professor denouncing the offering of courses and hiring of personnel in political and diplomatic history on the grounds that such “old-fashioned” topics were of use only for “young white males” of “narrow” intellects. Kimmich not only affirmed the interpretation, but placed the professor on the department’s personnel committee, which controls future hires. It would be hard to maintain that any white male could receive fair treatment in such an environment.
2.) The tip of the iceberg. It’s not as if many professors around the country are consciously imitating Crystall’s e-mail, or my colleague’s remarks on political history, or the justification issued by Duke philosophy professor Robert Brandon as to why his department had no conservatives (“If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire”). But it’s worth pondering about the intellectual environment that produced such transparently absurd statements. Crystal, my colleague, and Brandon not only made their claims believing that they would be persuasive, but assumed that no reasonable person could brook opposition to their positions. Scholars of racial or gender bias speak of the “mirror effect,” in which people like to hire those who resemble them. Certainly this approach holds for ideological bias as well: how could someone such as Brandon, for instance, ever evaluate applicants for a position in his department with a search for merit as his prime criterion?
3.) The UNC requirement. When this story first broke, I had assumed that the course in question was some sort of personal counseling offering, since I found it hard to imagine a normal academic setting in which Prof. Crystall’s question would be appropriate for class discussion. It turns out, however, that the course was an English class called “Literature of Cultural Diversity” that fulfills UNC’s “cultural diversity” requirement, which “explores diverse cultural values and viewpoints within the U.S.,” with a goal of exposing “students to the many facets of a diverse society and to allow self-understanding in the contemporary and pluralistic world.”
It would be hard to contend that this requirement isn’t more political than academic, and UNC’s interpretation of it raises serious questions about the university’s academic values. For instance, what sort of intellectual justification would maintain that a course in, say, “Women of Byzantium” fulfills the terms of this requirement, but a course in, say, postwar U.S. legal history, which would have to cover such topics as the civil rights movement, the ERA, abortion rights, and the gay rights movement, would not fulfill the requirement? Perhaps the university would have less negative publicity in the future if it confined itself to offering courses in academic subjects.
Dr. Strangehistory: or How I Stopped Laughing at Satire
Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is considered one of the goofiest, loopiest satires ever to take on a serious issue. The characters are over-the-top; the situations are comedies of errors; the subject matter is serious, but it works as a comedy because it's an implausible cautionary tale.
Or was it? The new DVD version apparently contains much more background information on the film, and the NYTimes reviewer says that the movie was a pastiche of real situations, characters based on real people, and that even the parts Kubrick was making up had pretty firm groundings in reality.
Sobering. Satire's deep and abiding value is in the way it reveals truth. The best satire, I've always thought, comes very close to reality; Tom Paxton said, in the Reagan era, "Some people you don't satirize. You just quote 'em." Sometimes we don't want to, or cannot, recognize the truth under satire, so we call it screwball comedy. How many other satires are we missing? When we laugh at a supposed exaggeration, we need to wonder whether it is an exaggeration at all. Secrecy has killed before, and endangered all of us; if only satirists know the truth, can we afford to laugh?
An Example? In a move that rivals anything Hilary Clinton did during her tenure as First Lady, Second Lady Lynne Cheney may have effected the revision of Department of Education materials to remove references to a National History Standard that has already been heavily revised to answer critiques by Cheney and other conservatives. By revision, by the way, I mean destruction of hundreds of thousands of copies and printing of revised materials that do not mention either the National Standard or the President's support for standardized curricula based on scholarly consensus. Nobody will say on the record that Lynne Cheney ordered the change, or that the Education Department bowed to her wishes, but her office was reviewing drafts of the materials as they were being produced. This is the administration that is going to establish No Child Left Untested standards for history if reelected?
DeLay No More ...
Regardless of the results of elections for the House of Representatives in November, House Republicans must shed themselves of Tom DeLay as their leader. How many more ethics violations, how many more grand jury investigations, how many more unanimous admonitions from the bi-partisan House ethics committee will it take before his leadership is too great a burden to bear? Why is House Speaker Dennis Hastert still defending DeLay, in spite of the bi-partisan findings? His ethical violations go far beyond the infractions that drove Jim Wright or Newt Gingrich from authority. Must Karl Rove pull the plug? Why are DeLay's ethical violations tolerable, when Trent Lott's racial insensitivity was not? Where is the hue and cry on DeLay from Daniel Drezner? Oxblog? Glenn Reynolds? Andrew Sullivan? Eugene Volokh?
Saturday, October 9, 2004
Noted Here and There ...
Jacques Derrida has died of pancreatic cancer at 74. Hat tip to Adam Kotsko.
David Brooks, "The Report That Nails Saddam," New York Times is a must read on the Duelfer Report. Brooks is good, perhaps even better, when you disagree with him.
If re-elected, President Bush commits to not re-naming Chief Justice Roger B. Taney to the Supreme Court. He is said to prefer naming younger conservatives to the bench.
On Terrorism Alert ...
As a historian, I can't help but think that, generations from now, our descendants will look back on 9/11 and be amazed at our odd reactions to it, even three years later.
*While there is still no adequate means of scanning shipping containers into our ports, FBI agents in Whatcom County, Washington, subpoenaed public library records in order to try to determine who may have scrawled an allegedly pro-Ossama bin Laden note in the margin of a book.
*Public schools across the United States were put on alert this week because of reports that the floor plan of a public school in Jones County, Georgia, was downloaded to a computer in Iraq. Do you have any idea where Jones County, Georgia, is? Neither did I and I live here. So I looked it up. It's northeast of Macon. A good bit of the county is covered by the Oconee National Forest. The county seat is at Gray, Georgia: population, 2,189. Do you begin to get the picture? This is the biggest event in Jones County history since Sherman's boys marched roughly through Georgia a 140 years ago. A loon could think that Muslim terrorists were planning to repeat what Yankee terrorists did then. Officials in Jones County have been told to keep an eye out for "prolonged 'static surveillance' by people disguised as panhandlers, shoe shiners, or newspaper or flower vendors." What a hoot! I'll have to remember not to peddle my papers anywhere near Jones County.
*The events of 9/11 were apparently planned by a network of terrorists centered in Afghanistan, so the president of the United States concentrates available military personnel and resources on an invasion of Iraq, where they are mired in guerilla warfare.
These are problems, large and small, in what "management science" calls "resource allocation."
Friday, October 8, 2004
Terrorism and Tourism
The attacks on Israeli-oriented hotels in Egypt reminds me of a comment in the first Western Civ textbook I used: about ten percent of the global economy is in the travel and tourism sectors. A great deal of that is in shipping and transportation, but tourism is a huge global market. Think about where you live, as REM said, and how often local elites have talked about the importance of your city or region being a "destination of choice" or having "world-class attractions." Here in Hawai'i, of course, we are very sensitive to tourism-related economic issues. The airplane grounding and dropoff in travel after 2001 was devastating here, and unemployment and economic activity is only now beginning to return to pre-attack levels. There is a proposal before the state legislature to reclassify attacks on tourists as "hate crimes" with the attendant increase in penalties.
The attack in Egypt is not just an attack on Israelis, but an attack on the Egyptian economy, which has suffered similar shocks before. "One Egyptian hotel worker in Taba, asked about the future of tourism there, said: 'Oh, it's done, thank you.'" In a sense, it's an attack on the global economy, because it won't just cut into tourism to Egypt. Tourism in Israel generally has been a depressed sector for years because of terrorism: without a threat of terror, Israel/Palestine would be one of the greatest destinations of the world, instead of a place people go to with some trepidation.
This is not a new issue: Linda Colley argues that it is part of the price of empire, but I think the ubiquity of tourism as an economic engine makes it a deeper issue than that. An attack on a hotel is not just deadly and scary, but intended to be fundamentally damaging. It is not terribly different, in that regard, from attacks on oil pipelines or communications infrastructure, for what good is infrastructure if it is not being used? When the heart of the economy is in the service sector, attacks on service workers and businesses are not peripheral. When education is the foundation of a growing economy, as opposed to a resource extraction regime, attacks on educators and educational institutions are not peripheral.
It may seem alarmist to go this far, but attacks on tourism and education are tactics of long-term and total warfare. The degradation of the economy produced by fear not only produces economic trouble for the people involved, but shrinking tax revenues reduces the ability of governments to respond vigorously to threats, problems and new challenges.
Winston Churchill said "Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon." There was a time when Democrats fell into those first two categories, but think the prevailing opinion among the leadership (certainly Clinton and Kerry) is more in the third category. I think Republicans, by and large, consider the third category a good description, but there are many who would like to unhitch the wagon and let the horse run free. I would love to see this question come up in the debate today [oh, well] or next week. Because I think the problem is something both sides can agree on, but the responses would differ quite sharply.
More Campaign Fun ...
JibJab has done it again with "Good To Be in D. C." Hat tip to Eugene Volokh.
Why bother listening to the debates? Mr. Sun! allows you to create your own George Bush stump speech; and your own John Kerry stump speech.
History and Journalism ...
Ed Conn at Gnostical Turpitude calls attention to Andie Tucher's "Whose Turf is the Past?" in the Columbia Journalism Review. Tucher argues that "the boundaries between historians and journalists are crashing," as journalists like Anne Applebaum, Robert Caro, Melissa Faye Greene, David Halberstam, Adam Hochschild, Richard Kluger, Nicholas Lemann and Diane McWhorter are publishing major books in history and historians barely wait until the dust from falling towers has settled before rushing in to cover a major news story.
Tucher has some intuitions of where new lines of distinction between the historians and the journalists may lie. "A generation's worth of changes in the way historians and journalists do their jobs has brought them so close together that the differences between their books sometimes seem notional, even anecdotal, to be summed up in a few generalizations — some of them, clearly, gross," says Tucher.
Historians tend to have more endnotes, journalists more acknowledgements. Historians are the hedgehogs who know one big thing, journalists the foxes who know many things. Historians locate themselves within and draw upon (or argue with) a community of scholarship; journalists parachute in and take everyone out to lunch. Historians are freer from the pressures of the marketplace; journalists are freer to make the bestseller list. The darkest temptation of the historian is plagiarism; of the journalist, fabrication. The historians are the ones most skittish about using the first-person singular. The journalists are the ones most sunburned on the nose.You can argue with a number of those generalizations. There've been major examples of both fabrication and plagiarism by both journalists and historians. Major scandals at CBS and the New York Times involved both failures to acknowledge and failure of critical distance on sources.
Or, when I think of comparable titles on the civil rights movement, the literature I know best, I tend to contrast David Garrow's Bearing the Cross with Taylor Branch's Parting the Waters or Mills Thornton's Dividing Lines with Diane McWhorter's Carry Me Home. When I do that, the business about "historians are the hedgehogs who know one big thing, journalists the foxes who know many things" falls apart completely. If you want massive detail, accurately rendered, read the historians, Garrow and Thornton. If you want to learn how to tell a cracking good yarn, often rendered as the journalist thinks things ought to have been, read Branch and McWhorter.
That difference, says Tucher, is real; and he cites Columbia journalism dean Nicholas Lemann and Princeton historian Robert Darnton in defense of their respective fields. "Historians try to pose a really interesting problem or contribute to the debate in a field," says Lemann. "But it's striking how little professional historians know about how to tell a popular story. They think ‘popular' means ‘picking a good topic.' They don't see that storytelling is a learned skill; they don't see that's what the nonprofessionals are doing." Historians may recognize the appeal of a good yarn, but they use it differently, says Darnton. He notes "a surge of academic interest in what he calls ‘incident analysis,' in which the historian starts with the sort of dramatic event any journalist would grab in a minute — a crime, a disaster, a dramatic imposture, or, as Darnton himself once did, the ‘great cat massacre' by roistering apprentices in eighteenth-century Paris — and ‘uses the narrative material to argue a case, one where an interpretive problem is at stake'...
The emphasis is on developing the thesis and sustaining the argument with adequate documentation. Indeed "narrative skill takes second place, if it figures at all.Darnton is right about a certain kind of history -- I'd call it thesis-driven history, but my colleague, Tim Burke, would step in here and thump me on the head again for talking about red herrings -- and, yet, Darnton misses a point to be made in defense of a less fashionable, bread-and-butter way of doing history. That is, an insistence on accuracy of detail. Put your finger on any page of Branch's stunning narratives and I'll find you an error; on some pages, they are so important as to stand reality on its head. Despite the Michael Bellesiles of the profession, there is something about a historian's greater sense of distance from the subject that lends itself to an insistence on accuracy. And there is something about a journalist's proximity to the sources that lends itself to corruption. If you don't believe that, track Judith Miller's reportage in the lead-up to the war in Iraq or read Jack Shafer's piece for Slate on the relationship between Henry Kissinger and the major journalists of the 1970s. It's just bloody depressing how sycophantic they could be. There's a major story to be told there that reverses Tucher's title: "Whose Past is the Turf?"
But the journalist's professional conditioning to look for the good story, says Darnton, raises its own questions. Journalistic storytelling has a ‘stylized quality, which can be a disadvantage as well as an advantage. By that I mean a tendency to look for a lead instead of an argument, to hype things, overuse colorful quotes, and exaggerate the importance of personal quirks.'
But, finally, says Tucher, there's another problem with the journalists' instinct: an inadequate sense of what distinguishes a headline story of the day -- a Gary Condit saga or a "Mission Accomplished" banner -- from a story of longer term significance. "The distinction most worth exploring between history and daily journalism," says Tucher,
is neither professional nor temporal but teleological. History can have endings, and most journalism does not. Even though we know in our hearts that history is never really finished, that each new generation reinterprets the past in ways that make sense for its own particular present, narratives of the past can offer what daily journalism almost always cannot: the illusion, at least, of completion. Even though there's no odometer that clicks over from "now" to "then," the lengthening distance between event and interpreter can bring a certain clarity of vision, as can new evidence, a shifted perspective, or someday, perhaps, even a cooler look at that dusty old archive of oral histories about 9/11. Even though the arc of any historical narrative is arbitrary — stopping with V-J Day makes a vastly different story than stopping with the Berlin airlift — writers of history have a luxury denied the daily journalist: the hindsight to choose an endpoint rather than just waiting for it to come along.There is, he argues, a "widespread and irresistible ... idea that there exists some final reckoning, some great arbiter that will coolly render the verdict of the ages, Olympian and infallible, and, no doubt, enshrined within a nice strong binding with gilt lettering on the spine." Let the people say: Amen.
Thursday, October 7, 2004
Only White People have Souls
As Atrios points out, the data from Pew that is used to track support for candidates on the basis of religious affiliation is unusually exclusive. It counts "white Protestants" and "white Catholics". It is not clear that anyone who does not qualify in these two categories is lumped into "secular". I usually don't complain about being represented in every depiction of America, but I say to Pew in a loud voice count my Judeo-Mexican arse!
Of Baseball, Fatwas, and Sex ...
You'll just have to trust me on this. First, you go over to Easily Distracted and read Tim Burke's "From Larry Bowa's Clubhouse to the Streets of Fallujah." Then, you stop by Abu Aardvark's place for his take on "Truth?" Then, for desert, have your way with Scott McLemee's piece on Elfriede Jelinek, the Nobel Prize winner for literature.
Toward a Finer Insult ...
Browsing in a catalogue yesterday, I found a book that reminded me of the comment boards at History News Network. It is Jack Lynch, ed., Samuel Johnson's Insults: A Compendium of Snubs, Sneers, Slights, and Effronteries from the Eighteenth Century Master (2004). Really, we've much to learn from Johnson. I've yet to see anyone called a bubbler, a clotpoll, a jobbernowl, or a moon-calf at HNN. The best I recall was when Derek Catsam called me a "slackjawed lackwit." Its only other use on the net seems to be by Obnoxious Bitch in reference to George W. Bush, but I absolutely reject the widespread rumor that OB is Catsam's sock puppet. In fairness, he was good enough to put a "Don't be a ..." behind it. Where was Johnson when I needed him? "You rakehel"* is probably too recondite, even for Catsam. "Don't be a buffleheaded clodpate!" should do.
It's disappointing that we've not been more resourceful on the HNN comment boards. The net offers aides to the learned insult. There is the Shakespearean Insulter, for example. How many times might you have used "Thou pribbling fat-kidneyed horn-beast!" or "Thou dankish full-gorged moldwarp!" or "Thou lumpish fen-sucked canker-blossom!" I suppose they could be used in the right context. For the professors, there's always "Thou villainous abominable misleader of youth!" That's from Henry IV, Part One.
There's also Elizabethan Insults. In case your vocabulary suffers from the wild proliferation of the "f" word, it offers both a bibliography and a useful mix ‘n match. Begin with "Thou" and add any two adjectives, one from column a and one from column b. I rather like "cockered" and "fly-bitten." End with a noun, say: "codpiece." "Take that, Thou cockered, fly-bitten codpiece." Memorable, I think.
There's also this on-line guide to the dozens. It's sometimes known as the snaps or signifying. Henry Louis Gates gave the dozens academic respectability in his book, The Signifying Monkey, an interpretation of African American vernacular literature. Doing the dozens may begin with a simple insult, like "You're so dumb, if you spoke your mind you'd be speechless." But it is likely to escalate and becomes serious when the reference is to yo' momma: "Yo' momma's so fat, she broke her arm and gravy poured out." There's long been a complex relationship between Jewish-American comedy and African-American comedy. We'll miss Rodney Dangerfield, who turned the dozens on the self and made us laugh with him when he said: "I was so ugly when I was born that the doctor slapped my momma."
*Rakehel: a wild, worthless, dissolute, debauched, sorry fellow.
Wednesday, October 6, 2004
Quick, Hie Thee ...
Quick, hie thee over to McLemee's castle,
For laughter to relieve thy pain.
So, we are still fighting the Civil War?
Glenn Smith at Blog of the President has this observation about partisan divisions on the basis of geography:
Even after four years of punditizing the blue state, red state phenom, it's been too little noticed the extent to which Republicans have revived the old Confederacy. Accurately, the fight is once again between the Blue and the Gray, not the blue and the red.
Little noticed? Perhaps not in the world of political activism, pundits have not played the your daddy was a slave-owner/yankee cracker cards. However, historians have noted how north/south divisions have perpetuated themselves by shifting into different fields of political conflict, from slavery to states' rights, labor relations, economic policies, foreign intervention, works programs, civil rights, internationalism ... until we get to our current division. (Being a Europeanist, my sense of American history is weak, so go easy on me.) And we use the legacy of slavery to draw critical (sometimes partisan) attention to Southern politics.
Calling the red states a revival of the Confederacy is a bit much--indeed, Southern Republicans advocate types of cultural unity that have no equivalent in American history (no one will like it when I say this, but it resembles the Jacobin instincts of French republicanism). Perhaps what is interesting is that the divisions between north and south have been politicized and that people are choosing where they live on the basis of their political identities. This view is further problematized when historians consider that civil rights, the most recent contentious debate about racial equality, was a debate within the Democratic Party as well as in the public sphere.
But this model does not explain everything. The most obvious thing is the redness of the Rocky Mountain region. Geitner Simmons is exploring the relations between the South and the West--he might have some explanation of the strength of the Republican Party in the West. I also think that both parties are thinking of ways of reaching across the north-south divide, looking for charismatic politicians that can capture the imagination of voters in hostile territories. On the left, John Edwards, Mary Landrieu and Wesley Clark are examples; on the right, Mitt Romney, Rudi Guiliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The "blue-gray" map, if one exists, may not last long as both parties cultivate charismatic politicians to carry their messages into partisan regions.
Noted Here and There ...
Sharon Howard recommends the V & A Exhibit, "Encounters: The Meeting of Asia and Europe, 1500-1800." As Sepoy notes, you'll not want to miss Tippoo's Tiger. He roars; he plays his organ.
Tom Bruscino smells a winner. He's "Smelling History" over at Rebunk.
Doug Kern at Tech Central Station sees Martin Luther, sitting there in his pj's, with a mug of coffee and a little stack of chocolate chip cookies, and saying: "Here I Blog; I Can Do No Other." Well, actually, the pj's, coffee, and chocolate chip cookies are my fantasy, not his. But David Nishimura at Cronaca sees a couple of flaws in Kern's provocative analogy.
Two of my favorite books about John Adams, Joseph Ellis, Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams (1993); and Zoltan Haraszti's much older book, John Adams and the Prophets of Progress (1952), make extensive use of the marginalia in the books in Adams's library. Some people apparently write notes in the margins of library books. Brandon Watson at Siris has a post that leaves you wondering why anyone would leave behind such evidence of non-comprehension. At Mode for Caleb, Caleb McDaniel looks, not at marginalia, but at the debris left to mark pages in a library book. It usually leaves no damage and may be a sort of winsome greeting to the next reader. In my first teaching position, one of my colleagues actually sent me on a scavenger hunt through books in the college library. He meant well. The message was: the odds against your getting tenure here are overwhelming; get your work done and be prepared to move on.
In my opinion, one of Martin Luther King's most effective sermons was "Paul's Letter to American Christians." Now, Adam Kotsko has found a second Pauline epistle to the Americans. Paul's message won't be reduced to Sunday school pablum if King and Kotsko have anything to do with it. Hat tip to Brandon Watson at Siris.
Tuesday, October 5, 2004
Pardon My Tizzy ...
In "Reading Carefully," my friend, Clayton Cramer, fingers my "hopeless tizzy." To review, I wondered about his attack on Jonathan Dresner, Eric Muller, Greg Robinson, and others as a "truth squad." How was their criticism of Michelle Malkin's book on Japanese internment suspect as book burning and his criticism of Bellesiles's Arming America heroic, I wondered. In attacking the professors, Cramer said:
There are professional historians who take what they do seriously, regardless of the political consequences of what they find. But I no longer have any illusion that these "professional standards" are adhered to by the vast majority of history professors teaching in the U.S.I took that as an insult to the "vast majority of history professors teaching in the U. S." Called on it, Cramer claimed that that wasn't what he meant to say and a Brown University student, James Kabala, (scroll down to comments) came to Cramer's rescue by pointing out some ambiguity in his language.
Pardon my tizzy, but Cramer's responsible for saying what he means in unambiguous terms. If he means only to cast aspersions on a minority, a majority but not an overwhelming majority of history professors, or an overwhelming majority of history professors, it's up to him to make his meaning clear. It isn't up to his readers to intuit it. English Composition 101, Clayton. Further, if your intent is only to cast aspersions on a substantial minority of historians in the United States, you assume responsibility for offering substantiating evidence, which of course you don't. Beyond that, if you want to cast those aspersions on the way I do history, my books and articles are there for you to check. That isn't what you do. You prefer lazy, sleazy innuendo and smears. Finally, if you're going to pretend to publish a book, don't bellyache and whine about having to live up to the standards that cost Michael Bellesiles his job.
Hard Work and Dumb Luck
It took a few days, but I finally found the key to George Bush's theme in the debate last Thursday. I know, that was last week; we're supposed to be speculating on the VP debate and talking about polls and momentum. Bear with me a moment longer.
What George Bush was saying, under all the hems and haws, was that being president is a challenge for which he was not prepared in 2001. Kerry has all these nice, tidy plans, wants to do things his way, etc. George Bush knows now that you can't plan a presidency. One line from the debate kept sticking with me: "I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that." He was running for the position of Commander-in-Chief, with all kinds of active and barely contained military problems in the world, and he didn't consider committing troops? What did he think he'd be spending the term doing, exactly?
Sorry, I don't want to be too partisan about it: that line bothers me deeply, but it also explains why Bush was so quick to denigrate Kerry's plans for change. "The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley," the poet said, and it's true, perhaps more so for the presidency than other jobs. You're responsible for the economy, which responsible economists admit you can't really do much of anything about in the short term. You're responsible for security, in which you are dependent on the competency of hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officials (and the incompetency of innumerable socio- and psycho-paths, not to mention true believers), and foreign policy, in which you are dependent on the enlightened self-interest and rationality of the most ambitious people on earth, besides yourself, and they have their own constituencies to worry about. There are billions of nuts out there, and every one of them seems to have your phone number some days.
Kerry thinks that he's smart enough and experienced enough to do the job, and he's right. But if we who support him and/or oppose Bush think that Kerry can just come into the office and send out a few memos and move things to the right track, then we should take a little time to contemplate Bush's experience. I don't think Kerry thinks that: I think he's got a much better idea what he's going to face (the political liabilities of Bill Clinton and the international mess of George Bush, all rolled into one). But I think it needs to be crystal clear that the alternative to things getting worse steadily is not things getting better quickly.
Monday, October 4, 2004
Poet's Corner
There are things that we just don’t get. Not often at least. The “we” are historians; the “things” are joy and sorrow.
Oh, we talk about joyful things, and sorrowful ones too. Sorrowful ones more often. “May you live in interesting times” may be a curse, but such times once past are our gold mine and joy.
Yet we so often crowd the emotion out. In part that’s the dissertation training; in part it’s the desire to analyze carefully. We deal with so many people over so much time. How often can we stop and look at one? God may be able to follow each falling sparrow to the ground, but we can’t. So we generalize and analyze, and all too often the emotions are lost in that translation.
Yes, nearly everyone finds a moment to bring emotion in, particularly that last line in the talk that we want people to remember. But few of us our poets with our words.
Of course that is what poets are for, in part: To bring out the truths that historians leave behind. Take this poem by Kathleen Flenniken, ”To Ease My Mind”. Mostly it’s about Mary Todd Lincoln, but it’s also about the Civil War, war in general, and an individual’s escape from the pain into either luxury or madness.
I suppose this is the biographer’s world more than the historian. The biographer can take us by the hand and introduce us to the individual, good or evil, joyful or sorrowful. But somehow it seems to me that we historians —or maybe it is simply I—can line up cause and effect and name the emotions in the motives but can never quite get to the complex of emotions themselves.
And that’s a shame, because all human action flows through emotion.
Maybe there are historians, or poets, that you think capture that complex of emotions wonderfully. If so, please share.
Consider the Case of Geoff ...
Thesis: Politics Has No Redeeming Social Value.
Assignment: Discuss.
With some regularity, we hear complaints that conservatives are discriminated against in the academy. With some regularity, we hear complaints that Cliopatria gives her vocation short shrift by getting caught up in partisan political debate; or, more commonly, that it lends itself to partisan advocacy.
I thought of those comments again when I read this post, "Why Do I Even Bother," (scroll down) by Geoff at The Minds of Moria:
What did I do to deserve having this class be this bad? If there was ever a time to take a study on government, it is a presidential election year. Therefore, I was thinking this class would be a lot of fun. But no, it most assuredly is not. This class should not be called "Federal, State, and Local Government." Its real name will live forever in my heart: "Democrat Bashing 101: The Republicans Can Do No Wrong." We "discussed" the debate in class today; by discuss, I mean we decided how Kerry had screwed up, how he is such a retard, and how he was wrong in what he said. Aside from the personally dispar[a]ging comments, that would have been a worthwhile discussion, if we had then turned and done the same thing to Bush. But, according to most of the class, Bush can do no wrong, even when he does extremely poorly in a debate. All of the discussion was on how the Democrats are twisting what Bush said here or how they disagreed with him there; well, duh! People, they are the opposing party. News flash: the opposing party doesn't much like the incumbent. A second news flash: Bush has screwed up royally more than a few times since he took office. He is not perfect.Geoff is an undergraduate at an evangelical liberal arts college, the kind of institution from which we hear too little. But I found his observations to be fascinating as an exercise in looking in the mirror. Thanks to The Elfin Ethicist for the tip.Now, I generally consider myself a Bush supporter in this race, and I was insulted by some of the comments Dr. [*****] was making about Kerry and Democrats in general. This morning made me remember what about "politics" today that I hate the most. It is all party line and personal assault. There is no debate, no exchange of ideas, no considering of the issues. It is all rhetoric and inflamatory talk. Pray to God for the return of statesmen before this country destroys itself.
Tote That Book, List Those Elections....
HNN interns have been busy the last few weeks. Rick Shenkman appears bent on turning HNN into a one-stop shop for US election information. We've still got a way to go before we are in the Political Graveyard's class as a resource: the list of over ten dozen US politicians who have lost seven or more elections is priceless, and the rest of the site is fascinating browsing.
But the output of the HNN interns has been impressive. It started, really with the Republican National convention, with lists of historical allusions in the floor speeches and historians contributions to PBS commentary. The latter article was by Concordia grad student and HNN intern Bonnie Goodman, who has also given us an update on the No Gun Ri controversies, highlights of last week's debate and historians' reactions, and this weeks' chronicle of the Vietnam War in US elections which points out that Vietnam is eclipsed as a perenniel election issue only by the Civil War itself.
Aaron Burkart's discussion this week of front-runners and final results dovetails nicely with Ralph Luker's discussion below of mandates, landslides and squeakers. Finally, Alex Bosworth, recently of Whitman College, gave us a nice basic history of presidential debates and has a forthcoming article on Truman's use of scare tactics to ram the Marshall Plan through congress.
Sunday, October 3, 2004
Royal Presidents
From Unmedia, I learned that Kerry is descended from the Prophet Muhammad. After laughing for a solid 10 minutes, I googled. Seems that Burke's Peerage has a press release that documents Kerry's blood lineage:
Sen. Kerry is also descended on his mother's side from Henry I, King of France, and his wife, Anne of Kiev. He is a direct descendant of a daughter of King Harold, the last Anglo-Saxon King of England. As a collateral descendant of Constantine Monamacaqs IX, Emperor of Byzantium, Sen. Kerry is related to all the monarchs of the royal house of France, including a double relationship with Francis I, Louis XIV, Louis XV, sadly with Louis XVI (guillotined) and also Louis XIX, Charles X and the present day Louis XX of France.
The above blood line gives Sen. Kerry kinship with the royal houses of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the princely House of Rus founded in 862 A.D. Amongst his kinsmen can be counted Ivan IV, "The Terrible", Tsar of all the Russias. His descent from the princely House of Rus gives him modern relations, living today, amongst the princely Russian families of Dolgorouky and Obolensky.
Seems Kerry is related to everyone but the King of Spain. But no mention at all of the House of 'Ali. That's ok, though. Sayyid John Kerry just doesn't sound right.
However, something else occured to me. We have Bush II in the White House with Jeb Bush still eyeing a 2008 run. Hilary Clinton on the other end is a sure for the 2008/2012 run. The Bushes and the Clintons seem poised to create dynasties. And the media which builds cults of personalities will love nothing more. Sounds like the Nehru, Bhutto families of the sub-continent. The blood-line denotes a right-to-rule or a right-to-serve, however you look at it. Once entered into the media and political bloodstream, these names spawn generations of leaders and luminaries. They led, hence, they will lead?
Arguing with Alonzo Hamby ...
I'm ordinarily inclined to defer to the judgment of other historians who know more about a subject than I do. That's especially the case when it is a careful and thoughtful historian like Ohio University's Alonzo Hamby, who is one of our foremost experts on the American presidency. According to the University's Public Relations Office,
Hamby wonders if the nation is on the verge of a return to a trend that surfaced in the late 19th century, when the 1876, 1880, 1884 and 1888 elections all had tight margins.Hamby's belief that bitter national divisions are unhealthy for the country is an honorable instinct. The bitterness feeds all kinds of ugly encounters. On the other hand, I take comfort in the likelihood that there will be no landslide in November's presidential contest.
"I don't think this is anything to look forward to," says Hamby, a specialist in 20th-century American political history who has written several books on the presidency from the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt forward.
Tight races add to contention in the nation, Hamby says. "When a country is so bitterly divided, it isn't good." (Hat tip to Tom at Big Tent)
Since World War II, there have been 14 presidential elections. The winning candidate in six of those contests polled less than a majority of the popular vote: Truman in 1948, Kennedy in 1960, Nixon in 1968, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Bush II in 2000. Three of the contests were won by candidates with popular majorities far short of a landslide: Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980, and Bush I in 1988. There have been only five presidential elections since World War II in which the winner prevailed in what is commonly considered a landslide, 55% or more of the popular vote:
Eisenhower in 1952, 55.3%It is noteworthy that four of the five results were for second term re-elections. Think back over Eisenhower, II; Johnson, II; Nixon, II; and Reagan, II. They will not be recalled as great moments in the history of the American presidency. In fact, I dread landslide re-elections of American presidents. Go back even further: Roosevelt II featured troublesome overreaching for power.
Eisenhower in 1956, 57.4%
Johnson in 1964, 61%
Nixon in 1972, 60.7%
Reagan in 1984, 58.8%
I respect Alonzo Hamby's reasoning as that of an honorable and knowledgeable historian. But I disagree with it for two reasons:
First, the analogy to the presidency of the late 19th century is suggestive but misleading. American presidents in the late 19th century headed a national government which was of much less moment both in world affairs and in the lives of ordinary citizens than late 20th and 21st century presidents do. The nation could afford the second and third rate presidents those contests yielded because they had, by comparison, little power and authority.
Second, there's a more recent record of landslide re-elections leading to disastrous second term presidencies. There is a sense in which I do not want the man who is inaugurated on 20 January 2005 – whoever he is – to do so with a sense of mandate. Now, more than ever, because the United States plays an outsized role in world affairs and because its government has a huge role in the lives of ordinary citizens, I hope our president has no large sense of a mandate. The temptations of pride are too great; the risks of no restraint are too serious.
Saturday, October 2, 2004
Petersburg and Princeton ...
Resist all temptation to compare the search at Princeton to the Battle of the Crater outside Petersburg. The University has announced its search to replace both James McPherson who has retired and Nelle Painter who has announced her plans to retire. You can hear of roar of thousands of 19th century American historians rushing in to fill the breach. Many are called; few are chosen.
Some Recommendations ...
First, for visual interest, visit The Sketchbooks from the Archives of American Art. Hat tip to Mr. Sun! And, speaking of his Sunship, for fun, try out his "Make Your Own George W. Bush Stump Speech!" George could've used Mr. Sun's help this past week.
To wind up Dissertation Week, Caleb McDaniel at Mode for Caleb has two posts on "transnational history." In the first, he identifies himself as a "transnational historian" and discusses the movement among some historians to decenter attention from the nation-state. It's a fairly radical move, as he observes, because our tendency to invest the nation with essential qualities goes back far beyond the emergence of the modern nation-state to some of the earliest historians, Herodotus and Thucydides. In the second post, Caleb historicizes the idea of "globalization," from which he believes the tendency to transnational history emerges. The notion that our technology annihilates space is more recent than the belief that nations have essential qualities, but still it has a long history and we must think critically about its implications. This is fascinating work.
My colleague, Tim Burke, recently celebrated his fortieth birthday on a fishing trip to Canada, but he still spins off ideas with the ease of a graduate student. In the first of two posts on the subject, Burke spells out his intuition that some environmentalists' fears of "invasive species" have their origins near, in, or with modern essentialist notions of race, identity, and nationality; and, in a second post's gloss on the first (scroll down; the permalink's not active), he notes other people's suggestions about what he'd written, including Gary Jones's comments at Crumb Trail. I first made some of these connections when I learned that Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), who coined the German word for "ecology", was also a major influence in the development of national socialist thought. To put it most crudely in the national socialists' words, "Are Jews [or Muslims or Mexicans -- substitute your choice of target] the invasive species?", is to highlight the connection. No one should take that to mean that the environmentalists' concerns should be dismissed as Nazi propaganda, but there is a rich intellectual history here, more than enough for a single book, and Jones offers some bibliographical starters.
Tim's other post at Easily Distracted, "Stick a Fork in the Road", is a "must read." It's about Zimbabwe and about the United States; it's about when and whether we have choices. It's Burke at his thoughtful and provocative best. Tim doesn't and wouldn't, I think, make the connection, but John Holbo and John Quiggen sparked interesting discussions at Crooked Timber this past week about apocalyptic modes of thinking. Brandon Watson at Siris posts a brilliant apologia for apocalyptic thought. If it's authentic, it's inevitably subversive, he argues. The anemic language of the secular Left might find strength in apocalyptic imagery, as the prophets often have in the past. There's nothing quite so powerful as naming the Whore of Babylon, because the imagery has such resonance.
Finally, our newest colleague, Hala Fattah, goes home this week to visit Baghdad. She promises to post from there, if possible, but in any case to give us her impressions when she returns to Aman. I'm intrigued by her parting word to Oscar that "history trumps reality every time." It gives me reason to look forward to reading Cliopatria in the days and weeks ahead. And, to whatever providence, fate, fortune, or happenstance gave me such richly talented colleagues, I can only say "thank you."
Friday, October 1, 2004
Speculating on the Senate
With virtually no one any longer contending that the Democrats will reclaim a majority in the House--or even pick up, at best, more than 3 or 4 seats--the only possibility of a shift in congressional control from the 2004 elections comes in the Senate. Here, the race seems very much like the current one in the Electoral College--slightly favoring the Republicans, and with as much chance as a significant GOP gain as a Democratic victory.
Counting Jim Jeffords as a Democrat, the Dems start the race behind 49-51. And, making the (not unreasonable) assumption that if Kerry is elected, Massachusetts voters will replace him with a Democrat, the Dems need to pick up one net seat to take the majority if Kerry is elected and two seats if Bush is re-elected. Quite beyond the issue of coattails, then, a Democratic majority probably depends on a Kerry victory.
Three seats seem all but certain to change hands: Illinois, where everyone's favorite GOP candidate, Alan Keyes, trails by 51 points in the latest poll (68-17); Georgia, where the Dems have had no chance for months; and South Carolina, where the Dems probably lost their only chance at victory when former GOP governor David Beasley was defeated in the Republican runoff. So, not counting any of the close races, Republicans start the contest with a one-seat gain.
Five seats seem to have shifted in the direction of the party that currently occupies them over the past several weeks--Washington, North Carolina, and South Dakota for the Democrats; Missouri and Pennsylvania for the Republicans. That leaves five more open seats (Florida, LA, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Alaska) that will decide, with the Dems needing to win all five to reclaim the Senate if Bush wins, and four of the five if Kerry prevails.
The Florida race has been slow to develop, but it's been a decade since a Republican has won a Senate race there, and the Democrats certainly nominated a solid candidate in Betty Castor. In Oklahoma and Alaska, the Dems nominated their strongest conceivable candidate in both races (Brad Carson and Tony Knowles) and the Republicans nominated two deeply flawed candidates in Tom Coburn and Lisa Murkowski. Nonetheless, although it's certainly possible, it's hard to imagine the Dems winning both of these states, especially since Bush seems likely to carry both by 25 points or more: no Democrat has won a statewide federal race of any kind in Alaska since 1974, and David Boren is the only Democrat to win an Oklahoma Senate race since 1966.
If Oklahoma and Alaska split, that leaves Louisiana and Colorado to decide the outcome. The only Democrat to win a Senate race in Colorado in the last 18 years was Ben Nighthorse Campbell, but he quickly defected to the GOP, and Democratic nominee Ken Salazar recently lost his lead to GOP candidate Pete Coors. In Louisiana, Dems have increasingly become reliant on the state's peculiar election system, in which candidates from all parties appear on the ballot with a runoff the first Saturday in December if no candidate receives a majority. They've erased large Republican leads in the open primary in the 1996 and 2002 Senate races and the 2001 gubernatorial contest. At some point, though, it would seem as if their luck will run out. If I had to guess at this stage, I would say that Salazar will win Colorado and GOP nominee David Vitter will capture Louisiana, which would produce a 50-50 Senate.
There is, however, one other historical trend worth considering. In each of the last four elections, there has been one notable Senate upset: 1996 in Nebraska, with Chuck Hagel over Ben Nelson; 1998 in North Carolina, with John Edwards over Lauch Faircloth; 2000 in Washington, with Maria Cantwell over Slade Gorton (courtesy of the final absentee ballots from Seattle, counted days after the election); and 2002, with Saxby Chambliss over Max Cleland. Alarmingly for the Dems, the only possible candidates for an upset at this stage seem to be Democrats--Tom Daschle in South Dakota, Patty Murray in Washington, and, perhaps most likely, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, who has demonstrated a tendency to fade late in both 1992 and 1998. This is one historical pattern that Democrats will be hoping to avoid this election day.
On the Debates and Other Forms of Torture ...
As Derek Catsam points out, History News Network's Rick Shenkman was featured on MSNBC this morning to analyze the presidential debates. You can find a transcript of the debate here or watch it here. Rick's analysis of it is here and Derek's observations are here.
I have been remiss in not calling your attention to efforts in Congress to legalize the outsourcing of torture. It seems to me that, if it has finally come to that, the United States ought to own up publicly to the necessity of committing torture to accomplish its objectives and to do it ourselves under our own supervision. Obviously, I hope it has not come to that and that we will not engage in it. Distancing ourselves from it by outsourcing, however, is contemptible. Please do contact your member of Congress and urge her or him to oppose this legislation and contact your local newspaper because this is moving under its radar.
Take That, Adam Kotsko ...
I look with jaundiced eye on the practices of some of my fellow bloggers, particularly Adam Kotsko and Scott McLemee.
To begin with, Kotsko's got some nerve, calling his site "The Weblog," as if his generic claim crowds out all others' to having a blog. Then, he provokes all of us by insisting that "there is nothing outside the blog" (scroll down), thereby staking his claim of title to the knowable and sentient universe. He tries to hide the imperial pretense of it all with late and over-ripe Marxist/Negrian rhetoric about hegemony, just to make sure that we know he's on the side of the oppressed. But the kicker, on top of all that, is when his bourgeois self starts hawking merchandise, all in the name of the revolution, you understand. So, I'm just telling him that he's got some mercantile competition from the original salesman of the faith at St. Clinton.com. He feels your pain when he drives you out of bidness.
Then, there's my friend, Scott McLemee. He's a man of the word, don'cha know, so there's lots of interesting text over on his site. But, then he notices that it is visually challenged, so he heists an illustration from Kotsko. I want to know if McLemee hit Kotsko's Paypal tab for that illustration! And, having gussied up his place with Kotsko's illustration, McLemee's got the nerve to send me some e-mail about how much prettier his place is than Cliopatria's. Well, take this, Adam Kotsko, and take that, Scott McLemee:
This is Cliopatria. S/he's not for sale, but s/he's multi-talented and rents out h/is/er services at $20 an hour or whatever the fed's going rate is these days. And, I don't want to hear one word of reproof about my heisting this gorgeous picture of h/im/er from Matt Drudge.
Recent Entries
- Thursday's Notes
- Midweek Notes
- More Noted Things
- Things Noted Here and There
- Sunday's Notes
- Reclamation
- Weak Endnotes
- Friday's Notes
- Thursday's Notes
- Elsewhere: Post-blogging 1940
News
Roundup
HNN Blogs
- Cliopatria
- Liberty & Power
- Judith Apter Klinghoffer
- How Stupid?
- Mark A. LeVine
- Allan Lichtman
- Tim Furnish
- Gil Troy
Contributing Editors
- Timothy Burke (∞)
- James C. Cobb (∞)
- Hala Fattah (∞)
- Mark Grimsley (∞)
- Michael Kazin (∞)
- Bruce Mazlish (∞)
- Wilson J. Moses (∞)
- Thomas G. Palaima (∞)
- Mechal Sobel (∞)
- Sean Wilentz (∞)
- Sam Wineburg (∞)
Cliopatria's Appendices
- Cliopatria Alumni
- Cliopatria Awards
- Cliopatria's Bookshelf
- Hall of Fame
- History Blogroll
- History Carnival
- Symposia
Blogs
- AHA Today
- Airminded
- Andrew Sullivan
- BibliOdyssey
- Boingboing
- Chapati Mystery
- Civil War Memory
- Civil Warriors
- A Corner of Tenth-Century Europe
- The Corner
- Crooked Timber
- Curious Expeditions
- Daily Kos
- A Don's Life
- Easily Distracted
- Edge of the American West
- Eunomia
- Executed Today
- FiveThirtyEight.com
- The Fix
- Frog in a Well
- Georgian London
- A Historian's Craft
- In the Middle
- Informed Comment
- Instapundit
- Northwest History
- Opinionator
- Paper Cuts
- Quick Study
- Religion and American History
- Siris
- Steamboats Are Ruining Everything
- Talking Points Memo
- Tenured Radical
- THS Blog
- University Diaries
- The Valve
- Volokh Conspiracy
- Walking the Berkshires
- War Historian
- wood s lot
- Wynken de Worde
- zunguzungu
Other Media
- Arts and Letters Daily
- Bookforum
- Books & Culture
- The Browser
- Chronicle of Higher Education
- Common-Place
- The Daily Beast
- Foreign Policy
- Global Voices
- The Guardian
- History News Service
- History Now
- Huffington Post
- Inside Higher Ed
- Literary Review
- London Review of Books
- The Nation
- The National
- National Public Radio
- The New Republic
- New York Review of Books
- New York Times
- New Yorker
- Politico
- RealClear Politics
- Romenesko
- Slate
- Tablet
- Times Higher Education
- Times Literary Supplement
- Washington Post
- Weekly Standard
- World Press Review
Shopping
Recent Comments
- Jonathan Dresner on More Noted Things
- Ralph M. Hitchens on Quite Rather
- Jonathan Dresner on A Complete History of the Soviet Union Through the Eyes of a Humble Worker, arranged to the melody of Tetris
- Chris Bray on Quite Rather
- Chris Bray on Quite Rather
- Chris Bray on Quite Rather
- Chris Bray on Quite Rather
- Jonathan Jarrett on Quite Rather
- Karen Lofstrom on Quite Rather
- Jonathan Dresner on It's Dying -- Let's Eat It
Archives
September 2010August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
