Today’s topic in my historiography class was supposed to be causation – why does stuff happen? But we got astray, because the chapter on causation in our textbook started off with a riff on the importance of questions, which led to a discussion of bias. Most people think of bias as someone having an axe to grind or some product to sell. We see it every day, from politicians to advertisers. We think ourselves pretty savvy, snickering at the blurbs on movie ads from reviewers no one has ever heard of, sneering at the half-truths from the politicians we love to hate. But seeing bias on that level is trivial – any five year old can spot the obvious stuff.
I routinely get book reviews from students telling me that the author was “objective and unbiased.” What they mean is that the author was measured in tone, neither praising the subject at hand to high heavens nor demanding its damnation. Most scholarly authors of course don’t do that – we got that beaten out of us in grad school. But bias very much remains. The place where bias is most influential is not in our adjectives but in our questions. It is when we decide what to write about, what to research, what questions to ask, that our presuppositions become clear. If I bother to write a book called Religion in America, I am asserting that religion in America is important and worth researching. You may say that of course it is, but note I have not written a book called Atheism in America, or Humanism in America. Indeed, Prentice Hall publishes a textbook called Religion in America – there is no corresponding title on atheism (PZ Meyers might want to look into that).
So if you really want to know where bias lies in academic or journalistic circles, don’t just look at what is written, think also about what is not written. Frank Rich’s new book, The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth From 9/11 to Katrina makes exactly this point. In the run up to the Iraq war, the information was out there that the intelligence for WMDs in Iraq was weak and shoddy. Most of the media, the Knight-Ridder papers being an exception, just weren’t asking the right questions. Indeed, the White House was in the same boat. They focused on asking what evidence there was for WMDs in Iraq, and vacuumed up every scrap they could find. They didn’t ask the opposite question - what evidence is there against the existence of WMDs in Iraq? This is how the CIA got caught flatfooted by the collapse of the Soviet Union – our agents and analysts studied the ways the USSR was powerful and dangerous, not the ways in which it was a house of cards. Once again we didn’t ask the right questions. Please, before we start bombing Iran, could somebody start asking the right ones?
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Today’s topic in my historiography class was supposed to be causation – why does stuff happen? But we got astray, because the chapter on causation in our textbook started off with a riff on the importance of questions, which led to a discussion of bias. Most people think of bias as someone having an axe to grind or some product to sell. We see it every day, from politicians to advertisers. We think ourselves pretty savvy, snickering at the blurbs on movie ads from reviewers no one has ever heard of, sneering at the half-truths from the politicians we love to hate. But seeing bias on that level is trivial – any five year old can spot the obvious stuff.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
When I started this blog, one of the things I wanted to do was to think about blogs from an historian’s point of view. I’ve been doing some of that, but it’s more difficult than I first thought. Part of this is because of the sheer diversity of the form, something like trying to write about post-it notes from an historian’s point of view. More directly, though, there is the newness of the form. For older genres, there are techniques and strategies well-established for dissecting this text or that text. How to read a newspaper, a diplomatic telegram, an almanac, or a president’s letters – these are all topics well understood and much experienced by working historians.
Blogs resemble journals or diaries on one level, newspapers on another, but are clearly neither. For those kinds of texts, I already know how to approach them. With a newspaper, there are several things I know as a researcher. I know, for example, how newspapers are produced and why (something, of course, that is different in different time periods). I know never to confuse the thinking and the knowledge of the newspaper with that of its audience. I know there are certain questions I have to ask. What kind of ideological position does the op-ed page take? What kind of wall exists between the op-ed page and the news section? What kind of wall exists between the reporters and the advertising sales reps? Who is the target audience? One of the most important things to know about diaries is that, despite what most people think, diaries are meant to be read, and should never be thought of as uncensored stream of consciousness from the soul of the author. So one question to ask with a diary – who did the diarist expect was going to read this? What did they expect to achieve by having that person or audience read their diary?
But blogs? What are the rules for an historian reading a blog? What are the questions to ask? I imagine that the first impulse of most historians will be to treat blogs primarily as diaries. But there are some serious issues with this. Diaries do not usually reach an audience immediately upon being written, entry upon entry. Diaries are not (usually) interactive. Nor do diaries have web links, and thus do not have dead web links either (something that will definitely drive future researchers bananas). Unless the diarist is a person of prominence, most people do not expect a particularly large audience for their diary. Most diarists also expect to be able to control who reads their diary, at least in their own lifetimes. Blogs are not diaires.
Anyway, I’m still thinking barley formed thoughts about this. More poorly thought out posts on this subject to come.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
If you want to be frightened, read this article, which outlines quite succinctly the danger of nuclear terrorism. The good news is it can be stopped. Securing the sites where nuclear weapons are held and where bomb-capable uranium and plutonium is found is a project within our grasp. The bad news is our president is George W. Bush, leader of the Republicans. The plan that Graham Allison outlines is doable. It involves a fair amount of spending on security upgrades, heavy lifting on diplomacy with the states that already have nuclear weapons, and even more difficult diplomatic work on the questions of Korea and Iran. Of course, this is not an issue that the Republicans and Bush have taken very seriously since Bush came to the White House. The very first budget proposal Bush sent to Congress requested a deep cut in the Nunn-Lugar program, which mainly spends money to help Russia secure its nuclear programs from theft and terrorism, and to dismantle facilities and weapons. The Bush Administration also immediately upon coming to power adopted a confrontational stance with Korea that has gone absolutely nowhere – indeed, North Korea is a far more serious nuclear threat now than it was six years ago. And to top it off, Bush’ preposterously mismanaged war in Iraq has left Iran more powerful, emboldened, and a whole lot harder to deal with. The fact that it is swimming in oil money, something helped along by Bush’s lack of commitment to reducing our dependence on oil, is icing on the cake.
And diplomacy? Bush is depending on our ability to torture enough terror suspects so that if someone out there is planning an attack, we can stop them before they push the button. I suppose he imagines himself as George Clooney romping around with Nicole Kidman in The Peacemaker. I’d rather not wait on just-in-time heroics. Diplomacy and high tech security measures are not sexy. They don’t let you swagger around like John Wayne and don’t make much for heroic sound bites. But the best path to preventing terrorists from setting off a nuclear bomb in the United States is to make sure that every weapon and every pound of fissile material is accounted for and secure. That takes a lot of very difficult diplomacy, and I don’t trust this Bush to do it.
Friday, September 15, 2006
A little earlier this evening, I happened to catch David Brooks discussing on NewsHour the Senate’s rejection of the Bush Administration’s efforts to seek wide latitude to interrogate terrorism suspects under a “reinterpretation” of the Geneva Conventions. Brooks had this to say about the conflict between the White House and the Senators who refuse to go along:
Did I just hear David Brooks say that torture is an ideological matter? Oh of course not. Surely he knows better. But then he went on to say this:
It's happening, first, because, despite best efforts over months, they haven't been able to come together, in part because the White House has not done a good job over the years of having congressional relations, but in part because both McCain and Bush feel this in their core, McCain, that you don't torture, Bush, that I have to prepare the way for presidents 50 years from now to do what they need to do. [snip]
I think they think, a, it's a matter of national honor, national pride. This goes to the core of a lot of people. And a lot of people may think what I think, is that maybe you do get some information out of torture, but there's an ideological conflict, and it's important to have a little moral clarity in the world, in a little moral standing in the world to fight the broader war.
Now, the White House case, they do have a case. One, as the president said, it's the Geneva Convention is vague. Two, that, you know, when our soldiers are -- our Marines are captured, they're not going to be treated fine. The idea that there's going to be any reciprocity is nonsense. And, third, that we're in a different technological age, that if we capture somebody, they know about some plot that's about to kill millions of people, don't you want us to be able to do whatever we need to do?Mr. Brooks, torture is not an ideological issue. It is the difference between right and wrong. The reason that we regard the terrorists as evil is because they commit evil acts, and because of this we have the moral authority to track them down, bring them to justice, and kill them if need be. But their evil acts do not justify our evil acts. It is not right for Billy to beat up on the kindergarten kids just because Tommy does, and it is not acceptable for us to commit evil because the terrorists do. These are the moral lessons that we teach children, not adults. Adults who do not recognize that torture is evil are morally bankrupt. To even dignify the subject by debating it is a sign of moral bankruptcy. Infanticide is not an ideological issue. Rape is not an ideological issue. Torture is not an ideological issue. There is nothing to debate.
And I will go farther. It is not just that those who seek to justify torture are morally bankrupt; they are also anti-American. The United States is not a set of lines on the map, it is an idea - the idea that a nation founded on the principles of liberty, justice, and freedom can survive and prosper. Those who seek to justify torture stand in opposition to that idea, and thus in opposition to America. They are too lazy and too stupid to understand that there is no conflict between our safety and our ideals, and we can not and must not jettison one to protect the other.
If you believe in what is good, and you believe in America, you can not accept torture. There is nothing to debate.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
In my historiography class today, we discussed what history is for. That is, not what the past is for, but what is the discipline of history for – why do we bother to study and write about the past? Both the students and the text we are using suggested many of the usual ideas. We study history to learn who we are; we study history to learn what mistakes not to make; we study history to correct falsehoods and bad historical analogies (are you listening, Mr. Rumsfeld?); we study history because it is fun. The text, however, suggested a possibility that I’d never really thought of before – that we study history to make us more aware and more tolerant of cultural differences, more accepting of people different from ourselves.
I’m not so sure about that. I think the idea is that if we learn what other people have suffered, the struggles they have gone through, that we will more willingly accept their right to be who they are, or we will be less likely to dismiss them should they not measure up to our own standards of wealth, of knowledge, of civilization. Or perhaps, if we know our own history and its less-than-stellar aspects, that we will be more forgiving of the shortcomings of others.
I think a person inclined to be sympathetic to people who are different might well react that way, but I also imagine a person not terribly sympathetic might react quite differently. If I know your ancestors have a long history of mistreating my ancestors, perhaps I will blame you for that. Perhaps I might want to do you harm as a result.
Americans are not a terribly historically minded people, the subject of much moaning and wailing, and I have certainly done my share. But there is a silver lining to this. Americans do not tend to hold historical grudges. We tend neither to blame nor praise people for what their ancestors did generations ago. If we did, we’d love the French and hate the British, our respective allies and enemies from the Revolution.
There are plenty of places where this is not true, regions that are overflowing with history, where ancient hatreds are the stuff of modern politics and modern murder. Bosnia, anyone? For that matter, what about Iraq, or the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis? These battles are as much fights over history as they are over modern issues, which is one of the things that makes them so intractable. Perhaps we are better off, always looking forward, rarely looking back. At least, as long as Americans are historically clueless, I’ll always have a job.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
I've been reading the essays in Uses of Blogs, which I recommend to anyone who has a serious interest in the blogging phenomenon. I’m not ready to delve deeply here into any of the essays, but one line in Alexander Halavais’s essay struck a chord for me. In “Scholarly Blogging: Moving toward the Visible College,” Halavais writes: “[S]o varied are the behaviors of bloggers that it is a bit surprising that the same term in used to cover them all.” (p. 117)
Indeed. In the recent dust-up over whether Pluto should be labeled a planet, the “anti-planet” faction argued, as they have for years, that Pluto is just too small to be put in the same rank as Earth, Jupiter, and the rest. But wait a minute – by that logic, is it not downright weird that we use the same term to refer to Earth and Jupiter? In fact, we don’t, exactly – Earth is a “terrestrial planet,” while Jupiter is a “gas giant” or a “Jovian planet.” The term planet itself means “moving star,” and is left over from the days when all we knew about Jupiter and Venus is that they looked just like that – like stars that moved.
And so we have this term, “blogger,” derived from “blog,” in turn derived from “weblog.” (Side thought – if we hadn’t shortened “weblog,” what would we call people who write them? “Weblies?”) It made sense to have one word when it was still possible for one person to read all the weblogs out there, or most of them at least. At that point, blogging was a subculture not terribly different from the zines phenomenon of hand-made, photocopied magazines, where even people writing radically different things had a sense of being part of a special tribe. (Another side thought – what’s happened to zines in the Age of Blogging?)
But like the word “planet”, the word “blog” becomes increasingly inadequate as more “reverse chronologically sequential narratives with a networked audience” come into view. What I’m doing and what Markos Moulitsas is doing really don’t have much to do with each other – and we’re both far removed from most of what goes on over at MySpace. There is no “blogosphere,” and thank God, because I hate that word. Physicists speculate about the possibility of multiple universes, and talk about the “multiverse.” Well, I don’t know if there’s a multiverse out there in space, but we’ve definitely already grown one here on the Internet. What should we call it? The multisphere? All I know is that my historian colleagues of the future are going to go nuts trying to figure this out. Good thing I’ll be retired by then.
(PS – Boy, this post has made the spellchecker nuts – someone needs to inform Microsoft that there’s this word “blog” – wonder if they know?)
Monday, September 11, 2006
Another thought about the New York Maganize article “What if 9/11 Never Happened?”: I said that I tended to agree with the authors who believe we would be more-or-less in the same place today if that tragedy had never happened. Why do I say this? Because I don't think very much changed on 9/11.
I remember how on that day, and the days soon after, so many people seemed to be saying the same thing - "This changes everything." It felt so strange to me, like I was living in a different country. How, I thought, could anybody be thinking that? How could they not have known that this was coming?
Throughout the '90s, and perhaps even earlier, I found it both odd and very lucky that we did not suffer the kind of terrorist attacks on our own soil that plagued so many countries. Yes the World Trade Center had been bombed, but that seemed like a shot in the dark. The worst attack had come from one of our own, in Oklahoma, but without any subsequent attacks from people like McVeigh, that too seemed a fluke. Someone had planted a bomb at the Olympics, and the Unabomber was floating around out there, but overall, on our own soil, things were quiet. Too quiet.
To say that everything changed on 9/11, you would have had to believe that the quiet before that day was a natural, normal thing. I thought it was the product of good luck and good work by the CIA, FBI, NSA and the like. I knew that there were people out there who did not like us. I knew that there were murderous groups that had us in their sights. I understood that the politics of terrorism made us target number one for a lot of people. I also knew that it wasn't all that hard to hit us. I didn't worry about planes hitting the WTC - I wasn't that prescient - but I did worry, and I still do, about a stray nuclear bomb in a shipping container on board a cargo ship heading into Boston harbor.
I had a few friends who saw things like I did. We would just look at each other and wonder when people said - "this changes everything." Did we suddenly have brand new enemies on 9/11 that had not been there before? No. Had we suddenly become involved in the contentious politics of the Middle East for the first time? No. Had we suddenly become the world's only superpower, and thus the biggest target around? No. Had we suddenly acquired a militarily so powerful that terrorism was the only realistic weapon available to those who would do us harm? No. So what were people talking about?
What changed is a lot of people who did not know these things suddenly became aware. For them, I suppose, everything did change. Maybe they thought the whole world loved us and were shocked to discover otherwise, but for the world at large, things were much the same after 9/11. Oh things changed for al Qaeda and the Taliban, certainly. Life changed for a lot of people in the U.S. military and the intelligence services, of course. And most assuredly, everything changed for the families of the 3000 people who should have still been alive. But the rest of the world? I don't think much changed for the Iraqis - Saddam was already in Bush's crosshairs on 9/10, before then even. And we were going to confront terrorism more and more, regardless. Maybe with less intensity, but we would have had to face it.
So what changed on 9/11? 3000 people died, first and foremost. Further, the perceptions of millions of Americans who thought they were safe and beloved by the world changed, clearly. But beyond that, we were already on the path to our present day on 9/10. And that's not much comfort to anyone.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
I’ve just read New York Magazine’s fascinating feature, “What if 9/11 Never Happened?” In it, a number of people were asked to imagine that different world in which four planes were not commandeered by hijackers and sent on their deadly journeys. Of course, speculating about counterfactual history (the technical term for “what if?”) tells us nothing about history. Mostly, it tells us about the psychology of the author - their perspective on events, their understanding of what matters, their personal quirks.
I tend to agree with the writers in the piece who imagine a world not terribly different from the one we are in – different details, but shaped by social, political, and economic forces into more-or-less the same place we are now. Most of the writers who talk about politics in their piece assume that Bush would not have gotten a second term, or alternately, that his bullhorn moment would have taken place in New Orleans, not New York. Maybe, there’s no knowing. It is entirely possible, as Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic suggests, that without 9/11, there would have been 9/12, or some other date, that bin Ladin really was determined to attack within the U.S., and September 11, 2006 would be different only in that the five year anniversary would still be a few weeks, months, or a year or two away.
For me, the most surprising piece came from real estate appraiser Jonathan Miller:
September 11 prompted this housing boom. Just before 9/11 we were in a recession; housing prices began to fall and volume really dropped off. We would have seen a continuation of a slide throughout much of the next two years. A run-up occurred as the result of the Fed’s post-9/11 action to drop interest rates, which led to a sharp decrease in mortgage rates. It’s that decrease that ultimately led to the price appreciation we’ve seen.I was stunned at the parochrialism, but then I thought, no, this is no different from Thomas Friedman’s piece obsessing about China – these essays are about the personal focus of each author, not about history. And, this is New York Maganize – in New York, what 9/11 did to the real estate market is very important to a lot of people.
Notably, only Hank Sheinkopf, a political consultant, makes the obvious statement – 3000 people would still be alive.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Tom Engelhardt has written an intriguing article for The Nation entitled “9/11 in a Movie-Made World.” The thrust of the article is that it was through the lens of Hollywood movies that many Americans understood what was happening on that terrible day and during its immediate aftermath. I remember some of the things Engelhardt writes about – references to Independence Day, Godzilla movies, and The Towering Inferno. The Tennessean being my hometown paper, I also remember seeing The Day After headline that Engelhardt references. I remember thinking how strange all these references were, how terribly out-of-place they were. This wasn’t a movie, and the day's events could not be understood in Hollywood terms.
As Engelhardt suggests, these references have consequences. In the recent dust-up over Donald Rumsfeld’s use of the Munich Analogy in discussing critics of the Bush Administration’s policies in Iraq and in combating terror, most of Rumsfeld’s critics focused on the idea that comparing his and Bush’s critics to Nazi appeasers was inaccurate and unjustified. I myself made that complaint. But there’s another issue here, and that’s how that analogy shapes Rumsfeld’s own thinking.
The analogies we use to discuss historic events are not simple turns of phrase. As Engelhardt suggests, these analogies have real power. They frame those events in such a way as to suggest how we should respond to them, and further, to limit how we respond to them. If you argue, for example, that Islamic militants are like the fascists of World War II, then the only reasonable response is to annihilate them, as that was how we defeated fascism the first time around. Bush and Rumsfeld know this, of course – their use of such language is no accident.
Maybe I was bothered by the movie analogies used five years ago because I’m not much of a movie-goer. But I think it was more my historian’s training kicking in – movies are too simple to encapsulate 9/11. Note that Oliver Stone, in his recent 9/11 movie, chose to focus on the stories of just two men, men who spent much of that day trapped in the rubble. Even with all the resources of Hollywood magic, Stone, no stranger to ambitious movie making, decided that the big picture was much too large, much too complex to even dare to approach.
We need new analogies. September 11 was not December 7, and al Qaeda is not the German Nazi party. When I think of the violent house of mirrors that is terrorism and the war on terror, I think of something like The Usual Suspects: no one really knows what’s going on, the police are hampered by language and cultural barriers, people are sent to fight an enemy they don’t understand and wind up fighting someone else altogether, the people you like get killed by mysterious forces, the bad guy gets away, and the chief detective is befuddled and angry, wanting to lash out but not knowing where to strike. On second thought, anybody up for The Princess Bride?
Via the AP and the Washington Post, Amy Westfeldt has penned an interesting article about efforts to preserve historical artifacts from the World Trade Center. Wreckage from the buildings, artifacts from the stores and offices housed there, and reminders of the people who worked and died there are all being stored in a giant hanger at JFK airport. This collection is meant in large part to preserve objects for later display at a World Trade Center memorial and at museums around the world.
Memorializing is tricky. Memorials try to fix in place a particular understanding, a certain viewpoint about the events they memorialize. But the meaning of any historical event changes across time, and so too do the memorials to those events. Memorials to Confederate war heroes, for example, are viewed quite differently now than they were when they were erected, even by those who think well of the Confederate cause. We can never know how the future will view the past, or how it will view us. Bart Voorsanger, who directed the process of collecting these artifacts, asks the right question, but it is a difficult one:
"I wasn't interested in our particular generation. They've already seen it," said Voorsanger. "If your grandchildren came to visit, would it mean anything to them?"Yes, it certainly will, but what? Depending on its size and design, any World Trade Center memorial might simply mean a nice place to sit and escape the city bustle. Designed differently, it might mean “wow, this is a big space,” in the way the cathedrals of Europe do to many visitors.
This might seem offensive to us, but the reality is that generations who did not live through those moments will never experience a World Trade Center memorial the way we do, anymore than I feel the way about a World War I memorial the way a surviving veteran might. Alice Greenwald, the director of the planned World Trade Center Memorial Museum, notes in the AP article that what objects are used in the memorial will depend on what story the memorial is designed to tell. There is already a great deal of struggle over that issue, but no matter what vision wins out, the long-term meaning of a memorial is anyone’s guess. The builders of the Lincoln Memorial had no idea it would become an iconic background with a million different meanings in countless movies and TV shows, and we don’t know what the future will think of the World Trade Center memorial until we get there.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
I haven’t weighed in on the controversy over the ABC 9/11 film because I don’t have any new information – I can only repeat what is widely available at Eschaton, DailyKos, Firedoglake, and elsewhere. But the attitudes and obvious bias of ABC/Disney in this affair compels me to speak about this, wearing my historian’s hat.
I hate it when people lie about history.
I’m a professional historian. I have specialized training, a title, a paycheck, membership in various professional organizations and a few publications to my name. Because of this, I feel a strong personal and professional responsibility to historical truth. Now, “truth,” when talking about history, is complicated. We might all agree on certain facts – Custer and his men were wiped out at Little Bighorn – but what do those facts signify? And even getting the empirical facts straight can be tricky – did Richard III have the two princes in the Tower killed or not?
But some pieces of empirical information are easier to pin down than others. By their own admission, the film ABC/Disney plans to show contains improvised and “composite” scenes - read “fiction” – even though they are claiming the film is based on the 9/11 Commission Report. They are presenting this as “true,” as the real thing, when they openly admit that not all of it is. And the fictionalized parts are not trivial – some of them clearly depict the Clinton Administration as making a deliberate choice not to kill or capture bin Ladin when they had easy opportunities to do so. That’s a very serious charge, and needs serious evidence to back it up.
The truth is that we know that the people behind the film have Republican ties, and we must conclude that the anti-Clinton stance is deliberate, and deliberately timed. Oliver Stone’s film, JFK, bothered me because it perpetuated a version of history that is not supported in any way by the evidence. As Americans are not deeply historically-minded, I was concerned that his film would convince many people of a set of “facts” that were without basis. But I also believe that Stone genuinely believes that Kennedy was, or probably was, killed as the result of a conspiracy. If I recall correctly, the scenes in which the conspiracy was portrayed were presented as speculation, not unvarnished fact. I’d give him a low grade if he turned that film in as a term paper, but I probably wouldn’t flunk him. Bad historical analysis is not necessarily dishonest historical analysis.
ABD/Disney and the producers of the 9/11 film are up to something else. Even if you argue that the “facts are in dispute,” the principals are all alive and available for rebuttal. Stone couldn’t ask Jack Ruby for his perspective, but ABC/Disney is presenting a “j’accuse” against the Clinton Administration without any evidence to back them up and without any acknowledgement that the officials involved have vigorously disputed the claims the film makes. As I write this ABC is backpedaling, claiming the film is “unfinished.” (Funny – it wasn’t “unfinished” enough to prevent sending it to Rush Limbaugh.) Let us hope that their revisions lead to a more honest portrayal, one that at least recognizes that the version of events in the first draft have been hotly disputed by the players involved. We can not go back and change time itself, but we can rewrite history to make it something utterly alien to any honest version of the truth. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen this time.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
People use history for all kinds of purposes, not a few of which are nefarious. I know next to nothing about Korean history, but I recognize what’s going on in this article about disputes between China and South Korea over the identity of early inhabitants of the Korean peninsula. Research recently published in China continues a very old assertion that what we call Korea was really just an extension of China from around 2000 BC to around 1000 AD. Korea, not surprisingly, rejects this notion. (Oh, and what’s up with being able to listen to the story read by either a female or a male announcer?)
Assertions about the identity of historical peoples almost always are linked to present-day claims about territorial rights or political power. In the Balkans, many people expend a great deal of energy trying to prove that this person or that person was a “Serb,” or a “Bulgarian,” or an “Albanian,” so as to claim rights to some scrap of land in the here and now. In the Middle East, you can find people who will tell you that there is no such thing as a “Palestinian,” and there never was. You can also find people who will tell you that there is no historical evidence whatsoever of any Jewish or Hebrew kingdoms in the ancient past. The motivations behind these claims are obvious.
The problem with claims like these is that quite often the terms we use today were unfamiliar or meaningless to people in the past. The term “Indian” (in the American, not South Asian sense) had no meaning whatsoever, indeed, did not exist, before the Europeans arrived in the Western Hemisphere. There were no substitute terms for it either. The peoples of the Americas had no word to distinguish themselves from Europeans, Africans, and Asians because they did not know those other people existed. The words they would have used to describe all the peoples of the Americas probably would have translated into English as “human,” because for them, the Americas were the entire world.
In our country, people today argue over whether the Founding Fathers were Christian. Well, define “Christian.” Were the ancient Egyptians black? Well, define “black.” People mix and mingle, cultures mix and mingle, and there are no pure strains, genetically nor culturally, that stretch back over the centuries. It’s a fools errand, but as long as people believe that whatever their great-great-grandfather did justifies whatever they are doing now, people will keep arguing about these things.
I’m shocked, really. What is there to say? Students are apparently knocking down the door at Montana State University-Billings to become history majors. Someone find out what’s in the water in the dorms and send some of it my way – we could use it!
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Tenure is a funny thing, and not always easy to justify to people outside of academe. Heck, it can be hard to justify to people inside, too – I certainly have encountered individuals who should not have it. One reason people have trouble with it is they don’t understand it – many non-academics are unaware, for example, that those who fail to get tenure are fired as a result – or, more precisely, their contracts are not renewed. On the other had, at my own school, we do not have a system of merit raises, so there’s a real question as to why anyone should make any extra effort once they get tenure – pride, I suppose. Any system of tenure that does not include real accountability is prone to produce at least a few disasters.
As I come up for tenure for the second time (I gave it up once before to leave an institution I was very unhappy at), I am however reminded of why we have tenure in the first place. Out of Iran, we hear that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is calling for liberal and secular professors to be purged from Iran’s universities. Already many have been forced out – now Ahmadinejad wants conservative students to agitate for further purges. Tenure, whatever its flaws, is designed to prevent just this. Tenure does not protect me from budget-based layoffs. It does not protect me if I’m caught sleeping with students, or if I shoot someone on the campus lawn. It does not protect me if I am manifestly not doing my job. But if the voters in the great state of Tennessee decide to elect a whole host of wingnuts to the legislature and the Governor’s Mansion, I can’t be fired for my politics or my religion. For that matter, I can’t be fired because the Governor decides that postmodernism is the only way while I remain wedded to a fuddy-duddy form of empiricism. I whistle past the graveyard reading a story like this. Tenure could be abolished at any time, and I doubt there would be much public outcry. But some form of tenure must continue into the future to prevent scenes like the one in Iran from happening here.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Most people are under the impression that we really don’t have any dealings with Cuba, but in fact our continued entanglements with Cuba, on all levels, are many. The first time I went to Cuba, I was surprised to see some recognizable U.S. products, notably Coca-Cola. You can get a Cuba Libre in Cuba (rum and Coke), though, given the symbolism, I don’t think that’s what it’s called in Havana. The Coke I saw, of course, was not manufactured in the U.S., but by a firm in another country that licensed the product.
The U.S. and Cuba have generally respected each other’s trademark laws. Now though we may find ourselves in a trademark war with Cuba, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has recently ruled Cuba’s right to the Havana Club name invalid, opening the door for Bacardi to begin selling rum under that name. Bacardi has invested heavily in lobbying for changes in U.S. law to make this possible, notably with large donations to the Republican Party, including the disgraced Tom Delay (R-TX). Last year’s “Bacardi Bill,” sponsored by Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), paved the way for the ruling in Bacardi’s favor.
This of course opens the door for retaliation. There’s nothing to stop Cuba from manufacturing blue jeans, slapping a “Levi’s” label on them, and selling them cheap to anyone who will buy them. There’s a reason we’ve respected Cuban trademark law till now, and why many U.S. firms have registered their own trademarks in Cuba, even if they can’t sell anything there. But for some people, it does not matter – all that matter is sticking it to Fidel. Said Feeney:
And any time I can take a shot at Fidel Castro and his minions, I do it. This is another well-deserved pummeling.So look for Havana Club to show up at a liquor store near you. And keep an eye out for U.S. firms being forced to spend millions to defend their copyrights abroad if Havana decides to retaliate. So goes our ever nutty Cuba policy.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
I’m a bit late posting on this, but there was very interesting article in The New York Times yesterday concerning the number of students at junior colleges who required remedial work. This isn’t just a problem for two-year schools, as this problem also appears in four-year schools. Many students who graduate from high school are shocked to find that their skills in writing, reading, and math are not sufficient for college work. The article points out that some of the students who need remedial work are people who got good grades, even honors, in grade school. What’s going on here?
There are some obvious possible answers. Grade inflation, coupled with a lack of rigor, would be obvious suspects, and undoubtedly these play a factor. But there are some other factors I think are at work here. One is the increased emphasis in our education system on standardized testing. Teachers and school systems increasingly find that their livelihoods and their funding depend on how students perform on these tests. Let me tell you – if you told me my paycheck depended on how well students were doing on a particular test, I’m going to teach that test, probably to the exclusion of everything else. Students whose education revolves around learning these tests do not get the kind of well-rounded education required to develop the critical thinking skills that are needed for college work, which is probably one of the things that is hurting them.
The other thing I think that is happening here is that it is my experience that students do not read enough. Even good students are not reading much for pleasure now, and they read newspapers less and less. Yes, they’re on-line and are “txt msgng” each other like mad, but not enough to enable them to develop strong vocabularies, good critical thinking skills, or a broad cultural knowledge. I’m not sure what the answer is here, but in the short run at least, colleges need to put ever more emphasis on reading and writing. This may seem obvious, but I think we’re up against something critical.
If I were the curriculum god, I would put every student in a reading and writing seminar every semester, with a reading list for the whole institution that every student would be expected to finish before graduation. This is not a call to teach all the Dead White Males – I’m less concerned about the precise works that are being read, more concerned that the process of reading and analysis is taking place, and that students and professors can rely on a common set of cultural references from which to do analysis. If I were the curriculum god.
Well, I made the shift, which is why there's a new look. I want to customize this more, but I need to poke around a bit to figure out how to do the things I want. Best thing so far - tags! Or labels, as Blogger calls them, for some odd reason.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Hey great, Warner Todd Huston has taken me to task, and called me pretentious to boot! This is great – I get what, 30 hits a day, and he bothers with little old me – thanks Warner! WTH thinks my post criticizing his essay called "ABC -- Feteshizing 'Minority' History" was way off base, and ain’t shy to say why. Well, I guess the only thing to do is go through this point by point.
1. First, let’s get an important issue out of the way. My name is Theron Corse, and I teach at Tennessee State University – not exactly the ivory tower, but a decent job. Not hiding really – I’ve only been doing this for a few weeks and wanted to update my professional website before I linked to it – so there you go.
2. Now, let’s delve into the critique:
This blogger goes on and on with his assumptions ad nauseum, but never once contacted me to begin a dialog to see if his leftist, tripe would bear out.“Ad naseum” implies a long, reptitive screed, but that’s in the eye of the beholder. And contact him – well, nobody reads this blog, but point taken. The next time I critique one of your essays, Warner, I’ll do you the courtesy of a notice, as you did for me.
2. About those assumptions – I made two main claims about WTH’s essay, one explicit, one implied. The first one was this:
What intrigues me though is the repeated claim that non-white history in the United States is a minor, superfluous topic (he even calls it “minutiae”), that merely distracts students from the important stories and adds little to our understanding of U.S. history.That was based on certain quotes of his:
The United States of America was not founded by Blacks, Asians, or "Latinos", even though each added to the flavor of the stew. White, Anglo-Saxons where who won the battles to make the United States possible. [snip] For that matter, few Asians even lived outside California for many years in our early Republic. They just weren't a factor in our founding and growth, railroad-building aside. [snip] To waste time with all these "minority" views of history in our grade schools cheats our hildren out of learning the basics while they focus on the less important minutia. [snip] To people like Texeira, history should be about "diversity", not about presenting a program based on what is important and formative before presenting the minutia.And there were others. Yes, WTH does say that there were non Anglo-Saxon’s in the stew, but he’s also very clear about that he considers these groups to be secondary, at best. Again, his word was “minutiae.”
The second claim I made, by implication, about WTH was that he held a certain narrow belief. I wrote:
The belief that only “Anglo-Saxons” made significant contributions to the history of this country is highly myopic.Well, “only” perhaps was strong – he did allow that the Chinese helped build railroads, for example. But he was abundantly clear that Anglo-Saxons founded this country and “won the battles to make the United States possible.” WTH clearly disagrees, but I think that based on his essay, these two points stand.
3. I don’t think I claimed that WTH wanted non-Anglo-Saxon history eliminated, as he states in his rebuttal. I did say that he thought it “minor” and “superfluous,” based on this quote:
To waste time with all these "minority" views of history in our grade schools cheats our children out of learning the basics while they focus on the less important minutia.I call ‘em like I see ‘em.
4. In his rebuttal, WTH demands to know why we need to know about the Chinese having a hard time and about “Latinos” on U.S. soil before 1776. Well, that’s simple. Spaniards, or Mexicans, or whatever you want to call them, founded Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, California, Arizona, and Nevada, and were in Utah before the Mormons. And those railroads would not have been built as quickly without the Chinese, slowing down the settlement of the West. Nor would Pacific Coast culture be what it is today without their presence. This would be a different country without them. Our political history would be different without the backlash against them. What country would we be if these people had not been here? I have no idea. And WTH doesn’t answer these questions I raised:
How would the economy and culture of the South have developed without African slaves - would there have been a Civil War without slavery and the plantation economy? Would the cotton economy have developed at all without those slaves?We would be a different country, certainly.
5. WTH pounces on my mention of the food of these different groups. Food very much shapes history. Just one exanple: the Europeans who came over learned to eat corn, and thus sought out land to plant it in, and organized their economy and settlement patterns around it. If they had stuck to wheat only, or had emphasized potatoes instead, we would have developed differently, as those plants have other requirements. And we would have developed more slowly, because wheat can not grow productively everywhere that corn can. No corn, fewer people. Food matters. (And no corn, no corn-based alcohols!)
6. Oh, and he suggests I’m an ivory-tower Marxist. Partly this is because I use the term “teeming masses,” which he says is a Communist term. Maybe, I don't know, but it’s also a common English phrase. Just try Googling it – 72,000 hits, not all of which are socialist. Ivory Tower? Hey, I went to a lot of trouble to get an Ivory Tower job! I could have made a lot more money doing something else. It’s not my fault if other people chose 9-5, two-weeks-of-vacation-per-year jobs! But seriously – I’m not a Marxist. Marx was a terrible historian. I am influenced by Antonio Gramsci’s ideas about hegemony, but that’s more about how elites rule through propaganda than about socialism. And Ivory Tower or not, I still have to pay my mortgage! And my research is on religion in Communist Cuba - and while my book won't be out till next fall, it's hardly pro-Castro.
So thanks for the link Warner. I disagree with your analysis, as you’ve probably noticed, but like they say in Hollywood, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. And trust me – a good teacher can cover “minority” history and the Gettysburg Address. Really, we can - I do it all the time.
There's a new history curriculum for grade schools in China, and it has a few obvious omissions:
Socialism has been reduced to a single, short chapter in the senior high school history course. Chinese communism before the economic reform that began in 1979 is covered in a sentence. The text mentions Mao Zedong only once — in a chapter on etiquette.The current regime has long since jettisoned most of Mao's ideology, though they are not ready to denounce his atrocities. So they've settled on an oldie but goody - they're going to ignore him. And if this policy remains in place, Mao will fade from Chinese consciousness. This may seem ludicrous. Mao's legacy is ubiquitous in China - how could he be forgotten? But it's easy enough - my students today, born on average in the mid-1980s, not only do not remember Ronald Reagan - many have never heard of him. History, besides the things I listed in the previous post, is what we choose to remember. Those on the right who complain about an overemphasis on minority history in grade school curriculum, or who say there's too much talk about slavery, Indian removal, or the struggles of the early industrial working class, think that these things are unimportant in large part because they don't know much about them. They have, through the choices of their teachers and their own choices in reading, been exposed to a version of history that marginalizes these issues. When they are confronted with a different version of U.S. history, they see it as being incorrect. It is not what they "know" to be correct. If the current curriculum changes remain in place in China long enough, in a generation or so we'll be faced with a nation that "knows" that the legacy of Mao - who? - is trivial.
It's really that simple to remake the past. If you control the conversation about the past, you can turn the past into anything you want. You can even make Mao disappear.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
If I'm going to teach anyone to think like an historian, we first have to tackle this question - what is history? Well, here's a baker's dozen of possibilities:
- the things that happened in the past.
- a record of things that happened in the past, written as it was happening.
- a record of things that happened in the past, written after-the-fact.
- any individual's thoughts, feelings, opinions about the past.
- a highly specialized form of literature, based in part on past events.
- a highly specialized form of literature, based in part on records of past events.
- an academic discipline carried out by people with graduate degrees in history.
- a set of lessons drawn from past events to guide us in the future.
- a long list of names and dates.
- ideas, concepts, art forms, etc., that are now out-of-date.
- the unfolding of God's plan.
- a section of the bookstore with a whole lot of books on the Civil War.
People think they know what history is, and I think most carry around several of these definitions in their head at once, and others, too. I think the one I most favor is #7, and not just because of what I do. It's the least problematical - I can actually show you real, live human beings who work in universities, call themselves historians, and who more or less agree on a set of disciplinary practices. The rest I either disagree with, or would have a very hard time proving. Notice the difference between #5 and #6. Most people probably think historical writing is #5, or at least is supposed to be, but really, it's closer to #6. The past is gone, however present it may be. We have only traces, and we try to put together the jigsaw puzzle with only a few of the pieces. I pound away at this idea with students. The ones who get it usually wind up asking, "Wait a minute, how do we know what we read is true?" Aaaaahhhhh, well, now that's a question worth asking.
Don't expect me to answer it. (More on this later.)
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
I like Pandora. It's a cool way to create your own radio station, based on your previous music choices. Sometimes it will surprise you, coming up with stuff you might not have thought of, and in music, surprises can often be good things. But Gloria Trevi? "Estrella de la Manana"? Apparently the bastard love child of my penchant for electronica and Ely Guerra. And the less said about the time Pandora offered up a Hillary Duff tune, the better. (She has albums? Who knew? I think I'm in the wrong demographic.) On that note, I offer a couple of my favorite Ely Guerra tunes - two fairly different ones that show off her versatility:
De La Calle
Speaking to an audience at the American Legion’s annual convention yesterday, Donald Rumsfeld made a classic blunder:
Drawing parallels to efforts by some nations to appease Adolf Hitler before World War II, Rumsfeld said it would be "folly" for the United States to ignore the rising dangers posed by a new enemy that he called "serious, lethal and relentless."There’s a term for this – it’s called the Munich Analogy. You remember those pictures of Neville Chamberlain, returning from his Munich meeting with Hitler, announcing that there was “peace in our time”? We all know what happened next.
Throughout the Cold War, when anyone suggested that we should negotiate with the Soviets, there was always someone who would assert that this was impossible. One can not negotiate with dictators! They see that only as a sign of weakness – give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Dictators only understand force! Remember Munich!
The fundamental problem with historical analogy is that all historical events are contingent on a very high number of variables which can not be reproduced. Analogies can never give us hard and fast rules for predicting the future. The only certain lesson learned at Munich was that you can not negotiate with Hitler. This told us nothing about whether we could negotiate with the Soviets. Of course, there was always a fair amount of cognitive dissonance involved. The Munich Analogy was favored by anti-Communist “hawks” who were frequently very prepared to engage in “constructive engagement” with authoritarian regimes, so long as they were anti-Communist. So the Munich Analogy was never even fully accepted by the people who used it.
In Rumsfeld’s case, there’s a second problem. No one is in fact suggesting “appeasement” of the terrorists. Critics of Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration generally argue the problem is not that we are fighting terrorism, but that we are fighting it badly, first and formost by sapping our military strength in a country that, at least before the war began, was not an important player in world terrorism. So Rumsfeld’s use of the Munich Analogy is wrong on all counts. And then there’s this:
Rumsfeld obliquely acknowledged mistakes and setbacks in Iraq, quoting the French statesman Georges Clemenceau as calling all wars "a series of catastrophes that results in victory."That’s right. The Secretary of Defense is taking solace in the words of the man who led France during World War I, a monumental disaster of a war that is the very definition of pointless slaughter. That’s one analogy he seems bent on fulfilling, one we can certainly do without.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
I started my historiography class today. I announced to the students that I would teach them how to think like an historian. Tall order – but doable. First of all, it’d better be doable, or my job as a history professor is rather pointless. But doable also because I have seen it happen. The secret is not a hard one, though one it took me a couple of semesters of teaching classes like this to catch on to. You can tell them the steps of critical analysis from an historian’s point of view all day long: “Examine the kinds of sources the author uses; think about the kind of language the author uses to describe different subjects; think of these two different books as conversation – are they arguing, saying the same thing, what?” And many more such questions. You can tell them to ask these questions all day long, all semester long, and you won’t get much of anywhere. You have to show them. You have to lead them by the hand, example by example, until it sinks in. With some, it’s a slow osmosis, while for others, it just clicks one day, and you can see the wheels suddenly start to turn. Anyway, I plan to post on some of these issues in coming weeks. Blogging about historiography – yeah, that’ll get me to the top of the Technorati rankings!
As per my earlier criticism of this this ridiculous essay by Warner Todd Huston, there's a great diary over on DailyKos that is both an in-your-face smackdown of Sen. George Allen (R-VA), with his "macaca" and "welcome to America" comments, and a reminder of the important roles played in U.S. history by people whose ancestors came from somewhere other than Europe. Allen does not seem to understand that Americans come in many colors, and their history is important to all of us. RamR's diary tells it like it is.
OK, I've got morning classes, but I can't let this bit of nonsense from the Associated Press pass without comment:
On this date: In 1533, the last Incan King of Peru, Atahualpa, was murdered on orders of Spanish conqueror Francisco Pizarro.Um, well, not exactly. First of all, he was the emperor of Tawantinsuyu, otherwise known as the Incan Empire, which included a whole lot more than modern Peru. Further, he wasn't the last person to hold the title of Sapa Inca (official title of the emperors) - that honor goes to Tupac Amaru (the one who died in 1572 - not Tupac Amuru II, or, for that matter, Tupac Amaru Shakur). It's all a little complicated, more than I can go into right now, but the Spanish alternately propped up and fought against a series of heirs to Atahualpa before finishing off Tupac Amaru. Atahualpa represents the end of a truly sovereign, powerful Incan Empire, but he wasn’t the final end. History tends to be messier than that - AP's error is just one more piece of evidence that a "names and dates" concept of history is deeply flawed.
Monday, August 28, 2006
There’s an interesting article in the Washington Post this morning about the role of religion in Mexico’s political crisis. What? You say you didn’t know there was a political crisis in Mexico? Not surprising. Our media has been doing an astonishingly bad job of covering this story. The presidential election was very close, and Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the apparent loser, has refused to accept the announced results. Followers of the populist, left-of-center former mayor of Mexico City have been staging protests all over Mexico. They have made prominent use of images of the Virgen de Guadelupe, something which has angered Cardinal Norberto Rivera, who has called the protestors “crazies.” Church and state issues are an even more serious game than here in the U.S., as the article points out, and even resulted in a war, the Cristero Revolt in the 1920s.
What is astonishing is how little play this is getting in the U.S. Millions of López Obrador’s supporters are likely to reject the final result if his opponent Felipe Calderon is declared the winner and inaugurated in December. They remember well 1988, when Cuauhtémoc Cardenas, another left-of-center politician from López Obrador’s party almost certainly had the presidential election stolen from him by Carlos Salinas, who proved to be monumentally corrupt. The PRI, ruling party at the time, was strong enough to ride out the controversy and keep Mexico stable. The situation today is potentially more fragile, and the Mexican people more politically engaged. The potential for chaos is real, yet a quick perusal of LexisNexis shows only sporadic reporting in the U.S., unlike the almost hourly updates on the JonBenet Ramsey case. But hey, who cares about political instability on our border when there’s a little girl’s death to exploit?
Sunday, August 27, 2006
If you’ve always longed to talk to your computer in the same language that the mighty Sapa Inca used to command his empire, then at last your dreams have been fulfilled. You can now download a patch that will translate the Windows menus and the like to Quechua, the native language of millions of Andeans. Few of these people have computers, but in time, they can be banging their heads and screaming in frustration as once again, their software crashes for no apparent reason. You can even get stickers to convert your keyboard to Quechua – here it is still August and your Christmas shopping worries are over! There’s one quote in the CNN story though that worries me just a bit:
"More than anything, I was surprised," said 21-year-old Dilma Arancibia, a Quechua speaker invited to a Thursday preview of the program. "If they hadn't done this with Quechua, and if we don't teach it to our children, the language would definitely cease to exist."While Mr. Gates thankfully does not yet have the power to make a language spoken by millions disappear, Arancibia is correct – languages left out of of the computing world are threatened. So I’m ambivalent – kudos to Microsoft for taking this step, but let’s not forget that the Empire is never altruistic!
Hat tip to The Latin Americanist.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
No deep thoughts, as I'm still prepping for the party - I'm a whole lot more prepared than I usually am at this point - still, I imagine things will get pretty hectic in, oh, about three hours. For your listening pleasure, Cesaria Evora in a live version of "Sodade." The album version of this song is, I think, my very favorite piece of music. It ain't bad live, either.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Or something like that - light posting today. I have a bunch of people coming over tomorrow for dinner, and, well, I'm not as prepared as Martha would be right now. So for your amusement, may I suggest the song stylings of George W. Bush:
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Rebecca Blood has been blogging for a long time - the archives on her site, Rebecca's Pocket, go back to April, 1999, which is the blogging equivalent of having taken up flying a few days after you first got word that the Wright Brothers had finally done it. She's also the author of The Weblog Handbook, one of the first, and by many accounts one of the best, guides for bloggers. I should order it. Do a Google search for "blog history" or "history of blogs" and you won't find much that is actually about the history of blogs. One thing you do find is her September, 2000 essay, "Weblogs: A History and Perspective."
It's surprisingly fresh, despite being six years old and despite how rapidly this medium is changing, and it's a quick but thoughtful rundown on the early steps that gave us the "blogospere" (I hate that word). I particularly like her thoughts on how blogging made her more aware of her own interests - coming up with new topics each day inevitably opens up new vistas. Those random thoughts that before came and went and were quikly forgotten, begin to take on focus after you‘ve written about them a few dozen times. And her final thought, about the value of blogs, gets at lot of what I'm interested in in terms of understanding blogs as a record of our times and as an extraordinary record of the thoughts of ordinary people (that is, people who are not Presidents or CEOs).
We are being pummeled by a deluge of data and unless we create time and spaces in which to reflect, we will be left with only our reactions. I strongly believe in the power of weblogs to transform both writers and readers from "audience" to "public" and from "consumer" to "creator." Weblogs are no panacea for the crippling effects of a media-saturated culture, but I believe they are one antidote.I think that this is one of the ways future historians will understand blogs. We are being pummeled with even more data than we were in 2000, but with blogs, we have begun to talk back. For historians, it will be an embarrassment of riches. For us, it is, as Blood suggests, a small bit of sanity.
A couple of articles of note:
There’s a fascinating new article about Easter Island in American Scientist by Terry Hunt, who teaches anthropology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. It details his research and that of others that seems to show that the traditional understanding of the island’s history is seriously flawed – humans may have come much later than previously believed, and rats, not humans, may have been the cause of deforestation.
I saw this other great article in my hometown paper, The Tennessean, about the new New Orleans phonebooks, but it’s not on their website, so I’m linking to the Long Beach Press Telegram instead. This article shows the kinds of information that researchers, including historians, can glean from non-traditional sources, like, say, phone books. Combined with call volume records from the local telephone service, we can learn a lot of things about how the recovery is going in New Orleans. Not surprisingly, home repair firms are doing gangbusters – and so are chiropractors. A lot of people, it seems, are throwing out their backs hauling construction material around. Remember, lift with your legs, not with your back!
The BBC and a few other news outlets have picked up on recent statements by Raul Castro and U.S. State Department officials to suggest that there is a hint of rapprochement in the air. I doubt it, as the song and dance on both sides is a very old one. On the one hand, the U.S. says “maybe” to normalization, but only with political reform in Cuba. As the BBC reports:
Washington has renewed a four-year-old offer to lift its trade embargo on Cuba if Havana embraces democratic reforms. Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon said the offer was "still on the table" if the Cuban government wouldAnd on the other side, Raul says normalization would be fine, but the U.S. can make no demands that interfere with Cuba’s sovereignty.
"begin a political opening".
At this juncture, they should be very clear that it is not possible to achieve anything in Cuba with impositions and threats. On the contrary, we have always been disposed to normalize relations on an equal plane. What we do not accept is the arrogant and interventionist policy frequently assumed by the currentSame dance, different day.
administration of that country.
One of the most difficult issues in any effort at normalization, both practically and emotionally, is the question of property ownership. The U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission has registered property claims against the Cuban government worth between seven and eight billion dollars, both commercial and residential property. Many U.S. companies could potentially claim properties in Cuba, though with nearly fifty years of mergers and acquisitions, some of them would have to sue each other before they could sue Cuba. Many don’t want to bother, but some do (and wouldn’t you just know United Fruit would be one of them):
"There has always been a hope that, post-Castro, this claim would translate into something of value, and Chiquita's position has consistently been that we expect the claim to be honored," said Michael Mitchell, spokesman for Chiquita Brands International, the Cincinnati company that subsumed United Fruit.Chiquita/UF’s claim is worth $87 million.
For many exiles, this is a central issue – they want their homes back. In almost every case, those homes have been occupied by other people for decades, people who the Cuban government has given property titles to. These homes are mostly subdivided and terribly dilapidated. They say smell has the strongest memories, and even though I’m sitting in Nashville, TN, I can smell the musty air typical of a Havana tenement right now. The exiles have their own memories, and their desires are quite understandable. But no Cuban government, whatever its makeup, is going to evict thousands of Cubans into the streets. Indeed, there are many exiles who recognize this, and even more of their children do. But there are enough who will insist on making claims that this issue could clog up the court system for years and slow down renewal of political and economic ties significantly.
When will you know that Havana and Washington are serious about rapprochement? When they start making serious moves to resolve the property claims issue.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
That Thomas Sowell is an embarrassment to academics everywhere is a given. I'm not even going to bother with his nonsensical rant about the left and crime. But this?
Within living memory, Britain was one of the most law-abiding nations on the face of the earth. When Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew visited London right after World War II, he was so impressed with the honesty of the British and their respect for law and order that he returned home determined to make Singapore the same way. Today it is Singapore that is one of the most law-abiding nations in the world while Britain's crime rate has risen to the point where, for the first time, it now exceeds the crime rate in the United States.Singapore, Dr. Sowell? Human rights abusing Singapore? Migrant worker abusing Singapore? Singapore, which even Bush's State Department describes as a kind of authoritarianism light?
Read that State Department description of Singapore - this is Sowell's idea of paradise. If you pay attention to Bush and Alberto Gonzalez, you know it's their vision of paradise, too. Thomas Sowell - an authoritarian for all seasons.
I would not ordinarily write about Australian educational policy. What the heck do I know about Australian educational policy? Nothing. But I do know a thing or two about history. There’s a bit of a tug of war in Australia right now between people who want to teach history as a stand alone subject and those who want to teach it under the umbrella of "Studies of Society and its Environment," which I imagine is what Americans call “Social Studies.” The reasons for opposition to teaching history separately caught my eye. Here’s what Rod Welford, Education Minister for Queensland, and Ljiljanna Ravlich, West Australian Education Minister, had to say.
Oh dear. Ravlich and Welford are confusing history with antiquarianism. Antiquarianism is a bit of historical jargon – it means collecting bits of historical information like you would collect antiques, buffing them up and putting them on display like Grandmother’s silver. Most people who do genealogy are doing antiquarianism. Of course antiquarianism shouldn’t be taught to poor little Australian kids – that’s boring as all get out. But history is not antiquarianism. It’s much more than a bunch of dates. History is interpretation and analysis. It’s critical thinking applied to the pageant of the past. History asks the question, "Why?" What do these people think I do all day – sing little mnemonic songs about important dates? “Oh in 1066/William got his kicks/And in 1492, Chris sailed the ocean blue…” (So much for my songwriting career.)
After the summit, Mr. Welford said it would be "educational vandalism" for the federal Government to force the separate study of history on the states. "To talk about history as a stand-alone subject, as a list of events, is an educational absurdity," he said. [snip]
Ms Ravlich dismissed the knowledge of key historical dates as unimportant and was reported yesterday as saying it was akin to not knowing "the internal workings of a computer". She said the advent of the internet and search engines, such as Google, meant students had those dates at their fingertips.
This is why so many kids hate history. People like Ravlich and Welford think history is just memorizing a bunch of stuff, and that’s what they promote as “history” in classrooms. Ravelich apparently think it would be OK to teach “history” in grades 9 and 10, but if what she has in mind is rote memorization, I’d prefer she not bother. I’d rather get college students who’ve never had a day of that kind of “history.” Even if they didn’t know one single thing about the past, at least they wouldn’t walk in the room loathing the very idea of history.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
I switched, though it doesn't look like it. You can do a half switch, which is what I've done. HTML editing is still not available, and it turned out I was going to need that for some features I had added. We'll see - if the fully developed version of Blogger Beta doesn't work for me, I'm switching to Typepad or Wordpress. Or something else - suggestions?
Skimming through the Internet, I stumbled upon this essay by Warner Todd Huston lamenting the “fetishizing” of minority history. It’s a typical example of the genre – a swipe at Charles Beard that distorts the man’s work, an assertion that White Anglo Saxons are responsible for all that is good and true in our history, and the claim that “PC revisionists” are just out to dethrone the white man, out of spite, apparently.
What intrigues me though is the repeated claim that non-white history in the United States is a minor, superfluous topic (he even call it “minutiae”), that merely distracts students from the important stories and adds little to our understanding of U.S. history. Well, Mr. Huston, this is exactly why textbooks and educators need to emphasize minority history – to insure that people don’t come to hold such narrow and uninformed perspectives as yours.
Indians, Africans, Hispanics, and Asians did much more than “add flavors to the stew” – they shaped this country in fundamental ways though their struggles, their labor, their cultures and language and food. How different the history of this country would have been had the Indians not been here – would there even have been a Revolution if the colonists hadn’t been so resentful of the Proclamation Act of 1763 banning them from moving into Indian territory? How would the economy and culture of the South have developed without African slaves - would there have been a Civil War without slavery and the plantation economy? Would the cotton economy have developed at all without those slaves? And what would I be eating if West African cuisine had never entered the South? What about the Southwest – what would it look like today if the Spanish had not founded San Francisco and Santa Fe?
The belief that only “Anglo-Saxons” made significant contributions to the history of this country is highly myopic. It’s also based on a very old-fashioned “kings and queens” kind of history, where only leading elites are discussed and the teeming masses are ignored. It fits of course with modern conservativism, which is extraordinarily elitist in its viewpoint, but it is wildly inaccurate.
And one last thing – believe it or not, Mr. Huston, it is in fact possible to mention the dates of the Civil War and discuss the role of black troops – it's amazing how many topics you can cover in a semester!
Imagine my delight when I saw this headline:
See, the "T" in "Dr. T" stands for "Theron," and my research is on Cuba....
Anyway, East of Havana looks like it might be interesting. I'll reserve judgment on the politics until I've seen it - what a concept!
We know what students really care about - party on! Must be loads of fun to teach early morning classes at UT-Austin.
Talk about a mixed blessing. The University of Texas spokesman Don Hale did the usual sniffing about how UT is really known for its academics, and then tried to dismiss the whole thing:
“It's good water cooler conversation, but is there a basis in fact? Debatable," said spokesman Don Hale. "I think we're known as one of the nation's leading public research universities, and that's really our reputation."Besides, he said, there might have been extenuating circumstances this year: "The students who filled out this survey might have remembered the parties we had after we won the national football championship, and maybe that's what got us to No. 1."Did I say "academics? Note the language - "leading public research universities." That's actually jargon - being classified as a research university means in essence that they have a lot of PhD programs. Still I have a feeling that the spokespeople at my school would also say something about teaching.
Monday, August 21, 2006
The Detroit Free Press had a story yesterday on the problem of high priced textbooks and some of the ways students are trying to deal with it. There are some retailers, notably online ones, that are trying to capitalize on this crisis, but the root problem remains. And a crisis it most certainly is. When I was an undergrad, back in the late 80s, my most expensive textbooks were those big fat books for chemistry and calculus (I may be an historian now, but my first undergrad major was electrical engineering). At that point, those books ranged from $50 to $70, and I only had to buy one or two of those - most books were half that much. My most expensive book bills were $120-$150 a quarter, and once I got past those big auditorium classes, my book bill dropped below $100/quarter. The textbook I assigned in my World Civ I class (Stone Age to Counterreformation) this fall, a paperback half volume (containing the first 23 chapters of the 44-chapter hardback version) is $87 from Amazon. I'm sure our book store charges a few dollars more. At those prices, a student can easily have a $400 or $500 textbook bill each semester. There's a reason some of my students don't buy their books. What happened?
To try to entice professors to order them and students to read them, publishers have filled books with huge amounts of color, images, and all kinds of features. They've also invested heavily in online materials, and textbooks increasingly come with CDs or passwords for online access. Some of the online stuff is useful - I find using the Internet is an easy and cheap way to give my students access to primary documents, though I don't need an expensive publisher’s site to do that. Many things are online already. The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is a good place to look for them. All those bells and whistles are distracting, too. Try reading one of these textbooks - all the inserts, images and maps have become too much, making it hard for the eye to follow the text, for the reader to know what they are supposed to be reading. Some of this kind of thing is good, but there is a limit. They are no longer books that you read. They've become more a hybrid cross between a book and an online newspaper - vaguely narrative, yet jumpy and episodic, easily leading you in ten different directions at once and thus leading you nowhere. I'm sorely tempted to get out of the game altogether and just assign some cheap classics, the kind of things you can get for a few bucks - maybe Sun Tzu's Art of War for China, and The Iliad for the West. Or I could take Jonathan Reynolds’s experiment to its obvious conclusion and have students bring whatever old World Civ book the could find cheap somewhere. Could make for interesting class discussions.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
From Agence France Presse by way of the Mumbai Mirror:
Venezuela and Cuba are now going to get the same kind of exceptional treatment from our intelligence services that Iran and Korea already do, getting special intelligence managers that no other countries get. I don't like the looks of this. And why is it that I have to learn about this from the Mumbai Mirror? (Thanks, Dotso!) The only other place I found this was the Gulf Times out of Qatar. Isn't the fact that the Bush Administration views Venezuela to be as great a concern as Iran important news? At least as much as who killed JonBenet?
There’s a great but disturbing op-ed in the Washington Post today about the poor vocabulary of college students. Michael Skube, who teaches at Elon University in North Carolina, laments that his students don't know "impetus," or "brevity," or, for that matter, "novel."
How does one explain the inability of college students to read or write at even a high school level? One explanation, which owes as much to the culture as to the schools, is that kids don't read for pleasure.You may be thinking you've never heard of Elon and it must be a lousy school. No, it's a small, quality liberal arts college. I actually interviewed there once and was quite impressed. The fact is, students don't read any more. Heck, I have students who, largely for financial reasons, don't even buy their textbooks. And their lack of reading limits not only their vocabulary, but their critical thinking skills. I'm certain that this has a lot to do with why the increasingly conservative media gets away with so many lies and distortions. People who don't read will not develop the skills needed to see through the mendacity. It makes them terrible students and poorly informed voters. And I don't have a clue what to do about it.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
From the front page of The New York Times:
The latest chapter in America’s long war on drugs — a six-year, $4.7 billion effort to slash Colombia’s coca crop — has left the price, quality and availability of cocaine on American streets virtually unchanged.How many times do we have to be told that the war on drugs is a failure? Here's my deeply original thought that never occurred to anyone before - instead of spending billions to fuel chaos in Columbia, lets spend billions in America to treat addiction. What, that's not original? People have been saying that for years? But, but, how is that possible? You mean we're continuing this failed, destructive policy despite knowing there are viable alternatives? Gee, next thing you're going to tell me we not only invaded Iraq, but we did it with half the troops you need to do the job right. I have much more faith in my leaders then that and I won't listen to any more nonsense!
One of the oddest results of our Cuba policy (and there are many, many odd results) is the human trafficking game in the Florida Straits, which the Christian Science Monitor notes is back in business after a brief pause in the wake of Castro's illness. Just like with any other group of would-be immigrants without visas, there are the desperate refugees, border patrols (carried out mainly by the Coast guard), smugglers with their exorbitant fees, high speed chases, and even violence and death. Ah, but the ending can be very different. We have a "wet foot, dry foot," rule - Cubans caught at sea get sent home, while Cubans who make it to land are rarely sent back, and can become legal permanent residents of the United States in one year. This gives a whole new meaning to "race to the border!" U.S. authorities are making a show of cracking down, but as long as Fidel is alive and Florida is a swing state, the policy will remain in place. So welcome to America, our unnamed 20 new residents. The Florida Straits' most dangerous game continues.
Friday, August 18, 2006
1. Zeca Pagodinho - "Severina Xique-Xique"
2. Niyaz - "Ghazal"
3. Peter Gabriel - "Washing of the Waters"
4. Julieta Venegas - "Todo inventamos"
5. Oswaldo Montenegro - "Olhar de tela"
6. Seal - "Don't Cry"
7. Lyle Lovett - "I know you know"
8. Conjunto Jardin - "La bruja"
9. Liz Phair - "Fantasize"
10. KLF - "Justified and Ancient"
The Washington Post is keeping us up to date on our Latin American dictators today. Down in Chile, the Supreme Court has stripped Augusto Pinochet of immunity in a $27 million tax fraud case. In a word – good. They got Capone on tax evasion, and it’s good enough for Pinochet. I know, the wingers will scream, “But he saved Chile from Allende!” Look, overthrowing Allende was a political act, and only the sovereign people of Chile can decide whether it was justified or not. But the 17 years of brutal, criminal dictatorship were not justified by anything that happened during the brief reign of Allende. No matter what your enemy does, you are still under obligation to adhere to the rule of law. You are not justified in torturing terrorists. You are not justified in wantonly killing civilians because your enemy has done the same. As was explained to most of us at a young age, “He did it first!” is not a sound moral argument.
A bit closer to home, Raul Castro has emerged from his hibernation and seen the United States’ shadow. Raul told the Cubans that shortly after his brother’s illness became public, he called up tens of thousands of militia and reservists. Why? "We could not rule out the risk of somebody going crazy, or even crazier, within the U.S. government."
Dear Washington D.C.: Did you notice what just happened here? The Cuban government faces a crisis and what does it do? It tries to scare the Cuban people into thinking the United States might do something “crazy.” Do you know what everyone in Cuba calls the embargo? “El bloqueo”? What’s a “bloqueo? It’s a blockade. What’s a blockade? Why, it’s an act of war. Who actually benefits from the embargo? It’s not Washington, and it’s not the exiles. The embargo has failed mightily to oust Fidel Castro. It sure as heck ain’t the Cuban people who have benefited. Who then? One man- Fidel Castro. From the beginning, Fidel has told the Cubans that the United States was at war with Cuba, and the embargo has been exhibit “A.” Why is the economy so bad? El bloqueo. Why can’t we have elections? El bloqueo. Why must we repress dissent? El bloqueo – don’t you people know we’re at war?
Drop the embargo. I know your feelings got hurt back in 1959, but that was a long time ago. The embargo is Fidel’s crutch. It gives him an excuse for everything that’s wrong, and lets him strut about as the nationalist hero facing down the big, bad imperialist yanquis. Get rid of the embargo, and flood the island with Americans, with American dollars, and with American values. Make the old man irrelevant.
It’s past time – drop the embargo.
There's a very interesting thread going on right now over at Pandagon about how people think and talk about race. The thread is inspired by a post from Pam Spaulding about the boneheaded claim by Tramm Hudson, who is running for the U.S. Congressional seat in Florida’s 13th district, that blacks can't swim. As an historian of Latin America, I have a particular take on this kind of thing. As I posted in that thread, Latino cultures generally think quite differently about race then we do. In many countries, the emphasis is on skin tone. Rather than having a bipolar or tri-polar world, with everyone shoe-horned into one group or the other, people in these societies live in a complex racial environment with infinite gradations. Carl Degler called this "the mulatto escape hatch," and suggested there was less racial solidarity in a country like Brazil because light-skinned people of African descent think of themselves as a distinct group from darker skinned Afro-Brazilians, and identify more with white Brazilians. Some of Degler's conclusions have been strongly debated, but the point that Latino cultures define race differently than we do is critical. Light skinned mulattos, who would be called black in the U.S., might well be called "white" in Haiti or the Dominican Republic. For that matter, people from those countries who think of themselves as "white" would likely be thought of as "black" here.
There was a time in this country when people talked about the "Irish race," the "English race," the "German race," and genuinely believed in such things. Now that idea has largely gone poof. Race is culturally defined. Race is an idea. It exists in our head. We define it as we choose, and we can redefine it as we choose. We decide what to think and say about it, and we can choose to think and say different things. The historical legacy of racism is a real, concrete thing, but the idea "race" is a cipher, a will-o'-the wisp that confuses our brains precisely because it does not conform to empirical reality. The more people who understand this, the closer we can all come to sanity.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
It is rare that anyone in TV news bothers to make an historical case about anything. Here Keith Olbermann shows what could be done if the media took the time to think about the past and not assume that old news is irrelevant. I saw it, and I'm sold, but then, I remember the past, too.
Go Pundit Go has raised questions about Reuters using Marc Frank as its Havana correspondent, questions picked up by Instapundit and Newsbusters. Frank apparently has a background working for the People’s Daily World, a publication of the Communist Party, USA. While GPG does allow that Frank’s “current articles are not explicitly pro-Cuban to the point of journalist fraud,” it’s clear that all three see a real problem with Reuter’s employing Mr. Frank. Let’s look at what Frank actually wrote that bothered our friends on the right:
Cuba remained calm on Sunday as people engaged in voluntary work, cleaned neighbourhoods and donated blood in Mr Castro’s honour. Throughout the leadership crisis, people have gone about their daily business and enjoyed summer holidays, though there is an unmistakable undercurrent of anxiety over the future without Fidel - the only leader most Cubans have ever known.GPG declares that this shows Frank has a “soft spot for soft reporting on the people’s paradise of Cuba.” Greg Sheffiled at Newbusters called it a “glowing review.” I wonder if they’ve ever been to Cuba. When you talk to people in Cuba, you find a wide range of opinions about Fidel and the regime. Just like here, Cubans have mixed and nuanced opinions about their government. I have little doubt that since Fidel handed power over to Raul, Cubans have been continuing on with their lives, but are also anxious about the future, regardless of their political leaning. Some of them probably were doing things in Fidel’s honor – other were doing what they needed to get by. And Frank probably saw what he wanted to see. People sweep streets in Havana every day – it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with how they feel about el Viejo. As an historian, I always want to know as much as possible about the ideological background of the author of any source I’m using. But the complaints of GPG and the others highlight one of the more ironic developments on the right in recent years – they’ve all become postmodernists. It doesn’t matter what is said, but who says it. If information comes from an ideologically trusted source, like one of the handful of scientists who see no human cause for global warming, then it’s golden. But if it comes from the tens of thousands of scientists who think otherwise, then it’s not to be trusted. Frank’s ideological background does mean we need to read him critically – but then that’s true about everyone we read.
Posted by Dr.T at 12:44 PM