Interview with Bob Galante: Part II

This is the second part of an interview I've conducted with the historian and teacher Bob Galante. To read the first part, click here.

On Fake News

It's no secret that our society has had political tumult in the last two years. There is no doubt that our discourse has become radicalized. I do think that social media has a lot to do with that. We are in a new phase of our history, and the new kinds of communication technologies have arisen that have changed people's relationship to information and ideas. It is a worrisome trend that families are split over political questions and friendships seem to be dissolving at this point as well. It is saddening to think that Americans now may be resembling the Sunnis and Shia.

Part of the problem with fake news is that any kook with a modem and a camera can create any story they want and broadcast it to the world in just a few moments. There have been some documented cases in the New York Times a couple months ago, in November, about how fake news spreads throughout the Internet. As Mark Twain once observed, a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. I think we're seeing that idea writ large in the instantaneous global communications that we now have. Add to that the emotional human desire to believe what we want to believe. It seems in our society today, the stories people want to tell themselves matter more than the realities they're enduring.

Teachers need to elevate the discourse with their students. To present to the students ideas of greater sophistication, more detailed factual bases, court issues and problems, to keep the students reading, writing, and thinking. While for some people it's a dark moment that our society has political tumble, it can also be a gold mine of teachable moments for teachers.

One thing teachers can do to help on this is to keep the students grounded in core questions within their curriculum, [in order to make] students truly interested in the problems. Look for ways to create consensus over things like crime and punishment, the budget, alliances overseas, war and peace. There is still much consensus in American society. The foundations of our institutions are strong. America's Constitution is durable, it has proven the test of time. Through many dark times [like] 1862 [and] 1942. These were dark times as well and we did not know the outcomes of the day’s events either and America turned out okay. Keep the students grounded in their roots as Americans in our unifying principles.

On Facts vs. Ideas in History Education

Too many of America's history teachers are just dragging their students through a parade of dates and facts. Teachers are packaging their students. Do you recall that video of that young man that berated his teacher for not teaching? He urged his teacher to stimulate the students and "touch their hearts." Some people say the boy was insolent, but others say you know he deserves a medal.

In any case there can be too much emphasis on just facts and the [bare] information of history. What teachers need to do is give students the ideas of glue that hold the facts together in the first place. In an age where students can Google anything, get any piece of information or nearly any document they want, it is essential that we teach them how to think.

The role of the history teacher is to show students how to build arguments, to anticipate and refute counterclaims, to integrate the best and most relevant factual records.

Clearly, Bob knows his stuff, both from personal experience and devoted study. I'm very grateful he was able to pass along so much knowledge to me, and by extension all of you. He is a rare voice of clarity and wisdom for the times we live in, but he's not just a man of words. Indeed, whether by researching and learning, teaching others, or refusing to accept the proliferation of BS in our lives, we can all follow in Bob's example for the rest of our lives. There's no time like the present!

Interview with Bob Galante: Part 1

Bob Galante has quite the resume. He has a Master of Arts in Teaching Social Studies from Fairleigh Dickinson University, is an adjunct professor of American history at Syracuse University, is a Two-Time Teacher of the year in Rumson, New Jersey, and has received the Philip Merrill Award from the University of Maryland in 2012, just to name a few. He also runs The History Dr.com, a consulting site for teachers as well as the Educators' Blog and the Boomerang Blog, the latter of which deals specifically with history. I reached out to him for his opinion on a range of subjects pertaining to history and how it is taught. As you can see, his brilliance in history is only matched by his passion for it. 

What attracts you to history?

I'm attracted to history because it's alive. It's all around us. The study of history allows us to perceive patterns in society. It enables us to go back and forth quickly between the present and the past. I believe very firmly that in the history of the world there are very few questions; they just keep playing out as ferociously as if it had never happened before. By studying history we can get out in front of the trends in society. We can see where society is going, so we can get out in front of those changes and make them work for us.

History allows us to take present controversies and see where they have happened before. We get to see previous examples of current issues and problems and then we get to see how it turned out in the past. We can then think [about] the results [and the lessons of them] and applying them [to] now. History is all around us.

Take something like Shays Rebellion in 1787. Revolutionary war soldiers were being thrown into the debtors prisons because they couldn't pay their bills. They were having farms foreclosed on by the courts, with their possessions seized and auctioned off. They rebelled against the system. Where do we see something like that right now? Think about the treatment of veterans coming home from our foreign wars. Should Congress exempt them from foreclosures if they fall behind on their mortgages? Something like Shays rebellion would get all of three sentences in an average history textbook for students but the issues of Shays rebellion are enormous. And they are all around us right now.

I'm attracted to history because it allows us to pick up a newspaper, read the current events and stories, and very quickly come to conclusions about what is at stake. The goal of history is to take today's problems and see where they've happened before. Or to take problems in history and determine current manifestations and current examples of them. History really matters.

I'm attracted to history because it makes us smarter and better people who were able to make more enlightened decisions about the human future by knowing its past.

Why start a blog?

I started The History Dr.com in July 2016 with the mission to share the meaning of democratic citizenship with others. While I no longer teach full time in the public schools, I still want to make a contribution to societal discourse. I want to help move some issues along in our society. 

The blog History Dr.com is a very exciting project, because it allows me to practice what I believe is important: that is, seeing of events around us in exploring how the past reveals examples and outcomes of the core problem. The blog allows me to try to go back and forth quickly between past and present, looking for similar motives of people, arrangements of power, and the interests of different factions of people. The blog allows me to try to be valuable to my readers in illuminating the connections between past and present, and hopefully writing in a clear and direct way.

Join us for Part II, coming soon!

Stomping on History

Quick post for today.

So this morning President Trump announced over Twitter that transgender individuals are now barred from serving the American military "in any capacity." Trump's reasoning for this was that the military could no longer be burdened with "the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail." Most likely this was a favor to Vice President Pence, a longtime opponent of LGBT rights.

I know this sounds bad but I have news that will make this worse.

Who knows if this was by coincidence (it probably wasn't) but the day Trump chose to implement this ban is shocking. Because on July 26, 1948, President Harry Truman signed Executive Order No. 9981 to begin dismantling racial segregation in the military "as soon as possible." It remains a milestone for the history of the military and for the Civil Rights movement in America. 

And then Trump does the opposite kind of thing on its anniversary.

Normally I would post a picture of a facepalm or something but honestly this is kind of heartbreaking. I can't imagine what it's like for the trans serving, served, or thinking about serving, with their country's president basically saying they're worse than useless. 

Stay frosty friends. 

Fake Quote Found!

Believe me, I didn't plan this.

In a recent post, I discussed the perpetuation of fake quotes from historical figures on social media and how to spot them. To summarize, in my opinion the problem stands to be just as serious as fake news in the long run. Though there are plenty of cases of people mistakenly sharing fake quotes that are mostly benign, there are plenty of others who do it on purpose. The goal of these sharers is to appropriate an historical figure so they can justify their own point of view in the present, often distorting the figure and what they stood for. 

Enter Anthony Scaramucci.

For those who don't know, Scaramucci is the White House's new Communications Director. The appointment was so controversial that it caused the White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer to resign, effectively ending one of the best SNL segments in years. His anger can be understandable, considering that Scaramucci, a Wall Street financier, doesn't seem to have much experience in the role he was given. Moreover though, perhaps Spicer's real beef with him was the fact that Scaramucci was once a Trump-basher who apparently decided to let bygones be bygones when opportunity knocked. Just another day in the Trump White House.

But the real story here has to do with Scaramucci's Twitter account. He's been trying and mostly failing to delete tweets that were critical of Trump and expressed views that were contrary to his. Though non-political, one that popped up and has not been deleted was this one: 

You already know where this is going, right? Yup, fake. Mark Twain never said that. I mean I was expecting to find a fake quote at some point after my post about it but come on! 

Should it be disconcerting that the Communications Director of the White House, whose job it is to be the conduit between the President and the press (and by extension the country), didn't bother to check his sources before he shared a quote he liked? You decide. 

Remember friends, BS is everywhere. Keep your eyes open for it, always. 

Stepping Onto Normandy Beach

By now it was late afternoon. The cool fog that had proliferated since the early morning had almost completely burned off, and the sun glistened in the sky. Normally after so much travelling I’d start to get tired, but I left plenty in my reserve specially for the last section of the tour. I was softly excited, but a bit uneasy. I wasn’t sure what to expect, not from the place but from myself.

The van stopped, and my French tour guide and the three other passengers got out. We walked twenty yards to a road parallel to the sea. Then I finally saw it with my own eyes.

Omaha Beach.

Last semester I had the opportunity to study abroad in London. For my spring break (don’t worry, I did other stuff too) I got to finally to visit the number one place I always wanted to go to as a history buff: Normandy beach. I booked a tour in Bayeux, France, of the American sector of the D-Day landings from June 6, 1944. My only regret from the entire trip was that I didn’t spend more time there and visit the British and Canadian sectors as well.

It was a historian’s dream, and the experiences I had earlier that day already left me awestruck. I had been into the church of St. Mere-Eglise where the 82^nd Airborne landed, Utah beach where my great-uncle landed 73 years ago, and the Point du Hoc where the US Army Rangers scaled the cliffs in order to destroy German heavy guns, to name a few. But I couldn’t really believe I had been to Normandy without visiting one of the most enduring and visceral symbol of the entire war, let alone the landings themselves. Now I was finally here.

Where I stood, there was a German bunker and war memorial to my left. To my immediate right was a road stretching behind the beach with a bluff and several houses laid out behind it. And in front of me was the beach. The first thing that strikes you about it is its sheer vastness. It’s both incredibly deep and wide, with the waves breaking off so far that there are hardly any tide pools at all. However, the water clearly washed up very close to shore, on account of the smoothness of the sand.

After a few words and some more gazing, heart pumping I finally stepped onto the beach. Perfect footprints were left in the sand and not a grain of it ended up in my shoes. Our tour guide led us to the middle of the beach about fifty yards in. For the next fifteen minutes, the tour guide shared more details and period photos of the invasion. With each minute I was able to imagine myself even more vividly in an American soldier’s shoes. It was astounding and spine-chilling.

Imagine you’re where I am, which would be closer to the cliffs than where the first soldiers landed. You would be knee-deep in water, weighed down by loads of equipment. Ahead of you are mines, anti-tank emplacements, and barbed wire. Each minute, more and more Germans are pouring machine gun fire straight on you from the bunkers ahead. And perhaps worst of all is the sheer distance you have to go—hundreds of yards ahead of you into the fire. If you can't imagine it, maybe this will help. I could not stop thinking about how $%&*#@ I would have been.

As I turned and looked out towards the sea and thought about the countless lives’ lost on this beach. Prior to arriving, I figured if there was going to be a single time I would straight-up break down and cry it would be now. But what I was going through instead surprised me. I can’t quite explain it, perhaps it was mindfulness or just an enormous sense of gravity. I would describe it like as if you were standing at the top of a mountain and looking upon the world below. You can’t judge it or connect it to anything or really think about it at all very much. All you can do is just take it all in.

The next thing I did surprised me even more. I took several steps away from my group. I remembered I had a zip lock bag in my pack. Without thinking I reached down and grabbed a handful of sand, and then another and another. The sand was golden brown and seemed to have broken shells in it, wet from the sea. I closed the bag, put in in my pack, then walked off the beach, catching up to my tour guide.

We still did other things for the tour, including visiting the gorgeous American cemetery just behind the beach. That was incredible too, but nothing I did after—or really, ever—will compare to stepping on Omaha beach myself that day and seeing it with my own eyes. That sand sits in the bag on my bookshelf, still wet with the water from the English Channel. It's a reminder to me of what I experienced that day and what those men did for you and me all those years ago. I will never remove it. 

The Most Important Deleted Scenes in American History: 10 Days Review

I really enjoyed sharing with you all my review of my favorite non-fiction book, The Great Big Book of Horrible Things: The Definitive Chronicle of History's 100 Worst Atrocities. So I decided to give a review of my second-favorite non-fiction book: 10 Days That Unexpectedly Changed America by Steven M. Gillon. (I think it's safe to say I do like lists, numbers, and analysis in my history books). This book is definitely more mainstream and doesn't push the envelope nearly as much as Horrible Things, but it comes from the same place of historical rediscovery and reinterpretation.

I first encountered 10 Days as part of my summer reading for my US history class in high school, and I'm certain that I'm the only person who not only read the book cover to cover but kept it long after high school. It's a companion to the History Channel special of the same name. The book (and subsequently the series) is straightforward in its aim, which is to demonstrate to the reader that American history is a lot more complex and extensive than most people would think. It breaks down ten days in American history that went under the radar in national memory, but is hugely important to its development.

For example, few would doubt that December 7, 1941 is one of the most important dates in American history, with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and our entrance into WWII. But perhaps an equally if not more important date would be August 2, 1939. This is when the world's foremost scientist and German expatriate Albert Einstein sent a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt. It warned him about the likelihood and the danger of Germany developing Uranium-based weapon and recommended that the US try to beat them to it. Now aware of the destructive power of a nuclear weapon, Roosevelt soon authorized an American-led project to develop one before the Axis could, later named the Manhattan Project. This letter from Einstein proved to be the push that led the world into the Atomic Age, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Cold War.

This is just one example of the kinds of events that this book convincingly argues are just as crucial to American history as more famous dates. To be sure, reading it hardly makes you an expert in any of these ten days or the general subjects associated with them. It functions more as a brief overview than an in-depth analysis. However, that's not the aim of the book (and to be fair it does offer suggestions for further reading and a plethora of sources). The book is all about making you see that even lesser-known history is still hugely influential both then and now. When you walk away from reading it, you feel that you understand the fabric and the course of American history much better, and you're all the more grateful for it. Indeed, one could directly draw a line from the Scopes Monkey Trial to climate-change deniers today, for instance. 

If I do become a professional historian, these are the books I want to write: not so much in-depth dissections of a specific subject but rather evidence-backed arguments to the reader that makes them see history differently. To me, this is the most important aspect of history, making the connections and helping others see them. I hope you all agree. 

Fires Never Go Out of Style: A History of Riots in America

This week marks the fiftieth anniversary of the 1967 Newark Riots. Rumors of the police beating a black cab driver during his arrest was the spark for city-wide rioting. Even though the rumor later proved to be false, the long marginalized, abused, and impoverished black community didn’t need much provocation to strike back at the mostly white police force. 

For five days, Newark’s rioters and police clashed while bystanders and emergency services found themselves caught in the crossfire. The New York Times has an illuminating retrospective on the riots and its legacy to Newark. Many consider the riots to be the final nail in the coffin for Newark and it’s only just now starting to come back. Others believe that despite the violence and damage (or perhaps because of it) at least the black community finally got a voice in the city. Perhaps both or neither or true. But I thought this would be a good time to review the riots in American history: when and why they occurred and what the trends were.

Riots are in effect volcanic reactions from a society, or a sizable segment of it, against authority for their conduct, obstinacy, or negligence to immediate issues affecting that society. While protests, violent or peaceful, are generally organized enough to stand for or against a given issue with specific demands, riots are chaotic and fervent; it’s like a wound-up rubber band snapping loose right on your face. Even if the root causes of a riot are unclear at times, the more-often-than-not single event that sparks the riot usually prove to be a major indicator of the perceived wrongs that authority has inflicted on that society.

The major trend in riots for over fifty years right to the present has been due to racism, through different avenues. For many the recent riots in Ferguson and Baltimore come to mind, in response to claims of police misconduct and brutality that led to the deaths of young black men. This is not unlike the Los Angeles Riots of 1992 when the police beating of Rodney King was captured on camera and the officers were acquitted. The same issue was present for the 1965 Watts riot in Los Angeles and Newark’s. 

However, for each riot the root cause was not just police brutality. Regardless of your politics, it’s clear that both then and now most black (and brown) people in inner-city areas simply do not have the same opportunities as even other black and brown people do elsewhere, let alone white people. The fact that race riots have been occurring sporadically for over fifty years show how little progress has been made in many areas pertaining to race.

However, America hasn’t been subject to just race riots. While European riots (along with much of Europe in general) are known for their black-bloc, Molotov cocktail-throwing masked protesters/rioters, America has had its fair share of similar political and economic riots. They’re actually the inspiration for some of the best Rage Against the Machine songs. Though it may surprise you, there's a long history of labor movements peppered with socialism and anarchism in American history, and some of those strikes devolved into riots. 

One notable example are the riots that broke out during the large-scale Railroad Strike of 1877, leading to widespread chaos across industrial centers in America between workers and state militia and federal troops. Much of this tradition continued well into the twentieth century when labor became more organized and progress was deemed too slow. In an era when organized labor's power is all but eradicated, these stories can be especially surprising. Nowadays, it's arguable that Antifa is trying to pick up the slack.

Then of course there’s class riots, and that arguably has been the main trend in riots for all of American history. Even if it seems to be buried under race and politics, believe me, if most of these rioters had a better standard of living, they would have stayed home. Even before our nation was officially founded, there are documented cases of workers and farmers revolting against their bosses or landlords up and down the East Coast. The most prominent of these types of riots was the New York City Draft Riots of 1863, which remain the deadliest riots in American history. This was in response to the draft that Congress initiated to replace massive Union losses in the Civil War. While it was at its core an initiative to stimulate volunteering, it was clumsily executed and enraged much of New York City’s population, which proved to be a cocktail of destruction: much of its industry was cotton based and connected to the South so they opposed the Civil War, and much of its workers were poor Irish immigrants who did not want to compete with black people for low-wage jobs, or rabid Nativists who didn’t want to compete with either of them. When a fire company’s chief was drafted, the firemen destroyed the local draft office and kicked off a city-wide revolt. For five days the city burned and both black people and Republicans were targeted by the rioters. It was finally put down with Federal troops fresh from the Battle of Gettysburg. 105 people were killed—eleven black people, eight soldiers, two policemen, and the rest rioters. Other than the Civil War itself, the riots remain the single-largest insurrection in American history.

And these are just events that can be solely classified as riots. They don’t account for the overwhelming amount of (mostly) peaceful protests (Vietnam, WWI) or the outright rebellions that occurred (Shays’ Rebellion, Southern secession). Along with riots, these reactions to authority show that American history is not a straight and clean line. It has many twists, turns, stutters, and splinters, but also progress. Whether a reaction is a protest, riot, or rebellion, if any of these events occur, authority is forced to take notice if they don't want their cities to burn. 

"How to Spot Fake Quotes on the Internet"- Abraham Lincoln

There's hardly any doubt now that fake news is a big problem (not to mention determining just what is fake news). However, that's not the only thing catching fire on social media nowadays. Fake quotes are a big problem too. As I've witnessed firsthand, quotes either falsely attributed to historical personages or taken out of context have officially reached meme status long ago. 

Case in point: I remember several years ago a distant aunt of mine shared a picture of Abraham Lincoln on Facebook with a quote:

Stunned at first, I soon smelled a rat. I'm somewhat of a fan of Abraham Lincoln, and though he definitely said and wrote a lot, I had never heard this before. In fact, such an overemphasis on libertarian-capitalism seemed out of character for Lincoln, considering his unprecedented expansion of government power to free slaves. That was strike one. And let's not forget that Lincoln was one of the greatest orators in American history. So if he was going to say something like this, he would probably would have found a more rhetorically effective way to do so other than cataloging. That's strike two. Finally (and appropriately) I did some quick googling and voilá: FAKE! In fact, the quote is actually from the pamphlet of a conservative German-American Presbyterian Minister, published over fifty years after Lincoln's death. Even now, I'm annoyed with my aunt sharing such a ridiculous falsehood.

While there are plenty of relatively benign cases where an inspirational quote turns out to be inaccurate, this issue shouldn't be underestimated. Anyone with an agenda can potentially appropriate a historical figure to justify their views, and make people believe those figures stood for something completely different than they did. This goes back to one of my earliest posts about using history to justify the present, often falsely. Whether it's gun owners believing Ghandi opposed gun control or video-gamers thinking that Stalin was self-aware, this proliferation of fake-quotes not only influences today's politics and culture but can change the perception of history itself. In the long-run, that's just as dangerous as fake news, if not more.

So to summarize, how to spot fake quotes online:

1. Go with your gut. If at any point someone is sharing a quote to justify one of their viewpoints or argue for it better than they could, your BS alarm should be active. While it may be tempting to take a shortcut and assume that previously unheard of quotes from famous people are fake, you shouldn't: many "well-known" quotes are often inaccurate too. To be honest, it might be best to just take every quote shared from a historical figure on social media with a grain of salt at least at first.                                                                                                                                  
2. Context, context, context. Even if they don't mention Twitter or tacos, someone living 500 years ago wouldn't use the same vernacular we do, especially if they spoke another language. Try to find clues in the "quote" that give the real author away.                                                                  
3. The most important step of all: fact check. Snopes is an excellent site that shuts down fake news and memes circulating on the internet. However, a simple Google search will do provided you do it right. I have to stress here that if you really want to get to the bottom of the story, go down the page: often the first few lines of a unspecified Google search either won't help you or confuse you more. It will take thirty seconds to a minute longer, but trust me, the research you do will be worth it to get to the truth. 

Happy hunting of fake memes my friends. Before I part, I'll leave you with some wise words from one of our Founding Fathers: 

A Marriage of Convenience?

Sometimes you have to just call things as you see them, and Nicholas Kristof does just that. In a recent blog post, the New York Times contributor offered his "takeaways" regarding Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin's highly anticipated first face-to-face meeting. Some would hardly surprise you—it is titled "Did Putin Have Trump for Lunch?" after all. Still, Kristof's commentary was concise and precise, and helped contextualize the G-20 summit as well as the impact that Trump and Putin, both separately and together are having on the world.

Kristof asserts that it is absurd for Trump to accept Russia's account on interference in the 2016 election over our own intelligence agencies, none of which, despite what the President says, are in dispute of Russia's efforts. It's also very disconcerting that Trump's attack on the news media (and bullying of our allies) seems to be one of his priorities, so it's altogether fitting for him to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the leader of a country that saw 58 journalists murdered and regularly defies the international community. Kristof goes on to elaborate his worries about the American withdrawal from the global stage and the dangers of Russia or China filling in the vacuum over, say, the European Union. There's also a significant danger that as the investigation of the Trump/Russia collusion continues, what little credibility Trump still has will dry up and he will become even more erratic. This could lead to wild cards like North Korea or Venezuela taking risks and provoking a disproportionate response. Kristof convincingly argues that our foreign policy is rapidly flipping upside-down.

However, I think that Trump and Putin's meeting planted the seeds (or showed existing ones) of a potential conflict in the future, one that Kristof did not touch upon: Trump vs. Putin. It sounds ridiculous even by today's standards for what passes as possibility, but hear me out. I think we can all agree that both Trump and Putin are two of the most prominent opportunists in the world. Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall, whether as KGB head, Prime Minister, or President, Putin has done nearly everything in his power (and some things arguably beyond) to push back against Western political and economic influence. Despite these acts prompting international backlash against Russia and claims that Putin could push his luck for only so long, he's been thriving. Enter Trump, an equally opportunistic man willing to challenge anyone who stands in his way and fan the populist flames that had been spreading across America even before 2016 by promising to "clear the swamp" of American politics. Trump's motivations seem much less clear than Putin's (unless it really is just something like pungent narcissism) but is just as strong, if not more.

 

Why wouldn't these two make a marriage of convenience? It's not like there's no history of it ever happening in Russia. Just in the last century alone, Russia signed two deals with their devils at the time. The first came in 1894 with the Franco-Russian alliance, then in an expansion in 1907 with Britain, later known as the Triple Entente. Though meant to counteract the rise of Germany, an alliance between two democratic and liberal countries and such a backwards and authoritarian one like Russia proved to be embarrassing to all parties. Its much more notorious sequel came in 1939 with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, a non-aggression pact between a fascist Germany and a communist Russia, which by anyone's account should be natural enemies (as they soon proved to be). Hitler proposed it to cover his back for when he went to war with Western Europe later, Stalin did so in order to gobble up Eastern territory. Such cynically opportunistic act from both nations shocked the world. So why wouldn't Russia, who's been on the losing end on the global stage even before 1989 be willing to try it again?

The problem with these sorts of arrangements is that they rarely last because they stand on such shaky ground between untrustworthy parties. While it's absolutely not certain to happen, I believe it is possible that there will come a time when Trump and Putin will turn against each other. Maybe it will be over Russian intransigence in Syria, or a trade deal gone wrong, or one or the other finally overplay their hand. While we shouldn't be afraid of this yet, since there's so many other pressing concerns at this time, I think it would be prudent to keep such a possibility in the back of our minds. Because as many of us know, conflicts stemming from friends-turned-enemies are not pretty.

Wikipedia Listened!

Some time ago, I decided to update a Wikipedia entry on George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. I felt that even in terms of Wikipedia's usual bare-bone summary, it was still leaving out important information about Orwell's personal character during his time in Spain. The addition of mine that modified the entry most pertained to how upset Orwell was at not being able to capture an enemy telescope, despite securing a number of weapons. It being Wikipedia, I figured my entry wouldn't last long despite my citations.

However, on my most recent visit to the page, my entry remained untouched! So either my insight was so valuable no one thought they should touch it or else I'm the only person visiting this page. Either way, I consider this a victory. George Orwell can rest easy knowing that I understand his dismay at not being able to get his telescope!

The "Gift" No One Wants: The Situation in North Korea

Several weeks ago, in response to the latest rounds of North Korean provocations, I reviewed the US's role in the Korean War and expressed my opinion as to whether it was worth it for us getting involved. While I believe it was worth it, it's becoming increasingly clear each month that the work there remains unfinished. In fact, things are becoming downright grim, and honestly for me it's the scariest thing happening in the world right now. 

A review of what's happened this time.

First, there's the tragic death of Otto Warmbier. The American student was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor by the regime last year for trying to steal a propaganda poster while he was in the country with a tour group. During that time he was tortured so badly that he fell into a coma. Perhaps because of this the regime decided they had nothing worth losing and released Warmbier to the US. He died on June 19th, six days after he was returned home. There are still Americans imprisoned in North Korea. 

Then on July 4th (as a "gift package" to the US on its national anniversary), North Korea successfully tested an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, the Hwasong-14 that appeared to be capable of hitting Alaska or Hawaii, certainly in range of Seoul or Tokyo. While it's unclear if a nuclear warhead could be attached to the missile, even if North Korea can't now it will be able to soon. This sharply escalated the tensions in the region, and tempers are rising among all parties. (Note: As shown in the graphic below, while the Taepodong-2 appears to have greater range, its test didn't appear as promising as the most recent missile's.) 

So what's the way forward? Right off the bat, no one wants to risk war. Even "surgical" strikes to take out North Korean weapon facilities and launch sites are almost certain to trigger a full scale war in the region, maybe even to nuclear levels. Regardless of political affiliation, even the most ardent hawks are reluctant to risk sparking a full scale war on the Korean peninsula. So that's out.

China, usually seen as the only source of leverage to North Korea, has not been able to make a dent and they probably won't now. Their biggest concern isn't a nuclear-armed regime but the country destabilizing and potentially collapsing, which would flood China with refugees and put an American military base on their border. President Trump has already demonstrated his annoyance with China by selling arms to its rival Taiwan, sanctioning one of its banks, and sending a destroyer to the South China Sea. But frankly the US doing this is only cutting off their nose to spite their faces, even beyond North Korea. The last thing we would want is poor relations with our biggest trading partner, especially considering that they're gearing up to fill the role the US seems to be withdrawing from on the world stage. However, the fact remains that they're not much help on North Korea anymore. 

Diplomacy remains the most viable option. Specifically, the US should try to replicate what the Clinton Administration brokered in the 1990s. This deal eased sanctions and lowered the rate of military exercises in exchange for the North Koreans freezing their weapons program. The deal certainly wasn't perfect, as North Korea snuck in uranium tests on the side, but for the duration of Clinton's presidency, no nuclear warheads were developed by the regime. Even if a similar agreement goes forward, it certainly won't solve the North Korean problem; it essentially would only kick the can down the road for who knows how long. North Korea also just isn't going to give up their nuclear arms, as they see it as their only means of survival, but they might not take it any further for the sake of stabilization in the region. Everyone seems to agree that this is the least bad option out of all the others. 

Though it's a deal with the devil, such an option should be pursued to the fullest degree. War would be catastrophic, and must be avoided. Let's hope the world's leaders understand that. 

Robert E. Lee Never Deserved Your Respect

I recently posted about the anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, and I found that I still had more to say that directly related to current events. The very reason I started this blog was in response to the growing calls for the removal of Confederate monuments in the South, and the frankly amazing fact that many were indeed taken down. None mattered more symbolically than the statue of General Robert E. Lee in New Orleans. His monument was one of the most hotly contested, and was subsequently the most satisfying of the removals when he was finally lowered from his pedestal, literally and figuratively. It really was a remarkable occasion, made more so by Mayor Mitch Landrieu's moving speech about the historical significance of the event; it's a major step forward to right the wrongs of the past.

I wish I could have been there, because years before the widespread calls for Confederate monument removals, Robert E. Lee was on my $#%& list. Unlike many other Civil War historians, even out of the ones that have no qualms labeling the Confederacy for what it was— an Empire of Slavery— there still remains a professional and personal admiration for Lee. They cite the integrity and pride of his Christian character and his brilliant tactics on the battlefield as justifications for their respect. Even as a kid, I never bought it. In fact, I remember on my tour of the Capitol Building shouting in offense at seeing a statue of Lee (in his rebel uniform no less!) sitting at a prominent spot in one of the halls. True, he was no John C. Calhoun or Nathaniel Bedford Forrest, but despite setting the bar so low, I never believed that somehow Lee was some sort of good guy in a terrible system.

I didn't know how right I was.

Credit to the author for this one (FYI Lee is on the left, Ulysses S. Grant is on the right)

In an outstanding and personally vindictive piece for the Atlantic, Adam Serwer exposes Lee for the man he really was, what he stood for, and how much damage he did. His popular image is mostly fiction, generally maximizing his good traits and minimizing his bad ones, but also, in Mitch Landieu's words, propels "lies by omission" by his defenders for over 150 years. Here are a few highlights:

• Before anything else should come the evaluation of Lee through a military perspective. While he is rightly considered to be a master tactician, his strategic decision to wage a conventional war against the industrial-powered North was a disastrous move that escalated the war and brought death and destruction to the South. Even tactically, he was still capable of colossal mistakes. His stubbornness at Gettysburg, namely Pickett's Charge lost him the battle and set the stage for the collapse of the Confederacy.

• Though not a rabid slave-owner, Lee was anything but benevolent. He was still by all means a white supremacist who paternalistically saw slavery as good for black people, and only Christ could free them. He split slave families and oversaw or personally beat slaves who tried to escape. 

• His army enslaved free blacks and executed captured black Union soldiers. He refused to conduct a prisoner exchange with Union General Ulysses S. Grant if black soldiers were on the table, despite his dire shortage of troops. 

• The one aspect of Lee I previously respected was the dignified surrender of his army to General Grant. This in effect prevented a Southern insurgency from spawning and contributed to the reunification of nation. Now I have none. After Appomattox Court House, Grant felt his former rival fell short in trying to sow seeds of peace, and saw Lee's conduct as a "forced acquiescence." This helped give way to the Lost Cause myth which was the foundation of Jim Crow. 

• Even as president of Washington College, Lee oversaw a chapter of the KKK formed at the university and turned the other way when white students committed crimes against blacks in the area, including several lynchings. Though he never formally endorsed the KKK, he never spoke against it either, and there's good evidence to suggest he tacitly approved of it by suggesting the South could give way to violence if it did not name the peace terms. 

As Serwer notes, the only fitting monument to Lee is the Arlington national military cemetery that's on his former land, which the federal government had seized. White supremacists are the only ones that have reason to admire him. That makes him nothing more than a disgrace to America and its history. Hopefully now his myth will finally start to die and the truth will come to stand in his place. 

Down and Dirty at Gettysburg

Today, July 3rd, is the anniversary of the Union victory at Gettysburg in 1863. While I'm basking in our victory against the rebels (both then and now), I thought I'd share with all of you my favorite film depiction of not just Gettysburg but of the entire Civil War. It's from a History Channel special from several years ago, and with great respect to the 1990s movie of the same title, I think it embraces realities of the war that the movie chose to sanitize. Yes, it's also dramatized, but to me it's effectively the Saving Private Ryan of the Civil War, in that it tells the stories of those on all sides of the battle while getting down and dirty in the trenches. If you're only going to watch one part of it, watch this one.

Go on, try to tell me you don't have your hair standing on the back of your neck. Tell me that seeing the Iron Brigade completely own the rebels doesn't make you wish you could jump in and help them. Tell me that as you watch it you're not both in awe of the courage and commitment of the soldiers while also repelled that so many would fight for something so terrible. Finally, tell me that you never realized that we could have lost it all, if not at Gettysburg than somewhere else. Sometimes it's incredibly difficult to comprehend. But if you can get close, then you can see that the Civil War was unlike any other war in American history before or since. 

So happy Victory Day, on July 3rd and July 4th!

What People Think I Do: Historian Edition

In a few previous posts, I talked a lot about the work that historians do and what I appreciate about studying history. However, while historians all take their work seriously, I don't believe it's the same for themselves personally (except for a few terrible people). With that attitude in mind, for this post I thought I'd do my best to qualify a classic meme's perception of historians:

• What my friends think I do
• This image is accurate enough. From the feedback I get from my friends, being a history major/historian doesn't capture the imagination quite as much as a lot of other fields of work. It should be noted though that when I'm researching or writing I often have multiple tabs YouTube videos ready to play at a moment's notice for no reason other than my own entertainment. Oh, I have sources too!

• What my mom thinks I do
• My mom was an English major, and being cooped up in a library is an experience I shared with her. It's really impossible not to spend extensive time in a library even in the digital age, especially for students, given the necessity for primary sources and the fact that libraries are free. For my last research paper on Thomas More, I needed at least 7 books published early in the last century, which required much searching, begging librarians for help, and sifting through mountains of paper. You will become trapped in a dark recess of the library forever if you're not careful.

• What society thinks I do
• Along with being jobless and usually ignored, re-enacting battles seems pretty accurate for the public's perception of historians. However, make no mistake: those guys are passionate about what they do. They have to provide their own equipment, donate tons of their spare time to learn how to "fight," and they know the details of the battle, the time, and the actual person they're playing like the back of their hand. Their hobby helps make sure society doesn't forget these battles and their consequences. Also, according to my friend who's a Revolutionary War re-enactor, they're great at partying too. Make no mistake though,  some re-enactors can take it a bit too seriously, or worse, do it for the wrong reasons altogether. 

• What the university thinks I do
• This is definitely true, but if any of my history classes had as many people as there are in this picture, we would have a lot more classes to choose from, not to mention more clout with the Dean. 

• What I think I do
• I do certainly hope that if you read my blog, or God forbid actually know me personally that I help you learn a bit more about history and its importance. Personally, I do feel  that I'm almost like an architect walking through a city whenever I watch the news or learn about a particular period––I know (generally) how it all got here. 

• What I actually do
• History-related or not, at any given time in my room at home or my dorm, this is what it looks like. Enough said.