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!

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

How Bills Got Passed: President Lyndon B. Johnson and His Treatment

Former FBI Head James Comey expressed in his testimony to the Senate that the reason he kept notes of his meetings with Donald Trump and circulated them as memos was because he was very uncomfortable being left alone in a room with him. Now, that feeling is more than understandable, but politics aside, it's worth noting that Trump isn't the first man in the White House to intimidate the bejesus out of others. Andrew Jackson might take the prize, seeing that it was well known that prior to his presidency he had killed quite a few people (and as president beat up one would-be assassin), so that certainly was on his visitors' minds. However, the true champion of Scrubs-style tear inducing has to go to President Lyndon B. Johnson. The direct threat of violence was unnecessary for the greatest nightmare to haphephobics ever to take office, and in fact probably made the idea of dying seem like sweet relief to his victims. Johnson wasn't known as the Master of the Senate or able to get Civil Rights and Great Society bills to his desk by being a nice pencil-pusher. He used his God-given size, strength, and drive to make goal-based intimidation an art: The Johnson Treatment. Let's analyze one notable case here:

It should be pretty obvious who Johnson is in this picture. The other one though is Abe Fortas, not only Johnson's own Supreme Court appointee but also a longtime supporter of his. So this is Johnson parodying his own treatment. Still, Fortas doesn't seem to be at his best here. Let's go over the Johnson Treatment in detail:

Two witnesses looking like they just managed to snag tickets to the last gladiator match of the season. Except Fortas is the doomed gladiator and Johnson is the lion about to rip him to shreds. Note the safe distance the men are at, knowing very well they could be next.

Though both men appear to be sharing a laugh, it comes from opposite ends. Johnson is almost certainly roaring with laughter at one of his own jokes, whereas Fortas is laughing the kind of way horror-movie teenagers do between hopelessly concealing their fear at their current situation and getting axed. Note how Johnson is using his height to stare directly into his eyes from above like a fighter jet about to do a strafing run.

I don't know what Fortas is clutching here but he seems to be holding onto it for dear life, like it were a life jacket or a pitiful shield. Note the continuous decline of Fortas's back and how Johnson's abdomen is still parallel to his head and neck, like an industrial crane lowering steel.

I definitely don't think that this detail has to do with this picture, but it's impossible to paint an accurate picture of Johnson, let alone his Treatment without bringing up this aspect of him. I'll let the link do the talking. (PG-13 content ahead)

Finally, my favorite part of this photo. Whereas Johnson's right leg is planted like a Redwood and his left leg is barely leaning forward at all, not only does Fortas's left leg seem like it's trying to nonchalantly escape and leave the rest of his body behind, but his right heel is barely able to balance his falling body. In fact, it appears that if Fortas is forced backward one more inch, he'll just straight-up run away from the White House altogether, which Johnson knows, so instead of crossing the line he just keeps stomping his foot on it.

And this picture is just one aspect of the Johnson Treatment. There were loads of other methods Johnson incorporated into his treatment, whether it was driving his car into his ranch's lake (without letting his passengers know the car doubled as a boat) or making his aides follow him into the bathroom. Remember, however, that like a martial arts master, Johnson did his best to use his Treatment for good. Without it, his Great Society, Medicare, Medicaid, and Civil Rights Acts would likely never have happened. And he did it all without Twitter, for one, and knew exactly what he was doing. Domestically, anyway.

A Short History of Wars Starting By Accident

The recent headlines of a U.S. fighter jet shooting down not just a Syrian Air Force jet but also one of its drones definitely raised an alarm or two in my head.  It was made even more disconcerting by the fact that the Russians said they would target U.S. warplanes west of the Euphrates River and were cutting their avenue of communication to us. And that's not even accounting for Syria or Iran's feelings about it. It seemed like yet again that the situation in the Middle East was spinning out of control.

Now, I don't think that these two instances will escalate to a war with Russia or even fundamentally alter the current situation in the region. Everyone just might get off easy. However, if the parties involved aren't careful and mindful of the implications of their actions, in the future a similar incident could occur. If heads are too hot, it could prove to be the spark to greater quagmire and bloodshed, if not in Iraq and Syria then elsewhere.

Sadly, there's plenty of wars that by accident. I'm not referring to instances where deliberate attacks were staged with full awareness of the potential consequences, such as the Nazi invasion of Poland or the Confederates firing on Fort Sumter. Nor am I referring to parties being tricked into fighting, like the French in the Franco-Prussian War. No, here are just a few wars that started because some people unable to keep their #$%& together.

• First World War

Perhaps the most well-known example of a seemingly distant geo-political conflict spiraling out of control. The assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire by the Serbian separatist-terrorist organization the Black Hand quickly roped in treaty-bound (and opportunistic) European nations. Austria-Hungary threatened war with Serbia if its government wouldn't turn over the terrorists. Then Russia jumped in to protect a fellow Slavic/Eastern Orthodox nation. Then Germany stood up for its ethnic German sibling and attacked Russia...'s ally France first because they bordered Germany, which drew Britain in shortly after. Within a couple of short months, a Balkan regional squabble had escalated into a full-scale European war, engulfing the world within a few years.

• Sino-Japanese War

China had already been mired in civil war between communists and nationalists, and in 1931 the Japanese decided to take advantage of the chaos and annex Manchuria in the north, renaming it Manchukuo. Then 1937, nationalist soldiers traded shots with a Japanese dispatch along the Yongding river outside of Beijing. The skirmish itself passed without incident as no one was killed, but the next day when a Japanese soldier was missing at roll call, it was all the Japanese command needed. By the time that soldier returned from the local brothel, fighting had already broke out and in just a few weeks the Japanese crossed the Marco Polo Bridge into China proper. 

• Seven Years War

Frederick the Great of Prussia thought (with good reason) that the rest of Europe was gearing up to attack him. So in 1757 Frederick launched a preemptive attack against where his enemies would most likely strike, Saxony. Though the attack itself was perfect, unfortunately Frederick guessed the wrong country, and it turned out he attacked a neutral country without a declaration of war or a provocation. This made it easy for Russia, France, and Austria to declare war on Prussia. However, Frederick's tactical brilliance and huge war chest would keep the war going for years. 

Again, these are just a few examples of wars, and and only wars. That being said, we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves and curse past stupidity. Just because some of these wars started by accident doesn't mean they probably weren't going to happen at all. In many cases, one or both sides were itching for a fight anyway and it would have come to blows sooner or later, by accident or on purpose.

The point is that wars rarely, if ever, start from nothing. Tensions often grind on for years or even decades between parties, steadily escalating until someone makes one final provocation and someone else starts shooting. Long fuse or not, the spark has to be snuffed long before it reaches the dynamite.

Was the US Getting Involved in the Korean War Worth It?

A friend of mine, who is from China, already seems to have a lifetime full of stories. One she doesn’t consider especially noteworthy—but I certainly do—is her trek to the Chinese-North Korean border.

“It’s really boring,” she says dismissively, “there’s nothing there and it takes hours of hiking to get to it.”

Considering that the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) of North Korea and South Korea is one of the most militarized, increasingly dangerous borders in the entire world, maybe you can understand my amazement at how the situation seems completely different a few hundred miles north.

Though recently overshadowed by domestic political crisis and Islamic State-related attacks, the threat posed by North Korea, steadily growing with each provocation and nuclear missile test should arguably be taken more seriously than any other global security threat. With events like these, it got me thinking: was the Korean War worth fighting if it only led to this increasingly unstable stand off? Was too little, or too much for that matter done all those years ago? 

For this piece, I won’t give the same amount of context I usually give for a historical event. Rather, I’ll try to talk solely about American involvement in the war and assess its gains and losses, and have it serve as a potential introduction for another post in the future.

The Korean War, succeeding the Second World War and preceding the Vietnam War for American forces, is often forgotten due to being sandwiched between these greater conflicts. While WWII is perennially considered a, ‘good’ war, and Vietnam a ‘bad’ one, which side does the Korean War fall on, if any?

The first major post-WWII conflict of the Cold War was never intended to take place in Asia, but rather in Europe. Neither the Americans nor the Soviet Union wanted to fight there, even though they were each backing their own puppets in the region, north and south, respectively. Kim Il-Sung however, founder of the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea following the Japanese surrender, and installed by the Soviets, decided to take his chances and reclaim the southern Korean peninsula. The South was lightly defended, and its capital, Seoul, was captured in a matter of days. It was expected that the rest of the country would soon follow. However, President Harry Truman shocked the world, and much of America for that matter, by throwing US troops stationed in Japan into the fray and stating his determination to protect the South.

Truman’s rationale for this was that communism simply could not be allowed expand from where it already existed, otherwise one country after another would fall under the communist influence. US commitment sent a clear message to the Soviets in particular that hostile military takeovers of free (and "free") countries would not be tolerated. However, as we'll see later on, the US-led forces in Korea soon overplayed their hand.

So far though, American forces weren’t doing much protecting. For the first time in American military history, the Americans were forced to retreat on a large scale in the face of overwhelming North Korean numbers. With their backs to the wall in the southeast corner of Korea, Pusan, the odds didn’t look good. Then General Douglass MacArthur, hero of the Pacific in WWII launched an amphibious invasion behind the North Korean lines at the port island of Inchon. With the North Koreans cut off, within a few months American-led forces recaptured Seoul and pushed them back to their border.

The war could have ended there. However, MacArthur, sensing blood in the water, wanted to invade North Korea and finish the job, knocking the communists out of North Korea. Truman was uneasy. Defending the South from communist aggression was one thing, but driving through the North would alter the pre-war communist boundaries and status quo of Asia. He was worried China might perceive such a move as a threat. However, Secretary of State Dean G. Acheson and MacArthur advised Truman that China, led by Chairman Mao Zedong, was too concerned with building their own nascent People’s Republic and consolidating their power. An intervention would not be in their interests. With this advice, Truman gave MacArthur approval, and within another few months, the North Korean forces were driven back to their northern border along the Yalu River. Victory was within reach.

However, Mao and the Chinese Politburo saw the invasion as a direct threat. A US base along its border could mean they themselves could be invaded in the near future. As a result, the war was of vital interest into the Chinese. In one of the more understandable things Mao has ever done, without any warning he quietly flooded North Korea with Chinese troops, taking American forces by surprise. Once again half of Korea was rolled over by an invading force, but the American-led forces made a stand at the 38^th parallel. After that, there’s not much to say about the war. Over two years, little change came to the stalemate that formed there. The key point however is how the war ended. What happened was simply an end to the fighting was negotiated (the sticking point for a long time were prisoners of war returns for both sides) and reluctantly agreed upon. No ‘armistice’ or peace treaty was signed. That means we, along with South Korea, are still technically at war with North Korea, 64 years later.

So where does that leave us today? In the decades following the war, for a while the North Korean GDP per capita was larger than the South’s. However, in the late 70s and early 80s, the South Korean economy took off and its hard-right government liberalized. Today, South Korea is an incredible success story of a country with few natural resources. It has one of the largest GDPs in the world, a flourishing democracy, has gifted the world with numerous products and is an excellent global citizen. North Korea, by contrast, has doubled and tripled down on its tyrannical rule, especially after losing its strongest backer with the fall of the Berlin Wall. North Korea is one of the poorest, most illiberal places to live and its government has grown increasingly erratic, desperate even, and has grown increasingly dangerous. It is a “loose-cannon” in every sense of the phrase, aggressive enough to provoke the world but risking even full-scale nuclear war if it perceives any outside response as a threat. It believes disarmament invites annihilation, or reunification, which for them without Kim Jong Un leading would be even worse. There are certainly options available for disarmament—consistent sanctions and cooperation with China to use their leverage on the North is probably the best option. However, that policy needs to be fundamentally overhauled, otherwise it risks falling apart.

So did the 35,000 American troops killed in the war and the thousands of others who fought in it do so for a good cause? I believe so. Not only did their actions save South Korea, a country that bloomed into an invaluable gift to the world that otherwise would have made the Northern regime even stronger, their actions likely saved more. Under Truman’s “Containment” doctrine of communist countries, those troops sent a clear message to communist countries that they would not allow invasions to go unopposed. Such an action in Korea likely prevented one occurring in Europe, which would have involved the Soviet Union and would have risked all-out nuclear war. These men indeed gave their lives for good.

However, the work they were thrown into is undone. War cannot be allowed on the Korean peninsula again. It carries grave risks for the region and possibly the world. I don’t think most people understand that, something that could have dire consequences maybe sooner than later.  

What the Heck is 'Historiography'?

"As if it couldn't get any worse," my Irish professor expressed half-jokingly two years ago, " there's not just history to learn. There's historiography too." 

No, it doesn't have anything to do with geography, or mapping out history per se. At its base level, it means the process of writing history, and how evidence is examined, interpreted, and finally taught. It can be seen as the history of history—how new evidence, fresh interpretations, and paradigm shifts affect the way a period of history is seen. However, historiography is crucial to how history is understood. Even if all the bare facts and figures of a particular topic are agreed upon by all to be true, depending on how they're interpreted could dramatically alter history's meaning; this has very real consequences, both immediate and long-term.

It's no accident that I first learned about the influence of historiography in my 20th Century Ireland history class. Though we absolutely shouldn't, (as many have learned or are learning), in this country it's fairly easy to take history for granted, due to its apparent distance and overall consensus. In another one of my professor's examples, if you were at a bar and there was a drunken fellow on the end raging on about how George Washington's conduct at the Battle of Monmouth was absolute folly, you might get a bit annoyed at him insulting our first president but still wouldn't give him much thought. However, an equivalent comment in Ireland could lead to a vicious bar fight, even with family. This is because Ireland is still in history and living as a direct result of events that occurred decades or even centuries ago, setting in motion a population in near constant insecurity and soul-searching. How any given Irish person sees history could either justify them joining the IRA, the UK, or the European Union, depending on their interpretation.

In Ireland alone, there's at least 9 (!) historiographical views, and none are or have ever been shared by all or are exclusive from one another. There's the granddaddy of all historiography, Whig history, which committed the cardinal sin of history and wrote it backwards from the perception of a known outcome. Written by Englishmen, it stated that "God is an Englishman" (no joke) and were destined to rule the world, spawning ideas like Social Darwinism and “the white man’s burden.” In response to that, around when Ireland gained its independence Irish Nationalism, embodied in “800 years of English oppression” began to be taught in schools, and to this day it remains dominant in and out of Ireland. Both of these views are uncritical and have no perspective.

Suddenly, in the late 60s, the government reversed course and adopted the much more even-handed and objective Revisionism to keep citizens from getting involved in terrorism in the North. In response to that view, Father Brendan Bradshaw pioneered his own Post-Revisionist history, mixing emotion with objectivity, with the goal of keeping the humanity in history. Since then there have been other schools of thought, some emphasizing ties with Europe, others with a “New Britain” view. The points are these: modern history is built upon previously written histories, and depending on how it is written, history can be used as a weapon or rob a people of its national identity or be anything in-between.

Ultimately, I believe that the goal for any historian is to do the best they can in their research and arguments so that the narrative doesn’t change over after their time, and acknowledge that the past needs to be understood in its own terms, not the present’s. So that the three main stages of historiography—early written history, revisionism, and post-revisionism—comes to be minimally altered as time goes by, even with the potential discovery of new evidence or paradigm shifts. It may be the historian’s greatest challenge. 

Welcome to The History Behind the Headlines!

Hello and welcome to History Behind the Headlines, the first post on my first blog! My name is John Chiarella and I’m very excited (and a bit anxious) to get started! And I think the best way to do so is to explain the mission of this site and why I believe in it…

I’m often asked what kind of history I’m into or would like to specialize in. While there are different times and places that are more attractive to me personally, I always respond by saying it’s not so much the era that interests me—it’s about that era’s connection to today and how that era still has an impact on us. The relevancy of history is what drives me to make it a career instead of just a hobby.

I believe that most people don't have access to the full story. I’ve always felt that across the majority of run-and-gun news reports about current events, the most insightful and consequential information, namely the big ‘Why?’ is either pushed out or ignored altogether. My hope with this blog is that I can provide greater context to a number of current events and therefore a better understanding of the world around us. Nothing exists in a vacuum; there are plenty of reasons for why the world looks the way it does. A better understanding of the past might dispel fear and confusion about the present. There’s an explanation for everything—though as to how satisfying or complete it is can’t be determined by me.

This blog also exists because I hope to provide a better path to teaching history.  All too often, history is seen (and usually taught) as bare dates, bland descriptions, and with an overwhelming sense of indifference. There’s crucial relevancy in history. It is vivacious and complex, full of boldness and intimacy as well as tragedy and hilarity, and is never without further discovery or amazement. It’s not facts and figures—it’s quite literally a “story” stretching across all of time. Over the years, I’ve read several non-fiction authors who will serve as a model to my writing, which is meant to bring history out of the dank boredom of most classrooms and into the light of discovery.

There’s a quote that’s often attributed to Theodore Roosevelt (most likely through The Night at the Museum), and while I’m sure he believed it, I can’t confirm its authenticity: “I believe that the more you know about the past, the better you are prepared for the future.” That principle has guided me through both my academic as well as my personal life. Information is what we act on—how could we not try to get more of it from the easiest and most readily available source, the past? How could we not learn from it, to look back and see what worked and what didn’t, what mistakes were made, what patterns of thought and action were present? With history understood, we have the greatest preparation possible.

I won’t pretend like I believe historical understanding is a panacea to contemporary issues or that I know or understand it all myself, even within the narrow confines of this post. I’m right with you, learning more every day, reading across the packed pages of history right up to today. I hope that with this blog, we’ll be able to understand the page we find ourselves still writing in and to predict the ones coming up.  That’s all for now.