Blog 4 History

Wishing you a happy Memorial Day!

I think it is safe to say that when things are tough, people become loony when dealing with education reform. I have been following the interesting situation in Texas, where the Slave Trade is being changed to the “Atlantic Triangular Trade in textbooks. But now Utah wants to put their five cents in. They don’t want to change the curriculum or lay off people. They just want to get rid of the 12th grade.

I don’t know how they do things in Utah, but our horrible education program out here in California  teach “American Government” (They should be teaching “Civics”) and Economics in the 12th grade. Where will you fit these two subjects if students or parents decide to “opt out” of the 12th grade? Research shows that the majority of students today don’t even know who the Vice President is, what the Bill of Rights consists of, or who their city mayor is. In fact, I would argue that many don’t even know the purpose of a city council! And economics, an issue highly relevant in today’s economic climate is to be eliminated? How is one to understand why we are in the deficit ridden economic mess we are in if they are not taught the subject? Furthermore, many colleges don’t require that economics be taken for a Bachelor’s Degree. that means thay educated people will not learn the topic. But we are assuming that all the students will be attending college,which if they don’t they will never learn it at all!

We need education reform, not elimination. We can disagree on what reform is, but naming the slave trade something else because it is a “negative connotation” (Um, duh!), and getting rid of two courses essential to “creating productive members of society” is not the answer.

What do you think?

Robert H. Wiebe is the professor of history at Northwestern University, and is the author of The Segmented Society and Self Rule: A Cultural History of American Democracy, and The Search for Order, 1877-1920, the focus of this short post.

This is a book assigned to me in my graduate class and I am compelled to discuss it. Think of the time period, post Reconstruction, Gilded Age, Progressivism, Industrialization, population drift, New Immigrants, and Imperialism. America was changing and began to find itself, you could say. New problems to be dealt with as urbanization and industrialization caused a shock wave of response to social issues such as child labor and worker safety. Muckrakers would also expose “How the other Half Lives” and the “Progress and Poverty” of their time. The transforming of America was seen in science and technology, the Bessemer process initiated what the perfection of Iron and evolution of steel that allowed Andrew Carnegie to create cheaper steel and start a revolution in industry: Skyscrapers and railroads. Cities grew and in all directions. Though, as was usually the case, not an American invention, but something that an American with vision and who was willing to take a gamble, would perfect and profit from.

Carnegie wrote “The Gospel of Wealth” and articulated his view that the rich are merely “trustees” of their wealth and should give back to society. His famous quote said it all: “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.” He literally died broke when you compare the wealth he had from start to finish. Robber Baron or Captain of Industry whose success helped the masses far more than it hurt them? You decide.

Weibe begins his narrative in 1877 when we find America caught up in a great depression and the national strike in 1877. By the 1880s the Gilded Age is here with its progress and wealth as farms, banks, businesses and railroads expanded and most prospered. This leads to his thesis that all this change cased a drastic shift as the small autonomic communities in transition struggled with a so-called “search for order.” This was a transition between the Old world and the New. Weibe argues that those small “island communities” were essentially left behind.

Weibe’s book is a good read and a very useful resource that I highly recommend even though I don’t agree with everything and feel he lauds to a degree the disappearance of the “island communities,” where I on the other hand do not. The struggle for order was still localized on a small community level and on a bigger urban level as well What evolved was a divide between them in some respects. Anyway, a good read and worth the time and effort.

Now that I’ve got your attention let me explain what I mean by my title. I currently finished reading The End of Reform by Alan Brinkley for one of my APU courses. Brinkley argues that the time period from 1937-1945, the “second half” of the New Deal, was the “end of reform.” Americans had switched from a more militant and aggressive “statist” philosophy in dealing with the Great Depression to a more pro capitalist and new “liberal order.” These changes are attributed to the embrace of a consumer oriented capitalist economy instead of a largess in government control, regulation, and spending, as the New Deal was initially created for. The reasons for the change were due to the recession of 1937, the rise of conservatism against the New Deal, and the changing of FDR’s “brain trust” from orthodox New Deal leaders to a more modern liberal one. The book is pretty informative, and his arguments are well argued—even if you disagree with his conclusions.

But one reason he mentioned halfway through his book really got me thinking. Brinkley’s support for his thesis makes sense—recession, changing leaders, etc. But his take on how the totalitarian regimes overseas in Europe affected American feelings on what role the “state” should play was much more significant than he bothered to mention. Brinkley writes that

“No one giving serious thought to the nature and role of government could remain unaffected by the character of the regimes the United States and its allies were fighting in World War II. As early as the mid-1930s, a revulsion from and fear of totalitarian states of Europe—Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Stalin’s Soviet Union—had begun to penetrate the thinking of many liberals and intellectuals…Perhaps inevitably, it prompted some liberals to reconsider their own commitment to an activist managerial state. Statism, they began to believe, could produce tyranny and oppression. However serious the structural problems of the capitalist economy, a statist cure might be worse than the disease” (154).

In this, Brinkley’s book comes across as a warning to much of what is going on in our current economic climate. Prior to WWII, Americans had not only known publicly about the regimes in Europe, but had praised Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin, and many were calling for similar regimes in the United States. They wanted more government involvement.  After all, Mussolini made the trains run on time, the concept of “equality” that the Soviet Union lied about, and Hitler’s desire to simply revive the German economy were good things to many Americans. But after Pearl Harbor Americans began to see just that too much control by the state only led to tyranny and dictator ship. Americans had never been fond of either, and they were not about to let what was happening in Europe happen in America.

Therefore, Americans took a good look in the mirror and saw that the very thing they were fighting against during WWII, was possible in their own backyard. Brinkley demonstrates just how effective the fear of statism in America was by how FDR himself gradually chose to distance himself away from the New Deal, and focus more on the war effort (where I think his real “greatness” is best represented).

That was in the 1930s and 1940s. But what about what’s going on today? The American people during WWII could see very clearly what statism could create—a Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin. This brought a fear that called for a return to capitalism as a better remedy not jut for economic success, but for freedom and liberty. The people saw and reacted.

But today’s statism is much more deceptive than when FDR was running the show. We have Americans like Vance Jones calling for socialism that were placed in leadership by President Obama. We have been moving rapidly in just two years toward a large increase in government power, especially in the economic sector. And although the tea party people represent the “fear” and reaction that Americans in the 1940s displayed, we are not involved in a war against the very type of governments we were afraid of similarly becoming like. We have “social democracy” promotion, or simply called “social justice.” All mentioned are simply more of the same. It is statism.

My title states that totalitarianism is the savior of American Capitalism. Certainly the regimes in Europe had much to do to bring Americans back to their senses. I just hope we don’t need another Hitler, Stalin, Franco, and Mussolini to do so again. But the way we keep looking to government to solve the problems we currently face, it makes me wonder if history is repeating itself.  Somewhere out there George Santayana is saying, “I told you so.”

I am a teacher at a public school and this new documentary I find interesting. I look forward to seeing this film when it opens in June, 2010:

Type in “Samuel Adams” and do a google.com search and you are just as likely to come up with links and images referring to the Beer Company Samuel Adams.

As historian Ira Stoll notes, “History has not been kind to Samuel Adams,” and indeed one might ask why?

As an APUS History teacher I have to admit that I don’t do a lot on Samuel Adams. His name appears in and out of a narrative of pre-Revolutionary America and mainly with regard to the Sons of Liberty.

I am very late to the party here and after reading Ira Stoll’s Samuel Adams: A Life realize, rather embarrassed, how I have missed the boat with regards to the “most famous” Adams as the French saw it. I am happy to announce that I will be addressing this Mr. Adam with more respect and may even dedicate an entire lecture to him when I otherwise would have never considered such a thing. Mr. Stoll’s book was published by Simon & Schuster in 2008 and I didn’t even notice. Shame on me.

With the recommendation of a friend I purchased the book two weeks ago and just read it. I have read no other biographies of Mr. Adams, but nonetheless, cannot image a better one! Samuel Adams was more than a radical revolutionary as some biographers and historians have referred to him. I can even vaguely remember a college professor indicated that Samuel Adams was crazy. It’s interesting how Adams is/was in some regards referred to in much the same way as John Brown, and maybe in some ways the two are similar! Both served as the spark for a devastating fire. They were easy targets.

Samuel Adams was revered by the likes of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as the spearhead of Revolution as the Founding Father. Too bad many of us contemporaries have neglected him… at least for the time being as I plan to rectify that.

“We have it in our power to begin the world over again,” wrote Thomas Paine. These and other words by Paine were powerful and inspiring, but also alluring and engaging ideas that easily swayed thousands of colonists in 1776 and 1777 to join the Revolution.

Thomas Paine’s popularity today among historians and readers of early American history has numerous origins. It’s not hard to imagine why? He never owned slaves and immediately on his arrival (late 1774) denounced slavery and even joined Benjamin Franklin as a member of Franklin’s anti-slavery society. Paine also was an outspoken critic of the English Crown, parliament and its corruption, but most importantly for modern social historians, he was an advocate of the poor, the downtrodden. His ability to offer clarity, context, and relevance to the debate over separation from the mother country of England for the colonists was essential to the popularity of his famous pamphlet, “Common Sense.” His words would have inspired those Revolutionaries already decidedly for independence, and the simplicity and force of his argument would have swayed those who were “on the fence.” The Loyalists would have, most likely, stayed loyal regardless of Paine’s argument.

The “reach” of Paine’s pamphlet alone is relevant to the question surrounding this paper: Would I have been swayed by Paine’s writing? Seeing that 1/5 of all colonists read Paine’s pamphlet, it’s a safe bet that I would have been able to acquire a copy of the text. Additionally, reach does not only apply to the physical ability to find the pamphlet, but also the ability to grasp its meaning. As we know, Paine’s writing style was very accessible to the average person. His prose “appealed to a cross-section of people: to artisans, craftsmen, and tradesmen as well as to bankers, manufacturers, and industrialists.” Additionally, most colonists could read and they enjoyed their local newspaper and visited coffee shops where politics were freely discussed. Word of Paine’s pamphlet would have spread quickly and his words debated.

Colonial society was ripe for separation from England. America was a “provincial” society that took pride in its “Englishness,” yet by the 1760s most colonialists felt the distance between them and the motherland. They felt that they were secondary to their counterparts on the island. Indeed, the actions that would be taken by the Crown leading up to the publication of Paine’s pamphlet setup an explosive situation that only needed igniting. Paine’s words would be that spark.

Paine takes his readers down a path that has only one destination: independence. But first he must provide a context and a meaning for the average colonist to comprehend. He wastes no time in raising the stakes when he writes, “[the] cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.” Right away the struggle was not just about independence, but freedom and not just for America, but for all mankind. This was a stroke of genius on Paine’s part. He immediately frames the idea of independence within the context of a continuing and ongoing struggle for freedom that encompassed all human beings.

From there Paine begins to outline the very basic ideas of John Locke and others: that individual rights come from a “natural” law and not from a King or government. “Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness,” he wrote. Paine starts off with having very few positive things to say about government. He ends this argument stating that though government is necessary, the way it exists in England is corrupt and inept. This leads to the obvious question, Why? Who is to blame? In order for Paine to give a strong argument for separation from England, he has to give us someone to blame, someone to loath. To him the answer was obvious: King George and Monarchy itself. It would be easy for me to loath such a form of government after reading Paine’s arguments.

Part II of his discourse systematically attacked the Crown and in very damning language. The problem with a monarchy was clear to him, “for monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government.” Paine outlines the “evil” nature of hereditary governing and how unnatural and undesirable this form of rule is. It is oppressive and infringes on those natural rights that all citizens have. No, a monarchy simply won’t do for Americans.

Paine felt as if he had to layout this course of action for his fellow colonists. He felt that he had to convince them. It was for him a commonsensical way of thinking about the situation. As Paine tells us, “I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense.” And then he goes about doing just that and for us to understand what needs to be done. If his fellow Americans could not understand that “TIS’ TIME TO PART,” than one gets the feeling that Paine would have had no sympathy for us. It was self-evident that an island cannot rule a continent. Keeping political ties with England simply for defense or for the illusion of kinship was not enough for Paine. These were illogical arguments. That he would bring these points up shows that the connection between America and England had been reduced to simply commerce and little more.

Staying under the rule of a King was subjecting one to idea that “the law is King.” The law should serve us the colonists, Paine argued. The natural rights of property and freedom for individuals, and the freedom to practice any religion went against the idea of the King. These Republican ideas were already commonly held in America and to continue being ruled by a monarchy from across the ocean was counter to the idea of America’s own understand of freedom and politics. It was “tyranny” in practice as evidenced by the actions of the King.

Paine continues his argument by outlining what a “just” form of government is and that it was upon us to “begin government at the right end.” To establish a true republic with the principles that were self-evident and where all men were created equal. The governed would elect their leaders and where the King was the law, the “law is [now] King” and not the other way around. Most astonishing of all, perhaps, was Paine’s foresight in calling for a Constitutional Convention.

Paine’s Common Sense pamphlet placed the idea of independence within a larger struggle. He gave it a context. Paine outlined why the current state of affairs was not sustainable. And in simple, yet fiery ways, Paine outlined the basic facts that Independence was inevitable.

[footnotes have been removed]

Loyal readers of B4H know that Chris and me are both in graduate school. I’m not sure how Chris’s experience is in the load of reading that he had in his undergraduate experience compared to his graduate one, but I know that for me the load is less in graduate school than it was in my undergraduate. But i realize that may not be the case for many students out there. Furthermore, one book a week can be stressful for people who work full time as opposed to those who only focus on school on a weekly basis.

This interesting blog had a piece last month on how to read a history book in one hour. I think this can be a helpful tool for students in undergraduate or graduate programs out there. I know it can be very helpful for historians (as a full time history student at CSUF, I consistently had to read about 3-4 300+ page books per week). Perhaps it could be useful for high school students too (But only if they have a background on what they are reading, and perhaps, if Chris agrees, with AP students who need to fill a lot of information quickly). Anyhow, here is the list:

1. Create a clean space–a table, the book, paper and a writing utensil, and nothing else.

2. Read two academic reviews of the book you photocopied beforehand. Don’t skip this step, these will tell you the book’s perceived strengths and weakness. Allow five minutes for this.

3. Read the introduction, carefully. A good intro will give you the book’s thesis, clues on the methods and sources, and thumbnail synopses of each chapter. Work quickly but take good notes (with a bibliographic citation at the top of the page.) Allow twenty minutes here.

4. Now turn directly to the conclusion and read that. The conclusion will reinforce the thesis and have some more quotable material. In your notes write down 1-2 direct quotes suitable for using in a review or literature review, should you later be assigned to write such a beast. Ten to fifteen minutes.

5. Turn to the table of contents and think about what each chapter likely contains. You may be done–in many cases in grad school the facts in any particular book will already be familiar to you, what is novel is the interpretation. And you should already have that from the intro and conclusion. Five minutes.

6. (Optional) Skim 1-2 of what seem to be the key chapters. Look for something clever the author has done with her or his evidence, memorable phrases, glaring weaknesses–stuff you can mention and sound thoughtful yourself when it is your turn to talk in the seminar room. Ten minutes, max.

7. Put the notes and photocopied review in a file folder and squirrel it away. These folders will serve as fodder for future assignments, reviews of similar books, lectures, grant applications, etc.

8. Miller time. Meet some friends and tell them the interesting things you just learned (driving it deeper it your memory).

Of course, this can be a difficult thing for someone like me, who was taught to read a book from beginning to end. But I hope this is a helpful tool for y’all.

To be sure, there is an impending economic crisis that will be world wide in its impact. I have little doubt that the worst is yet to come. With this in mind…

Republican Conservative pundits like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, are sometimes found of reflecting back to the Founding Fathers to justify current political doctrine and beliefs. For example the current economic situation, bigger government, and health care. They speak about principles such as limited government, minority rights,federalism (our unique American contribution to Constitutional law), Bill of Rights, ect. However, while preaching such, indeed, founding principles, they also seem to support our military industrial complex, a rather large and bloated one at that. Something that our Founders would be appalled to see how we have developed such a large standing army.

American tradition has always been to remain neutral, and as Jefferson said, to avoid European entanglements. Though none other than President Eisenhower warned of the potential development of the military industrial complex, here we are today the worlds police spending ourselves into oblivion. Of the half-million soldiers deployed world wide (meaning somewhere other than their country of origin) the United States of course leads the way. Of those half-million the United States has 370,000 troops abroad, not to mention its world wide Naval presence. Of those we have 133,000 in Iraq and at least 20,000 in Afghanistan (these numbers might be pre-build up). In addition with have [source]:

66,418 Germany
53,360 Japan
30,983 South Korea
25,250 Kuwait
11,841 Italy
10,346 United Kingdom

As well as a few hundred to a thousand or so scattered across the globe. One has to wonder, why? Eleven thousand in Italy, really? Especially the 120,000 or so highlighted above, you have to scratch your head and wonder why? How much does this cost us and when can we expect to turn Europe over to Europeans, Italy back to the Italians, Japan back over to Japan, and the Middle East back over to the Middle East. Again, how much does this cost us? $400 Billion a year, $500 Billion, more? To be sure… Europe spends very little on their defend. Ditto Japan. We are trying to compete economically with literally one hand tied behind our back.

No Democrat should compromise and give up a penny on social/welfare programs until the Republicans and others start to drastically cutback on our outrageous military spending. We can no longer afford to be the world’s police. We must look at our own economic survival. That has to include deep cuts in military spending and domestic. We can keep a smaller, better trained, and technologically superior force to deal with today’s unique issues.

The Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II, all found us unprepared militarily in terms of size because of our tradition, deep and resolved tradition, to small standing armies, yet in each we did just fine once mobilized.

That’s how I see it.

Chris

I live in Whittier, Ca., which is a suburb of Los Angeles. But next week, joined by my lovely wife, we will be driving to San Diego to see a play based on the Lincoln Douglas Debates at the Lamb’s Player Theater. The play, The Rivlary, is a three actor stage play that include the characters of Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, and Adele Douglas.  

Having studied under a Lincoln scholar at CSUF, I’m always eager to attend anything that has to do with Lincoln and the Civil War; indeed, that is one reason I chose the era as my area of specialty. Furthermore, out here in the West trying to find anything Civil War or Lincoln to see is like trying to find water in the Mojave Desert.

The tickets are cheap, and it looks to be a good time. As a historian, and even more, as a Lincoln historian, I no doubt will find mistakes, and hopefully like a film based on historical events, I will not judge it so harshly. I’m also not a big fan of “theater,” but I think the subject is better suited for people like myself.

Anyhow, if you’re in California and perhaps would like to see it with us, e-mail me aayepiz@yahoo.com.

Best Wishes,

Alex