Blog 4 History

Historian Ray Raphael has a very interesting article in the recent issue of American History Magazine. He argues that the tea party is filled with “myths” that have carried on to our present day. I though it fit to post it here since we have a modern “tea party” movement. Furthermore, I admit that I was, until now, one of those Americans who had always believed that the event was seen as a patriotic event by the Founding Fathers. But as Raphael states:

Revolutionary-era Americans, though, didn’t celebrate the event. This might seem strange, since the patriots were the celebrating sort. They staged festive ceremonies to commemorate anniversaries—the first Stamp Act protest, the act’s repeal, the Boston Massacre, the Declaration of Independence—but the “action against tea” or the “destruction of the tea” (as they variously called it) went unher­alded in public ritual. For a half century, Americans shunned the tale, and certainly did not call it a tea party. At first, they didn’t dare. Anyone who had anything to do with the event could face prosecution, or at least a lawsuit. Privately, some people knew who was behind those Indian disguises, but publicly, nobody said a word. Moreover, many patriots viewed the destruction of tea as an act of vandalism that put the Revolution in a bad light. Patriots also downplayed the tea action because of its devastating impact. That single act precipitated harsh retaliation from the British, which in turn led to a long and ugly war.

The Boston Tea Party is now an iconic event suffused with myth, but below the surface is the story of a true act of revolution, carried out in a context of power politics, with surprising parallels in the modern era.

His three myths about the event are:

1. The dispute was about higher taxes.
2. Tea taxes were an onerous burden on ordinary Americans.
3. Dumping British tea unified the patriots.

Do you agree or disagree with Raphael’s argument?

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?

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.”

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.

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

Hello everyone! My name is Alex, and I am honored to be here to share my thoughts as a historian with you.

I wanted to talk about something today that we sometimes oversee. Many historians like to point out that the military has been one of the great American systems that led to desegregation and better race relations. I for one will not disagree with that statement. It is true that since the American Revolution, when slaves and free blacks fought with white soldiers that they fought for common beliefs of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Even in the Civil War, which had black soldiers on both the South and the North, we saw that blacks and whites fought together for a common cause. We then saw the brotherhood of soldiers of different races in the two World Wars. That tradition of bringing together different races to protect the liberties of Americans continues today.

But sports have also played a very significant role in racial relations. Americans love their sports, and throughout history we have seen the impact that players from other countries, as well as those of color have brought in unifying our country. With sports, we have been blessed with having witnessing the “E Pluribus Unum” the founding Fathers had envisioned.

I mention this because HISTORY NOW, the Gilder Lehrmen Institute of America’s online journal , had a very interesting theme on the role sports have played in shaping the American character. The article, “Why Sports History is American History,” tells us that:

“For historians, there is no better way to teach students about the creation and destruction of the color and gender lines in twentieth century America than to draw examples from the history of race and gender in sports, a history which is now richly documented in biographies, historical works, novels, and documentary film. Educators can see how useful an examination of sports can be in raising important themes in American history. Sports history provides a point of entry into American culture.”

I also mention this because as an ardent Dodgers fan, one of my heroes is Jackie Robinson, who as we know broke the “color barrier” in sports. But my other hero in the Robinson story is Pee Wee Reese. As captain of the team, he refused to sign a petition against allowing Robinson to play with the Dodgers. In a game in Cincinnati, when fans were heckling Robinson and saying who knows what, Reese went over to Jackie in front of all the fans “and put his arm around his shoulder in a gesture of inclusion and support.” In 1999, Rachel Robinson gave praise to Reese’s actions toward Robinson.

I end by saying that our history as America is not perfect. We can’t see our history through “rosy colored glasses,” as historian William Bennett says in his excellent two volume history of America. But we are exceptional. Stories like the Reese and Robinson one give us hope that as Americans we can change, we can be better.  The military and sports are a great testament to the American character that through many we are one, and that we can see through our differences in a bond of brotherhood as Americans. We have learned from sports that we are capable of changing race relations. But more importantly,  we have learned that it is an awesome thing to be an American, that we are exceptional both for our triumphs and our failures.

I’m glad to be here with you all.