Blog 4 History: American & Civil War History

Professor Randy Pausch (1960-2008) passed yesterday, and in honor of his life I post his “Last Lecture” video:

FORMER NASA astronaut and moon-walker Dr Edgar Mitchell - a veteran of the Apollo 14 mission - has stunningly claimed aliens exist.

And he says extra-terrestrials have visited Earth on several occasions - but the alien contact has been repeatedly covered up by governments for six decades.

Dr Mitchell, 77, said during a radio interview that sources at the space agency who had had contact with aliens described the beings as ‘little people who look strange to us.’

He said supposedly real-life ET’s were similar to the traditional image of a small frame, large eyes and head.

Chillingly, he claimed our technology is “not nearly as sophisticated” as theirs and “had they been hostile”, he warned “we would be been gone by now”.

Two great scenes:

According to this MSN Encarta listing, the American Revolution was nothing more than “Colonial elites,” landholders and plantation masters, continuing their “rule at home,” but without outside interference. From there, the pursuit of “life, liberty, and property” still excluded, “White women” and “most white men without property,” and of course not to mention Native Americans and African American slaves. Hence, the implication is clear.

The above seems to suggest that the American Revolution was about nothing more than local elites tightening their grip on the lower-classes, the poor. Women, of course, were still second class citizens, and we cannot forget the irony of slavery and the so-called “egalitarian” American pledge. There was no redistribution of wealth, no equality for all, and if anything the gap between rich and poor increased.

According to historian Carl Becker (1873–1945), the Revolution was not just about “home rule” it was about “who” was to rule at home. Gordon S. Wood calls it the “most important” event in our nations history as it legally formed the union, but more importantly it “infused into our culture all of our noblest beliefs and ideals, in truth, all of what actually makes us a union.” Americans knew what they had accomplished and the freedom they had gained. When compared to Europe, where no one got a vote regardless of white men or black men, the foundation was laid for the greatest and longest lasting constitutional government, based on republican principles, ever established.

So two interpretations here: 1) Conservative, where the event is seen as really nothing to get excited about, and didn’t do enough to equalize women and slaves; 2) Radical, where the revolution is seen as an event that restructured American culture and society, and for the better, and set the groundwork for women suffrage and even black freedom. (Because we created a constitution that could be amended, and because the ideas were in place for true equality for everyone.)

Historians such as Howard Zinn and Gary B. Nash would be more in the #1 category, and would probably agree that the Revolution was nothing more than about “home rule” and colonial elites tightening their reigns on the lower-class America, ect.

Gordon S. Wood and probably Edmund S. Morgan, both, I think it fair to say would be in the #2 category. I know, going out on a limb here.

The Revolution was both destructive and constructive, Loyalists fled by the thousands leaving behind land and wealth. Property had been damaged and destroyed. The United States was bankrupt and had no credit. An entire government structure had been swept away, and a new one put in its place, and slavery was legally protected.

I think within this is a great opportunity to challenge students to decide, on their own, through research and reading, the following question, Was the American Revolution “Conservative” or “Radical” in its nature and outcome? Lots of arguments on both sides.

Based on my own reading and research I have a very clear view of the Revolution and will expand on that in another post.

Also, I second Kevin’s comments concerning HBO’s miniseries “John Adams,” I am two episodes into it and am also enjoying it. Though I would have liked a couple of changes, I overall feel it is a well-done production and once again shows why HBO does probably the best job with historically based movies; e.g. “Band of Brothers.” They produce a motion picture (movie) quality production (with great sets and good actors.

The current mortgage crisis and congressional buyout schemes point to the larger issue of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of big banking. I think the result is probably our own “Panic of 2008?”

How many economic “panics” have been a direct result of bad practices by big banking? Let’s see: the Panic of 1873 and the Panic of 1907 come to mind (have to admit not sure if the reasons were “bad practices”), and others come to mind (1857) but were they a direct result of big banking? In 1857 banks put a lot of speculation into businesses that started to fail, but were these practices irresponsible? Most likely they were ill-advised and the product of greed.
Looking through Wiki, I see that in 1873 things got so bad that fires sprang up in cities without the means to deal with them, and so they burnt uncontrollably. Coal could not be delivered to Trains, and transportation networks failed in some parts of the country. The U.S. Army was fighting the Apaches on foot (horses were breaking down and without replacements). Wagons hand to be pulled by hand, cargo filled trains and ships sat unloaded, and deliveries of basic things like food came virtually to a halt. There are those who might argue that if we do not do something about our energy supply, maybe, we see similar things in 5 years, maybe sooner?

——-

Don’t look now, but there is a possibility of a new Cuban Missile Crisis with Russian apparently planning to fly long-range bombers to Cuba on a regular basis. “If they did I think we should stand strong and indicate that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line for the United States of America,” said General Norton Schwartz, nominated to be the air force’s chief of staff.

Finally, the New York Times is in serious trouble as it was recently reported that their second-quarter earnings fell 82 percent from the year-ago, dropping its net income to $21.1 million.