And where is the full scale (but not *too* long, if you please) biography of Alice Paul? I don't think I'm alone in considering her to be the most interesting personality that the suffrage movement produced. Her genius for publicity alone would make her fascinating.
I thought and hoped that book was the recently published "Alice Paul and the American Suffrage Campaign" by Adams and Keene, but the scope is rather narrowly focused on her suffrage work, and it is deadly dull besides. (Someday with luck and added diligence I *will* finish reading it.)
So we have this odd situation: (A) Carrie Catt has three good to very good adult level books about her, and three kid bios as well, but no *movie*, whereas (B) Alice Paul has no complete book-form treatment of her life, but has a widely seen HBO "feature film" about her, Iron Jawed Angels. (While that vid-flick is ludicrous in many ways, IJA is probably ultimately worthwhile because of its harrowing--and I believe pretty accurate--portrayal of the unjust imprisonment, mistreatment, force feeding, etc. of the militant suffragists.)
Come on woman/woman-squared historians, can't you give Alice her due?
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
the book that wasn't there
Quite some time ago I had what I thought would be a great idea for a kid's book--maybe at the advanced jr. high, beginning high school level. The subject would be the diplomatic history of the relationship between the U.S. and Britain. My concept assumed that kids at that age (and even earlier) are well attuned to the "he/she used to be my best friend but now so-and-so is my best friend" type of narrative.
My plan, such as it was, was to find a good book for adults on the subject and then rewrite and recast it for a younger audience. But here's the thing (aside from my general lack of time and energy), no such book for adults appears to exist.
I thought I had found that book when I learned of God and Gold by Walter Russell Mead. I read a fair part of it and found that it was more of an essay/intellectual history of what Mead believes to be the ascendancy of the Anglo-American mindset, and the reaction to the same by the rest of the world. I also gathered from Mead's discussion of the existing literature that the book I sought had yet to be written.
So, if you know a specialist in diplomatic history, you could let her/him know that there's a fat target out there. If someone could write it well and bring it in within 300 pages, it could be a major classic.
I'll also imagine some of the high points of such a book:
--the founding of the English colonies and their development
--the perception of English pundits by the mid 18th century of the potential for rivalry between the colonies and the homeland. (Viz. A Struggle for Power by Theodore Draper, another book that I failed to finish.)
--the Revolutionary War and the 1812 War, and the treaties in between.
--commercial rivalry/British investment in the American economy
--the British tilt toward the Confederacy during the Civil War
--the rise of Germany and the Fish treaty
--alliance in WWs 1 and 2; FDR/Churchill
--the middle east, Sinai and beyond to the second Iraq war
--along the way, Reagan/Thatcher and Clinton/Blair/Bush
Undoubtedly it would take a master of compression and pith to bring this in under the page limit, but what an achievement that would be. At least let us hope if this book ever happens, the author will avoid the 500 page + behemoth.
My plan, such as it was, was to find a good book for adults on the subject and then rewrite and recast it for a younger audience. But here's the thing (aside from my general lack of time and energy), no such book for adults appears to exist.
I thought I had found that book when I learned of God and Gold by Walter Russell Mead. I read a fair part of it and found that it was more of an essay/intellectual history of what Mead believes to be the ascendancy of the Anglo-American mindset, and the reaction to the same by the rest of the world. I also gathered from Mead's discussion of the existing literature that the book I sought had yet to be written.
So, if you know a specialist in diplomatic history, you could let her/him know that there's a fat target out there. If someone could write it well and bring it in within 300 pages, it could be a major classic.
I'll also imagine some of the high points of such a book:
--the founding of the English colonies and their development
--the perception of English pundits by the mid 18th century of the potential for rivalry between the colonies and the homeland. (Viz. A Struggle for Power by Theodore Draper, another book that I failed to finish.)
--the Revolutionary War and the 1812 War, and the treaties in between.
--commercial rivalry/British investment in the American economy
--the British tilt toward the Confederacy during the Civil War
--the rise of Germany and the Fish treaty
--alliance in WWs 1 and 2; FDR/Churchill
--the middle east, Sinai and beyond to the second Iraq war
--along the way, Reagan/Thatcher and Clinton/Blair/Bush
Undoubtedly it would take a master of compression and pith to bring this in under the page limit, but what an achievement that would be. At least let us hope if this book ever happens, the author will avoid the 500 page + behemoth.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
a history buff navel-gazes
Recently I was privileged to have dinner with two history professors. One was scathing, and rightly so, about how movies with historical themes tend to go for uplift, and prettify the facts, thereby distorting history for the purpose of making an appealing product. He tends to avoid using movies in his courses because part of his goal as a teacher is to try to counteract the prevailing view of history as a series of happy endings.
I asked him if he felt that Ken Burns also tended to distort history in this way, and he said he did. Having seen much of the Civil War series, I would be inclined to agree. Mainly, I think the enormous human cost of that war has been allowed to escape from our mental landscapes. We tend to think in terms of noble sacrifice, the preservation of the union, and the emancipation of the slaves. The hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed, and their gravely afflicted families, remain to the back or the side of the stage as the curtain comes down.
But now I ask myself, am I guilty of the same malpractice as an amateur historian? My most favorite historical subjects are the woman suffrage movement and the civil rights movement, both of which had "happy endings". Or more accurately--as both movements are part of larger stories that remain unfinished--both movements have come down to us with hopeful legacies for a completion, at some point, of their ultimate goals.
I think maybe I should cop a plea to "second degree prettification" and hope to be sentenced to community service. Both truthfulness and optimism are human obligations, but when one is playing the historian's part, the truth has a first claim on one's honor.
I asked him if he felt that Ken Burns also tended to distort history in this way, and he said he did. Having seen much of the Civil War series, I would be inclined to agree. Mainly, I think the enormous human cost of that war has been allowed to escape from our mental landscapes. We tend to think in terms of noble sacrifice, the preservation of the union, and the emancipation of the slaves. The hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed, and their gravely afflicted families, remain to the back or the side of the stage as the curtain comes down.
But now I ask myself, am I guilty of the same malpractice as an amateur historian? My most favorite historical subjects are the woman suffrage movement and the civil rights movement, both of which had "happy endings". Or more accurately--as both movements are part of larger stories that remain unfinished--both movements have come down to us with hopeful legacies for a completion, at some point, of their ultimate goals.
I think maybe I should cop a plea to "second degree prettification" and hope to be sentenced to community service. Both truthfulness and optimism are human obligations, but when one is playing the historian's part, the truth has a first claim on one's honor.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
A very grim subject--genocide
On my way in to the (terrific) NYC history meetup I was reading the last chapter in "Fateful Choices" by Kershaw. This chapter cuts to the horrible essence of WW2, as it deals with the process by which the Nazis decided to build death camps for the Jews. One thing that struck me was the Nazis' interim intention to displace Jews to "reservations" in Eastern Europe, preferably in Russia. This intention was disrupted by the German failure to knock out the Russians in 1941.
In any case, the word "reservation", mentioned in the context of the Nazi genocide, sent my thoughts to the North American genocide of the Indians. Of course, reservations played and still play a large role in this tremendously shameful aspect of the European settlement of the New World.
Mainly what I was meditating on was how (evidently) the Germans have rather creditably striven to come to grips with the crimes of the Nazi era in contrast to what is a rather oblivious attitude in American culture to what was done to the aboriginal population of the US and Canada. While American crimes against the Indians are of course not totally ignored, they tend to be masked by a general attitude of American self-congratulation. To quite a large extent, this reflects the writing of history by the "winners", but I believe a certain jingoism also plays a role.
I think, as a country, we engage in way too much talk about how great we are, effectively shrugging off a sober and realistic view of our past. Only slavery seems to be substantially acknowledged as a dreadful crime, and that too is somewhat overshadowed by the prevailing "USA! USA!" mindset. The incarceration of the nisei barely registers in the public mind.
When will we start learning, and teaching, the truth?
In any case, the word "reservation", mentioned in the context of the Nazi genocide, sent my thoughts to the North American genocide of the Indians. Of course, reservations played and still play a large role in this tremendously shameful aspect of the European settlement of the New World.
Mainly what I was meditating on was how (evidently) the Germans have rather creditably striven to come to grips with the crimes of the Nazi era in contrast to what is a rather oblivious attitude in American culture to what was done to the aboriginal population of the US and Canada. While American crimes against the Indians are of course not totally ignored, they tend to be masked by a general attitude of American self-congratulation. To quite a large extent, this reflects the writing of history by the "winners", but I believe a certain jingoism also plays a role.
I think, as a country, we engage in way too much talk about how great we are, effectively shrugging off a sober and realistic view of our past. Only slavery seems to be substantially acknowledged as a dreadful crime, and that too is somewhat overshadowed by the prevailing "USA! USA!" mindset. The incarceration of the nisei barely registers in the public mind.
When will we start learning, and teaching, the truth?
Monday, January 26, 2009
The art of not being too far in front
For the upcoming NYC history meetup, I read the chapter on FDR and lend lease in "Fateful Choices" by Ian Kershaw. A dominant theme is FDR's caution and concern about getting ahead of public opinion on US involvement in WW2. Many of FDR's closest aides were greatly distressed, fearing that cowardice on FDR's part would lead to England's defeat. But in the event, FDR's cautious approach paid dividends, as public opinion remained quite unified behind him. With the outrage over Pearl Harbor, and Hitler's follow up declaration of war, FDR enjoyed overwhelming support for the all-out war effort, when it came.
The current parallel, I suppose, is that Obama also needs to move carefully, take a long-term approach, and keep the public in his corner. Liberals who are urging bolder action should reflect that if Obama gets out of step with the public, he may have trouble recovering the support he needs.
The current parallel, I suppose, is that Obama also needs to move carefully, take a long-term approach, and keep the public in his corner. Liberals who are urging bolder action should reflect that if Obama gets out of step with the public, he may have trouble recovering the support he needs.
Friday, January 23, 2009
A step not noted
The appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is a classic "celebrity appointment" and in a way echoes that of Colin Powell. But what seems not to have been much remarked is that Clinton is the third female Secretary of State. In other words, it has become "normal" for the Secretary of State to be a woman.
And this raises the question, when will it be normal to have a female Secretary of Defense, or Treasury, or Attorney General?
And this raises the question, when will it be normal to have a female Secretary of Defense, or Treasury, or Attorney General?
Thursday, April 10, 2008
John Wesley Powell, a man for dry seasons
After many diversions, I finally finished reading A River Running West, Donald Worster's full-scale biography of John Wesley Powell. This was my follow-up to several reads of Wallace Stegner's classic account of Powell's career--Beyond the Hundredth Meridian. Undoubtedly it was brave of Worster to attempt to follow in Stegner's footsteps, and his book is far from bad, though not nearly as readable or compelling as Stegner's.
If one were to read only one account of Powell's famous expedition down the Colorado river--which made him a national hero--Stegner's would be the one to select for its thrilling narrative. Stegner doesn't take all of Powell's journals at face value. Nevertheless, he casts the break-up of Powell's party, and its differential consequences, in lines of high drama, to etch one of the great legends of the exploration of the West. Worster, as a careful professional historian, is constrained to acknowledge the uncertainties about why Powell's party broke up, and what became of those who left Powell's command. The result is a somewhat mushy story, though likely more accurately reflective of what is really known about the first Powell expedition.
Worster's careful historiography pays dividends in his description of the battles between Powell and his nemesis, Senator Stewart of Nevada. Stegner portrays Powell as a tower of enlightenment in regard to the appropriate policies for settlement of the arid West, and his downfall at the hands of Stewart as the triumph of benighted boosterism in a flawed political arena. No less than Stegner, Worster acknowledges Powell's ground-breaking work as a senior Washington bureaucrat. He also rightly praises Powell's unmatched appreciation of the challenges raised by lack of water in the plans for development of the West. But Worster's account also provides the insight that Powell's policy prescription--collective planned settlement on a watershed-by-watershed basis--was hopelessly quixotic, and out of touch with the social, economic and political realities of the late 19th century in the U.S. In my mind the key question was, where would the capital have come from to finance the water management infrastructure that would have permitted Powell's plan to come about? To put the question another way, why would the political forces provide a subsidy from the federal government for the collectives of small holders that Powell proposed?
Without having read up on the long aftermath of the boosters' triumph, I infer that what actually happened was that moneyed interests in the West influenced more-or-less corrupt Congressional representatives to provide the federal subsidy for water projects, but to the benefit of the large-holders, and not for settlement by collectives. The result was the proliferation of monopolies that Powell feared. A great many disputes over water rights also developed, and remain acute.
In other words, the West was bound to be exploited, even as the Indians were bound to be pushed out and marginalized. Since exploitation of the West would require government capital, and since the vested interests had the power to control the application of government capital, the exploitation came about to the advantage of the vested interests. Not a pretty picture, but what else could possibly have happened, given the way Washington works?
If one were to read only one account of Powell's famous expedition down the Colorado river--which made him a national hero--Stegner's would be the one to select for its thrilling narrative. Stegner doesn't take all of Powell's journals at face value. Nevertheless, he casts the break-up of Powell's party, and its differential consequences, in lines of high drama, to etch one of the great legends of the exploration of the West. Worster, as a careful professional historian, is constrained to acknowledge the uncertainties about why Powell's party broke up, and what became of those who left Powell's command. The result is a somewhat mushy story, though likely more accurately reflective of what is really known about the first Powell expedition.
Worster's careful historiography pays dividends in his description of the battles between Powell and his nemesis, Senator Stewart of Nevada. Stegner portrays Powell as a tower of enlightenment in regard to the appropriate policies for settlement of the arid West, and his downfall at the hands of Stewart as the triumph of benighted boosterism in a flawed political arena. No less than Stegner, Worster acknowledges Powell's ground-breaking work as a senior Washington bureaucrat. He also rightly praises Powell's unmatched appreciation of the challenges raised by lack of water in the plans for development of the West. But Worster's account also provides the insight that Powell's policy prescription--collective planned settlement on a watershed-by-watershed basis--was hopelessly quixotic, and out of touch with the social, economic and political realities of the late 19th century in the U.S. In my mind the key question was, where would the capital have come from to finance the water management infrastructure that would have permitted Powell's plan to come about? To put the question another way, why would the political forces provide a subsidy from the federal government for the collectives of small holders that Powell proposed?
Without having read up on the long aftermath of the boosters' triumph, I infer that what actually happened was that moneyed interests in the West influenced more-or-less corrupt Congressional representatives to provide the federal subsidy for water projects, but to the benefit of the large-holders, and not for settlement by collectives. The result was the proliferation of monopolies that Powell feared. A great many disputes over water rights also developed, and remain acute.
In other words, the West was bound to be exploited, even as the Indians were bound to be pushed out and marginalized. Since exploitation of the West would require government capital, and since the vested interests had the power to control the application of government capital, the exploitation came about to the advantage of the vested interests. Not a pretty picture, but what else could possibly have happened, given the way Washington works?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)