I wonder how many present-day Republicans are even remotely familiar with this history? Or, if they've conveniently forgotten? My hunch is, a bit of both. Anyway, this is exactly the kind of history they'd like to not be taught because it might make their little angels feel bad about themselves. As the saying goes, if you're not made unc…
I wonder how many present-day Republicans are even remotely familiar with this history? Or, if they've conveniently forgotten? My hunch is, a bit of both. Anyway, this is exactly the kind of history they'd like to not be taught because it might make their little angels feel bad about themselves. As the saying goes, if you're not made uncomfortable by some elements of history, you're not getting the whole story. A lot of lessons for today from our past...
I am not only uncomfortable, I am shamed and angry. And glad to know things that have escaped my notice. As Albert Schweitzer wrote “Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight.” He knew that we all go to great lengths to gloss over past suffering, trauma, and injustice without any acknowledgment or effort to atone. And this fact leads us to more of the same.
Yes, I think it is in our nature both to selfishly avoid pain and discomfort and to rise to the care of the common welfare. At our best, crises often push us to join together, but we are not always at our best as Dr. Richardson's essay today demonstrates. Adding to the knee-jerk reaction to pull up the drawbridge against "the other," is our wretched press that treats every event as a one-time-only, slides by it or hammers it to death, and helps us to stay locked in our worlds where fear and selfishness fester and rot. I believe this kind of toxic American "individualism" is precisely the problem Biden is trying to solve.
We all have an individual and a social nature. Baby sea turtles hatch on the beach never to know they had a mother, but like wolves and whales, we are social creatures. Even more so, as we are more diverse of interests and talent, yet find ways to collaborate. "Pure" "individualism" is ethically like a bird with a broken wing. "Pure" "individualism" is extreme narcissism.
Thanks, J L, Narcissism is exactly it. I look around our world today and I admit I am frightened by it. We elected one of these mentally and ethically crippled people to our highest office and, although we were fortunate that he was, personally, too much of a coward for violence, he was in love with it. My fear is that this American dream of a poisonous and violent masculinity once unleashed (into Walmart, for god's sake) won't be easy to push back. It's not something we've ever been without--cowboys and gangsters are our heroes--but there's a sense in which the alien landscape of the last few years feels like the old frontier. The best--possibly the only--depiction of this, in all its complexity (also one of the finest pieces of film making you'll ever see) is on Netflix, "Power of the Dog"
Bruce As an historian I have difficulty establishing time periods for Republican pronouncements and priorities:
1) The focus of the poor (and even middle class) to ‘redistribute the wealth’ is a communist attempt to take hard-earned (or inherited) money from the natural ruling class;
2) The folks who fill most of the jobs on farms and factories are lazy [oh the glory of 70-hour work weeks], grasping, and deserve no human rights;
3) Women and none whites are inferior to white males;
4) Unionization is unAmerican and impedes the capitalist system.
Do these apply to the 19th century, today, or both?
Both, of course. Elements of the 19th century mentality of dark-skinned people as a "threat" are still an undercurrent in this country. It occasionally rears its ugly head into the spotlight, but it mainly stays in the background. Tragically, the modern Republican party seems to have allowed itself to be co-opted by people who still possess elements of this mentality as a driving force in their psyche, something they would of course NEVER acknowledge. I mean, "We're running a Black man as our Senate candidate in Georgia! That right there proves we're not racist!!" Uh-huh...
And put a "Black man" on the Supreme Court (of course "birthers" were cover for pure racism. Saint Reagan get little flack for having said of the Tanzanian UN delegation:
“To watch that thing on television, as I did, to see those, those monkeys from those African countries – damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!”
Still I'm pretty fuzzy about which of our political party's to cheer for and when, with my patchy grasp of American History. HCR mentions Republican argument for SES fairness in instituting a graduated income tax to pay for the Civil War, and Democrats were the home of George Wallace types in my youth. Pretty much the advocates of plutocracy, and/or authoritarianism of whatever variety, seem consistently to be historical "bad guys".
For one: women got the vote in America because “the powers that be” were convinced that the women would vote as their husbands instructed, so I’ve heard.
3 And Anti-corporal punishment laws. Still working on that because of holdout States. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1234/text?r=1&s=1 Q RELIGION has a lot of power. (I know, I said that!) Worry that the traditional family will suffer or worse disappear. White Male Power. Of course not all and a woman sabotaged the last vote for ERA. But that was only possible because of the close vote. We lift up our votes and voices but the suits are loud and powerful. And there’s a difference by states. Women’s Reproductive Rights? Keep on keeping on. We need more equal representation in our government. Change is possible.
Patricia, I hope my post does not sound like I’m criticizing Womens Lib! To the contrary our organizing and our voices are the only way to truly make progress. To be heard and to act. To be the action. To be representative of women and women’s issues and legislation. To legislate.
No, not at all. Any frustration suggested by my words is generated by the endless history of women at worst as chattel, and at best as ornamental objects incapable of having serious thoughts. And worse than all of that are the omen who accept that definition of themselves either as surrender or because of social pressure.
And then today, as if on cue, Alabama's Republican Senator said this in a speech:
“They’re not soft on crime,” Tuberville said of Democrats. “They’re pro-crime. They want crime. They want crime because they want to take over what you got. They want to control what you have. They want reparation because they think the people that do the crime are owed that.” He then closed with, "Bullshit!!". They don't even try to hide their racism now. It's out there front and center.
HCR even tweeted Tuberville's remarks earlier today, but as I said, they illustrate my point.
Citizen60: Try refreshing the page-go to the top of the page then look to the left of the search bar. You'll see an incomplete circle w/an arrow @ the end. click on it. That refreshes the page and will go back to the page you were on. You should be able to "heart" the entry. It may not last long and you'd need to repeat the process.
Wasn’t the recent Supreme Court arguments by conservatives about the “intent” of the 14th amendment (that somehow it was intended as race neutral), so brilliantly countered by KBJ, emblematic of how familiar Republicans are with history—or choose to be.
Exactly so...and "or choose to be" is truer than I'd like to admit. It's part of their collective willful ignorance of historical facts, only remembering what they want to remember, or what they were taught by a system that gave inaccurate, distorted views of history. Justice Jackson probably made some of their heads explode--that is, if they bothered to listen to her, figuring she'd be giving a biased view of history, since she's Black and all...
The history of the Republican Party, in the north, post-Civil War until TR took over after McKinley’s assassination, is confusing at best. While Republicans then were pro-federal government, it was because the monied class needed a strong government to tame the west & build & support their fortunes--leading us into the Gilded Age.
Obviously, Lincoln was a proponent of a strong central government, even before his presidency. He backed the continuation of our canal systems & the transcontinental railroad. But as these federal govt projects became completed, the republicans became less & less enamored of a strong federal government now that they had reaped its benefits.
It’s interesting, to me, that the Plessy v Ferguson scotus (composed of both democrat & republican president appointees), was decided 7-1 (one abstention), & that it was a Republican appointee, Justice Harlan, a former slaveholder from KY who fought for the union, who was the sole dissenting voice--the last of the Lincolnesque republicans, despite two Lincoln-appointed justices still serving. A confusing time for discerning party differences, outside of the already solid South.
another time of huge political realignment in this country. things don't all shift at once... like real life. snapshot out of context is usually confusing.
Thank you for your first sentence, Linda. "Confusing at best." I've read this newsletter twice now and I still don't really understand who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are. Maybe that's only possible in the old cowboy movies? Maybe I need to read it a third time? I would like to be able to distill it down for folks like me who don't have a strong history background.
If you get a chance, please read The 1619 Project. It is a big book but such detail about our REAL American history. A real eye-opener that tells why we have Democrats and Republicans.
Bruce, one thing present-day Republicans haven't forgotten is how to vilify the people they want to disparage and brand them as dangerous socialist radicals. Between Truman and Reagan, the benefits of the New Deal seemed to take the bite out of that tactic, so those of us who grew up during that period simply thought the political world we knew was normal. If I remember correctly, the 2000 election was a wakeup call to a lot of liberals, and I noticed during the Bush II administration that people were talking about how the Republicans seemed to want to take the country backward. By the time of the rise of the Tea Party, it still looked to us like they were interested in a return to some pre-Watergate halcyon era. But by the arrival of MAGA I was fairly convinced the target looked more like the 1800s or earlier. Reflecting on the advent of Originalism, it looked like, um, 1776 or so. But in reading Heather's posts on our history, it looks like the closest thing we've had to a halcyon-like era was between the end of WWII and the King/Kennedy assassinations. Those were the formative years for baby boom liberals. So taking the long view of the supply side vision--read "dark side vision" if you must--that assumes it is the proper one for America, those who hold this vision are right. From this perspective, anyone who advocates for social justice and equity is radically out of step with American norms and presents an existential threat to them. And if this is how you see things, you can't let the expectation of social justice and equity gain enough traction over a couple of decades to feel like normal.
But still, partly what can aid in their vilification and even increase its virulence is their perception that so many of these "dangerous socialist radicals" are dark-skinned. That is at least the case around here as I see it. The two main political races here in GA are the Senate race and the gubernatorial race. Both feature prominent Black candidates. In both cases, the Democrat candidates are ALWAYS branded as "radical, socialist, woke, etc." in every ad. That they are Black only seems to increase the virulence. The words are spat out with a sneering, vituperative, dismissive tone of voice. I will always believe that since they are Black does add an extra layer of resentment of these candidates.
I believe, as many historians have asserted, that our nation lost its innocence and naiveté when JFK was assassinated in '63. That was when the cold hard reality of the world came bursting into American homes big time.
Decades?? How about BEFORE 1776? Please go back farther in time than 1776. If you get a chance, please read The 1619 Project (Republicans want it banned). It is a big book but there is so much documented detail about our REAL American history beginnings. A real eye-opener that tells why we have Democrats and Republicans. And it shows WHY there is such a disparity between the rich and powerful (white males) and the rest of us, including women.
Originalism? Please go back farther in time than 1776. If you get a chance, please read The 1619 Project (Republicans want it banned). It is a big book but there is such documented detail about our REAL American history beginnings. A real eye-opener that tells why we have Democrats and Republicans. This book shows WHY there is such a disparity between the rich (white males) and the rest of us, including women.
I share these history lessons daily, but responses to me are not repeatable. I'm "crazy", "spending too much time with conspiracy," etc. The crazies can't be reached as Heather has stated. I'm trying to reach those who still might listen to truth.
Try reading and sharing THIS book: The 1619 Project (Republicans want it banned). It is a big book but there is so much documented detail about our REAL American history beginnings. A real eye-opener that tells why we have Democrats and Republicans. And it shows WHY there is such a disparity between the rich and powerful (white males) and the rest of us, including women.
I wonder how many present-day Republicans are even remotely familiar with this history? Or, if they've conveniently forgotten? My hunch is, a bit of both. Anyway, this is exactly the kind of history they'd like to not be taught because it might make their little angels feel bad about themselves. As the saying goes, if you're not made uncomfortable by some elements of history, you're not getting the whole story. A lot of lessons for today from our past...
I am not only uncomfortable, I am shamed and angry. And glad to know things that have escaped my notice. As Albert Schweitzer wrote “Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight.” He knew that we all go to great lengths to gloss over past suffering, trauma, and injustice without any acknowledgment or effort to atone. And this fact leads us to more of the same.
Yes, I think it is in our nature both to selfishly avoid pain and discomfort and to rise to the care of the common welfare. At our best, crises often push us to join together, but we are not always at our best as Dr. Richardson's essay today demonstrates. Adding to the knee-jerk reaction to pull up the drawbridge against "the other," is our wretched press that treats every event as a one-time-only, slides by it or hammers it to death, and helps us to stay locked in our worlds where fear and selfishness fester and rot. I believe this kind of toxic American "individualism" is precisely the problem Biden is trying to solve.
Good morning, Jeri, and thank you, Dr. Richardson
We all have an individual and a social nature. Baby sea turtles hatch on the beach never to know they had a mother, but like wolves and whales, we are social creatures. Even more so, as we are more diverse of interests and talent, yet find ways to collaborate. "Pure" "individualism" is ethically like a bird with a broken wing. "Pure" "individualism" is extreme narcissism.
Thanks, J L, Narcissism is exactly it. I look around our world today and I admit I am frightened by it. We elected one of these mentally and ethically crippled people to our highest office and, although we were fortunate that he was, personally, too much of a coward for violence, he was in love with it. My fear is that this American dream of a poisonous and violent masculinity once unleashed (into Walmart, for god's sake) won't be easy to push back. It's not something we've ever been without--cowboys and gangsters are our heroes--but there's a sense in which the alien landscape of the last few years feels like the old frontier. The best--possibly the only--depiction of this, in all its complexity (also one of the finest pieces of film making you'll ever see) is on Netflix, "Power of the Dog"
Thank you for your post!
Thank you, Jeri, for the Albert Schweitzer quote. It’s new to me and important especially now.
Sadly, many present-day republicans will see nothing wrong with their predecessors’ views.
Bruce As an historian I have difficulty establishing time periods for Republican pronouncements and priorities:
1) The focus of the poor (and even middle class) to ‘redistribute the wealth’ is a communist attempt to take hard-earned (or inherited) money from the natural ruling class;
2) The folks who fill most of the jobs on farms and factories are lazy [oh the glory of 70-hour work weeks], grasping, and deserve no human rights;
3) Women and none whites are inferior to white males;
4) Unionization is unAmerican and impedes the capitalist system.
Do these apply to the 19th century, today, or both?
Both, of course. Elements of the 19th century mentality of dark-skinned people as a "threat" are still an undercurrent in this country. It occasionally rears its ugly head into the spotlight, but it mainly stays in the background. Tragically, the modern Republican party seems to have allowed itself to be co-opted by people who still possess elements of this mentality as a driving force in their psyche, something they would of course NEVER acknowledge. I mean, "We're running a Black man as our Senate candidate in Georgia! That right there proves we're not racist!!" Uh-huh...
And put a "Black man" on the Supreme Court (of course "birthers" were cover for pure racism. Saint Reagan get little flack for having said of the Tanzanian UN delegation:
“To watch that thing on television, as I did, to see those, those monkeys from those African countries – damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!”
Still I'm pretty fuzzy about which of our political party's to cheer for and when, with my patchy grasp of American History. HCR mentions Republican argument for SES fairness in instituting a graduated income tax to pay for the Civil War, and Democrats were the home of George Wallace types in my youth. Pretty much the advocates of plutocracy, and/or authoritarianism of whatever variety, seem consistently to be historical "bad guys".
For one: women got the vote in America because “the powers that be” were convinced that the women would vote as their husbands instructed, so I’ve heard.
And how are women still at the mercy of men? At the mercy of Religion? Look at 1 the ERA, Equal Rights Amendment. Not passed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
Maybe it’s not needed because of other Amendments and laws. But why?
2 Then there’s the UN Rights of the Child Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child: Never passed even after another holdout Somalia finally ratified.
3 And Anti-corporal punishment laws. Still working on that because of holdout States. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1234/text?r=1&s=1 Q RELIGION has a lot of power. (I know, I said that!) Worry that the traditional family will suffer or worse disappear. White Male Power. Of course not all and a woman sabotaged the last vote for ERA. But that was only possible because of the close vote. We lift up our votes and voices but the suits are loud and powerful. And there’s a difference by states. Women’s Reproductive Rights? Keep on keeping on. We need more equal representation in our government. Change is possible.
See my previous answer. For all the sound and fury of “women’s lib” critics, we’ve been back-peddling now since Bush II.
Patricia, I hope my post does not sound like I’m criticizing Womens Lib! To the contrary our organizing and our voices are the only way to truly make progress. To be heard and to act. To be the action. To be representative of women and women’s issues and legislation. To legislate.
No, not at all. Any frustration suggested by my words is generated by the endless history of women at worst as chattel, and at best as ornamental objects incapable of having serious thoughts. And worse than all of that are the omen who accept that definition of themselves either as surrender or because of social pressure.
And then today, as if on cue, Alabama's Republican Senator said this in a speech:
“They’re not soft on crime,” Tuberville said of Democrats. “They’re pro-crime. They want crime. They want crime because they want to take over what you got. They want to control what you have. They want reparation because they think the people that do the crime are owed that.” He then closed with, "Bullshit!!". They don't even try to hide their racism now. It's out there front and center.
HCR even tweeted Tuberville's remarks earlier today, but as I said, they illustrate my point.
https://twitter.com/HC_Richardson/status/1579100783941152769?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email
"I wonder how many present-day Republicans are even remotely familiar with this history?"
Zero = 0.00
How soon the book and then the text books?
Attempted like
Citizen60: Try refreshing the page-go to the top of the page then look to the left of the search bar. You'll see an incomplete circle w/an arrow @ the end. click on it. That refreshes the page and will go back to the page you were on. You should be able to "heart" the entry. It may not last long and you'd need to repeat the process.
Wasn’t the recent Supreme Court arguments by conservatives about the “intent” of the 14th amendment (that somehow it was intended as race neutral), so brilliantly countered by KBJ, emblematic of how familiar Republicans are with history—or choose to be.
Exactly so...and "or choose to be" is truer than I'd like to admit. It's part of their collective willful ignorance of historical facts, only remembering what they want to remember, or what they were taught by a system that gave inaccurate, distorted views of history. Justice Jackson probably made some of their heads explode--that is, if they bothered to listen to her, figuring she'd be giving a biased view of history, since she's Black and all...
The history of the Republican Party, in the north, post-Civil War until TR took over after McKinley’s assassination, is confusing at best. While Republicans then were pro-federal government, it was because the monied class needed a strong government to tame the west & build & support their fortunes--leading us into the Gilded Age.
Obviously, Lincoln was a proponent of a strong central government, even before his presidency. He backed the continuation of our canal systems & the transcontinental railroad. But as these federal govt projects became completed, the republicans became less & less enamored of a strong federal government now that they had reaped its benefits.
It’s interesting, to me, that the Plessy v Ferguson scotus (composed of both democrat & republican president appointees), was decided 7-1 (one abstention), & that it was a Republican appointee, Justice Harlan, a former slaveholder from KY who fought for the union, who was the sole dissenting voice--the last of the Lincolnesque republicans, despite two Lincoln-appointed justices still serving. A confusing time for discerning party differences, outside of the already solid South.
another time of huge political realignment in this country. things don't all shift at once... like real life. snapshot out of context is usually confusing.
Thank you for your first sentence, Linda. "Confusing at best." I've read this newsletter twice now and I still don't really understand who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are. Maybe that's only possible in the old cowboy movies? Maybe I need to read it a third time? I would like to be able to distill it down for folks like me who don't have a strong history background.
If you get a chance, please read The 1619 Project. It is a big book but such detail about our REAL American history. A real eye-opener that tells why we have Democrats and Republicans.
Thank you Donna!
Bruce, one thing present-day Republicans haven't forgotten is how to vilify the people they want to disparage and brand them as dangerous socialist radicals. Between Truman and Reagan, the benefits of the New Deal seemed to take the bite out of that tactic, so those of us who grew up during that period simply thought the political world we knew was normal. If I remember correctly, the 2000 election was a wakeup call to a lot of liberals, and I noticed during the Bush II administration that people were talking about how the Republicans seemed to want to take the country backward. By the time of the rise of the Tea Party, it still looked to us like they were interested in a return to some pre-Watergate halcyon era. But by the arrival of MAGA I was fairly convinced the target looked more like the 1800s or earlier. Reflecting on the advent of Originalism, it looked like, um, 1776 or so. But in reading Heather's posts on our history, it looks like the closest thing we've had to a halcyon-like era was between the end of WWII and the King/Kennedy assassinations. Those were the formative years for baby boom liberals. So taking the long view of the supply side vision--read "dark side vision" if you must--that assumes it is the proper one for America, those who hold this vision are right. From this perspective, anyone who advocates for social justice and equity is radically out of step with American norms and presents an existential threat to them. And if this is how you see things, you can't let the expectation of social justice and equity gain enough traction over a couple of decades to feel like normal.
But still, partly what can aid in their vilification and even increase its virulence is their perception that so many of these "dangerous socialist radicals" are dark-skinned. That is at least the case around here as I see it. The two main political races here in GA are the Senate race and the gubernatorial race. Both feature prominent Black candidates. In both cases, the Democrat candidates are ALWAYS branded as "radical, socialist, woke, etc." in every ad. That they are Black only seems to increase the virulence. The words are spat out with a sneering, vituperative, dismissive tone of voice. I will always believe that since they are Black does add an extra layer of resentment of these candidates.
I believe, as many historians have asserted, that our nation lost its innocence and naiveté when JFK was assassinated in '63. That was when the cold hard reality of the world came bursting into American homes big time.
Well, apparently the universe reads both the NYT and Letters from an American, and left a comment this morning in the form of a book review:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/03/books/review/american-midnight-adam-hochschild.html#:~:text=Nonfiction-,When%20America%20Was%20Awash%20in%20Patriotic%20Frenzy%20and%20Political%20Repression,rarely%20rivaled%20in%20our%20history.
I’ve been sure for decades that the Rs wanted to eliminate the twentieth century at least!
Decades?? How about BEFORE 1776? Please go back farther in time than 1776. If you get a chance, please read The 1619 Project (Republicans want it banned). It is a big book but there is so much documented detail about our REAL American history beginnings. A real eye-opener that tells why we have Democrats and Republicans. And it shows WHY there is such a disparity between the rich and powerful (white males) and the rest of us, including women.
Originalism? Please go back farther in time than 1776. If you get a chance, please read The 1619 Project (Republicans want it banned). It is a big book but there is such documented detail about our REAL American history beginnings. A real eye-opener that tells why we have Democrats and Republicans. This book shows WHY there is such a disparity between the rich (white males) and the rest of us, including women.
Exactly.
I share these history lessons daily, but responses to me are not repeatable. I'm "crazy", "spending too much time with conspiracy," etc. The crazies can't be reached as Heather has stated. I'm trying to reach those who still might listen to truth.
Try reading and sharing THIS book: The 1619 Project (Republicans want it banned). It is a big book but there is so much documented detail about our REAL American history beginnings. A real eye-opener that tells why we have Democrats and Republicans. And it shows WHY there is such a disparity between the rich and powerful (white males) and the rest of us, including women.