history, historiography, politics, current events

Friday, May 30, 2008

Commercials from the Confederate States of America

These commercials are from the film The Confederate States of America, which is a movie that tackles this question: what may have happened if the Confederacy won the civil war? It is an interesting film and would recommend it for anyone interested in the Civil War.





Thursday, May 29, 2008

Marines Drive Against the Taliban

This article was published in New York Times on Tuesday.

"For two years British troops staked out a presence in this small district center in southern Afghanistan and fended off attacks from the Taliban. The constant firefights left it a ghost town, its bazaar broken and empty but for one baker, its houses and orchards reduced to rubble and weeds."

"But it took the Marines, specifically the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, about 96 hours to clear out the Taliban in a fierce battle in the past month and push them back about 6 miles."

"It was their first major combat operation since landing in March, and it stood in stark contrast to the events of a year earlier, when a Marine unit was removed in disgrace within weeks of arriving because its members shot and killed 19 civilians after a suicide bombing attack. "

"This time, the performance of the latest unit of marines, here in Afghanistan for seven months to help bolster NATO forces, will be under particular scrutiny. The NATO-led campaign against the Taliban has not only come under increasing pressure for its slow progress in curbing the insurgency, but it has also been widely criticized for the high numbers of civilian casualties in the fighting."

"The marines’ drive against the Taliban in this large farming region is certainly not finished, and the Taliban have often been pushed out of areas in Afghanistan only to return in force later. But for the British forces and Afghan residents here, the result of the recent operation has been palpable."

"The district chief returned to his job from his refuge in the provincial capital within days of the battle and 200 people — including 100 elders of the community — gathered for a meeting with him and the British to plan the regeneration of the town."

"“They have disrupted the Taliban’s freedom of movement and pushed them south, and that has created the grounds for us to develop the hospital and set the conditions for the government to come back,” said Maj. Neil Den-McKay, the officer commanding a company of the Royal Regiment of Scotland based here. People have already started coming back to villages north of the town, he said, adding, “There has been huge optimism from the people.”"

"For the marines, it was a chance to hit the enemy with the full panoply of their firepower in places where they were confident there were few civilians. The Taliban put up a tenacious fight, rushing in reinforcements in cars and vans from the south and returning repeatedly to the attack, but they were beaten back in four days by three companies of marines, two of which were dropped in by helicopter to the southeast."

"In the days after the assault began, hundreds of families, their belongings packed high on tractor-trailers, fled north from villages in the southern part of the battle zone, according to marines staffing a checkpoint. The Taliban told them to leave as the fighting began, they said. Hospital officials in the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah, reported receiving eight civilian casualties as a result of the fighting, including a 14-year-old boy who died from his injuries. The marines did not sustain any casualties, but one was killed and two were wounded in subsequent clashes."...

Full article.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Once Enemies, Now Friends

I came across this article written by Hal Moore, former Lt. General in the US Army and author of the memoir We Were Soldiers Once...And Young. Moore tells how the mutual experiences of war can make men who were once enemies embrace each other as friends after the guns have fallen silent. Moore wrote:

"When the blood of any war soaks your clothes and covers your hands, and soldiers die in your arms, every breath forever more becomes an appeal for a greater peace, unity and reconciliation. "

"It was Vietnam. I was their commander and accountable for them. We charged the enemy with bayonets fixed to our rifles in face-to-face combat. I still hear the ugly sounds of war. I still see the boots of my dead sticking out from under their ponchos, laces tied one last time by their precious fingers. … I still carry the wounded to the helicopters as they bled, screamed and begged to live one more day … and I still hold those who die in my arms, with their questioning eyes dreading death, as they called for their mothers … their eyes go blank and my war-crusted fingers close their eyelids. The blood of my dead soldiers will not wash from my hands. The stains remain."

"On Nov. 16, 1965, we won the LZ-Xray battle in the Ia Drang Valley of Vietnam. But 79 of my dear troopers died for those of us who lived. During the battle, we took prisoners of war. We gave them water and aspirins to help relieve their pain. Their anxious faces soon gave way to expressions of relief that they were treated with dignity."

"My unending thirst for peace and unity drove me to return to the "Valley of Death" in 1993. Some of my men accompanied me to meet with the man, along with a few of his soldiers, who had once endeavored to kill us all. Lt. Gen. Nguyen Huu An and I came face-to-face. Instead of charging one another with bayonets, we mutually offered open arms. I invited all to form a circle with arms extended around each other's shoulders and bowed our heads. With prayer and tears, we shared our painful memories. Although we did not understand each other's language, we quickly saw that the soul requires no interpreter."

"Gen. An and I then walked toward each other and shook hands. He kissed me on both cheeks! A communion of friendship was established that far outweighed past bloody memories. Later, Gen. An and I walked part of the battlefield. Together we surveyed the once blood-soaked terrain. Foxholes dug long ago were adorned with blooming wildflowers. No thunder of war filled the air. Instead, birds sang with a most beautiful "noise." Ever so gently, Gen. An placed his arm in mine. We had made a very long journey from war to peace. This was sealed through the reverent affection of one arm in the other."

Full Article.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

My Other Blog: Student of the Civil War

I have a new blog that went up today that focuses on the Civil War, entitled Student of the Civil War. So, check it out.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Dispelling the Dispellers of Lincoln Myths

Since historians, as well as other writers, started writing about Abraham Lincoln, there have been those who have worked hard to give us a well-rounded image of the 16th president. Lincoln is the most written about figure in American history and hundreds of books about him are published each year. Our historical knowledge of Lincoln is pretty great and there are numerous scholarly and popular works examining various aspects of his life, political career, presidency, and political and racial views.


Over the past few years various writers, most of them hold no professional historical credentials, have set out to take on the Lincoln myths, which they believe are being passed off as historical fact. These 'myths' have already been researched and written about in great detail by real historians and these writers are giving the American reading public pseudohistorical trash. The historical equivalent of a John Grisham, Nora Roberts, Tom Clancy or any other modern day dime novelists who are trying to pass as serious writers.


These dispellers of Lincoln myths seem to focus on a few key aspects of Lincoln's life or political career. And they get everything horribly wrong.


Here are some of the key issues:


1. Lincoln was a racist. The most famous, or infamous, writer to argue this is Lerone Bennett. In 1968, Bennett published an article in Jet that argued that Lincoln was a white supremacist. A few years ago he published a 600 plus page screed, entitled Forced into Glory, detailing Lincoln's racism. This point about Lincoln being a racist is partially true. Let me emphasize the word partially. Did Lincoln hold some believes that were racist? Of course he did! After all, he was the product of 19th Century America, which was a fairly racist society. The 'dispellers' usually point to a few phrases from the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 or certain lines from letters to prove their point. However, focusing on a few phrases in the millions of words that Lincoln uttered or wrote throughout his political career proves nothing beyond the fact that 'dispellers' have way too much time on their hands. Lincoln did hold some racist views, but overall Lincoln was more progressive in his racial views than most of his contemporaries. He was fervently anti-slavery, which is evidenced in the fact that he joined the an anti-slavery party, the Republican Party, and then became their presidential candidate running on an antislavery platform.


2. Lincoln did not want to end slavery, but wanted only to preserve the Union. This is also partially true. In the first year or so of the Civil War, Lincoln's paramount goal was to preserve the Union. Yes he was anti-slavery, but how could he have abolished slavery without restoring the Union first? To prove that he was solely concerned with preserving the Union, 'dispellers' usually point to the famous letter Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley in response to Greeley's call for immediate emancipation. The August 1862 letter stated: "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views." What these people fail to realize, or just plain ignore, is that this letter was written after Lincoln decided to follow a course of emancipation. Lincoln made this decision in mid-summer 1862, at least a month before the letter to Greeley was written, but was persuaded to wait until after a smashing Union victory on the field of battle to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.




3. Lincoln's proclamation did not free any slaves. Technically, this is true. The Emancipation Proclamation only pertained to the areas of the Confederacy that were not under union control and still in a state of rebellion. Lincoln did not have the power to free the slaves, but he had the authority to do so. He used his authority to make Emancipation a war goal and a tool to wage his war. The Emancipation Proclamation essentially made the Union Army a tool of emancipation. Where ever the army went, that area's slaves would be freed. 'Dispellers' also make the point that Lincoln's proclamation did not touch slavery in the slave states, or border states, that remained in the Union. In regards to the border states, Lincoln had to constantly walk a tight rope. In order to win the war Lincoln had to keep these states in the Union and interfering with slavery within these states may have pushed them to join the Confederacy. Well, this is what Lincoln feared. This is not to say that Lincoln did not try to abolish slavery within the border states. He came up with a plan of gradual emancipation that he wanted to implement in those states, which he tested in Delaware, but the plan was not well received.



4. Lincoln was gay. This is a fairly new claim. It has been tossed about by that intellectual fraud Gore Vidal and most recently by the late C.A. Tripp. They call attention to the fact that Lincoln shared beds with other men. They also fail to place this fact, and others, within the context of the time period. In the west, Illinois was considered the west at the time, people did have many possessions. Not everyone owned a bed. So, it was fairly common for men to sleep in the same bed with other men. If this makes Lincoln gay than almost the entire American male population at the time was also gay. They also point to certain phrases in letters that Lincoln wrote. They also examine some of the relationships Lincoln had with other men and his supposed loveless marriage to Mary Todd. There is just no evidence to support these claims and real historians dismiss them all.

I feel this video clip is a good example of some of the arguments that 'dispellers' like to make.




McCain's V.P. BBQ



Republican Presidential candidate John McCain is having a BBQ at his home in Arizona this weekend. The fact that McCain is holding a BBQ this weekend is not too exciting, but what is interesting is that he has invited three possible V.P. candidates to join him in what can be considered an audition for the position. The three potential V.P. candidates are former Massachusetts governor and Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Florida governor Charlie Crist, and Louisiana governor Piyush "Bobby" Jindal.


The Washington Post's David Broder wrote that "These are three attractive politicians, young enough to balance McCain in age and geographically distant from his home state of Arizona. Romney earned his credentials by giving McCain his toughest challenge for the presidential nomination. Crist delivered a vital and timely endorsement. And Jindal, the youthful son of Indian immigrants, could be the Republican answer to Barack Obama."


These are interesting choices for McCain's V.P. and I would still support the ticket if any of these three men were placed on it. Of the three, however, Bobby Jindal is the most exciting. He really could be the Republican Party's counter to Barack Obama. At 36 years of age he's much younger than McCain and is ten years younger than Obama, which means he could help McCain appeal to the youth vote. Jindal, or Romney for that manner, could also help to to solidify McCain's base among conservatives. Jindal may help strengthen McCain's appeal among minorities as well.


All in all, each of the three men would help and not hurt McCain during this fall's election.


Obama's Rules for the 2008 Campaign

Victor Hanson's recent piece on Barack Obama is quite interesting. Hanson argued that Obama's campaign is rewriting the rules for the general campaign and not in a good way. Hanson has provided what he views to be the 10 news rules for campaigning, which we have Obama to thank for. Hanson wrote:

"Barack Obama is a gifted politician who has led an exemplary life. His run for presidency for many offers redemption that America has finally moved beyond race. But that laudable proposition is beginning to foster surreal rules of campaigning from both the media and Obama himself that do no one any good."

"1. The 2008 campaign must stick to concrete issues and detailed policies. That said, Barack Obama can continue to speak only in vague terms of “hope and change.”"

"2. Rev. Wright’s racist tirades must be contextualized and only understood in their proper historic milieu of white racism — that is, unless he suddenly turns on Barack Obama, in which case one is now free to deride him as “mean-spirited,” “malicious” and on a “vendetta.”"

"3. Rev. Wright is like “an old uncle” and his church “not particularly controversial.” Those who insist otherwise are using “snippets” and “loops” out of context for cheap political advantage. But should the Rev. repeat his serial lunacies at the National Press Club on national television, and insult the sympathetic liberal DC press corps, then he is suddenly expendable and inexplicably not the same pastor that Barack Obama knew for 20 years — and so now to be freely derided as a “spoiler.”"

"4. It is assumed that Barack Obama’s exotic middle name Hussein can provide authentic multicultural fides and hope of projecting a new, more globally sympathetic American image abroad, but to voice ‘Hussein’ aloud is assumed to be nefarious."

"5. It is legitimate to appeal to, and thus win en masse 90% of African-Americans of all classes over a rival liberal candidate, but it is absolutely illegitimate and a sign of a racialist strategy should someone else win two-thirds of that total of the white working-class vote — and, worse, acknowledge it as such."

Rules 6-10 can be viewed here.

Friday, May 23, 2008

McCain Rejects Endorsements from Two Despicable Televangelists

On Thursday Republican Presidential candidate John McCain did what I have been hoping he would do for months now; he rejected the endorsements of two very disgusting and bigoted televangelist. McCain had been trying to court the religious right for some time now, but he was never been their type of conservative. He had previously been very critical of many of these preachers, but believed that he needed their help in winning the evangelical vote in this fall's election. McCain, realizing that the comments made and beliefs held by these two men were just plain indefensible and crazy, decided to stick to his principles and reject their support. This may cost him in the general election, but his principles and integrity will still be in tact.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Michael Moore is a War Pornographer.


The independent war reporter Michael Yon, who many consider to be this generation's Ernie Pyle, has recently complained of Michael Moore's use of one of his photographs. Yon, who is taking legal action against Moore, was outraged that his photo was taken out of context and was used in an idiotic anti-war propaganda campaign. Moore, according to Yon, is a war pornographer because he takes images out of context and uses them to suit his own sick needs. Yon stated that he has no problem with people using any of his photographs, but only gives permission to those he deems will not misrepresent any of his images. Yon wrote:

"When someone’s grandmother disseminates the photo of Major Beiger cradling a dying girl in his arms, I allow the usage because I feel she is trying to share the human tragedy. [Michael Moore’s use of this same photo, which he placed] alongside images of George Bush, John McCain and Hillary Clinton… [and the] implication is that [the girl’s] death is their fault. That is a misrepresentation of the facts on the ground, as well as the story of the photo. Farah was killed by a suicide car bomb...."

Full post.

Yon's photo.

What will the world be like without the US?

This is a trailer for a documentary examining what the world may be like without the U.S. as the dominant power. The film looks interesting and I can't wait to see it.


A Conversation with Niall Ferguson

Here is an interesting clip of one of my favorite historians Niall Ferguson.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

National Review Online Editors on Burma

The editors of NRO have weighed in on the debate over the situation in Burma. They wrote:

"The death toll from Cyclone Nargis, which swept across Burma’s Irrawaddy Delta May 2–3, has soared above 50,000. It is likely to rise further still. Tragedy is here compounded by evil: The ruling junta, brutal beyond words, has refused to allow aid workers into the country in sufficient numbers for them to be effective, fearing that this would highlight its own maladministration. What aid has reached Burma — some of it on U.S. C-130 cargo planes, which have landed in the country with the junta’s permission — has reportedly been diverted to the military. The small number of NGOs that the junta has allowed in are no match for the apparatus of the state, which after all has never been deployed for the benefit of the Burmese masses."

"What, then, to do?"....

Full article.

The 9/11 Truth Movement, Part I: Background of a Conspiracy Theory

This is the first of a series of posts that will provide an overview of the 9/11 truth movement. This post will introduce readers the 9/11truth.org, which is the leading site and group of this movement.




Conspiracy theories are as American as apple pie because Americans have a true love of such theories. We Americans, as a people, much like the ancient Greeks and their myths, have concocted and believed these theories when we are confronted with realities that we can't fully understand or explain. The most popular and believed of all conspiracy theories are those involving the federal government. In fact, if you listen to most Americans, from average blue collar works to highly educated college professors, talk about the government one will come away with the impression that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney used their business connections to fix voting machines to steal the 2000 and 2004 elections, or caused Hurricane Katrina, and so on. The years following the attacks of September 11, 2001, a new, and particularly vicious and idiotic, conspiracy theory has grown, which is centered around the attacks of that day.

At the forefront of the movement are the paranoid folks at 911truth.org. This group has developed their mission statement around five points. First, "The frequently warned of 9/11 attacks handed a lackluster presidency irresistible political power to increase inequality, repression, corporate domination, and imperial warfare ." Second, "Since this administration benefited so mightily from these crimes, a reasonable person (or investigation) might find it prudent to at least question its possible complicity." Third, "There is now more than enough compelling evidence of just such official misconduct, foul play, perjury and obstruction of justice to constitute probable cause for a full criminal investigation of all 9/11 events." (Just what evidence they are talking about I don't know, but you don't need to provide proof for such statements when you're putting forth a conspiracy theory. If you could prove it, then it isn't much of a conspiracy, after all, but rather common knowledge.) Fourth, "Despite continuing avoidance of this issue by our Congress, major parties and corporate press, there is widespread public support for this perception and course of action." (This argument rests on a 2004 Zogby poll that claims that 49% of New York City residents and 41% of New Yorkers believe that 9/11 was an inside job. This poll does not prove a conspiracy, but rather that most Americans are just plain stupid and will believe anything.) Fifth, which I will quote in its entirety, "If we as a people refuse to demand truth and justice on a matter this grave, we will deserve our leaders' contempt and embolden them to further treachery. (They and their predecessors have, after all, gotten away with the now documented lies of the Tonkin Resolution, the JFK and MLK assassinations, Iran-Contra, Flight 800, the Waco Davidian murders, the Pentagon's "missing" $2.2 trillion, etc, etc. without consequence. Why should they start worrying about what the "sovereign people" think now?) We have to stand up and draw the line somewhere or we can kiss our hopes for security, solvency and democracy goodbye."



One should also take note of this group's top 40 reasons to doubt the official story of 9/11.


This conspiracy theory movement is just plain ridiculous! To believe that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks is silly, but it is frightening that so many Americans buy into this theory. The shear numbers and diversity of the people that subscribe to this theory is just as scary. Scholars (professors ans independent), actors, musicians, novelists, journalists, Europeans (mostly French), and average 'joes.' Who are these people? Why do they believe such nonsense? These are questions that I hope to answer in forth coming posts. The next post will be dealing with a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice.








Friday, May 16, 2008

An Amazing Victory for Equality

Guest post by Danielle from I Can't Believe This Shiz!!!! (Cross-posted on I Can't Believe This Shiz).

The state of California, although often bizarre and downright rediculous in its lawmaking, has taken advantage of its trailblazing status by deciding to be a leader in the fight for true equality. Yesterday, the state Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, which according to msnbc.com, is a measure on a 2000 ballot that reinforced a 1978 law defining marriage in California as existing only between one man and one woman. Speaking through Chief Justice Ronald George, the court declared that "an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

You may wonder why a straight woman in her 20s would care at all about an issue like gay marriage. Well, as a law student and someone who has studied and been fascinated by both American constitutional law and civil liberties for years, I can say that this has never been a gray issue for me. Rather, it is very simple, and very black or white. For me, this is a purely legal issue. In my opinion, although this case dealt with state law, the idea that the majority, either through ballot or through its lawmakers, can limit the rights of any individual or group because of any status has been vehemently and totally discredited in federal Supreme Court jurisprudence. Of course, the most obvious examples that come to mind are issues of race and gender.

But, the Court has spoken specifically about liberty interests in family relationships, by holding in the Myer and Pierce cases that there is a fundamental right under Due Process to marry, raise children, and educate them. In the case of Moore v. East Cleveland (1977), the court expanded that right by declaring that there is an individual liberty interest in defining the family and determining how it is going to operate. (This case dealt with a housing ordinance that limited occupancy of homes to the "nuclear family," which worked against a woman raising her nephews, who of course were not her children.) In terms of the right to privacy in general and gay rights more specifically, the court held in Lawrence v. TX (2003) that liberty includes self autonomy which includes belief and intimate conduct.

When asked to announce a new fundamental right, the court examines precedent and other factors to decide whether previously announced fundamental rights should be expanded to include a new one. In this case, the issue would be, "Should the previously announced fundamental right to marry and raise a family be expanded to include relationships consisting of two individuals of the same sex?" Although the Court dropped hints in Lawrence that is was not speaking of gay marriage, based on the Court's entire jurisprudence, were they to take on this issue, expanding the fundamental right to marry and raise a family to include the homosexual community would be a natural next step.

Anyway, although this victory could be short-lived, the statement made by the California Supreme Court can never be taken away.

A Good New Blog

I Can't Believe This Shiz!!! is a good new blog that went up over the weekend, which tackles everything from legal issues to celebrities. It's a very good read....so check it out.

Is George W. Bush the next Harry S. Truman?




I have been arguing for a few years that Bush could be the next Truman and recently military historian Victor D. Hanson has made the same argument. Hanson wrote:

"We are in one of the longest presidential campaigns in modern memory — and haven't even started focusing on the general election."

"It's been enough to drive most of us mad, but if there's one person in particular suffering the most, it may be President Bush."

"It's been noted here before that we have not had an election since 1952 in which an incumbent president or vice president was not running in at least partial defense of an existing administration's record."

"That means Bush is not just a lame duck but an easy target for all three current candidates — none of whom have any investment in the president's legacy."

"Consider that the last president in a similar position was Harry Truman. He left office with an approval rating in the 20s, and it took years before historians revised the standard negative and mostly unfair view of him."

"When there is no incumbent in a long race, almost everything of the last four years becomes fair and uncontested game. In 2004, Bush defended his record for months on the stump; now it has become almost second nature for all three candidates to denounce it daily."

Full article.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

How will we know if we have won in Iraq?


Military historian Frederick Kagan, an enthusiastic supporter of the American effort in Iraq, has offered an interesting and thought-provoking way to define and measure success in this war. Kagan wrote:

"The president's nomination of generals David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno to take command of U.S. Central Command and Multinational Force-Iraq, respectively, was obviously the right decision. By experience and temperament and demonstrated success, both men are perfectly suited to these jobs. Given the political climate in Washington, however, their nominations are likely to be attacked with the same tired arguments war critics used to try to drown out reports of progress in Iraq during the recent Petraeus-Crocker hearings. So before the shouting begins again, let us consider in detail one of the most important of these arguments: that no one has offered any clear definition of success in Iraq."

"Virtually everyone who wants to win this war agrees: Success will have been achieved when Iraq is a stable, representative state that controls its own territory, is oriented toward the West, and is an ally in the struggle against militant Islamism, whether Sunni or Shia. This has been said over and over. Why won't war critics hear it? Is it because they reject the notion that such success is achievable and therefore see the definition as dishonest or delusional? Is it because George Bush has used versions of it and thus discredited it in the eyes of those who hate him? Or is it because it does not offer easily verifiable benchmarks to tell us whether or not we are succeeding? There could be other reasons--perhaps critics fear that even thinking about success or failure in Iraq will weaken their demand for an immediate "end to the war." Whatever the explanation for this tiresome deafness, here is one more attempt to flesh out what success in Iraq means and how we can evaluate progress toward it."

Full article.

Should the United States Invade Burma?

I came across some interesting articles today that tackle the question: Should the US invade Burma? With the situation faced by the people of Burma worsening daily and a brutal military dictatorship doing all it can to hold on to power, I believe the US should take some sort of military/humanitarian action to help correct the situation. Shawn W. Crispin, writing for the Asia Times, has made a thoughtful case in favor of US invasion. He wrote:

"With United States warships and air force planes at the ready, and over 1 million of Myanmar's citizens left bedraggled, homeless and susceptible to water-borne diseases by Cyclone Nagris, the natural disaster presents an opportunity in crisis for the US. "

"A unilateral - and potentially United Nations-approved - US military intervention in the name of humanitarianism could easily turn the tide against the impoverished country's unpopular military leaders, and simultaneously rehabilitate the legacy of lame-duck US"

"Myanmar's ruling junta has responded woefully to the cyclone disaster, costing more human lives than would have been the case with the approval of a swift international response. One week after the killer storm first hit, Myanmar's junta has only now allowed desperately needed international emergency supplies to trickle in. It continues to resist US and UN disaster relief and food aid personnel from entering the country. Officially, 60,000 people have died; the figure is probably closer to 100,000. "

"In the wake of the cyclone, the criminality of the junta's callous policies has taken on new human proportions in full view of the global community. Without a perceived strong UN-led response to the natural disaster, hard new questions will fast arise about the UN's own relevance and ability to manage global calamities."

"Because of the UN's own limited powers of projection, such a response would require US military management and assets. US officials appear to be building at least a rhetorical case for a humanitarian intervention. While offering relief and aid with one hand, top US officials have with the other publicly slapped at the Myanmar government's lame response to the disaster. "

Romash Ratnesar, writing for Time, has also argued for US intervention in Burma. He wrote:

"Burma's rulers have relented slightly, agreeing Friday to let in supplies and perhaps even some foreign relief workers. The government says it will allow a US C-130 transport plane to land inside Burma Monday. But it's hard to imagine a regime this insular and paranoid accepting robust aid from the U.S. military, let alone agreeing to the presence of U.S. Marines on Burmese soil — as Thailand and Indonesia did after the tsunami. The trouble is that the Burmese haven't shown the ability or willingness to deploy the kind of assets needed to deal with a calamity of this scale — and the longer Burma resists offers of help, the more likely it is that the disaster will devolve beyond anyone's control. "We're in 2008, not 1908," says Jan Egeland, the former U.N. emergency relief coordinator. "A lot is at stake here. If we let them get away with murder we may set a very dangerous precedent.""

"That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the U.S. to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea — "I can't imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday — but it's not without precedent: as Natsios pointed out to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid without the host government's consent in places like Bosnia and Sudan."

The Uses of History

On his blog, "Easily Distracted," history professor Timothy Burke has created a list of the uses of history, which I found extremely interesting. He also gave titles that relate to each type and use of history. Here is the list:

"1. The past is prologue: a contemporary issue or practice has its roots or determinants in the history we are studying. Example: Rick Perlstein, Before the Storm; Fernand Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism;"

"2. The past is not prologue: a contemporary issue or practice that is commonly understood to be determined by history is not, and we’ll demonstrate that by telling you about that history. Example: Stephanie Coontz, The Way We Never Were; many histories that try to debunk the idea that contemporary ethnic conflicts are based on “ancient tribal hatreds”."

"3. The past is analogue: a contemporary issue or problem resembles some past issue or problem; the historical example has just enough distance from our own situation that we understand ourselves better. Barbara Tuchman, A Distant Mirror; Lisa Jardine, Worldly Goods."

"4. The past is another country: our own times are made more particular by looking at just how different the past really was. Caroline Bynum, Holy Feast, Holy Fast; Robert Darnton, The Great Cat Massacre; Richard White, The Middle Ground."

"5. The past helps us make N as big as possible: it is a source of data for making generalizations, formulating models, constructing claims about human universals. Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel; David Christian, Maps of Time."

"6. The past challenges generalizations, models and universals through attention to particulars and microhistories. Carlo Ginzberg, The Cheese and the Worms."

"7. The past is procedural: we study it to learn how dynamic processes or change works out over time (without worry so much about the consequences of the history we are studying)."

"8. Hindsight is 20/20: we study a frozen moment in time because we can understand far better the total spectrum of social relationships, causal relationships, etc. than we can understand the present (here we choose richly knowable examples to study)."

"9. Nothing actually ever changes in history; change is an illusion; some systems or practices always remain the same. We study the past the same way we would study the present, to understand a single system which is continuous over time. Andre Gunder Frank, REOrient."

"10. The unknowability of the past is humbling: we study it to learn about the permanent limits to our knowledge, or about the difficult range of epistemologies involved in knowing the past. Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Silencing the Past."

"11. The past is ideology or discourse: we don’t really study it, we just build powerful contemporary claims from our representations of history. Hayden White, Metahistory."

"12. The past is detection: we study it because we like solving puzzles and mysteries. Charles Van Onselen, The Fox and the Flies."

"13. The past is entertainment or personal enlightenment: we study it because it has great stories, or because of the pleasures of narrative. John Demos, The Unredeemed Captive."

"14. The past is heritage: we study it to form or enforce national, ethnic, religious or personal identity, or to combat attempts to destroy heritage. Gertrude Himmelfarb, The De-Moralization of Society."

"15. The past as it is known in modern Western society is anti-heritage: it is associated with imperialism or domination, and we study historiography to combat or contest that domination. Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe."

"16. The past is memorial: we study (recite it, really) it to honor what people did or sacrificed on our behalf. Tom Brokaw, The Greatest Generation."

Read the post here.

Friday, May 9, 2008

McCain's Ready for the General Campaign

Laura Meckler and Elizabeth Holmes of the Wall Street Journal have reported:

"In the three months since effectively capturing the Republican nomination, John McCain has built up his staff, filled campaign coffers and tried to define himself as a reliable conservative but not a George W. Bush clone."

"Sen. McCain received the gift of time to lay the groundwork for his fall campaign, as Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fought each other for the Democratic nomination. Now that the Democratic fight appears to be nearing an end, the Arizona senator will soon find out how effectively he used the time."

"Sen. Obama already has begun pivoting toward the general election. Soon, he is likely to unleash attack ads aimed at defining Sen. McCain. With vastly more money, Sen. Obama will be able to flood the airwaves as voters are forming impressions."

Read the article here.

David Irving

It has occurred to me that not everyone knows of David Irving. So I was able to find a video clip of this piece of shit spewing his vile opinions. In this clip he is talking about Auschwitz being a hoax and the Holocaust as the biggest propaganda campaign in the history of the world. This speech is from the conference hosted by the Institute for Historical Review, which is group of antisemitic, racists Holocuast deniers (they call themselves revisionists). The IHR was formed to make it seem that these deniers were actual scholars and not neo-Nazis.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Holocaust Denial

Here is another useful site on Holocaust denial that has many documents from the Irving/Lipstadt trial that are worth reading. I recommend reading the Holocaust denial myth/fact sheet as well. (click here to view)

The Holocaust on Trial 5/8/2008

While reading The Holocaust on Trail today I remembered that I had seen a documentary on this trial in my Historical Methods Seminar during my first year as an undergrad. I was able to locate the documentary's companion website, which is interesting, but I hope to find clips from the documentary.

Hitler gives up on the war...decides to play with his Wii

I thought this clip was hilarious.

Hillary's Trip to Bosnia

Monday, May 5, 2008

Johnny Cash's Masterpiece

Johnny Cash's At Folsom Prison turns forty this year, which has many journalists and historians writing about the album's legacy. This album is truly one of my favorites because it opened up the world of Cash's music to me. Historian Kirk Bane, in a recent article, wrote about the album's legacy.

Bane wrote:

"In a year of landmark musical statements (think, for example, of the Beatles’ White Album, the Byrds’ Sweetheart of the Rodeo, and the Stones’ Beggars Banquet), Johnny Cash At Folsom Prison stands proud. Recorded on January 13, 1968, and released four months later, the album featured such unforgettable Cash tracks as “Folsom Prison Blues,” “Jackson,” “I Got Stripes,” “Orange Blossom Special,” “Cocaine Blues,” and “Greystone Chapel,” a religious number written by Folsom inmate Glen Sherley. Performing on a small stage in front of 2,000 enthusiastic California convicts, Cash was at the top of his game, ably supported by June Carter, the Statler Brothers, Carl Perkins, and the Tennessee Three (Luther Perkins, Marshall Grant, and Fluke Holland). Recalling this historic concert, Cash observed, “I gave them a stiff shot of realism, singing about the things they talked about, the outside, shooting, trials, families, escaping, girlfriends, and coming to the end. They knew it was for them.”"

"Cash championed society’s underdogs, the disenfranchised and downtrodden. He sincerely cared for the struggling, hard working laborer, the dispossessed Native American, and the lonely, forgotten inmate. Cash, who had himself “stewed in jail a few nights after alcohol and pill binges,” felt particular solidarity with those confined behind bars. As early as 1957, the singer, hoping to provide the incarcerated “a little relief,” played prison shows, initially visiting penitentiaries in Texas and California. By appearing in prisons, Cash declared, he was “letting inmates know that somewhere out there in the free world was somebody who cared for them as human beings.” He also preached a bold message of penal reform. Cash genuinely believed “that with human compassion many prisoners could find redemption. If all men were promised redemption by God—from drugs, from recklessness, from any sin—that meant prisoners too.”"

Read the entire article here.

History's Day in Court

I am currently reading D.D. Guttenplan's The Holocaust on Trial, which is about the law suit brought against Deborah Lipstadt by the infamous Holocaust denier David Irving. Lipstadt, in her book Denying the Holocaust, accused Irving of being a dangerous Holocaust denier. Irving brought suit against Lipstadt for libel in the British court system. In the British legal system the burden of proof is on the defendant, which the opposite of the American legal system. By bringing suit in Great Britain, Irving was hoping to put the Holocaust itself on trial. Lipstadt would have to prove that the Holocaust did, in fact, happen.

So far this book is leaving me with many tough questions. How do we 'take on' Holocaust deniers? How can trained historians 'prove' that the Holocaust did happen?
This is an interesting and important issue, which has ramifications beyond Holocaust denial. It is a threat to history and collective memory. If trained historians do not take on people like the Irving in public square and expose the fallacies and sheer lunacy of their ideas, then we are giving them carte blanche over the past. The public, whose historical knowledge is fairly limited, may be persuaded by these ideologues, which could result in a society that is oppressive and uneducated.


I will post more on this topic as I finish reading the book.





Sunday, May 4, 2008

Lord Flashheart's Twenty Minuters

Another great scene from Blackadder Goes Forth.

Blackadder does Waterloo

Here is a scene from Blackadder: Back and Forth.

Friday, May 2, 2008

Pimping A Tragic Legacy



Hillary Clinton has been running on the platform of returning the United States back to the 'glorious' 1990s. Back to a time of rainbows, butterflies, and gumdrops. One aspect of the '90s that she has been placing much emphasis upon is the legacy of Clintonian foreign policy. She has been reminding ('lying to' would be a much more appropriate term to use here) voters about the role she played in formulating and enacting foreign policy during her husband's administration. Barbara Crossette, writing for the liberal magazine The Nation, has offered a devastating critique of the Clintonian international legacy. Crossette wrote:

"That Hillary Clinton has apparently found success in talking tough about foreigners and sinking to Bush-like "politics of fear" only illuminates how little American foreign policy has been seriously debated in the Democratic presidential nominee race, and how little voters know or remember about Bill Clinton's international legacy."

"Against the background of Hillary Clinton's repeated claims to cosmopolitan experience, her scores of foreign stopovers (not unlike the travels of Laura Bush) and her meetings with a lot of world figures, the record of the 1992-2000 period bears more scrutiny than it is getting, beyond the NAFTA flip-flop. This is nowhere more urgent than in the discussion about how the United States goes about getting back into the world after years of offending friends and enemies alike, and whether the Clintons failed at grasping coming threats to America. "

"The Clinton record on which Hillary is running is anything but stellar in global or even US security terms. What would become the hallmark political timidity of the Administration was first demonstrated after eighteen American troops were killed in Mogadishu in October 1993 in an ill-fated assault on a Somali warlord. Though that operation was entirely American-planned and led, the Clintons let stand (if not promoted) the isolationist falsehood that the tragedy was the fault of the United Nations, which also had a peacekeeping mission in Mogadishu."

"Worse, the Somalia syndrome led to frantic efforts by the Clinton team to prevent any action by the Security Council on Rwanda six months later, action that may have prevented or at least mitigated a looming genocide. Bill Clinton later "apologized" to the Rwandans, but long after hundreds of thousands of people had been slaughtered."

"In many ways the 1990s were a wasted decade in international relations. Despite the vice presidency of Al Gore, the United States did not take a lead in global environment policy, and internationalists such as Timothy Wirth, a former Senator and environmentalist who became undersecretary of state for global affairs, were ultimately driven out of the Administration by its unwillingness to take on the blinkered provincials in Congress, epitomized by Senator Jesse Helms."

Read the entire article here.

Thesis 5/2/2008

Earlier this week my thesis prospectus was critiqued and I recaived some thoughtful feedback. Since then I have been thinking and rethinking my thesis topic. Trying to explain how a sense of community developed among the the US Officer Corps is an interesting topic, but I am not so sure I can connect that to the development of strategic thought. To focus solely on the printed word would make things harder as well. If I were to take this route I would be relying more on theory than actual primary sources. I would also be asking questions to which my sources might not be able to provide answers. I should let my sources guide me and not the other way around.

I am still very much interested in the development of the US Officer Corps. I have begun to think about other questions. Instead of focusing on how the corps developed, I should be asking 'why' questions. Why did the US Officer Corps develop in the way that it did? Why did American officers put so much emphasis on the European way of developing an army and fighting a war? What did it mean to be an army officer in an Republic? What were the tasks the army was expected to fulfill? Why was Europeanization seen as the answer? These are questions that I hope will lead to a fruitful thesis topic.