The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Unwinnable War in Afghanistan | ||||
| ||||
Monday, December 7, 2009
"The Most Unconquerable Place on Earth"
I was talking with a friend today about Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Somehow I just cannot work up the energy to be angry, because it seems more laughable than anything. Really, if Genghis Khan couldn't conquer this place, what makes us think that we can? Maybe tanks, drones and machine guns aren't such game-changers after all. And perhaps Obama should have had an historian or two--or John Oliver--join his team to decide a course of action in Afghanistan.
Party Politics
I have been frustrated the past few weeks by the same phenomenon in two different eras: the twisted convulsions of politicians trying to fit into our two-party system. My argument about the stalled health care debate in the Senate hinges on this fact: the Democrats are such a diverse party that the idea of a Democratic super majority is really meaningless. There are two subparties: the DINO's (Democrats In Name Only) from conservative states, and the Progressives. The third entity, mostly left out of the argument, is the Republican party, which is now almost wholly Southern and right-wing because of having bled moderates in the past few elections. At any rate, all of this means there are three factions with totally different interests, each accusing the other of heading the country into ruin.
How little things have changed...in the US history survey course I'm TA'ing, we've been covering the Second Party System in the past few weeks. From the fall of Federalists to the rise of Democrats and Whigs, to the fall of Whigs and rise of Republicans, plus those other pesky third parties thrown in, it's almost impossible to follow. The messiness of it does explain, though, why nobody could ever make any real progress on dealing with slavery. And, like today, politicians on both sides were accusing each other of destroying America. But the messiness is also frustratingly complicated to grasp.
It occurred to me that since we do know, in the case of the 19th century, the full trajectory of the party system, a diagram would be helpful to explain it. Surely somebody had created such a thing...and, thanks to Google, I found this amazing diagram courtesy of the UNC education school:
Not that this whole jumble of political changes could ever be crystal-clear, but I think the diagram helps quite a bit. Historians are often loath to use images for explanations, preferring the written or spoken word. I wonder if part of our graduate school training should be in the use of images to tell historical stories and illustrate concepts; sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words (or a 50-minute lecture).
How little things have changed...in the US history survey course I'm TA'ing, we've been covering the Second Party System in the past few weeks. From the fall of Federalists to the rise of Democrats and Whigs, to the fall of Whigs and rise of Republicans, plus those other pesky third parties thrown in, it's almost impossible to follow. The messiness of it does explain, though, why nobody could ever make any real progress on dealing with slavery. And, like today, politicians on both sides were accusing each other of destroying America. But the messiness is also frustratingly complicated to grasp.
It occurred to me that since we do know, in the case of the 19th century, the full trajectory of the party system, a diagram would be helpful to explain it. Surely somebody had created such a thing...and, thanks to Google, I found this amazing diagram courtesy of the UNC education school:
Not that this whole jumble of political changes could ever be crystal-clear, but I think the diagram helps quite a bit. Historians are often loath to use images for explanations, preferring the written or spoken word. I wonder if part of our graduate school training should be in the use of images to tell historical stories and illustrate concepts; sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words (or a 50-minute lecture).
Monday, September 7, 2009
Wrapping up summer in Philly
The past week has been strangely typical here for me: reading, cooking with finds from the farmers' market, and wonderfully random things going on in Rittenhouse Square. So, here's my week in pics:
I got fresh mozzarella and tomatoes from the Headhouse Square farmer's market, then picked up some basil at the produce market near my apartment. So, of course, I had to make a caprese salad.
On Thursday morning, I awoke to the sound of generators outside my apartment. I was pretty surprised to find out all the noise was from actors' trailers, parked right below my window. Paul Rudd and Jack Nicholson were filming a scene just around the corner, and as I stood outside watching the action each of them walked right past me. Sadly, I didn't get the pic--this is Rudd in Fitler Square from the arts review blog http://jimruttersreviews.blogspot.com/.
And then, to top off the week, there were the nude bikers. I only captured the last few stragglers here; it was actually a huge mass of people, all in various levels of undress. The bikers were apparently trying to get across a number of messages--bicycle safety on city streets, carbon-free transportation, and body image awareness. What came through most clearly was that they and the crowds watching were having a great time.
I got fresh mozzarella and tomatoes from the Headhouse Square farmer's market, then picked up some basil at the produce market near my apartment. So, of course, I had to make a caprese salad.
On Thursday morning, I awoke to the sound of generators outside my apartment. I was pretty surprised to find out all the noise was from actors' trailers, parked right below my window. Paul Rudd and Jack Nicholson were filming a scene just around the corner, and as I stood outside watching the action each of them walked right past me. Sadly, I didn't get the pic--this is Rudd in Fitler Square from the arts review blog http://jimruttersreviews.blogspot.com/.
And then, to top off the week, there were the nude bikers. I only captured the last few stragglers here; it was actually a huge mass of people, all in various levels of undress. The bikers were apparently trying to get across a number of messages--bicycle safety on city streets, carbon-free transportation, and body image awareness. What came through most clearly was that they and the crowds watching were having a great time.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Defining terms, then and now
Here's a vintage NY Times story during the debates over forming Medicare that sounds oh so familiar...
Kennedy and Students Shout About Medicine
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 [1960] (UPI)--President-elect John F. Kennedy and a group of Georgetown University medical students had a brief debate tonight on socialized medicine.
The students saw Senator Kennedy emerging from Georgetown Hospital after visiting his wife and shouted: "Keep out socialized medicine!"
Just before he stepped into his car, Senator Kennedy looked over the top and shouted back:
"I'm for medical care for the aged and you're against socialized medicine * * * * and there is no disagreement. It's a matter of definition."
Nearly fifty years later, that "matter of definition" is still proving a sticking point in the healthcare debates. But I think that the key underlying question then and now remains whether health care is a human right, and, if so, that means the government should provide it for those in need.
One of the conservative talking heads pointed out that if you check the Constitution, you won't see a right to health care. While that argument is so ridiculous as to be laughable--I never noticed one to public education, to voting for women or blacks, or other rights we now consider inviolable--it does point to the fact that what we consider to be an inalienable human right changes over time. That said, I have trouble seeing how health care could be a privilege or a commodity and not a right.
And so maybe it all really is about definitions--what we define as a human right, how we define a "public option," and what we mean by "socialized medicine" or a "government take-over." It seems likely that those who win in the war of definitions for this historical moment will win this round of the healthcare battle.
Kennedy and Students Shout About Medicine
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 [1960] (UPI)--President-elect John F. Kennedy and a group of Georgetown University medical students had a brief debate tonight on socialized medicine.
The students saw Senator Kennedy emerging from Georgetown Hospital after visiting his wife and shouted: "Keep out socialized medicine!"
Just before he stepped into his car, Senator Kennedy looked over the top and shouted back:
"I'm for medical care for the aged and you're against socialized medicine * * * * and there is no disagreement. It's a matter of definition."
Nearly fifty years later, that "matter of definition" is still proving a sticking point in the healthcare debates. But I think that the key underlying question then and now remains whether health care is a human right, and, if so, that means the government should provide it for those in need.
One of the conservative talking heads pointed out that if you check the Constitution, you won't see a right to health care. While that argument is so ridiculous as to be laughable--I never noticed one to public education, to voting for women or blacks, or other rights we now consider inviolable--it does point to the fact that what we consider to be an inalienable human right changes over time. That said, I have trouble seeing how health care could be a privilege or a commodity and not a right.
And so maybe it all really is about definitions--what we define as a human right, how we define a "public option," and what we mean by "socialized medicine" or a "government take-over." It seems likely that those who win in the war of definitions for this historical moment will win this round of the healthcare battle.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
An "eye and heart-opening experience"?
That, at least, is what the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum advertises itself as. On my visit there last month, I could certainly see that such an experience was the goal. The museum is made up vignettes of Lincoln's life at particular moments, featuring realistic settings and wax figures. You do feel a bit as if you've stepped into his world, and that's a valuable experience that I'm sure could be eye-opening for many people. As for the emotional reaction, that is achieved in several places: wax figures of a slave couple being torn apart at a slave market, Lincoln at his ill son's bedside, and Lincoln's coffin in a large, elaborate room filled with silk flowers and the sounds of slow, sad music.
I buy the idea that history comes alive for people when they are engaged in this way, but I think a museum fails when it only appeals to the senses. I left this museum with a gut reaction rather than any new knowledge. There were very few original artifacts on display, which could have provided for a more visceral and less produced connection to the past. The museum labels were mostly short descriptions of stages in Lincoln's life rather than information connecting objects and history. Hopefully museums will adapt to cater to (as the early Americans I study would put it) both the head and the heart.
Check out a video showing what the museum is like at the museum's website.
I buy the idea that history comes alive for people when they are engaged in this way, but I think a museum fails when it only appeals to the senses. I left this museum with a gut reaction rather than any new knowledge. There were very few original artifacts on display, which could have provided for a more visceral and less produced connection to the past. The museum labels were mostly short descriptions of stages in Lincoln's life rather than information connecting objects and history. Hopefully museums will adapt to cater to (as the early Americans I study would put it) both the head and the heart.
Check out a video showing what the museum is like at the museum's website.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
SHEAR in the Land of Lincoln?
Perhaps it's one of the curiosities of being a historian that the study of the antebellum era (1830 to 1860) seems foreign to those who study the Early Republic (1780s-ish to 1830). Nonetheless, I and many of my colleagues felt out of place--or is it time?--attending the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic's conference in Springfield, Illinois, with an inevitable focus on Abraham Lincoln. I ventured to Springfield to present some of my early dissertation research and get feedback--which I did and felt went very nicely. But I also figured that I would enjoy the Lincoln theme a lot more by visiting the historic sites in town than by attending panels on topics that didn't interest me.
It was a good choice; the town's few historic sites are impressive. In two hours I was able to walk the whole town and see the Old State Capitol, the current Illinois Statehouse, and Lincoln's neighborhood. The latter two were both special surprises. In the case of the current state house, I was shocked to go inside and find the entire interior covered in marble. The slender dome soared above a round space decorated with scenes of Illinois history, reaching a height exceeding that of the U.S. Capitol building. The house and senate chambers had intricately painted ceilings and massive crystal chandeliers. It took two decades and $4.5 million to complete it--and so much trouble that some suggested abandoning the building and moving elsewhere.
From the statehouse it was a short walk to Lincoln's neighborhood. I thought I was only going to see his house; I didn't expect that four blocks of his neighborhood would be preserved as a National Park site. It is closed off to cars and unpaved, with tree-lined streets and a mix of freshly-painted wooden homes. There's a cell-phone tour, so you can hear about who lived in each house and what the Lincoln family's relation to each neighbor was. The house itself has been restored to its original appearance and, while large for Springfield in the 1850s, seems fairly small compared with the homes of the Washington, Jefferson, or Madison.
But what trip to Springfield, Illinois, would be complete without conservative, anti-health reform protesters? I was surprised to see a large group of people gathered outside one of the houses in Lincoln's neighborhood, milling around and half-heartedly holding up signs. It turned out that Senator Durbin's Springfield office is in the Shutt House, one block from Lincoln's. Mr. Shutt, it seems, supported Stephen Douglass instead of his neighbor in the 1860 election, so perhaps he would have approved of this scene of political disagreement.
You can see more pics from my trip on flickr. Next up: edutainment at the Lincoln museum.
It was a good choice; the town's few historic sites are impressive. In two hours I was able to walk the whole town and see the Old State Capitol, the current Illinois Statehouse, and Lincoln's neighborhood. The latter two were both special surprises. In the case of the current state house, I was shocked to go inside and find the entire interior covered in marble. The slender dome soared above a round space decorated with scenes of Illinois history, reaching a height exceeding that of the U.S. Capitol building. The house and senate chambers had intricately painted ceilings and massive crystal chandeliers. It took two decades and $4.5 million to complete it--and so much trouble that some suggested abandoning the building and moving elsewhere.From the statehouse it was a short walk to Lincoln's neighborhood. I thought I was only going to see his house; I didn't expect that four blocks of his neighborhood would be preserved as a National Park site. It is closed off to cars and unpaved, with tree-lined streets and a mix of freshly-painted wooden homes. There's a cell-phone tour, so you can hear about who lived in each house and what the Lincoln family's relation to each neighbor was. The house itself has been restored to its original appearance and, while large for Springfield in the 1850s, seems fairly small compared with the homes of the Washington, Jefferson, or Madison.
But what trip to Springfield, Illinois, would be complete without conservative, anti-health reform protesters? I was surprised to see a large group of people gathered outside one of the houses in Lincoln's neighborhood, milling around and half-heartedly holding up signs. It turned out that Senator Durbin's Springfield office is in the Shutt House, one block from Lincoln's. Mr. Shutt, it seems, supported Stephen Douglass instead of his neighbor in the 1860 election, so perhaps he would have approved of this scene of political disagreement.
You can see more pics from my trip on flickr. Next up: edutainment at the Lincoln museum.
A Philly Fourth
Since it's still July, I think the clock is not yet up on a post about being in the birthplace of the country on its anniversary. Having spent most of my life celebrating the 4th in Washington, DC, with the fireworks set behind the Washington Monument, I wasn't really expecting a singularly patriotic experience. In fact, what surprised me about the day here was that the celebrations felt more real, small-town, American than the massive celebrations in Washington.
The highlight of the day was going down to Old City to see the parade. It was like a very, very long version of a small town parade, with myriad ethnic groups represented and some extra historical reenactors thrown in. There were very few floats or large marching bands; most of the groups were smaller dance troupes or performers. We were surprised to find the parade route relatively uncrowded and had no trouble getting close up for good view. So, leaning against the wrought-iron fences surrounding one of the oldest churches in the country and the burial place of Benjamin Franklin, we watched step dancers,
Civil War reenactors, 
Chinese ribbon dancers, 
a band of mummers,
a polish heritage float, Irish dancers, local politicians, Native American dancers, and antique cars pass by. That curious mix made me feel happier to be American than just about anything else could have.
The highlight of the day was going down to Old City to see the parade. It was like a very, very long version of a small town parade, with myriad ethnic groups represented and some extra historical reenactors thrown in. There were very few floats or large marching bands; most of the groups were smaller dance troupes or performers. We were surprised to find the parade route relatively uncrowded and had no trouble getting close up for good view. So, leaning against the wrought-iron fences surrounding one of the oldest churches in the country and the burial place of Benjamin Franklin, we watched step dancers,
Civil War reenactors, 
Chinese ribbon dancers, 
a band of mummers,
a polish heritage float, Irish dancers, local politicians, Native American dancers, and antique cars pass by. That curious mix made me feel happier to be American than just about anything else could have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)