It makes me laugh--but not happily--when I Google keywords such as "Holocaust Hoax" and come up with websites that explain away the holocaust without a single footnote.
It's as if they expect the average dimwit simply to accept their view of the world. Thank God neither American conservatives nor liberals rely upon such sources...
All I've learned from anti-Semitic websites is that anti-Semites are either semi-literate or flat our liars.
Footnotes are good. They prove research and support argument.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Monday, August 02, 2010
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Not Independence Day
September 3--not July 4--should be commemorated as the United States of America's day of Independence from Great Britain.
While the Declaration of Independence is dated July 4, 1776, declaring independence is not equal to acquiring independence.
Don't believe me? Then try this one. I have borrowed heavily from Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. What I've added or changed is boldfaced...
In Congress, July 4, 2009, The unanimous Declaration of Aristos
When in the course of of human events it becomes necessary for one blogger to dissolve the political bands which have connected him with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle him, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that he should declare the causes which impel him to the separation.
I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of this Blogger; and such is now the necessity which constrains him to alter his former Systems of Government. The history of the present Federal Government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
It has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
It has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For . . . altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For . . . declaring itself invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.In every stage of these Oppressions I have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: My repeated Petitions have never been answered. A government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free blogger.
Nor have I been wanting in attentions to my American brethren. I have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over me. I have reminded them of the circumstances of my consent to be governed. I have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and I have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. I must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces my Separation, and hold them, as I hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
I, therefore, the finest Blogger in the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of my intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of my house, solemnly publish and declare, That my house, front and back yard are, and of Right ought to be a Free and Independent State, that it is Absolved from all Allegiance to the United States of America, and that all political connection between it and the United States of America, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a Free and Independent State, it have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, I mutually pledge to whomever gives a rip my Life , my Pseudo-fortune, and my sacred Honor.
--Aristos
Now, if you think that the United States of America became independent on July 4, 1776, then I welcome you to my new country--The Aristoian Republic. Bring the whole family. The currency exchange rates are good, so tourists can enjoy the numerous sights and attractions--including a really big rose bush, a new 12' trampoline--and of course you'll get a chance to tour Independence Basement, where my Declaration of Independence was authored and approved.
Aristoian Currency --------------------- Really Big Rose Bush
12 Foot Trampoline -------------Workstation, Independence Basement
My point is that the United States did not acquire independence merely by declaring it. Independence was not achieved until Great Britain signed the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783--and the USA accomplished this only after a long war. Similarly, the Aristoian Republic will not acquire until some future time in an alternate dimension.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Whipped Up, Jitterbuggin' Brown Eyed Men: The Significane of the Zoot Suit
This is adapted from a piece that I wrote some time ago.
It has been said that much can be inferred about a man based upon what he carries with him—clothing included. Just as one might metaphorically take a walk in someone else’s shoes, analyzing the shoes themselves might likewise enlighten the situation. If how people dress says something about who they are, then Douglas Daniels’s assertion that “zoot marked the emergence of a specific urban identity” suggests that the zoot suit itself symbolized a specific departure from traditional social and cultural mores, to a representation of “concrete experience: growing up poor, urban, and often colored in the U.S. . . . [and thus] symbolized rebellion against society.”[1] That formation of a sub-culture, as symbolized in the zoot suit, occurred during a period of supposed nationalism is strikingly problematic. American nationalism of the 1940s was largely an Anglo-Saxon-American nationalism. Zoot culture thus arose as the product of a large minority’s alienation and self-actualization. In this way, both positive and negative factors account for the emergence of the zoot suit.
The term “zoot” or variations thereof (e.g. “zoot suit”) is ripe with connotation, but ambiguous in denotation. For the purposes of this study, “zoot” will be used both in reference to the image invoked of a distinct clothing fashion as well as the sub-culture associated with those who wore such garbs. [2]To understand how a style of dress contains such deep cultural meaning, one must understand the historical context from whence the zoot suit emerged, that is the early 1940s. America’s post-World War II memory tends to focus on the ties that bound its people during one of its most intense international struggles, but the zoot suit phenomenon and the controversy surrounding it at the time demonstrates clearly that the home-front was not always, if at all, so felicitous. Instead of uniting all Americans in a common endeavor, the conflict abroad, with its tendency to promote an “either you are with us or against us” mentality, often put minorities of race and ideology on the fringe.[3] Metaphorically, what was not apple pie became sauerkraut or sushi. Alienated by race and class from mainstream white America, black and Latino-American youths forged identities of their own, and thus castigated for “generally being more aggressive than a colored minority had a right to be."[4]
Nationalism is the hubris of a people. In its purest (or perhaps foulest) form, nationalism expounds the supremacy of a people over all others. It tends to classify people in bulk, and often adds a qualified or intense xenophobia. In times of war, such arrangements fit nicely in the popular mentality. Nations can boast “we are this, but they are that.” In the United States, nationalism usually accompanies a certain paradox due to its multiethnic demographics. In response to this, people have often referred to the United States as a great “melting pot,” in which diverse peoples become one. However, throughout its history, the United States has struggled with the immigration and assimilation of foreign identities, and whenever any specific minority group does not appear to conform, strife erupts.[5] This is what happened in the zoot suit and general race riots of the 1940s. Black and Latino-Americans, easily discernible by skin color, having been alienated by the nationalist climate of World War II, distinguished themselves with “a form of visual protest [for being] denied equality by the establishment. [6] Unaccepted by the majority, they developed their own expression of ego, like Stephen Crane’s man who “said to the Universe / ‘Sir, I exist!’”[7] Thus, while the nationalistic fever of World War II did “impede the perfectly normal process of group identity,” that blacks and Latino’s were not generally welcomed into the fold prior to and even after World War II must not be overlooked.
Since “zoot suiters” rejected prevailing social mores, many accused them of anti-patriotism [8] This goes back to the “us” and “them” mentality discussed previously. Ostensibly, zoot suiters were unpatriotic because they wore excessive fabric during a time of material conservation. [9] However, the hatred of the suit and those who wore it more reflected the latent—or not so subtle—animosity towards those who, in the language of the time, would not “Straighten up and fly right.”[10] Whites supposedly rioting against the zoot suit did not assault other whites who wore the despised clothing, and when violence broke out, those arrested were overwhelmingly colored. [11]
Whites hated zoot suits because zoot suiters were typically minorities who refused to play Uncle Tom or Sancho Panza. The phenomenon came to fruition during a time of intense nationalism, which invoked a sentiment that x is American, and whatever is not x is not American. Syllogistically, the formula is as follows: All people who dress and act according to prevailing (white) attitudes are good Americans. Zoot suiters are not people who dress and act according to prevailing (white) attitudes. Therefore, zoot suiters are not good Americans. [12] The zoot suit in fact was the result of reason following contemporary white attitudes, for in spite of black and Latino efforts, whites refused to recognize them as good Americans no matter how they dressed. On one side, it was a positive move for a struggling minority to establish an ego. On the other side, it was the negative result of years of racism, neglect, and second-class citizenship. Many of the sons of the men who first donned the zoot suit would be even more assertive in the 1960s through organized protest groups, such as the SCLC, SNCC, and later the Black Panthers. [13] The moral here is that nationalism breeds division as much as it does unity in a people, and the zoot suit, zoot suiters, and the zoot suit riots were living, historical
_________________
[1] Douglas Henry Daniels, “Los Angeles Zoot: Race “Riot,” The Pachuco, and Black Music Culture,” Journal of Negro Hstory, Volume 82, Issue 2 (Spring, 1997), 215.
[2] Daniels cites the Los Angeles Daily News: “There is no mistaking a zoot suit once you see it, there being nothing subtle in the style,” and offers a description of his own: “It was sometimes a suit, sometimes a sport coat and slacks, and always loosely fitting, except for the pants’ cuffs, whose narrow size made the trousers appear even baggier. Coats were often fingertip length; sometimes they reached to the knees, and invariably they had shoulders more like epaulettes. Duck-tail hair cuts . . . among blacks, long watch chains, wide-brimmed hats with narrow crowns, perhaps adorned with a long feather, and in Southern California, thick-soled shoes accented the suits.” Ibid., 207.
[3] Ibid., 214-215.
[4] Ibid., 203.
[5] E.g. Irish immigrants of the mid-nineteenth century, and Southern European, Eastern European and Chinese immigrants of the late-nineteenth/early twentieth centuries.
[6] Frank Marshall Davis, quoted in Daniels, 208.
[7] The poem in full reads “A man said to the Universe / ‘Sir, I exist!’ / ‘However,’ replied the Universe, / ‘The fact has not created in me / A sense of obligation.’” Although I cited the poem from memory, it can be found at http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/rp/poems/cranes3.html.
[8] Daniels, 205.
[9] Ibid., 204.
[10] The quote is from the song of the same name, written by Nat King Cole and Irving Mills, and performed by many, though perhaps most notably by Nat King Cole himself in 1943.
[11] Daniels, 203.
[12] I have invoked an Aristotelian line of reason here. Typically, a syllogism reads “All X are Y. Z is X. Therefore Z is Y. But I have used a different, though equally valid argument that “All X are Y. Z is not X. Therefore, Z is not Y.
[13] SCLC stands for Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and SNCC stands for Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee.
It has been said that much can be inferred about a man based upon what he carries with him—clothing included. Just as one might metaphorically take a walk in someone else’s shoes, analyzing the shoes themselves might likewise enlighten the situation. If how people dress says something about who they are, then Douglas Daniels’s assertion that “zoot marked the emergence of a specific urban identity” suggests that the zoot suit itself symbolized a specific departure from traditional social and cultural mores, to a representation of “concrete experience: growing up poor, urban, and often colored in the U.S. . . . [and thus] symbolized rebellion against society.”[1] That formation of a sub-culture, as symbolized in the zoot suit, occurred during a period of supposed nationalism is strikingly problematic. American nationalism of the 1940s was largely an Anglo-Saxon-American nationalism. Zoot culture thus arose as the product of a large minority’s alienation and self-actualization. In this way, both positive and negative factors account for the emergence of the zoot suit.
The term “zoot” or variations thereof (e.g. “zoot suit”) is ripe with connotation, but ambiguous in denotation. For the purposes of this study, “zoot” will be used both in reference to the image invoked of a distinct clothing fashion as well as the sub-culture associated with those who wore such garbs. [2]To understand how a style of dress contains such deep cultural meaning, one must understand the historical context from whence the zoot suit emerged, that is the early 1940s. America’s post-World War II memory tends to focus on the ties that bound its people during one of its most intense international struggles, but the zoot suit phenomenon and the controversy surrounding it at the time demonstrates clearly that the home-front was not always, if at all, so felicitous. Instead of uniting all Americans in a common endeavor, the conflict abroad, with its tendency to promote an “either you are with us or against us” mentality, often put minorities of race and ideology on the fringe.[3] Metaphorically, what was not apple pie became sauerkraut or sushi. Alienated by race and class from mainstream white America, black and Latino-American youths forged identities of their own, and thus castigated for “generally being more aggressive than a colored minority had a right to be."[4]
Nationalism is the hubris of a people. In its purest (or perhaps foulest) form, nationalism expounds the supremacy of a people over all others. It tends to classify people in bulk, and often adds a qualified or intense xenophobia. In times of war, such arrangements fit nicely in the popular mentality. Nations can boast “we are this, but they are that.” In the United States, nationalism usually accompanies a certain paradox due to its multiethnic demographics. In response to this, people have often referred to the United States as a great “melting pot,” in which diverse peoples become one. However, throughout its history, the United States has struggled with the immigration and assimilation of foreign identities, and whenever any specific minority group does not appear to conform, strife erupts.[5] This is what happened in the zoot suit and general race riots of the 1940s. Black and Latino-Americans, easily discernible by skin color, having been alienated by the nationalist climate of World War II, distinguished themselves with “a form of visual protest [for being] denied equality by the establishment. [6] Unaccepted by the majority, they developed their own expression of ego, like Stephen Crane’s man who “said to the Universe / ‘Sir, I exist!’”[7] Thus, while the nationalistic fever of World War II did “impede the perfectly normal process of group identity,” that blacks and Latino’s were not generally welcomed into the fold prior to and even after World War II must not be overlooked.
Since “zoot suiters” rejected prevailing social mores, many accused them of anti-patriotism [8] This goes back to the “us” and “them” mentality discussed previously. Ostensibly, zoot suiters were unpatriotic because they wore excessive fabric during a time of material conservation. [9] However, the hatred of the suit and those who wore it more reflected the latent—or not so subtle—animosity towards those who, in the language of the time, would not “Straighten up and fly right.”[10] Whites supposedly rioting against the zoot suit did not assault other whites who wore the despised clothing, and when violence broke out, those arrested were overwhelmingly colored. [11]
Whites hated zoot suits because zoot suiters were typically minorities who refused to play Uncle Tom or Sancho Panza. The phenomenon came to fruition during a time of intense nationalism, which invoked a sentiment that x is American, and whatever is not x is not American. Syllogistically, the formula is as follows: All people who dress and act according to prevailing (white) attitudes are good Americans. Zoot suiters are not people who dress and act according to prevailing (white) attitudes. Therefore, zoot suiters are not good Americans. [12] The zoot suit in fact was the result of reason following contemporary white attitudes, for in spite of black and Latino efforts, whites refused to recognize them as good Americans no matter how they dressed. On one side, it was a positive move for a struggling minority to establish an ego. On the other side, it was the negative result of years of racism, neglect, and second-class citizenship. Many of the sons of the men who first donned the zoot suit would be even more assertive in the 1960s through organized protest groups, such as the SCLC, SNCC, and later the Black Panthers. [13] The moral here is that nationalism breeds division as much as it does unity in a people, and the zoot suit, zoot suiters, and the zoot suit riots were living, historical
_________________
[1] Douglas Henry Daniels, “Los Angeles Zoot: Race “Riot,” The Pachuco, and Black Music Culture,” Journal of Negro Hstory, Volume 82, Issue 2 (Spring, 1997), 215.
[2] Daniels cites the Los Angeles Daily News: “There is no mistaking a zoot suit once you see it, there being nothing subtle in the style,” and offers a description of his own: “It was sometimes a suit, sometimes a sport coat and slacks, and always loosely fitting, except for the pants’ cuffs, whose narrow size made the trousers appear even baggier. Coats were often fingertip length; sometimes they reached to the knees, and invariably they had shoulders more like epaulettes. Duck-tail hair cuts . . . among blacks, long watch chains, wide-brimmed hats with narrow crowns, perhaps adorned with a long feather, and in Southern California, thick-soled shoes accented the suits.” Ibid., 207.
[3] Ibid., 214-215.
[4] Ibid., 203.
[5] E.g. Irish immigrants of the mid-nineteenth century, and Southern European, Eastern European and Chinese immigrants of the late-nineteenth/early twentieth centuries.
[6] Frank Marshall Davis, quoted in Daniels, 208.
[7] The poem in full reads “A man said to the Universe / ‘Sir, I exist!’ / ‘However,’ replied the Universe, / ‘The fact has not created in me / A sense of obligation.’” Although I cited the poem from memory, it can be found at http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/rp/poems/cranes3.html.
[8] Daniels, 205.
[9] Ibid., 204.
[10] The quote is from the song of the same name, written by Nat King Cole and Irving Mills, and performed by many, though perhaps most notably by Nat King Cole himself in 1943.
[11] Daniels, 203.
[12] I have invoked an Aristotelian line of reason here. Typically, a syllogism reads “All X are Y. Z is X. Therefore Z is Y. But I have used a different, though equally valid argument that “All X are Y. Z is not X. Therefore, Z is not Y.
[13] SCLC stands for Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and SNCC stands for Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Mark's Thoughts On John Wilkes Booth
Sometimes my son Mark takes things in the strangest ways. To him, everything is black and white, good or evil.
Mark (age 5): "Dad? Is Barack Obama the worst president ever?"
Aristos (age 32): "That's hard to say. He's on the right track, but he hasn't killed anyone like Lincoln did."
Mark: "Lincoln killed people?"
Aristos: "Well, technically he didn't kill anyone personally, but he abused his powers to see that hundreds of thousands who disagreed with him died."
Mark: "Geez, why didn't anyone kill Lincoln?"
Aristos: "Actually, somebody did kill Lincoln. An actor named John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln in the back of the head."
Mark: "Well then that makes John Wilkes Booth a hero, like Spiderman."
Aristos: "Not really."
Mark: "Oh yeah! Spiderman kills bad guys who try to hurt other people, and he's a hero. So if John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln, then he's a hero because Lincoln hurt other people!"
Aristos: "No, Mark, you're missing the big picture."
Mark: "Are you going to start explaining things to me now like the other times? Because if you are, then I'm just going to go to my room and play my playstation."
About ten minutes later.
Mark: "Dad?"
Aristos: "I thought that you were playing Playstation."
Mark: "I was. I was playing Spiderman, and I was killing lots of bad guys."
Aristos: "That's not the same as shooting the president in the back of the head."
Mark: "That's not what I'm talking about. I wanted to know if maybe John Wilkes Booth thought that he was in a movie when he shot Lincoln."
Aristos: "What?"
Mark: "You said that John Wilkes Booth was an actor, so maybe he just thought that he was pretending to shoot the president for a good movie about a hero who kills bad guys, but the gun was real and it killed Lincoln. So maybe he shouldn't go to jail because it was just an accident."
I desperately want to know what goes through this kid's head as he reasons things out. He has his peculiar way of thinking, but there is an elegance (however flawed) to it that goes well beyond his age.
Mark (age 5): "Dad? Is Barack Obama the worst president ever?"
Aristos (age 32): "That's hard to say. He's on the right track, but he hasn't killed anyone like Lincoln did."
Mark: "Lincoln killed people?"
Aristos: "Well, technically he didn't kill anyone personally, but he abused his powers to see that hundreds of thousands who disagreed with him died."
Mark: "Geez, why didn't anyone kill Lincoln?"
Aristos: "Actually, somebody did kill Lincoln. An actor named John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln in the back of the head."
Mark: "Well then that makes John Wilkes Booth a hero, like Spiderman."
Aristos: "Not really."
Mark: "Oh yeah! Spiderman kills bad guys who try to hurt other people, and he's a hero. So if John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln, then he's a hero because Lincoln hurt other people!"
Aristos: "No, Mark, you're missing the big picture."
Mark: "Are you going to start explaining things to me now like the other times? Because if you are, then I'm just going to go to my room and play my playstation."
About ten minutes later.
Mark: "Dad?"
Aristos: "I thought that you were playing Playstation."
Mark: "I was. I was playing Spiderman, and I was killing lots of bad guys."
Aristos: "That's not the same as shooting the president in the back of the head."
Mark: "That's not what I'm talking about. I wanted to know if maybe John Wilkes Booth thought that he was in a movie when he shot Lincoln."
Aristos: "What?"
Mark: "You said that John Wilkes Booth was an actor, so maybe he just thought that he was pretending to shoot the president for a good movie about a hero who kills bad guys, but the gun was real and it killed Lincoln. So maybe he shouldn't go to jail because it was just an accident."
I desperately want to know what goes through this kid's head as he reasons things out. He has his peculiar way of thinking, but there is an elegance (however flawed) to it that goes well beyond his age.
Friday, March 13, 2009
That Damn Lincoln Myth (again)
When opposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, Lincoln spoke rightly of slavery--calling it despotism because it violated the doctrine of self-government (having slaves beholden to owners):
"If the Negro is a man,why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal;” and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another."
He continues with "What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without the other's consent."
Lincoln next invokes the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights,governments are instituted among men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED."
He explains,
"I have quoted so much at this time merely to show that according to our ancient faith, the just powers of governments are derived from the consent of the governed. Now the relation of masters and slaves is, pro tanto, a total violation of this principle. The master not only governs the slave without his consent; but he governs him by a set of rules altogether different from those which he prescribes for himself."
This all sounds well and good. In fact, I agree with the man. However, notice this curious excerpt that directly follows the above two quotes:
"Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary."
I ask this:
If, Mr. Lincoln, your "ancient faith" dictates that all men are created equal, then what must I make of your statement that you oppose "the establishment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks"?
The answer, of course, is that Lincoln was full of crap--and the above contradiction reeks of it.
Here's the real reason, in Lincoln's own words, why slavery should be barred from the territories:
"Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories,is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove FROM; not to remove TO. New free States are the places for poor people to go to and better their condition. For this use, the nation needs these territories. "
Basically, only white people should live in the territories. I suppose because they are, as Orwell imagined in Animal Farm, "more equal" than non-whites.
In his adult life, Lincoln was from Illinois, a free-state--due to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. However, not having slavery--even disliking slavery--does not make a people civil-rights minded.
Here's an example of racism in a free-state (the kind of racism that resolves Lincoln's previous contradiction):
"Legislators in the first General Assembly passed measures designed to discourage African-Americans from coming to Illinois. Blacks were denied suffrage, and other laws deprived them of most rights accorded free white men. African-Americans were prohibited from immigrating without a certificate of freedom. Moreover, they had to register that certificate, along with the certificates of any children, immediately upon entering the state. Among other things, the state legislature intended to discourage Illinois from becoming a haven for runaway slaves. Any runaway found in the state could be sentenced by a justice of the peace to thirty-five lashes. African-Americans assembling in groups of three or more could be jailed and flogged. Additionally, they could not testify in court nor serve in the militia.
"The state's newspapers were filled with advertisements from neighboring states offering rewards for the capture and return of runaway slaves. John Crain, sheriff of Washington County, advertised that he had taken two runaway slaves into custody. Unless their owners called for them, paid the charges and removed them from the state, they "will be hired out as the law directs." Slave hunters such as William Rose of Nashville, Tennessee, advertised their services as agents to find runaways in Illinois.
Who else might be listed among the "others"? None other than Mr. Five Dollar Bill, Abraham Lincoln.
That's right. He believed so much in the equality of blacks that he was a member of an organization that wanted to ship all free blacks "back" to Africa--even though the majority of black Americans at the time had been born in the United States.
In 1847, Illinois even re-wrote their constitution to "prohibit the emigration of free African-Americans into the state."
A few years later,
"the General Assembly adopted the draconian "Black Law" of 1853. For the most part, the law simply brought together in one place several existing laws. Under this law, no black from another state could remain within the Illinois borders for more than ten days. Beyond ten days and he or she was subject to arrest, confinement in jail, and a $50 fine and removal from the state. If unable to pay the fine, the law directed the sheriff to auction the offending African-American to the bidder willing to pay the costs and the tine and to work the "guilty" party the fewest number of days. If the convicted man or woman did not leave within ten days after completing the required service, the process resumed, but the fine was increased $50 for each additional infraction."
But surely this attitude must have changed sometime before the Civil War?
"The Illinois Black Laws continued in force until the end of the Civil War. Indeed, in the midst of the Civil War, Illinois held a constitutional convention and a new constitution was submitted to the people of the state for ratification. One of the most remarkable features of that document were three provisions that wrote the Black Laws into the proposed constitution. Although Illinois voters rejected the constitution, they overwhelmingly approved the anti-black provisions."
So what's with Lincoln's reputation for being The Great Emancipator?
Mostly, it's the mythology established firmly by the sympathy that surrounded his death. It also helped that, as the country realized that racism is not only absurd but evil, the "Lincoln freed the slaves" / "Lincoln cared about civil rights" myth made most people feel all warm and cozy.
How warm and cozy would the truth be? Try this:
Abraham Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories because he wanted only white men in the territories (this is by his own words), but also because he knew that slave states would oppose his whig/republican agenda, which included high, protective tariffs, a powerful national bank, and federal funding of "internal improvements" (e.g. the "earmarks" that make up so much of today's stimulus package).
Lincoln said time after time that he had no intention of interfering with slavery in the slave states, that he only wanted to prevent it from spreading.
He would not have said such things if he truly opposed slavery for moral reasons. Instead, his reasons were racist and political.
Slavery in a state means black people in a state. Lincoln was from Illinois, and Illinois clearly didn't want black people around.
Slavery in a state means that the state will take up the political and economic ideology of the southern states, which would make passing protective tariffs, managing a national bank, and funding internal improvements difficult.
The Republican Party (Lincoln's party) had five main planks:
No slavery in the territories.
High protective tariffs.
A powerful national bank.
Federal funding of state projects (i.e. "internal improvements")
A "Homestead Act" to make it easier for poor whites to settle the western territories.
Still think that Lincoln was a civil rights icon?
With the exception of his assassination, the Civil War was a blessing for Lincoln. It led to the South being itself enslaved to the North. Republicans got their tariffs, their banking scheme, their "internal improvements", their Homestead Act.
Yes, Lincoln and the Republican Party were responsible for the end of slavery, but for all the wrong reasons.
"If the Negro is a man,why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal;” and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another."
He continues with "What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without the other's consent."
Lincoln next invokes the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights,governments are instituted among men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED."
He explains,
"I have quoted so much at this time merely to show that according to our ancient faith, the just powers of governments are derived from the consent of the governed. Now the relation of masters and slaves is, pro tanto, a total violation of this principle. The master not only governs the slave without his consent; but he governs him by a set of rules altogether different from those which he prescribes for himself."
This all sounds well and good. In fact, I agree with the man. However, notice this curious excerpt that directly follows the above two quotes:
"Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary."
I ask this:
If, Mr. Lincoln, your "ancient faith" dictates that all men are created equal, then what must I make of your statement that you oppose "the establishment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks"?
The answer, of course, is that Lincoln was full of crap--and the above contradiction reeks of it.
Here's the real reason, in Lincoln's own words, why slavery should be barred from the territories:
"Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories,is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove FROM; not to remove TO. New free States are the places for poor people to go to and better their condition. For this use, the nation needs these territories. "
Basically, only white people should live in the territories. I suppose because they are, as Orwell imagined in Animal Farm, "more equal" than non-whites.
In his adult life, Lincoln was from Illinois, a free-state--due to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. However, not having slavery--even disliking slavery--does not make a people civil-rights minded.
Here's an example of racism in a free-state (the kind of racism that resolves Lincoln's previous contradiction):
"Legislators in the first General Assembly passed measures designed to discourage African-Americans from coming to Illinois. Blacks were denied suffrage, and other laws deprived them of most rights accorded free white men. African-Americans were prohibited from immigrating without a certificate of freedom. Moreover, they had to register that certificate, along with the certificates of any children, immediately upon entering the state. Among other things, the state legislature intended to discourage Illinois from becoming a haven for runaway slaves. Any runaway found in the state could be sentenced by a justice of the peace to thirty-five lashes. African-Americans assembling in groups of three or more could be jailed and flogged. Additionally, they could not testify in court nor serve in the militia.
"The state's newspapers were filled with advertisements from neighboring states offering rewards for the capture and return of runaway slaves. John Crain, sheriff of Washington County, advertised that he had taken two runaway slaves into custody. Unless their owners called for them, paid the charges and removed them from the state, they "will be hired out as the law directs." Slave hunters such as William Rose of Nashville, Tennessee, advertised their services as agents to find runaways in Illinois.
"Not only did Illinois newspapers carry advertisements for runaways, the state attempted to further discourage black immigration by raising new barriers. The 1829 law required any free black to register in the county seat and post a $1,000 bond to cover costs should they become indigent or violate state or local laws. Since few black men or women had such sums available, they usually had to find a friendly white man to act as surety for them. At the same time, blacks also had to register their certificates of freedom from the state from which they immigrated."
The problem was that free blacks kept moving into Illinois:
"Still, pressure continued to mount to do more to maintain Illinois as a "white man's state." One way to do that, believed some, was to promote the colonization of blacks in the Caribbean or in Liberia. The state had an active colonization society that included such luminaries as Stephen A. Douglas, John Mason Peck, and others."
Who else might be listed among the "others"? None other than Mr. Five Dollar Bill, Abraham Lincoln.
That's right. He believed so much in the equality of blacks that he was a member of an organization that wanted to ship all free blacks "back" to Africa--even though the majority of black Americans at the time had been born in the United States.
In 1847, Illinois even re-wrote their constitution to "prohibit the emigration of free African-Americans into the state."
A few years later,
"the General Assembly adopted the draconian "Black Law" of 1853. For the most part, the law simply brought together in one place several existing laws. Under this law, no black from another state could remain within the Illinois borders for more than ten days. Beyond ten days and he or she was subject to arrest, confinement in jail, and a $50 fine and removal from the state. If unable to pay the fine, the law directed the sheriff to auction the offending African-American to the bidder willing to pay the costs and the tine and to work the "guilty" party the fewest number of days. If the convicted man or woman did not leave within ten days after completing the required service, the process resumed, but the fine was increased $50 for each additional infraction."
But surely this attitude must have changed sometime before the Civil War?
"The Illinois Black Laws continued in force until the end of the Civil War. Indeed, in the midst of the Civil War, Illinois held a constitutional convention and a new constitution was submitted to the people of the state for ratification. One of the most remarkable features of that document were three provisions that wrote the Black Laws into the proposed constitution. Although Illinois voters rejected the constitution, they overwhelmingly approved the anti-black provisions."
So what's with Lincoln's reputation for being The Great Emancipator?
Mostly, it's the mythology established firmly by the sympathy that surrounded his death. It also helped that, as the country realized that racism is not only absurd but evil, the "Lincoln freed the slaves" / "Lincoln cared about civil rights" myth made most people feel all warm and cozy.
How warm and cozy would the truth be? Try this:
Abraham Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories because he wanted only white men in the territories (this is by his own words), but also because he knew that slave states would oppose his whig/republican agenda, which included high, protective tariffs, a powerful national bank, and federal funding of "internal improvements" (e.g. the "earmarks" that make up so much of today's stimulus package).
Lincoln said time after time that he had no intention of interfering with slavery in the slave states, that he only wanted to prevent it from spreading.
He would not have said such things if he truly opposed slavery for moral reasons. Instead, his reasons were racist and political.
Slavery in a state means black people in a state. Lincoln was from Illinois, and Illinois clearly didn't want black people around.
Slavery in a state means that the state will take up the political and economic ideology of the southern states, which would make passing protective tariffs, managing a national bank, and funding internal improvements difficult.
The Republican Party (Lincoln's party) had five main planks:
No slavery in the territories.
High protective tariffs.
A powerful national bank.
Federal funding of state projects (i.e. "internal improvements")
A "Homestead Act" to make it easier for poor whites to settle the western territories.
Still think that Lincoln was a civil rights icon?
With the exception of his assassination, the Civil War was a blessing for Lincoln. It led to the South being itself enslaved to the North. Republicans got their tariffs, their banking scheme, their "internal improvements", their Homestead Act.
Yes, Lincoln and the Republican Party were responsible for the end of slavery, but for all the wrong reasons.
Monday, March 02, 2009
The Real Emancipation Proclamation
Bob asked if it was really true that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebel territory. Here is the proof.
___________________
Emancipation Proclamation; January 1, 1863
___________________
Emancipation Proclamation; January 1, 1863
Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free [1]; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. [2]
"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; [3] and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States." [3]
Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, [4] do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God. [5]
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this first day of
January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the
United States of America the eighty-seventh.
By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
[1] There it is, Bob.
[2] Meaning that Lincoln encourages an armed slave revolt--but only in areas not loyal to him.
[3] Lincoln himself will decide which states or parts of states are loyal and exempted from the emancipation.
[4] The emancipation is a "war measure" to put down the rebellion. It has nothing to do with being the right thing.
[5] This power doesn't exist in Article II (the president's part of the Constitution) or any other part.
January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the
United States of America the eighty-seventh.
By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
[1] There it is, Bob.
[2] Meaning that Lincoln encourages an armed slave revolt--but only in areas not loyal to him.
[3] Lincoln himself will decide which states or parts of states are loyal and exempted from the emancipation.
[4] The emancipation is a "war measure" to put down the rebellion. It has nothing to do with being the right thing.
[5] This power doesn't exist in Article II (the president's part of the Constitution) or any other part.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Obama/Lincoln
Much has been said as to Obama's wisdom in appointing a "cabinet of rivals" similar in nature to that of Lincoln's.
Most seem to think that this is a good thing.
I remind these optimists that Lincoln waged war against what he considered his own country, and left 3/4 of a million dead, and many more permanently injured and/or destitute.
Can we destroy this country?
"Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!"--Barack Obama.
Most seem to think that this is a good thing.
I remind these optimists that Lincoln waged war against what he considered his own country, and left 3/4 of a million dead, and many more permanently injured and/or destitute.
Can we destroy this country?
"Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!"--Barack Obama.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Oswald: Guilty
At msn.com, the newest big question is who killed JFK.
The answer is unsatisfactorily simple. Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Gerald Posner argues this well and impeachibly in Case Closed..
The only problem with admitting that Oswald assassinated the president is that to do so admits that a nobody, a nothing-to-society, can nonetheless have a profound impact on history.
If Oswald had killed Joe Blow, no one would hypothesize about gunmen on the grassy knoll.
However, Oswald killed the president.
That's the only reason why there's a controversy.
The answer is unsatisfactorily simple. Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Gerald Posner argues this well and impeachibly in Case Closed..
The only problem with admitting that Oswald assassinated the president is that to do so admits that a nobody, a nothing-to-society, can nonetheless have a profound impact on history.
If Oswald had killed Joe Blow, no one would hypothesize about gunmen on the grassy knoll.
However, Oswald killed the president.
That's the only reason why there's a controversy.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Patrick Henry on the Current Coup by the Federal Government (Sorta)
Newton's law--Every action as an equal and opposite reaction.
Right?
Now reason: For every power granted to or assumed by the state, the people are less that same amount of liberty.
And now a few words from Patrick Henry:
"[I]t is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past."
Now consider how much power the federal government has assumed, but not just since the Civil War, New Deal, or Great Society. I mean in the past eight years. Hell, try the past four weeks.
Patrick Henry:
"In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!"
It's not the time for a physical fight, and God willing it won't come to that. However, there are other meanings to the word.
Patrick Henry:
"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed. . . . Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave."
If you ask me, it's getting pretty near the time either to learn the goose step, hide in an attic, or prepare for le resistance.
Why the French? It's simple. We've surrendered our republic to the national socialists.
Right?
Now reason: For every power granted to or assumed by the state, the people are less that same amount of liberty.
And now a few words from Patrick Henry:
"[I]t is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past."
Now consider how much power the federal government has assumed, but not just since the Civil War, New Deal, or Great Society. I mean in the past eight years. Hell, try the past four weeks.
Patrick Henry:
"In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!"
It's not the time for a physical fight, and God willing it won't come to that. However, there are other meanings to the word.
Patrick Henry:
"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed. . . . Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave."
If you ask me, it's getting pretty near the time either to learn the goose step, hide in an attic, or prepare for le resistance.
Why the French? It's simple. We've surrendered our republic to the national socialists.
Monday, May 21, 2007
The Civil War Had Little (if anything) to Do With Slavery
If slavery caused the Civil War, then it must mean that the Union's objective was to abolish slavery, and that the Confederacy's objective was to preserve it.
And yet, when Lincoln supposedly freed the slaves (the Emancipation Proclamation), he freed them only in rebel states which would not recognize his authority. In any areas controlled by Lincoln's thugs (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and parts of Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana), Lincoln kept African-Americans there in chains.
The average Confederate soldier did not own slaves. Is it to be assumed that he fought, killed, and died (by the hundreds of thousands) for someone else's property?
The average Union soldier was not an abolitionist. In fact, the average Union soldier was a racist--not in the "I hate blacks" form, but in the "Blacks are inferior" form. Is it to be assumed that he fought, killed, and died (by the hundreds of thousands) for people whom he despised?
If slavery was the issue, then why did Robert E. Lee, the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia fight so well and so long against impossible odds for the rightful secession of his state and the establishment of his country?
That some men wished to use the war as a vehicle to abolish slavery is not an adequate rebuttal. Lincoln himself claimed over and over again that he did not seek to abolish slavery in the Confederate states, and when he finally did it was a meaningless gesture meant to appease radicals and prevent the British from overtly aiding the Confederacy.
Slavery was abolished in the United States a full eight months after Lincoln's death and the effective end of the war, and it was designed not to liberate men but to bring the South's aristocracy to its knees.
African Americans were free, but they were free to starve and to suffer. The "benevolent" federal government did next to nothing to secure their civil rights. President Grant pursued the Ku Klux Klan only after the Klan had accomplished its mission to throw Republicans out of state offices and secure African-Americans as secondary citizens--since they could no longer be slaves. Look at the freedmen's lot--sharecropping and tenant farming--and tell me that the boys in Washington, D.C. cared about them.
To know for certain that the Union did not give a crap about African-Americans but cared only about subduing the South, look at reconstruction policy.
And yet, when Lincoln supposedly freed the slaves (the Emancipation Proclamation), he freed them only in rebel states which would not recognize his authority. In any areas controlled by Lincoln's thugs (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and parts of Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana), Lincoln kept African-Americans there in chains.
The average Confederate soldier did not own slaves. Is it to be assumed that he fought, killed, and died (by the hundreds of thousands) for someone else's property?
The average Union soldier was not an abolitionist. In fact, the average Union soldier was a racist--not in the "I hate blacks" form, but in the "Blacks are inferior" form. Is it to be assumed that he fought, killed, and died (by the hundreds of thousands) for people whom he despised?
If slavery was the issue, then why did Robert E. Lee, the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia fight so well and so long against impossible odds for the rightful secession of his state and the establishment of his country?
That some men wished to use the war as a vehicle to abolish slavery is not an adequate rebuttal. Lincoln himself claimed over and over again that he did not seek to abolish slavery in the Confederate states, and when he finally did it was a meaningless gesture meant to appease radicals and prevent the British from overtly aiding the Confederacy.
Slavery was abolished in the United States a full eight months after Lincoln's death and the effective end of the war, and it was designed not to liberate men but to bring the South's aristocracy to its knees.
African Americans were free, but they were free to starve and to suffer. The "benevolent" federal government did next to nothing to secure their civil rights. President Grant pursued the Ku Klux Klan only after the Klan had accomplished its mission to throw Republicans out of state offices and secure African-Americans as secondary citizens--since they could no longer be slaves. Look at the freedmen's lot--sharecropping and tenant farming--and tell me that the boys in Washington, D.C. cared about them.
To know for certain that the Union did not give a crap about African-Americans but cared only about subduing the South, look at reconstruction policy.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Herr Beethoven
Ludwig van Beethoven was born seemingly equipped for both personal tragedy and greatness. His father, Johann van Beethoven was a court musician and tenor vocalist who made a living but never lived up to his musical ambitions.
Lacking the natural ability, self-discipline, or simply opportunities necessary for recognition, Johann pinned his hopes (and his pain) on Ludwig. Relentlessly and mercilessly, Johann drilled young Ludwig, trying desperately to form a child-genius akin to Mozart. Whenever Ludwig faltered in his energy or made a mistake, he risked anything from a whack on the hand to a savage alcohol-induced beating.
While modern psychologists would predict that such treatment would cause young Ludwig to detest playing music, let alone composing it, the boy developed the talent that must have been within him all along. He began performing in public by age seven, and before he was a teenager he was a published composer with his Nine Variations for Piano in C Minor achieving modest acclaim. He earned his first court appointment as a musician at the tender age of 14 (at 14 I was pretty good at the NES), and world-class musicians began to take note of him.
When Beethoven was 17 years old, he met and played for none other than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who quipped something like "Watch this lad, one day he will force the world to talk about him."
While Beethoven was trained in the mathematically precise style of classical music, as in Mozart or Hayden, his turbulent personality began to form a new age in music. Nearly everyone noted his disheveled hair and haphazard dress, and no one could ignore the look in his eyes, as if he was ready to explode. To say that he was moody would be an understatement. His natural talent, coupled with the countless beatings at the hands of his father had forged a new kind of music; a music not just of the mind, not just of the soul, but a music of the inner pathos: passion--passionate love and passionate rage. His compositions were a blend of mathematical proportion (a la classical style) and a new blood stirring, emotional quality. When famed classical composer Joseph Hayden first heard Beethoven performed, he was disturbed by the turbulent nature of Beethoven's music. He would later train under Hayden's supervision, but nothing that Hayden could teach seemed to control Beethoven's style. Other's, however, recognized Beethoven's new spirit and admired him for it. Observing him in later years, John Russell described Beethoven at the piano:
"He seems to feel the bold, the commanding, and the impetuous, more than what is soothing or gentle. The muscles of the face swell, and its veins start out, the wild eye rolls double wild, the mouth quivers, and Beethoven looks like a wizard, overpowered by the demons whom he himself has called up."
Beethoven not only composed music outside of the norm, he distributed it abnormally by working essentially as a free agent, selling his works and organizing concerts for profit. Ironically, this stage of his life brought the moments when he started to recognize the first signs of his impending deafness. At first it was seemed, perhaps, like nothing but paranoia: just a slight causeless noise in the background. However, by 1801 the sound that he described as a buzzing or whistling noise became constant. Soon, he could not make out low tones, especially in speech, and any background noise overwhelmed him.
Could there be a worse fate for a virtuoso and master composer, to know slowly, painfully slowly, that he was losing his most treasured of the five senses? In a letter of July 1801, Beethoven confessed to his friend, Karl:
"How often I wish you were here, for your Beethoven is having a miserable life, at odds with nature and its Creator, abusing the latter for leaving his creatures vulnerable to the slightest accident. . . . My greatest faculty, my hearing, is greatly deteriorated."
As the symptoms progressed, Beethoven withdrew from friendships and society, to wallow in his secret shame: "How can I, a musician, say to people, "I am deaf!" I shall, if I can, defy this fate, even though there will be times when I shall be the unhappiest of God's creatures. . . . I live only in music." At other times, he was as obstinate as his reputation: "I will seize Fate by the throat. It will not wholly conquer me! Oh, how beautiful it is to live, and live a thousand times over!"
One thing became clear: Beethoven could no longer perform in concert. He could retire completely and sink into an alcoholic abyss (as his father had), or he could turn to the music of his heart. The music that he could hear inside, even if he could hear nothing outside. He began to compose.
As he came to grips somewhat (he never really did) with his handicap, Beethoven began to appreciate more the things that he saw. Nature became his muse, and his Second Symphony was written as a tribute to it. But still, he writhed back and forth between inspiration and despair, to the point that many believed he had gone mad.
He would at one moment be hopeful and at the next morose. But soon he felt inspired by the dashing Corsican in command of an army meant to spread a new ideal. The ideals were liberty, equality, and fraternity; and the Corsican was Napoleon Bonaparte. Beethoven himself was a revolutionary of sorts, in music, and his music was the dawn of a new age. In Napoleon, he saw a different branch of that new age, and he latched on to it as a surrogate hope.
Beethoven composed his Third Symphony Eroica for Napoleon. And as Napoleon tore down the vestiges of old Europe, Eroica tore down the axioms of classical music. It was, perhaps, more revolutionary, for Napoleon betrayed his revolution when he pronounced himself Emperor--to which Beethoven raged to a friend, "Now he will crush the rights of man. He will become a tyrant." But while Napoleon played Judas, the Eroica never turned on itself. It left many listeners baffled. Others were horrified. But most were simply awed. What came across in so many ways as random, uncontrolled tonal emotion had behind it an order. It was not mathematical precision, as in Mozart or Hayden. It was mathematical passion.
And the passion deepened.
His Fifth Symphony, perhaps his most famous (though not his best--that would be the Ninth Symphony) Beethoven faced his arch-nemesis, Fate (those notes at the beginning? That's Fate knocking at the door), and he took it by the throat.
His Sixth Symphony was another dedication to nature. The man oscillated such.
He would compose three more symphonies, all of them brilliant. Nothing, however, touches the Ninth, known for its "Ode to Joy" chorus, based upon the poem by Friedrich von Schiller. I will not attempt to describe the music beyond saying that it is the most beautiful thing ever composed, and it makes the heart leap and the soul sing. Hearing it, one can scarcely believe that the man who composed it was completely deaf.
Schiller's words are translated from Beethoven's original score as follows. Reputedly, the vocal part of the 4th Movement (the "Ode to Joy Chorus" is one of the most challenging tasks for even the most skilled singers).
Joy, beautiful spark of the gods,
Daughter of Elysium,
We enter fire imbibed,
Heavenly, thy sanctuary.
Thy magic reunites those
Whom stern custom has parted;
All men will become brothers
Under thy gentle wing.
May he who has had the fortune
To gain a true friend
And he who has won a noble wife
Join in our jubilation!
Yes, even if he calls but one soul
His own in all the world,
But he who has failed in this
Must steal away alone and in tears.
All the world's creatures
Draw joy from nature's breast;
Both the good and the evil
Follow her rose-strewn path.
She gave us kisses and wine
And a friend loyal unto death;
She gave lust for life to the lowliest,
And the Cherub stands before God.
Joyously, as his suns speed
Through Heaven's glorious order,
Hasten, Brothers, on your way,
Exulting as a knight in victory.
Joy, beautiful spark of the gods,
Daughter of Elysium,
We enter fire imbibed,
Heavenly, thy sanctuary.
Be embraced, Millions!
This kiss for all the world!
Brothers!, above the starry canopy
A loving father must dwell.
Can you sense the Creator, world?
Seek him above the starry canopy.
Above the stars He must dwell.
Be embraced, Millions!
This kiss for all the world!
Brothers!, above the starry canopy
A loving father must dwell.
Can you sense the Creator, world?
Seek him above the starry canopy.
Above the stars He must dwell.
Joy, daughter of Elysium
Thy magic reunites those
Whom stern custom has parted;
All men will become brothers
Under thy gentle wing.
Be embraced, Millions!
This kiss for all the world!
Brothers!, above the starry canopy
A loving father must dwell.
Joy, beautiful spark of Gods!,
Daughter of Elysium,
Joy, beautiful spark of Gods!
Over many protests, Beethoven decided to conduct the orchestra for the symphony's first audience. Since he could hear nothing, colleagues placed an alternate conductor behind him and ordered the musicians to follow the alternate's timing. Unaware of the conductor behind him, unaware that the musicians paid him no heed, unaware that he was even before an audience of hundreds, Ludwig van Beethoven conducted his final symphony. At the moment of its final note, Beethoven's arms fell to his sides, and he stood there motionless. He could not hear the music stop, but he knew it. What he did not sense, what he had to be taken gently by the shoulders and turned to see was the audience. The audience of dignitaries, wealthy men and women, sophisticated types, were on their feet cheering and applauding in a grand ovation.
He died three years later, still composing, still defying fate. In his final moments, from his deathbed, Beethoven lifted his head and opened wide his eyes. He raised his fist with "a serious, threatening expression on his face," then relaxed and died.
With his final match with Fate over, friends recovered several documents including his will, sealed with instructions that it be opened only after his death. Beethoven wrote it twenty-four years before his passing, but it sums the last half of his life, and echoes the sentiment of and breaths logic into his later works. These words, though only a fragment of the original, express in language what Beethoven expressed in music:
"O you men who accuse me of being malevolent, stubborn, and misanthropical, how you wrong me! You do not know the secret cause. Ever since my childhood, my heart and mind were disposed toward feelings of gentleness and goodwill, and I was eager to accomplish great deeds; but consider this: for six years I have been hopelessly ill, aggravated and cheated by quacks in the hope of improvement but finally compelled to face a lasting malady. . . . I was forced to isolate myself. I was misunderstood and rudely repulsed because I was as yet unable to say to people, "Speak louder, shout, for I am deaf." . . . With joy, I hasten to meet death. Despite my hard fate . . . I shall wish that it had come later; but I am content, for he shall free me of constant suffering. Come then, Death, and I shall face thee with courage."
Thanks to Bill at lucare.com for many of the factual particulars in this post, including several of the quoted passages. Thanks to you, also, if you read this far.
Lacking the natural ability, self-discipline, or simply opportunities necessary for recognition, Johann pinned his hopes (and his pain) on Ludwig. Relentlessly and mercilessly, Johann drilled young Ludwig, trying desperately to form a child-genius akin to Mozart. Whenever Ludwig faltered in his energy or made a mistake, he risked anything from a whack on the hand to a savage alcohol-induced beating.
While modern psychologists would predict that such treatment would cause young Ludwig to detest playing music, let alone composing it, the boy developed the talent that must have been within him all along. He began performing in public by age seven, and before he was a teenager he was a published composer with his Nine Variations for Piano in C Minor achieving modest acclaim. He earned his first court appointment as a musician at the tender age of 14 (at 14 I was pretty good at the NES), and world-class musicians began to take note of him.
When Beethoven was 17 years old, he met and played for none other than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who quipped something like "Watch this lad, one day he will force the world to talk about him."
While Beethoven was trained in the mathematically precise style of classical music, as in Mozart or Hayden, his turbulent personality began to form a new age in music. Nearly everyone noted his disheveled hair and haphazard dress, and no one could ignore the look in his eyes, as if he was ready to explode. To say that he was moody would be an understatement. His natural talent, coupled with the countless beatings at the hands of his father had forged a new kind of music; a music not just of the mind, not just of the soul, but a music of the inner pathos: passion--passionate love and passionate rage. His compositions were a blend of mathematical proportion (a la classical style) and a new blood stirring, emotional quality. When famed classical composer Joseph Hayden first heard Beethoven performed, he was disturbed by the turbulent nature of Beethoven's music. He would later train under Hayden's supervision, but nothing that Hayden could teach seemed to control Beethoven's style. Other's, however, recognized Beethoven's new spirit and admired him for it. Observing him in later years, John Russell described Beethoven at the piano:
"He seems to feel the bold, the commanding, and the impetuous, more than what is soothing or gentle. The muscles of the face swell, and its veins start out, the wild eye rolls double wild, the mouth quivers, and Beethoven looks like a wizard, overpowered by the demons whom he himself has called up."
Beethoven not only composed music outside of the norm, he distributed it abnormally by working essentially as a free agent, selling his works and organizing concerts for profit. Ironically, this stage of his life brought the moments when he started to recognize the first signs of his impending deafness. At first it was seemed, perhaps, like nothing but paranoia: just a slight causeless noise in the background. However, by 1801 the sound that he described as a buzzing or whistling noise became constant. Soon, he could not make out low tones, especially in speech, and any background noise overwhelmed him.
Could there be a worse fate for a virtuoso and master composer, to know slowly, painfully slowly, that he was losing his most treasured of the five senses? In a letter of July 1801, Beethoven confessed to his friend, Karl:
"How often I wish you were here, for your Beethoven is having a miserable life, at odds with nature and its Creator, abusing the latter for leaving his creatures vulnerable to the slightest accident. . . . My greatest faculty, my hearing, is greatly deteriorated."
As the symptoms progressed, Beethoven withdrew from friendships and society, to wallow in his secret shame: "How can I, a musician, say to people, "I am deaf!" I shall, if I can, defy this fate, even though there will be times when I shall be the unhappiest of God's creatures. . . . I live only in music." At other times, he was as obstinate as his reputation: "I will seize Fate by the throat. It will not wholly conquer me! Oh, how beautiful it is to live, and live a thousand times over!"
One thing became clear: Beethoven could no longer perform in concert. He could retire completely and sink into an alcoholic abyss (as his father had), or he could turn to the music of his heart. The music that he could hear inside, even if he could hear nothing outside. He began to compose.
As he came to grips somewhat (he never really did) with his handicap, Beethoven began to appreciate more the things that he saw. Nature became his muse, and his Second Symphony was written as a tribute to it. But still, he writhed back and forth between inspiration and despair, to the point that many believed he had gone mad.
He would at one moment be hopeful and at the next morose. But soon he felt inspired by the dashing Corsican in command of an army meant to spread a new ideal. The ideals were liberty, equality, and fraternity; and the Corsican was Napoleon Bonaparte. Beethoven himself was a revolutionary of sorts, in music, and his music was the dawn of a new age. In Napoleon, he saw a different branch of that new age, and he latched on to it as a surrogate hope.
Beethoven composed his Third Symphony Eroica for Napoleon. And as Napoleon tore down the vestiges of old Europe, Eroica tore down the axioms of classical music. It was, perhaps, more revolutionary, for Napoleon betrayed his revolution when he pronounced himself Emperor--to which Beethoven raged to a friend, "Now he will crush the rights of man. He will become a tyrant." But while Napoleon played Judas, the Eroica never turned on itself. It left many listeners baffled. Others were horrified. But most were simply awed. What came across in so many ways as random, uncontrolled tonal emotion had behind it an order. It was not mathematical precision, as in Mozart or Hayden. It was mathematical passion.
And the passion deepened.
His Fifth Symphony, perhaps his most famous (though not his best--that would be the Ninth Symphony) Beethoven faced his arch-nemesis, Fate (those notes at the beginning? That's Fate knocking at the door), and he took it by the throat.
His Sixth Symphony was another dedication to nature. The man oscillated such.
He would compose three more symphonies, all of them brilliant. Nothing, however, touches the Ninth, known for its "Ode to Joy" chorus, based upon the poem by Friedrich von Schiller. I will not attempt to describe the music beyond saying that it is the most beautiful thing ever composed, and it makes the heart leap and the soul sing. Hearing it, one can scarcely believe that the man who composed it was completely deaf.
Schiller's words are translated from Beethoven's original score as follows. Reputedly, the vocal part of the 4th Movement (the "Ode to Joy Chorus" is one of the most challenging tasks for even the most skilled singers).
Joy, beautiful spark of the gods,
Daughter of Elysium,
We enter fire imbibed,
Heavenly, thy sanctuary.
Thy magic reunites those
Whom stern custom has parted;
All men will become brothers
Under thy gentle wing.
May he who has had the fortune
To gain a true friend
And he who has won a noble wife
Join in our jubilation!
Yes, even if he calls but one soul
His own in all the world,
But he who has failed in this
Must steal away alone and in tears.
All the world's creatures
Draw joy from nature's breast;
Both the good and the evil
Follow her rose-strewn path.
She gave us kisses and wine
And a friend loyal unto death;
She gave lust for life to the lowliest,
And the Cherub stands before God.
Joyously, as his suns speed
Through Heaven's glorious order,
Hasten, Brothers, on your way,
Exulting as a knight in victory.
Joy, beautiful spark of the gods,
Daughter of Elysium,
We enter fire imbibed,
Heavenly, thy sanctuary.
Be embraced, Millions!
This kiss for all the world!
Brothers!, above the starry canopy
A loving father must dwell.
Can you sense the Creator, world?
Seek him above the starry canopy.
Above the stars He must dwell.
Be embraced, Millions!
This kiss for all the world!
Brothers!, above the starry canopy
A loving father must dwell.
Can you sense the Creator, world?
Seek him above the starry canopy.
Above the stars He must dwell.
Joy, daughter of Elysium
Thy magic reunites those
Whom stern custom has parted;
All men will become brothers
Under thy gentle wing.
Be embraced, Millions!
This kiss for all the world!
Brothers!, above the starry canopy
A loving father must dwell.
Joy, beautiful spark of Gods!,
Daughter of Elysium,
Joy, beautiful spark of Gods!
Over many protests, Beethoven decided to conduct the orchestra for the symphony's first audience. Since he could hear nothing, colleagues placed an alternate conductor behind him and ordered the musicians to follow the alternate's timing. Unaware of the conductor behind him, unaware that the musicians paid him no heed, unaware that he was even before an audience of hundreds, Ludwig van Beethoven conducted his final symphony. At the moment of its final note, Beethoven's arms fell to his sides, and he stood there motionless. He could not hear the music stop, but he knew it. What he did not sense, what he had to be taken gently by the shoulders and turned to see was the audience. The audience of dignitaries, wealthy men and women, sophisticated types, were on their feet cheering and applauding in a grand ovation.
He died three years later, still composing, still defying fate. In his final moments, from his deathbed, Beethoven lifted his head and opened wide his eyes. He raised his fist with "a serious, threatening expression on his face," then relaxed and died.
With his final match with Fate over, friends recovered several documents including his will, sealed with instructions that it be opened only after his death. Beethoven wrote it twenty-four years before his passing, but it sums the last half of his life, and echoes the sentiment of and breaths logic into his later works. These words, though only a fragment of the original, express in language what Beethoven expressed in music:
"O you men who accuse me of being malevolent, stubborn, and misanthropical, how you wrong me! You do not know the secret cause. Ever since my childhood, my heart and mind were disposed toward feelings of gentleness and goodwill, and I was eager to accomplish great deeds; but consider this: for six years I have been hopelessly ill, aggravated and cheated by quacks in the hope of improvement but finally compelled to face a lasting malady. . . . I was forced to isolate myself. I was misunderstood and rudely repulsed because I was as yet unable to say to people, "Speak louder, shout, for I am deaf." . . . With joy, I hasten to meet death. Despite my hard fate . . . I shall wish that it had come later; but I am content, for he shall free me of constant suffering. Come then, Death, and I shall face thee with courage."
Thanks to Bill at lucare.com for many of the factual particulars in this post, including several of the quoted passages. Thanks to you, also, if you read this far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)