New Website!

I have not vanished, although this blog site is now closed.  Please join me and other history buffs at http://lensofhistory.com

This is  anew improved website/blog that I hope you will enjoy.  Check it out!

How I Found History

 

AN ARTIFACT AND A BOOK

Two events really got me into history and thinking historically.  The first happened on a camping trip in the desert when I was ten.  The other occurred the following year when I read—believe it or not—a book.

The desert of Southern California is not a barren wasteland of sand dunes and scorpions.  Anyone who spends a day or two in the spring or fall exploring a deep wash that runs far into a mountainside would find plant and animal life everywhere.  And other treasures are to be found in old mining camps, long lost settlements and valuable minerals of all sorts.

I was born and raised there and can attest to the natural, although sometimes hidden, beauty it possesses.  Boys with father’s who take them out exploring and camping in the wilderness, like mine did, are very lucky indeed.  There are so many lessons to be learned when away from the micro-civilization of home.

(Blah!  Blah!  Blah!  Get on with it, Robert.)

On one camping trip my dad and I went for a hike into a long canyon that appeared to have been mined at one time.  A rusted old bulldozer still sat there with various metal frames and digging apparatuses strewn around.  We searched around for anything interesting when I spotted what looked like a small brass tube.  Picking it up and dusting it off, I held in my hand a large shell casing.  It was a lot bigger than the .22 shells we shot at tin cans when out on these trips. 

I examined the whole thing and checked the stamped information at its base.  It read, “G.M.S. 20mm M2 1944.”  WOW!  1944 meant World War Two!  Needless to say I was one excited kid.

My dad looked at it saying, “Must be left from the Desert Warfare School during World War Two.”  In my hand was a real piece of history.

Think About It Has anything you held or an object you examined made you think about history?  What about it was historical?  Did you want to find out more about it?

 

With that discovery, I graduated from a simplistic and vague awareness of history to actually wanting to investigate and know more about it.  Of course, it’s easy for a ten year old to get jazzed by finding something dealing with war.  But for others it might be an old photograph of their great grandmother, a 1958 Edsel Corsair once owned by your great uncle, or an antique milk churn used on the family farm a hundred years ago.  In practically all of us, objects and family heirlooms spark our historical inner being, or desire to be a student of history.  Unlike the words on a page it is something we can touch and feel.

Almost every kid vomits at the thought of the dreaded book report!

In sixth grade Mr. Spaatz (one of the great elementary teachers of all time) required us to do a book report on something historical.  Remember this is pre-internet, Google search times, so you had to actually read a book that you more than likely checked out from the library.  So off we went to visit Margaret White Elementary’s diminutive archive of knowledge.  I headed straight to the section on World War Two.  My Dad was a former Marine and I had an interest in the Pacific side of the war so I focused on that.  I scanned book after book until I came across Guadalcanal Diary by Richard Tregaskis, a war correspondent. 

I picked the book because the battle for Guadalcanal was the first offensive by the United States to liberate territory being held by Japan.  What I didn’t expect was the rawness of detail and descriptions of the battle.  While the visions of Vietnam and the 20mm shell were transformed and glorified in my mind, like a mist hiding the reality of war, this nook laid bare the truth.  Tregaskis described the bloody “Bonsai!” attacks at night.  And the piles of dead Japanese soldiers five to six feet high that emerged with the rise of the morning sun. 

Historical realities can be shocking and as fanciful as the most creative, mind-blowing fiction ever written.

History written well should flow like a great novel.  While Guadalcanal Diary is filled with lots of data and follows the battle chronologically from start to finish, it describe the human side—the pain and suffering and great heroism.  Maybe that’s because it was written by a journalist and not an academic historian (no insult to the academicians intended).   The book spoke to me, and I have been a World War Two junkie ever since.

Think About It Have you ever read something that “spoke to you?”  What about it was special?  How was it written?  Has a historical work ever spoke to you?  Why or why not?

 

For others it might not be a war or battle, but it might be the history of music, art, secret societies, cows, the Hopi tribe, or whatever that speaks to them.

“Listen.  Do you hear it?  It’s the past.  I have one, you have one, your neighbor has one.  Listen to it and enjoy.  What is it saying to you?”

Why History Matters (Mr. D's Class)

(First day of class in Mr. D's US History course.)

Mr. D--Everybody settle down.  (Amongst various groans and moans the class of 34 gets to their assigned seats, except for Anthony.)  Anthony, could you find your seat please and put away the cell phone.

Anthony--Awww...Mr. D, be cool.

Mr. D--I don't get paid to be cool but to teach you history.

Tia:  What's on the agenda today, Mr. D?  Nice fitting polo by the way.  You workout?

Mr. D--Ummm...yeah, thanks Tia.  Before we get into the amazing story of the United States, I thought we ought to talk about what history is.

Anthony--That shit sounds boring!  (A few chuckles form the class.)

Mr. D--Anthony that's a warning for language.  Another outburst and you are out of here (Mr. D makes a gesture like an umpire throwing a player out of the game.)  Although, Anthony, you are right, like any subject in school history can be boring.

Jimmy--Yo, Mr. D.  The answer is simple.  It's stuff that happened in the past.

Mr. D--Ok, let's run with that.  Anyone disagree?

Pablo--Cuz...it ain't everything that happened in the past.  Just because I picked my nose yesterday don't mean that's history.

Jimmy--If it's a righteously big booger it might.  (Laughter)

Mr. D--Hang on.  You both bring up important points.  Does anyone disagree that history is stuff that happened in the past?  (No responses)  Ok.  Does anyone disagree that history is important stuff that happened in the past.  (A few mumbles but no disagreement.)  So you are both right.

Monica--(tentatively raising her hand)  Uhh, Mr. D.  How do we know what's important and what's not?

Maria--That's a good question.  My people, La Familia, are marginalized in the history books with very little being written.  So they aren't important?

Mr. D--Good question Monica, and Maria, There are books out there about Mexican history from all points of view.  I encourage you to read some, but when time is limited certain choices have to be made.  I'm not saying it's fair or right, but it is the reality.  (Maria pouts, not completely convinced.)

Mr. D--Take a look at this quote.  (Mr. D projects a quotation onto the projector screen.)

“History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illuminated reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity.” –Cicero

Anthony--I don't know what the f*&k that says.

Mr. D--Bye, Anthony.  Go see Mr. Chase about your choice of words.  I'll call and let him know you're coming.  This is one of my favorite quotes regarding history.

Tia--It is a very eloquent quote.

Chad--(In a deep, subdued voice, his 6' 4" athletic frame barely fitting the desk) Mr. D, who is Cicero?

Tia--He's got to be a guy that's muy importante, right Mr. D.  I mean he's known by just one name like Beyoncé, Madonna, and Usher.

Mr. D--Very true Tia.  Cicero was a Roman lawyer and statesman from the ancient times.  He is known as one of the great speakers in history.  So what do you think he meant by history testifying "to the passing of time?"

Monica--It's what we have already been talking about.  It is the things that happened in the past.  But Cicero says it like it's something wonderful and of value.

Jimmy--Yeah, Mo....it's like Bruce Lee, dude.  He's gone but still revered in the annals of martial arts lore.  Whoa, that was a deep thought right there.

Mr. D--Alright, that sounds good, and Jimmy feel free to rest your brain some (laughter even from Jimmy).  The next part says, "illuminates reality."  What does that mean?

Maria--The truth.  It means it's a search for the truth.  But I think that's BS, Mr. D.  The winners write the history.  The losers are left behind.

Mr. D--And forty years ago I would agree, but in the past forty years new areas of historical research have opened up looking into the history of the poor, the working class, the losers, so to speak.  We have a richer history because of it. 

Chad--It's a goal.  Reaching the truth or reality is the goal.  It's like football.  Your goal is a section championship and you might not get there, but you strive for it.  If the historian is honest, then he searches for the truth.  (Class nods their heads in agreement.)

Mr. D--Very insightful Chad.  The next part might be tougher.  History "vitalizes memory."  Any ideas?

Pablo--Makes it sound like work, Mr. D.  Like you got to think about it.

Tia--Yeah.  Like when I'm trying to decide between two outfits.  I have to weigh the pros and cons and think about what it would look on me...well, I know everything looks fab on me...but with history it is like a thinking activity.

Mr. D--Tell me if I am getting this right.  Cicero is saying that history exercise the mind by vitalizing the memory.  It teaches us things, for example, how to judge two different opinions, or two outfits.  It requires that we understand cause and effect and bias.

Tia--You put it in such easy to understanding terms Mr. D.  Just like me in a fab pair of pink shorts, you are fab at teaching us stuff. 

Maria--(under her breath) Kiss up.

Mr. D--Ok what about the rest of the quote?  Does history provide guidance in our daily lives?

Jimmy--(waking up from a short nap)  Well, if you ask mwah, most people are not contemplating the meaning of life or analyzing the news on a daily basis.

Maria--Well people ought to be keeping up with the way that government is abusing the rights of the people.  The problem is that everyone uses history their own way.

Mr. D--And why do they get away with that?

Pablo--Because people are stupid like my homie Salvador.  That fool don't even know who the Prez is.

Mr. D--So if people actually know history then they won't be fooled as much?  They might ask the right questions about things?  (class nods, except for Maria)

Tia--But Mr. D doesn't history teach us about personal things too?  I remember reading that book in like 5th grade about the girl that couldn't see or hear...

Maria--(sarcastically)  Helen Keller?

Tia--Yeah!  That's her.  I mean I actually read the whole book...and let me tell you that don't happen a lot.  I mean I'll read a Cosmo from cover to cover, but school books, oh no...

Mr. D--Tia your point.

Tia--Oh yeah.  You're so sweet Mr. D for holding me to task.  Anyway, I figured if Helen Keller can overcome those obstacles then I could overcome my stutter.

Pablo--Ha Ha!  I remember you in fourth grade.  Mr. D get this.  Tia wouldn't say anything because if she tried it was like, "MMMMaayy III ggooo ttooo thththee babaththroom?"

Tia--Yeah well check me out now.  I look good and can speak clearly.

Pablo--It's cool, no offense.

Mr. D--Very good Tia.  People can learn from history to deal with problems or challenges they face or their community faces.  History has something for everyone.  Well the bell is about to ring.  Start reading Chapter One.  Adios!

Tia--(walks up to Mr. D's desk and puts a Hershey's kiss on it)  A sweet for  a sweetie.  Bye Mr. D.

This is something I wrote as an assignment for the course I am taking to become a better writer and blogger.  (A new improved blog will be released in 30-40 days using what I have learned.)  The assignment was to take the opposite view of the topic and point of view you want to communicate in your blog.  A devil's advocate kind of thing.  I hope you enjoy.

 

History is Worthless

“History is more or less bunk.”  --Henry Ford

Yay!  Finally someone that gets it (of course he’s been dead for years).  I told my teachers long ago that learning history was not only boring but worthless, but they spouted on about learning from history, how history made us think critically, and why knowing your past is important in understanding the world today.  Blah!  Blah!  Blah!

Let’s start with that bull about learning from history.  Have we?  Folks back in the day massacred each other over greed, power, glory and territory.  Guess what!  They are still doing it.  Dictators, emperors, warlords across the globe are running amuck. 

Robert.  Oh, Robert.

I must be going crazy.  There’s a voice in my head…Mr. Edmundson is that you?  What’s up dude!  Long time no see.  (Mr. Edmundson was Robert’s most excellent US History teacher in 11^th grade.)

Robert, you make some good points, but haven’t we learned something over the last few thousand years?

Heck no!  We’re dumber than a room full of Kardashian’s.

What about democracy itself, and the idea of self-government?  Hasn’t that spread and grown?

Well, yeah, I guess so.

And after 9/11 some Muslim Americans were discriminated against, profiled and a few beat up, but were they herded into detention camps like Japanese Americans during World War Two?

Ok.  Ok.  Maybe we have learned a few things.  But where does critical thinking come in when studying history in school?  Memorizing a crap load of dates, names, events, people—I’m dizzy just thinking about it.  The only reason I stayed awake was Miranda Ramirez.  She sat in front of me.  I can still smell her perfume and envision those fine legs and……

Robert, that’s enough.  I’m sure Ms. Ramirez would not appreciate your impure thoughts.  However, you bring up another good point.  Yes, history is all that memorization stuff, but it’s much more.  What kinds of things did we do in class?

I remember reading some diary accounts or something about the Battle of Lexington.  I couldn’t understand shit because of that old English wording. 

And?

Well we compared and contrasted them to see how they were similar and different.

And?

Hmmmm…we talked about which one we thought was more accurate and why.  We discussed…what’s the word…bias…that’s it.

Aren’t comparing and contrasting, detecting bias, and analyzing accuracy critical thinking skills?

Yeahhhhhh…ok, I see your point.  But come on Mr. E, do we really use that history in our day to day lives.  I mean, yeah, it comes in handy when my buddies and I pull out the old Trivial Pursuit game, but it’s not like you’re going to make any money knowing history…no offense intended

None taken.  You’re a guy that keeps up with politics and the news.  When there’s a story about how ugly and backstabbing political campaigns are nowadays, what do you think?

I think they should study some campaigns of the past.  It was even uglier back then…….oh crap.

That’s right, you put it in a historical perspective.  While most of America watching that same news broadcast or reading that same article takes it for what it says, you know differently because you know history.

As usual Mr. E, you have taught me another lesson.  Touché!

Remember Robert, old history teachers never die, they just fade away; but history is here to stay.  Adios.

Science Often Changes History

I wrote this as part of the writing blogging course I am taking.  The assignment was to identify which of the six blogger types you are and then research/write something new as that type of blogger.  I thought it was kind of interesting.

Science Often Changes History

Advances in science impact our understanding and interpretation of history.  In recent years, genetic research has changed some traditional explanations of history.

Native people of South America may have Polynesian roots.

I’m not kidding.  A number of research studies have traced unique Polynesian genetic codes and found them in Peruvian, Chilean and Brazilian populations.  Just four months ago in Nature.com a study was reviewed linking some native tribes in Brazil to Polynesian people.  The link may have originated from slave trading in the 1800s but some researchers and historians believe it is entirely plausible Polynesians traveled to the region thousands of years ago.  There’s enough evidence to support further investigation.

This discovery in no way detracts from the importance of the primary migration of Asiatic people across the "land bridge" between Asia and Alaska.  What it does do is give a clearer picture of what happened.  The excavation of Norse settlements along the islands east of Canada first modified the long held land bridge view and now genetic research is offering another explanation as to how people got to America.

Farmers used cow shit as fertilizer 8000 years ago.  Whoa dude!

A group of European scientists have uncovered (and I mean literally uncovered) evidence that impacts our traditional understanding of history.  They found that European farmers understood the value of manure as a fertilizer 8000 years ago.  Researchers at early farming sites across Europe have studied samples and found high levels of nitrogen-15 a key element found in fields spread with manure and, more importantly, found almost nowhere else..

Historians believe droppings from grazing animals were piled up by farmers.  These early agriculturalists noticed that vegetation on and around these piles was greener and heavier than in the normal field.  The obvious connection was made and thus cow, goat, sheep turds became fertilizer.

Yay!  More food.

The obvious impact was a larger and more reliable food source to feed growing populations and offer stability to the local community.  Historians and anthropologists speculate, with a high level of certainty, this change in the use of land and food supply helped foster a sense of private property ownership in many European regions that developed and grew over time.  This in turn led to the development of the modern social/economic class structure western nations have today.

So blame farmers living 8000 years ago for the evil 1%ers.  LOL. Just kidding.

What to Make of the Zimmermann Case

Everyone was on the edge of their seats waiting for the announcement--NOT GUILTY!  Was justice served?  Were Zimmerman and Martin the people the media painted them to be?  So many questions.

Justice was served but Zimmerman still deserved punishment.  By all accounts the jury conducted themselves in a responsible and professional manner.  Five of the six women were mothers who could relate to the despair of Trayvon's parents, but they still found Zimmerman innocent.  The prosecution handled the case poorly from the beginning (hello!  that sound familiar...OJ Trial 20 years ago). 

Granted, proving a case based almost solely on circumstantial evidence is tough, but the prosecution had no game plan.  They looked like a group running around trying to catch a greased pig.  The defense on the other hand presented the evidence to show self defense in a logical way, with enough credibility to leave doubt.

Remember the hallmark of criminal law is the burden of proof, "guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt.

That being said Zimmerman overstepped his role as neighborhood watchman and ended up shooting a young man.  Zimmermann deserves some amount of jail time for that very fact.  I don't know Florida law but involuntary manslaughter or criminal negligence would be more appropriate for this case.

This was NOT a case of racial profiling.  Profiling happened but it was not based on race.  It was based on a young person dressing and acting in a suspicious manner.  Is it right to do that?  Not sure.  But be honest, even if you are not racist, you profile.  What father, especially of daughters, does not make judgments (Profiling) when they see their little girl with a certain group or person.  Can any parent honestly say they are not suspicious if a boy shows up to take out their daughter and he wears his pants around the knees, has a hoodie on with the hood over his face while inside your house, and speaks in an inappropriate manner?  Zimmerman profiled but Martin profiled in return ("cracker").  If anything Martin's profiling of Zimmerman was more racially based.  So this civil rights hysteria sweeping the country now is unfounded, at east in this case.

The media fu&$ed this case up!  Zimmerman was judged in the media from the very beginning.  Trayvon Martin was depicted as this innocent young kid buying a tea and skittles (most media outlets continued to use a photo from when he was 12), and Zimmerman was shown to be a bigoted wannabe cop stalking a black kid.  Neither characterization had any truth to it, but the public latches onto the first impression and that's what they got.  And every media outlet is to blame--MSNBC, FOX News, and the main stream outlets.  The media hype brought in the race based charlatans and then all hell broke loose.  This should have been a local trial covered by local media and that's it.

Two mistakes led to the tragedy.  Zimmerman made the mistake of approaching Martin when he should have kept his distance and just observed and reported, like a neighborhood watchman is supposed to do.  Martin made the mistake of being confrontational.  Based on the testimony of the lady he was on the phone with, it is clear that Martin was going to take things in his own hands, instead of doing the mature thing--explaining who he was, where he went, and that he lived there.

While history will look back on the OJ Simpson case and say, "Justice was not served," I am confident that the Zimmerman case will be looked at as an example of the system working even when under tremendous social and political pressure. 

Are You a Student of History

Obviously strong skills in reading and writing are needed to function in the modern world. And a basic understanding of math, science, art, and technology is also useful in becoming a productive member of society. However, History is in many ways the neglected step child and by history I am also talking about civic education. Aside from language skills people use their knowledge of history more than any other discipline, unless your profession falls in one of the other fields but even then you still need history. Some examples:

• History allows you to better understand movies, music, the arts, and stuff you read in the newspaper.
• History provides the background knowledge and skills needed to vote effectively, asses validity, identify bias and propaganda.
• In a multicultural society, history provides the mortar that holds the nation together brick by brick.
• History teaches the basics of government at the local, state, and federal levels.
• History allows you to connect with the community by understanding its past.
• And most importantly, history prepares you when selecteded to be on Jeopardy, so you can kick some ass on the Revolutionary America topic.

So knowing some history is important, but are you a student of history. Ideally that's what I want everyone to be. Not a student in the sense of someone taking a class but instead a person who values history and uses it in their lives every day to make better decisions and be a better person.

 

So what do you do to be a student of history?

 

First you have to forget who you are! You heard me right. While our inclination is to judge history based on our modern perspective, initially you must avoid that. Forget you are male or female; black, white, brown, or any other color; protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or Mormon; poor, rich, once poor and now rich, or strictly middle class. Why? Historians call it presentism. You want to avoid the trap of presentism or the need to evaluate and judge past actions based on contemporary criteria. You must learn and examine history first from the point of view of someone living at the time. When you do that honestly, you will gain a better understanding of that period in history and why people did or acted in certain ways. Example: Pretend you are the average American on December 8, 1941. You have read the newspaper about the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor the day before. A few months later FDR issues Executive Order 9044 which will send some 110,000 Japanese Americans to internment camps for the next four years. How do you feel about that? How do you react? You're probably pissed seeing photos of dying Americans and ships settling to the bottom of Pearl Harbor. Likely, you do not care or you are glad FDR Locked the enemy up. You have now become a student of history by evaluating an action and event on its own merits.

 

Butttt...buttt...buttt....

 

I know. It was still a horrendous violation of civil rights. Once you take out the presentism and understand it for what it is, now you can safely make a judgment from a more modern point of view. It was a terrible decision by FDR that violated umpteen number of amendments with no real evidence to support the conclusion. Now you are truly being a student of history because you recognize the reason for the action but then offer an evaluation and understanding of why it was wrong. Now that approach is a lot more effective than saying FDR was a dumbass.

 

Second, you have to read history critically. And by reading that could be watching something on TV or at the theater, listening to it on the radio, or seeing it in a museum. To read critically you must first identify the source or author. Do they have a certain political view? Are they biased? What is their qualification for doing what they are doing? When watching a documentary by Michael Moore keep in mind he is an outspoken progressive and among the most liberal democrats out there. Or, if it is a documentary produced by the National Rifle Association about the 2nd Amendment we know it will be biased in favor of that freedom. Some other things to think about when reading history is to ask yourself: When is this taking place? Where is it taking place? What else is going on at the time? Answers to these questions will give you perspective on the issue, providing the proper context to fully understand it. Ask questions as you read. If the piece includes some statistics, does it say where those came from or how they were derived. If there is a term or reference to a historical person, event, or movement, then note it and look it up. You really have no excuses not to with the popularity of smart phones and tablets. Those tools can be used for so much more than texting, chatting, buying songs, or following the Dodgers game.

 

Finally, use what you know about history. Believe me this is the scariest part (and I have a master's degree in it). Go beyond your comfort zone. Maybe you know the answer to that Jeopardy question, surprise your spouse and shout it out, reveling in the glory that you just won $200 (in pretend money). If your best friend starts a conversation about her decision to vote yes on Proposition 24 but seems to ignore some of the facts, let her know it will cost the tax payer 20 million dollars over the next three years. The next time someone talks about being apolitical because politics is so ugly and full of personal attacks, let them know that headlines were nastier and editorials published anonymously two hundred years ago. Historical ignorance is running rampant in this country and it's having a profound impact on the direction we are headed. So go beyond your comfort zone at least one step. Maybe in a few months take another step. Be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

 

Now there is a lot more to becoming a student of history but this is plenty to chew on right now.

 

In closing, i challenge you. For every piece of fiction you read follow it with some nonfiction and make every other nonfiction choice a book on history. There are numerous lists on the internet that will offer suggestions on lots of history topics to help you out. So for the one book a month reader, make three of them something dealing with history over the next year. I'll even make a recommendation right now. Read Killing Lincoln or Killing Kennedy. "But aren't those written by that right-wingnut Bill O'Reilly?" Yes they are but O'Reilley has a degree in history and the books are apolitical, very well researched, and written for the common person and not some academic intelligentsia. Also, stay up to date with some history blogs (like this one). I hope by following these simple suggestions everyone becomes a student of history.

 

(Note: My blog will be transforming itself in the coming month or two by focusing more on history. My goal to do what I just talked about, developing students of history in all of us. The blog will most likely move to Wordpress and be more professional in appearance. I too am going to go beyond my comfort zone by promoting the blog nationally. I am passionate about history and want to share it with others.)

 

Posted with Blogsy

What Is The Muslim Brotherhood

A few weeks ago, Egypt went through a violent political change.  The Obama administration can avoid calling this event a coup d'etat, for political reasons.  Part of the explanation for the governments misreading of the situation in Egypt is a faulty understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

The State Department needs to become good Students of History!

The Muslim Brotherhood backed government under President Morsi has been overthrown, and the Brotherhood has taken to the streets to regain power, thus causing a tension filled situation and regional instability. To really understand what is going on politically, religiously, and socially requires an understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood and its history.

The Brotherhood was a group of little significance in 1928 when it was formed by a handful of devout Egyptian Muslims. Unlike most Middle Eastern nations, Egypt had achieved a high level of independence from Great Britain by 1922 as a result of a revolution against the imperial power in 1918. The agreement signed by the new constitutional monarchy in Egypt and Great Britain allowed for a British military presence along the Suez Canal Zone, but gave the new government complete domestic independence. It is within this new found Egyptian democracy that the Muslim Brotherhood began to thrive in the 1930s.

Originally the Muslim Brotherhood was kind of like a mix of the YMCA and Salvation Army.

Originally, the Brotherhood was a religious and charitable organization that lobbied the Egyptian Parliament on behalf of the poor and fundamentalists.  Anything that emphasized sharia law and Muslim ideals was demanded by the increasingly influential group. It also funded and provided education opportunities for the poor that emphasized a fundamentalist/radical interpretation of Islam. Through the 1930s the organization grew so that by World War Two it numbered almost a half million members in Egypt with branches springing up in other Middle Eastern countries.

It is also during the late 1930s and the war years that the radicalization of the Muslim Brotherhood accelerated. It conducted espionage, sabotage, and other early terrorist activities to drive the British completely out of Egypt and even conspired with the Nazis during the North African campaign. 

As decolonization began under the auspices of the United Nations in the latter 1940s, the Brotherhood intensified operations in many Muslim nations to hasten the departure of its European occupiers. Success during this era, from 1946-1960, increased membership in the Brotherhood across the Muslim world to where it numbered nearly three million.

It was during this era of decolonization that the Muslim Brotherhood adopted its current mission statement:

"Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."

The fringe groups that conducted terror in the 1930s and 1940s had permeated the whole organization. Instead of political lobbying and promoting help for the poor, The Brotherhood was advocating violence and jihad (Holy War) against its enemies, both Muslim and non-Muslim. 

The Muslim Brotherhood is the political wing, financial supporter, and primary instigator of many terrorist groups.
 
This position put the Muslim Brotherhood in an awkward position. Though large and influential, the Nasser government, which took power in a 1952 coup, banned the organization because it threatened the secular based government. Although the largest single Islamic fundamentalist organization in the world, the Brotherhood had a see-saw affair with the Egyptian government with some leaders cracking down on them and others releasing Brotherhood prisoners and using the group's power and influence. The main concern of the Muslim Brotherhood since 1970 has been to re-educate the Egyptian population regarding their duties as good Muslims. Secularism had taken its spiritual toll, and the Brotherhood was prepared to change that.

Unlike radical groups such as Hamas (who the Brotherhood supports and sponsors), Hezbollah, or al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood took the path of the PLO and began to change its ways to become more acceptable by the powers that be, both Muslim and Western. As a result both Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak used the manpower and influence of the Brotherhood to solidify their power but also cracked down when the influence of the Islamist group grew too large.

The revolution of 2011 opened the door again for the Muslim Brotherhood when elections were held. With the Brotherhood getting the vote out, Morsi came to power and the Brotherhood had influence once again. Now that Morsi appears out of the picture, it is unclear what road the Muslim Brotherhood will take.  But the trends within the organization are clear: one, they are a radical Muslim organization viewing jihad as a literal war; two, they hate Western Civilization and values; three, they want to institute a Muslim based caliphate under Sharia law; four, they have large numbers and are politically astute; finally, they are unpredictable. As I think President Obama would now admit, the Muslim Brotherhood is not an organization that can be trusted.

History has shown that the Muslim Brotherhood can not be trusted.

Posted with Blogsy

Some News

Greetings readers,

My posting will be a bit less frequent than the usual...stop that!...Don't cheer!  Just kidding.  I have always enjoyed writing, and keeping up a blog has given me a lot of writing practice, so much so that I want to take it to another level.  I have been following a half dozen writer's blogs the past couple months and am now taking an eight week course to improve my writing, spruce up my blog, find a wider fan base, and expand my reach in the field of internet writing.  I AM NOT DOING THIS FOR MONEY!  If I make a little to cover my costs to set-up a real blog and all the frills that go with it, I'll be happy, but I am feeling a calling (apologies to my atheist friends, it was not meant in a strictly spiritual way).  Hopefully, my blog will become more focused in a few months when I reveal a new improved version, but it will include a lot of the stuff I have been doing nonfiction and fiction wise.  It will focus on what many of you said you liked about my blog and that's the history component.

(If your bored at this point feel free to stop reading and go have a juice box.)

I could use your help though.  I have written a couple statements regarding my writing voice and what my target audience (tribe) is.  If you good readers have some free time, I would be eternally grateful if you read them and offered any constructive criticism.  Fell free to add a comment here, message me on Facebook, or email me directly at luckyforward559@gmail.com

My Voice

My comfortable voice is one that’s to the point but offers the right amount of detail and explanation with some humor to it.  I try to select the right words, avoiding the absolutes and selecting words that are more accurate or truthful (my wife hates this).  Sometimes I will adopt a more professional, serious voice, especially when dealing with subjects of serious consequence.  This voice is more on the offensive and less humorous.  It may include higher level academic vocabulary.  In terms of worldview, I have to stick to my core values: individualism, freedom, respect for tradition and history,  Judeo-Christian values, Western Civilization, and honest, respectful, thoughtful debate (I encourage this on topics I blog about).

Another way of putting it:

My Voice—I value honest, open, nonjudgmental debate about controversial topics, so my voice should reflect that.  Although I am admittedly conservative, I do not want to be another pundit type, so my voice should be based on the facts ) kind of a Bill O’Reilly approach).  I value humor, so a little humor is part of my voice, and some of my writing should focus that way (the few readers of my blog that I have like the humor).  My voice will value the concept that words have meaning and ideas are important.  I want my voice to be readable (appealing to the average American) but I do not want to shy away from the right words even if they are unique.

My Tribe

My Tribe (audience)—A cross-section of society that likes history and believes something can be learned from history.  This may include: history buffs, people going through experiences in which history might offer some answers, students wanting to know more about history (AP kids), people politically active or into current events and want a historical perspective.  This tribe may also include businesses and organizations that value history as a tool to improve what they do.  The tribe would include people wanting a combination of writing genres—informational pieces, satire, history education, historical fiction, and other kinds of fiction reflecting historical themes.

Tentatively I am calling the new improved blog "Life Through the Lens of History"

Again, any feed back or comments would be greatly appreciated.  Until I unveil the new blog I will keep posting here...Shhhh!  Sounds of disappointment/frustration are not allowed.

Celebrating Independence

The Fourth of July

While historians continue to bicker over the appropriate day in which independence from England was declared, July 4th has won out as the popular pick. Early on, sporadic remembrances of what the Second Continental Congress did in July of 1776 were held but nothing organized. The idea of actually celebrating independence became popular after 1815 and the American victory during the War of 1812. Some historians refer to the period from 1815 to 1820 as the Era of Good Feelings, a time when patriotism exploded. Communities got together, ate food, played games, and the town mayor or elder publicly read the Declaration of Independence.

In 1870 the US Congress made the Fourth a federal holiday and in 1941 that was extended to a paid day off. As the popularity of the day exploded, how it was celebrated also changed. The day became less about the Declaration of Independence and more about relaxing and having a good time. The growth of advertising and materialism of the 20th Century fed this evolution. Today families head off to the park or lake wearing their Fourth of July shirts. They bar-b-que until they drop and the adults tend to drink too much beer and wine. And then the day is topped off with the obligatory fireworks show. Few put any thought to what the day really represents. Hey, I do it too. I like a good hot dog as much as the next guy (although I make an effort to explain it to my kids).

A rather unique Fourth of July happened in 1826. Two of just a handful of Founding Fathers left alive, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson lay on their deathbeds and both passed by the end of the day. They were compatriots during the Revolutionary years, both were part of America's delegation to France. During the Washington presidency that friendship deteriorated because of political differences and it continued into the 1800s and Jefferson's presidency. As the men entered their twilight years the bond was reformed through a series of letters. But in the end that old competition would not die. Just minutes before he passed Adams commented, "And Jefferson lives." In fact, Thomas Jefferson died three hours earlier.

 

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

― Ronald Reagan

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

Enemies in War, Friends Forever

Enemies in War, Friends Forever

On this 150^th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, much has been written about the battle that turned the tide of the Civil War.  However, the most poignant story may be that of Union Major-General Winfield Hancock and Confederate Brigadier-General Lewis Armistead. 

In many ways the men were opposites.  Hancock was born into a middle class Pennsylvania family, was well educated, a West point graduate, and distinguished himself as an army officer.  Armistead grew up in a well off, influential family from North Carolina, did not finish West Point (for disciplinary and academic reasons), and experienced a number of misfortunes in life.  The two men met in 1844 and served together during the Mexican War.  (Armistead’s father used his Washington influence to get his son a commission in the Army.)  Although having very different backgrounds, the two had similar, fun loving personalities and developed a strong friendship over the next fifteen years.

When North Carolina voted to secede from the union in 1861, Armistead made the difficult decision to stay loyal to his state and resigned his commission.  Hancock, Armistead and a number of other future Civil War generals were stationed in California.  A subdued gathering of the departing southern officers was held at Hancock’s home.  It is rumored that on departing Armistead said, “If I ever raise arms against my friend Hancock may God strike me down.”  Prophetic words.

The two men fought many campaigns leading up to Gettysburg but never against each other.  That changed in July 3^rd, 1863.  Hancock was in command of the 2^nd Corps of the Army of the Potomac protecting the middle of the Union’s line at Cemetery Ridge.  Armistead was commanding a brigade named after him in Gen. Pickett’s division of Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia.  July 3^rd was the final day of the battle and the date of Pickett’s fatal charge.  Armistead led the way, placing his hat on the tip of his sword and waving it around so his men could see that their leader was with them, inspiring them to continue moving up the mile long slope.  With Union artillery from the ridge and the hills to his right battering the brigade, Armistead did not stop but lead his men across a small stream and over two rail fences.

Although Confederate troops were falling by the hundreds, Armistead and about a thousand rebels made it to the ridge, the “High Water Mark of the Confederacy.”  They were outnumbered and shot down.  Armistead lay wounded on the battlefield.  A Union Captain asked if there was anything he could get Armistead, but all the fallen general asked was to see Hancock.  The captain informed him that Hancock had also fallen.  Armistead was distraught and asked that his possessions be taken to his friend.  Armistead died two days later from complications.  Hancock survived and went on to finish out a distinguished military career  Prophesy fulfilled.

The American Civil War tore the fabric of the nation apart, pitting abolitionist versus slaveholder, states’ rights advocate versus federal power proponent, white versus black, brother versus brother and friend versus friend.  Lewis Armistead and Winfield Hancock did their duty and followed their conscience but they also recognized that real friendships can overcome any adversity.

Education Today

Student-Centered Education

This seems like a no brainer...of course students are the center of education. How could anyone argue with that? The problem is, in the world of education what something is called is not necessarily what it is. While there is a time and place for some student-centered projects and lessons, the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits if implemented as a fulltime, comprehensive strategy.

A student-centered classroom or school uses curriculum and instructional methods based on the premise that students should decide what and how they learn. Basic curricular parameters may exist--either standards or blueprints--but the child has input and even decision making power in the pedagogical process, an area traditionally in the jurisdiction of the teacher. For example, in English class the focus standard deals with the author's point of view. Instead of the teacher assigning texts appropriate to student reading levels, the student is allowed to choose what they want based on their individual interests. So what's wrong with that? Students are learning and are given some freedom to decide what and how they learn. It sounds great but there are serious flaws. This approach is based on the assumption that students will willingly challenge themselves. The reality is that most students will choose the easiest path, the simplist book, the quickest (though incorrect) method to solve the problem.

Even in mathematics this strategy Is emphasized by teacher colleges, education consultants, and a myriad of think tanks. Students may not have the freedom to choose what lesson they will learn but there is a heavy focus on group work and student collaboration. Student-centered assignments in math tend to be project based in which the product, whether mathematically correct or not, is more important than the process. Studies show that such assignments are often graded based on effort and creativity more than whether they illustrate the mathematical principle being taught. In addition, the heavy reliance on group work in student-centered classes usually means the brightest one or two in the group do all the work but everyone gets equal credit.

Part of the justification for student-centered education is the psychological theory of constructivism. This approach to learning was popularized by John Dewey over one hundred years ago but was also influenced by research done by Piaget and Montessori. Constructivism says that students "construct" knowledge by filtering new material through a sieve of what they already know, so there has to be some prior knowledge to attach new knowledge to. Again, on the surface this educational approach makes sense, but if a child comes to school deficient in background knowledge, then there's little to construct upon. Increasingly elementary grade children come to school with poor language skills and little other knowledge as TV and video games have replaced books and reading time in the home. At the secondary level there is little knowledge of science and history among incoming freshmen so again constructivism fails because there is no foundation to build upon. In addition, this theory has been intertwined with the student-centered philosophy to justify social activism, project based learning, and even the elimination of grades as a measure of progress.

The essential flaw of both student-centered education and constructivism is that the focus is only on the product, which is rarely based on quality, and not the process or what students should know or be able to do to be productive and engaged citizens. Another flaw is if students do not have the ability to hold themselves accountable (and most will not) then academic performance suffers. As the nation's public schools embrace the Common Core movement parents need to be watching and monitoring, because it calls for such student-centered project types of activities and assessments.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Day Trip to the Zoo

 

"Get away from the keyboard, go travel, visit some friends, see a movie, or go to the Zoo and be enthralled by the wonderful creatures of our world…" This line began a short piece on Positive Writer, a blog I follow.

Ironically, when asked what she wanted to do this weekend, my daughter said, "Go to the zoo." Her cousin was visiting so it seemed like a good way to entertain an 8 and 11 year old. We planned on getting there right at 9am (Chaffee Zoo in Fresno opens at 9), but my wife, being my wife, delayed departure until 10.  Apparently her make-up was not quite right and according to the girl she was having a tough time picking out an outfit from a whole closet full of clothes.

What is it about kids and a zoo? And by kids I mean ages 5 to 12 and then leapfrogging to 40+. Those exotic animals seem so....well, exotic. For the kids they are new, fascinating, ugly, weird, and a myriad of other adjectives. For the older crowd, the zoo ignites past memories and sparks a new interest. For most of those in the middle, the zoo just doesn't have the same magic.  My 15 and 19 year old sons would be complaining the whole time.

While the girls were chatter boxes at each exhibit, I actually found myself reading the description on the nice little placards nearby. The girls were amazed how big, small, fearsome, or cute an animal was. I noticed little details I never noticed before, especially...ugh!....age. I felt a kinship with the slow, aging, but still kicking elephant and Galapagos turtle. The girls were drawn in by appearances, but I noticed behavior--the restlessness of the Red Wolf, the towering presence of the giraffe, the gall of the Desert Addax lounging in the hot sun (while the rest of us were seeking shelter).

And then we saw something amazing. The Chaffee Zoo has undergone a lot of renovation (federal grant money being used in a good way). They added Sea Lion Cove. Unfortunately it was kind of a bummer. But we stopped at the Manta Ray petting pool. It was full of grey and black rays, many swimming right up to the edge for a human hand to caress its wing. Once the girls finally got the courage to do it, they couldn't stop.

 

I noticed a barrier at one end of the pool. Secluded there were the less friendly rays or pregnant rays (hmmm...those two characteristics might be related). That's when I saw it. It was hard to make out because of its pale color, but as it swam closer it became obvious. It was a baby ray. About the size of a Frisbee, the ray was eight weeks old. I watched for a few minutes. It swam around slowly and then would stop, settling to the bottom, becoming nearly invisible.

 

The little ray was something new. And maybe that's part of the magic that is the zoo. You never know what you might see.  Even with the one hundred degree heat, it was worth it.  So if you're feeling like you are stuck in a rut, go to the zoo.

Posted with Blogsy

Policy versus Philosophy

 

For the past year and a half I have been engaged in verbal combat with a high school buddy on Facebook. 90% of the time we disagree on politics and how to handle issues. This individual has a distinct dislike for the "thinkers" in the political and media world. He discounts ideology or any firm political philosophy and stays focused on policy, which makes sense since he is a take-action kind of guy (a former NFL defensive lineman with a couple Pro Bowl selections). His had a job that required active involvement, a game plan, producing tangible results on a regular basis. And I understand that much of America operates that way; however, to discount philosophy or ideas, a code to base one's political decisions on, opens up the door for pundits, polls, and disinformation to influence you and your power of the vote.

Even though political philosophy is really the issue here, the term code might be a better fit. Philosophy does not necessarily mean the basic criteria by which someone basis a decision, since philosophy is a general term that might focuses on the broad spectrum of possibilities. Every voter needs to decide what their code is. Far too many voters do so from an uninformed position. Some may have a simplistic code of always voting either Republican or Democrat. Others get more sophisticated, usually depending upon their knowledge of politics and current events. Having a political code to base your decisions, your vote on, is important for a number of reasons.

One, like religion or other belief systems, a political code becomes a compass to guide a citizen through their political life. In California (and most states), on Election Day there may be a dozen different offices you are voting for with sixty or more total names on the ballot along with a half dozen to a dozen propositions. Too much for the average voter to research and learn about, especially when bombarded by simplistic radio, television, and mail ads. With a little research and a code, that person can make an informed choice, bypassing all the campaigning stuff. For example, a proposition on the ballot calls for a an increase in sales tax. Your code guides you: if you are opposed to taxes (especially regressive ones) then you vote no, if government services funded by sales taxes is important to you then it's a yes. So a political code helps guide you through the most basic civil responsibility--voting. And you don't have to say you voted a certain way because your best friend said to.

Two, a political code can be an embarrassment saving tool. Granted, discussing politics has become less and less prevalent but if asked why you voted a certain way on an issue or for an office, a code gives you some basic rationale for that decision. Of course, based on the person and to what extent they dug deep and really have solidified a code, the justification may be simplistic. "I voted for her because she is in favor of measures to protect the environment like promoting public transportation and renewable energy." That sounds a whole lot better than, "Well, my neighbor said she's a good person," or "She seems smart." How many people voted for Barack Obama because he was a new face, but could offer no compelling reason why he would be a good President?

Three, every good political code should have an element of prudence to it. Until about three years ago, I believed one's political code was the word of God, and being conservative, to stray from the code was blasphemy. That's exactly what the pundits on both sides of the aisle want you to believe, but prudent policy is key to good government. I read about Edmund Burke and his influence on conservatism. Burke argued that prudence was a conservative ideal (thus part of the code) because it emphasized policy that best served the interests of the majority. For progressives this should be part of their code too. Prudence requires what is most often needed in our government and that is compromise. Compromising on policy is not always compromising on principles. For example, everyone agrees today that immigration reform is needed but a majority of conservatives will vote for no bill that does not secure the border effectively and securely in the near future, because that is part of their code. It would be prudent for progressives to compromise on that issue, so the other items in the proposed law they like they will get. In turn, it would be prudent for conservatives to embrace some type of path to citizenship plan for the 12 million here illegally.

Finally, good policy is based on a good code. Policy based simply upon the whim of public opinion or the pipe dreams of whoever holds office is rarely good policy. Good policy stems from bills that are critically read by our representatives and filtered through the sieve of the code. Once that is done then the two sides hammer out the differences. While there are times that demand immediate, sometimes less thought out action--World War Two, 9/11, etc.--such policy in the long run may be detrimental to our democracy. Few would argue the Patriot Act was not needed after the terrorist attacks in 2001 but that law may not be good policy in the long run. President Roosevelt's decision to intern 110,000 Japanese Americans is now recognized as bad policy.

Politics is a beast. Policy is the leash that controls the beast but philosophy or the political code is the hand that holds the leash. There's rarely ever a perfect answer but having a code to ground yourself in is comforting.

 

Posted with Blogsy