The Revolutionary View of History

On the commute to the office recently, my thoughts turned to the coverage of events in the Middle East. I couldn't help by wonder about the coverage of recent events in Egypt, in Yemen, in Bahrain, and in Libya. In what most will recognize as my typically twisted thought process, it occurred to me to wonder how the media today would look at the American Revolution.

• In light of the dangerous ideas of a colony freeing itself from European control, I wonder how the predominant media of the day in Europe would have portrayed the struggle.
• Would King George be a tyrant and evil dictator or a monarch with a duly elected legislature trying to govern an unruly mob?
• In light of the early tactics used by colonials, fighting from behind trees rather than in the conventional 'line-abreast' formation, would the soldiers of the Continental Army be viewed as an army, as freedom fighters or terrorists?
• What opinion would the world in general have of the rag-tag army of General Washington, many of whom left at the end of extremely short enlistments to return to their homes?
• How would the entertaining (and dare I say carousing) of Benjamin Franklin while attempting to negotiate France's aid to the Revolutionary cause be viewed?
• What would the world opinion have been of a Continental Congress that seemed almost constantly on the run from British troops? Who who slept in warm comfort, entertained, and dined graciously while troops in the field were starving, freezing, and marching to battle in the winter without shoes?
• What would the media pundits say of the generalship of George Washington, and of the many battles that he lost on the way to winning the war?
• What of Horatio Gates and his plots with members of Congress to subvert Washington's command of the Continental Army, or Charles Lee and his purposeful ineptitude in the field in hopes of taking Washington's role?
• What would they make of characters like 'Mad' Anthony Wayne or of the French aristocrat Lafayette?
• What would they have made of Benedict Arnold, a hero in the early battles of the war who suffered considerable personal injury, insult, and accusation before finally succumbing to the pressure and turning traitor to the Revolutionary cause?

The Founding Fathers are viewed today with a mixture of reverence and scorn, depending on your political point of view. By and large this is done by many on both sides without benefit of studying the history of the time, but instead by using images that have been planted throughout the popular culture in TV and movies. Facts seem of but little concern, as long as the characters are interesting and the plot entertaining. The trouble with doing this of course, is that unlike historians, directors aren't so much concerned with the facts as they are with telling a compelling story. This seems to be much the case these days with news as well in a world so caught up in 24 hour a day coverage. I therefore cannot help but wonder, in light of the controversy over regime changes (and possible changes) in so many lands throughout the Middle East and Africa, what coverage of those days would look like; and how tomorrow's history will view today's revolutions.

TFP Column: The Beam In Our Own Eye

I sat down Tuesday evening with every intention of writing my normal mid-week rant on society. (I really did!) The next thing I knew, I had penned an effort worthy of submission to my friend and hero, editor-in-chief of the Toledo Free Press Michael Miller.

I think that it was the result of the President's non-explanation of why we are shooting missiles and dropping bombs on Libya, the assumption that somehow the United States has somehow been appointed as the world's policeman (mostly by those in the US government), and the combination of ignorance and indifference to the history of this country that I see constantly exhibited these days.

The result of these efforts was some 750 words that seemed to write themselves: "The Beam in Our Own Eye". Agree or disagree if you will, but I hope at least this effort will inspire some to pick up a history book every once and a while and stop viewing the history of this country through the rose-colored glasses of a Mel Gibson movie.

Reverential Treatment

There seems to be a number of us out there who think a great deal of the Founding Fathers of this country. They are the ones after all, who managed to come up with the documents that led to the form and formation of the government that we live under. They are the ones who laid their lives on the line to bring this country into being. There is little doubt that these men (and some women) in fact deserve our respect and admiration for these accomplishments.


We must be careful however. Like many an enthusiastic admirer of something or someone, especially someone from the past, its easy over time to become more than simple fans (a term derived from fanatic). It's easy when dealing with perspective of history, to fail to look at the sometimes inconvenient truths about these men with feet of clay. They had their flaws just like the rest of us. Let's face it, Sam Adams was in fact a smuggler, John Adams (a distant relation) was a pompous ass with delusions of his own grandeur, and Benjamin Franklin, when not writing under the pseudonym of a lady (Silence Dogood), seemed rather fond of pursuing them. Even Thomas Jefferson, whose writings on freedom as part of the Virginia legislature and during the national discussions on the subject all but defined the argument for this country, owned slaves until the day he died. 


We similarly believe that recent Congresses created the franchise on rancorous debate, backroom deals, and kickbacks. Does anyone here remember Valley Forge and the state of General Washington's army during that terrible winter of 1777-1778? Do you really believe that these soldiers were ill-housed, ill-equipped, and ill-fed because a Continental Congress filled with Founding Fathers was doing its job properly? A simple reading of history would show anyone interested that the Continental Congress was equally adept as this one at graft, bribery, and serving its own interests rather than the national one. Congress in fact found itself running regularly in front of campaigns of the British army during the Revolutionary War in order to insure warm housing and good food for themselves, while starving men in the field walked from battle to battle in the winter without uniforms, proper rations, or even the benefit of shoes. 


We now live under a Constitution that we think rather highly of, but these same men only came together to write such a document because of their original failure with the Articles of Confederation. Even the Constitution required modification immediately upon ratification, with the first ten amendments forming a guarantee of freedom that the originally written document failed to provide as the Bill of Rights.  


Not all of the ideas of our Founders would be held in equally high esteem either if examined closely today. Alexander Hamilton desired that the President and Senators be selected to serve for life. In fact, if he had his way, we would have created a class of landed nobility as part of this country's founding. 


Even the father of our country George Washington carries some tarnish on his reputation. Having just fought as the leader of the army of the Continental Congress against the rights of citizens to oppose unjust taxation, called out troops to put down citizen demonstrations against a tax on whiskey that many found selectively imposed on western citizens and a similar example of abuse. In fact, the "Whiskey Rebellion" might be seen not only as inconsistency in our first president, but as an example of Congress taking a debt that it couldn't pay and attempting to tax its way out of the red ink created. 


It might also seem strange to some that having put down this rebellion, George Washington himself became a large distillers of whiskey, operating five stills and producing 11,000 gallons of liquor in 1799. Some might find it further strange (and perhaps an example of political advantage) that the whiskey tax was repealed in 1800 under then president and fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson. 


In other words, the Founding Fathers may have been no better and no worse (as men go) than our current crop of elected hooligans. While their efforts at seeking freedom in the 1700's deserve our respect and their foresight in creating a government where the Constitution is concern deserves our admiration, in their persons they probably merit little or nothing in the way of reverential treatment.

History - According To The Movies

While only a modest student of the history and certainly no expert on cinema, I cannot help but notice that more of the former is apparently being defined by the latter these days. For some inexplicable reason, screenwriters in Hollywood appear to have become our new historians. This became glaringly apparent to me lately while watching a day of programs covering a variety of past events (or supposed ones) shown on the network devoted to the topic, 'The History Channel'.  


The Battle of Thermopylae is understood these days only through the eyes of screenwriter and Director Zack Snyder's "300". The Declaration of Independence and Founding Fathers now appear to be defined by "National Treasure". Knowledge of The Ark of the Covenant is understood, but only according George Lucas in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". George make a similar contribution regarding another Biblical artifact in a later effort, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" regarding the Holy Grail. Of course the Holy Grail is also (and perhaps even more confusingly defined) by the movie adapted from the Dan Brown novel, "The Di Vinci Code". 
(Though personally I find more humor and meaning in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"; as well as a more realistic depiction of the sometimes bizarre beliefs of the period surrounding the quests searching for it.) 


The tragedy in these somewhat entertaining shows were the comments by at least supposedly reputable historians (mostly professors from colleges that I had never heard of) regarding the relation of these fictional movie efforts with actual events in history. These entertainment efforts were treated by these educators as legitimate sources of reference material, and the merits and interpretations of directors and screenwriters who were trying to write a story that would sell tickets and popcorn as data worthy of consideration in a careful study of the subject. 


Are movie-makers then to become the new academics of history? Will we have to dumb the world down to the level of an Adam Sandler film and throw in some computer-generated effects in order to make it palatable to a society that increasingly accepts Reality Shows as a non-dramatic depictions of modern society? Have we sunk so low in the science of history and so bastardized the process of educating our young on such subjects that we are no longer concerned about the facts, but only about the entertainment value of their greater truth? Shall we ignore any factual details that don't move the plot along. throw in some occasional fictitious romance to tug at the heartstrings of an audience, or add a car chase (whether automobiles had been invented or not) in order to keep them riveted to their seats.  


By such standards of academia, how can Robin Hood ever be considered as a fictional character when he's been played by Errol Flynn, Sean Connery, Kevin Costner (yeesh), and Russell Crowe? (Yes, I know I left out Cary Elwes playing the role in "Robin Hood: Men In Tights", but I suspect that most at least still understand that Mel Brooks is not a historian, in spite of making the movie "History of the World: Part I".)


Shall we further accept that German soldiers and Roman Senators alike speak with crisp British accents and that Hitler was the only Nazi to speak with a German one? So let me state for the record for those of you apparently unable to understand the rudiments of critical thinking, academic study, or fictional entertainment:

These are movies damn it!

This would be the equivalent of taking a degree in Biblical studies comprised of courses consisting of the collected efforts of the major studios on the subject (which is probably offered at a university as we speak and that I am simply unaware of). "The Ten Commandments", "Samson and Delilah", "David and Bathsheba","The Robe", and "King of Kings" among others, could provide all of the material required to pass such a course and perhaps even earn a Bachelor's degree on the subject. You could even throw in Norman Jewison's "Jesus Christ Superstar" and Kevin Smith's "Dogma" for post-graduate studies. 


Better still, maybe we can have them run up a CG animated version and make every subject of academia more entertaining. If all of the facts fail to matter, why not make these historical characters more handsome, the voices more stirring, and maybe even drop a safe or two on their heads and have some stars dancing around their melons to lighten the dark moments of the Dark Ages. Of course we could just go back to treating the science of the study of history as an academic pursuit, and allow the fascinating nature of events that occurred to be entertainment enough. Nah ....

The Hysteric Channel

My convalescence has afforded me far too much time to sample some of the offerings of cable television. While I find that I would actually rather be back at my normal duties, if I have to be spending time at home, I would much rather be doing it reading (and I try to). 

Unfortunately, I tend to fall asleep after a couple of pages and this makes for a rather laborious literary process. As a consequence, I have at least been trying to watch things that are educational (you know, the Discovery channel, the History Channel, and reruns of NCIS). 

I have discovered however, that the History channel is no longer what it used to be. In years past, this offering was often known as the "Hitler Channel", as most of its offerings had to do with the history of World War II and the well documented ravings of the leader of the German people at the time. Today however, it might well be better known as the "Hysteric Channel". 

Acting as an electronic prophet of Armageddon, it seems today that the predominance of their programming is either presenting bizarre interpretations of existing facts (as I write this, there is speculation that aliens might have left us coded messages in the Bible) or predicting the potential end of the world through various planetary disasters as predicted by the Incas, the Mayans, the Aztecs, or the prophecies of Nostradamus. Giant comets or meteors striking the planet, "Son of Krakatoa" or the giant caldera in Yosemite exploding in violent volcanic eruptions, floods, droughts, plagues, and locusts all take their place on the list of things that 'could' or 'might' happen. 

Not to be left out of the propaganda disbursement, we also of course have a smattering of warnings of the potential of either global warming or cooling looming just over the horizon (take your pick, it's still climate change). And if none of those events happen to occur, these guys have covered all the bases, pointing out that in a couple of billion years or so (just a hop and a skip on the galactic calendar) the sun is going to go nova, leaving the earth a burned out cinder. 

Recognizing that these cheery images were not the product of the medication that I am taking, I sought to decipher what meaning might be discovered behind these visions of the Apocalypse on the airwaves. Television from my youth however soon provided a ready answer. 

Aliens have taken control of the History Channel in an effort to scare the living crap out of us (and have a good laugh doing it). 

I came upon this simple solution by taking a page out of an old scifi television show popular before cable existed: "There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all you see and hear. We repeat, there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to the "Outer Limits". 

See, mystery solved! Therefore even if the History Channel is correct and the end is near, we can all take heart from the fact that these same aliens will undoubtedly rescue us in the nick of time. And why, you ask? The answer points to an episode of a competing scifi show from these dark ages of television. I refer of course, to the Twilight Zone episode, "To Serve Man". Have a great Holiday...  

In the spirit of full disclosure, it has likewise come to my attention that CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC might be likewise controlled by aliens. (How else do you explain Keith Olbermann?) To date, I have been able to neither prove, nor disprove this theory. 

US History Trivia

My apologies, but once again I have failed to come up anything vaguely creative or interesting to put up as a weekend posting. It might have something to do with the fact that the Columbus Blue Jackets went down without a win this spring in the first round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs (much like my Cubs did in the first round of the World Series playoffs last fall). Perhaps it is simply that the weather is warming up (especially in the South where I have been traveling) and I am suffering from a bit of spring fever. More likely it is simply that the pressure of nonsense in my head has been temporarily relieved, and nothing therefore is forcing it's way out. Since I have become an even more voracious reader of history in recent years, as well as a collector of trivia, I decided to regale you with some interesting tidbits about the history of our country.

• If a statue in a park of a person on horseback has both front legs in the air, the person died in battle. If the horse has one front leg in the air, the person died as a result of wounds received in battle. If the horse has all four legs on the ground, the person died of natural causes.
• Our first president was elected by almost unanimous acclaim, riding on the coattails of his success as the head of the Continental armies. This is pretty amazing when you realize that he lost approximately 70% of the battles he fought. Of course he won the last one, which was why the position of president was available in the first place.
• Only two people signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, John Hancock and Charles Thomson. Most of the rest signed on August 2nd, with the last signature being added 5 years later.
• The most well-known version of the song “Yankee Doodle”, adopted by American colonists as an anthem during the Revolutionary War, was actually created by the British, and as an insult. The song described a Yankee ‘doodle’ which was another word for a fool going to a club in London notorious for its membership of foppish dandies. So it could be said that Yankee Doodle was not only one of our first anthems, but possibly our first “gay anthem”.
• Andrew Jackson’s opponents called him a “jackass” during his run for the presidency in 1828. He liked the image so much that he made the image of the animal the new symbol of his national party, the Democrats.
• The only war that the United States could actually be considered to ever have lost was not the Vietnam War, as most people think, but was in fact the War of 1812. During this war the US lost almost every land and sea engagement, and had its capital burned to the ground. Ironically the most significant battle that the US won during this war was the “Battle of New Orleans”, which made Andrew Jackson famous and launched his political career. It fought on January 8th, which was two weeks after the war was technically already over.
• ·Every day, more money is printed for Monopoly than for the US Treasury. (I'm not so sure on this one any more, as I believe that the Treasury has put the presses on overtime and into overdrive.)

While I recharge my batteries this weekend with sunshine and warm weather (and perhaps some single malt lubricant), I hope that you too get a chance to enjoy Toledo's belated spring.