• Home Page
  • About this website
  • Biography
  • Dr. B's Notes
  • Contact
Richard S. Beam

​127     Understanding history – a good idea!

8/23/2018

0 Comments

 
I see that not long ago the American Library Association changed the name of their “Laura Ingalls Wilder Award” for children’s literature to the “Children’s Literature Legacy Award” due to the fact that, as the association’s president, Jim Neal, and the president of the children’s division, Nina Lindsay, said in the statement announcing this decision; “Her works reflect dated cultural attitudes toward Indigenous people and people of color that contradict modern acceptance, celebration, and understanding of diverse communities.”

I’ve been aware for quite some time that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer have consistently ranked high on the list of books most often challenged in public libraries due to the presence of “racial stereotypes,” etc., in these books.  To Kill a Mockingbird has also been challenged for its “racism.”  
 
Over the past year, much has been said about whether or not statues of figures from the Confederacy should be removed and if streets, schools and other public buildings named for such should be renamed, since they can be seen as honoring “heroes of racism,” or other such statements.
 
I remember many years ago when I was teaching a class in “critical thinking” (a class I never cared for and thought was ill-conceived when it was designed) that there was reference in an exercise as to whether a South American aristocrat in the 1700’s (as I remember it) was justified in killing his wife and her lover when he discovered that she was unfaithful to him.  The correct answer was, of course, “No!” But, the reason was not that it was against Biblical teaching, or some such; it was that this is not considered acceptable in contemporary American society.
 
There’s been considerable controversy over having a pro football team called the “Redskins,” and, as I understand it, similar objections to having college teams called the “Seminoles,” the “Fighting Sioux,” etc. because these are references to “Native American” tribes (as is “Illini, by the way, and probably other team names).  The assumption, again, seems to be that they were intended to be derogatory. I haven’t heard of objections to the hockey “Blackhawks,” but there have probably been such and the list could probably go on at length, I suppose.
 
Okay, I will accept the idea that “Redskins” is often considered a term with somewhat negative connotations, but I find it hard to believe that the people who selected it, or the other names, went out of their way to choose team names to cheer for which were intended to be offensive and to show the “superiority” of those who don’t fit into the category.  
 
Of course, a “Hoosier” has been defined as “any awkward, unsophisticated person, especially a rustic,” which doesn’t make it seem an obvious choice for Indiana (the state, or the university) to choose to describe those who live in that state, or for its university students or alumni.  Of course, as an IU alum (twice) I can probably get away with using that term, since that isthe established name.  Still, I don’t consider team mascots and logos to be of world-shaking importance.
 
On the other hand, I am enough of an historian to argue that it’s important for us as a society (and a world) to understand and accept our history, as well as to figure out a way of not repeating the actions which were undertaken by our predecessors, but which are no longer accepted as appropriate and/or legal.  Do I accept the notion of the acceptability of so-called “honor” killing? NO!  I consider such things appalling.  However, I do understand that in an aristocratic society which was as extremely sensitive to class, race and strict social proprieties as was true in South American a couple of hundred year ago, things might well have been different.  This was a society, after all, which considered the behavior of a wife to be a reflection on her husband and wives, and daughters, WERE accepted, socially and legally, to be the property of their husband/fathers.  In such a society, such things as “honor” killings did occur and were considered acceptable and proper, or at least non-criminal offenses.  We need to understand the truth of the fact that morality is NOT an absolute.  Situations change!  Progress (changes), even in morality, is possible.  In earlier times we killed people by hanging, drawing and quartering them. (Look up what that means, if you want.) or by stoning them to death.  Executions used to be held in public and were considered “entertainment.”  We don’t do that anymore, although we still do, in some places, execute (kill) some convicted persons.  (We just executed someone in “pro-life” Nebraska, just the other day.  The last time I read the Commandment, it simply said, “Thou shalt not kill,” but I can’t, of course, read the original, so I suppose that I could have misunderstood.
 
Having lived in the South for many years, I have long been exposed to the statues honoring “our Confederate dead,” or, as the statue on the courthouse steps in Sylva says, “Our Heroes of the Confederacy.” Even though I was raised in the North, I don’t really have a lot of problem with such things, provided that we understand what these statues, etc., mean and why they were erected. Personally, I’m not completely convinced that, it allcases, they were created for the purpose of racial intimidation, although the timing of their erection, in many cases, does seem to suggest that this may have been at least a partial motive.  Still, the non-white population of Jackson County North Carolina isn’t (and I don’t believe ever has been) particularly large.  In fact, there are currently about six times as many “Native Americans” there than there are African Americans, so it seems that the Confederate statue on the courthouse steps couldhave been simply to honor those who died, rather than an attempt to provide racial intimidation.  In fact, the courthouse was built in 1913 and the statue was erected in 1915, so the motivations are not completely clear, at least in my mind.  Of course, war memorials to “our glorious dead” have been around for a long time and through many wars.  I admit to some reservations about any such things, but relatively few.
 
Statues honoring specific people from the Civil War, however, seem a good deal more problematic.  Even as a “Damn Yankee” (although I have also been referred to as a “Gentleman of the North”), I can respect Robert E. Lee, and others, who made a difficult choice between their home state and their country, but that does not mean that I think they deserve great honor for, in fact, being traitors by violating their earlier oaths to defend the United States, instead turning to take up arms against it.  Yes, times were different then, but treason was (and is) still treason.  To argue that they were “heroes” who should be honored is to accept the idea that treason is acceptable, under some circumstances.  Of course, our “Founding Fathers” were, in fact traitors to the British crown, but we don’t talk about that, and most people don’t accept that.  After all, as Napoleon is supposed to have said: “History is written by the winners.”, and we got away with that one.  
 
Consequently, in the light of the evidence that many of the statues honoring such Confederate “heroes” were erected during the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, White Citizens Councils, and such groups in the late Nineteen teens and twenties, I think it’s quite probable than many of those statues were intended to “send a message” of racial and/or religious superiority to non-whites, immigrants, Jews, Catholics, and others.  I believe that such statues need to be removed from places of social centrality, but they probably should be preserved in museums where the appropriate context can be explained.  We need to be able to explain to ourselves and to our descendants who these figures were, why these statues were made, and why the statues were relocated.  This requires compassion, care and factual information.  The heritage of the United States should be based on the Truth as we best understand it, not some pseudo-moralistic idea of what “ought to be told.”
 
This gets me back to where I started.  I will accept that Wilder may have included “… dated cultural attitudes toward Indigenous people and people of color that contradict modern acceptance, celebration, and understanding of diverse communities.”  I also accept that Twain may have used language which would be considered offensive on the streets of contemporary America, as did Lee. However, pretending that such attitudes and language didn’t exist (or still don’t) and suppressing artistic works which portray them accurately for the timeframe being presented, is dishonest and stupid.  Sticking our collective heads in the sand and ignoring the reality of our history will NOT make things better.  Understanding where we came from and why we no longer accept these attitudes MAY help us to move forward.
 
I confess that I really don’t know Wilder’s works, but I doubt that she used the language in question from a desire to denigrate “Indigenous people and people of color.”  I suspect she was simply using the language which she felt was appropriate for those characters, in that place, at that point in history.  If one actually READS Twain, it’s difficult to believe that Huck’s use of the so-called “N” word for Jim was intended as a racial slur instead of what Huck would simply have considered Jim’s name, which may not make the term any more acceptable in “polite society” today, but it does make Huck’s use of it understandable in the period portrayed.
 
Should we consider the idea that these books, and many, many, more may require some discussion and explanation to be properly understood and evaluated in a modern context?  Yes. Shakespeare (through his characters) says a lot of unappetizing things on a lot of topics in his plays but understanding the reality of his world makes them more understandable, if not more acceptable for today’s society.  So, do a great many other authors, playwright’s, etc.!  What I find unacceptable is the use of language, violence and/or explicit sexuality purely for commercial purposes in “art,” be it dramatic literature or performance, movies, or fiction.  
 
It’s not that I’m not opposed to these things in those cases where they are necessary to the story and make sense for the character/ period/locale.  After all, it’s hard to avoid a crucifixion scene if you are doing a work about the life of Jesus.  But, the treatment of that scene can be presented in a number of ways from the straightforward (PG version) to the, essentially, pornographic (X-rated one).  A scene in a Vietnam war era barracks presenting a bunch of GIs is likely to contain different language/action from that in scene in an upper-class drawing room comedy.  Determining the appropriateness of the language, or the behavior is the job of the creators of such works.  I suspect that we need to require good judgement based on an understanding of both historical reality and what is acceptable in contemporary society.   That’s hard to write into law, but it’s not all that impossible for people to achieve.
 
LLAP
0 Comments

​126     It’s August Again!

8/10/2018

0 Comments

 
As I write this it’s shortly after the beginning of August, 2018.  That means that the new school year is about to start, so swimming lessons at the “Y” are almost over and the Aquasize classes which Bonnie and I go to can get back to normal after another summer of disrupted schedules, excessive noise and a, generally, less than really great class experience.  Oh, I don’t dispute that the “Y” is performing a valuable service (and almost certainly making some needed money) by offering swimming lessons for children, but those of us who attend water-based exercise classes on a regular, year-around basis would seem to have the right to feel a bit of annoyance at having our schedules changed, space for our classes reduced, and general circumstances made less pleasant when it would seem possible to arrange things so as not to do this and still have swimming lessons.  However, as the summer is about over, this too will pass, and things will, I hope, return to a more normal situation in fairly short order.
 
This, of course, serves as a reminder that the new school year is about to start (as if all of the “BACK TO SCHOOL” sales were not reminder enough).  I confess that I really don’t miss going back to school very much.  I did look forward to it every year for a long time, as the pleasure of seeing friends (students and colleagues) I hadn’t seen in a while; the anticipation of new students; the hopes for newly reorganized classes and the excitement of a new production season were always both a joy and a promise of frantic activity and mostly enjoyable “work.”  
 
I think of those days with some frequency, but, I must confess, that I’m not completely sorry that they are now over for me.  I had a good, long run but I’m enjoying not having to do it anymore.  I do want to pass along my hopes and wishes for a good year to any readers who are involved with education.  I still think it’s probably the most important thing that humans do.  Hopes for the future are pretty slim if we don’t devote adequate time and resources to prepare our children for the mess we will leave for them to deal with.  That’s not to say we (as a generation) are probably any less successful that our parents (grandparents, etc.) were; just that we have not solved all of the problems of how to get along with each other and it’s unlikely that we will, so it will soon be time for yet another generation to have their turn at trying. Maybe they’ll be more successful than we have been.  In any event, if you’re headed back to school, I wish you well.
 
Since it is now August, I am reminded that on the Nineteenth of this month, in the year 1692, my ancestor, Martha (Allen) Carrier, was hanged as a witch in Salem, MA.  Of course, Massachusetts wasn’t a state yet, it was a part of the Massachusetts Bay Colony chartered by the Massachusetts Bay Company under the authority of King Charles I, who was deposed and beheaded long before 1692, when Martha was killed.
 
Now Martha was married to Thomas Morgan Carrier, who, at least according to family legend (therefore not proven, nor, probably, provable) had been, in fact, born in Wales, had served in the army of Charles I, and was one of the personal guards of Charles I due to his considerable height (about 7’).  (The story goes that the king liked tall people to surround him.)  Anyway, Thomas left the royal army to serve with Cromwell during the Commonwealth and was, eventually, selected to guard the stage during Charles I’s execution.  It’s said that, when the chosen executioner refused to perform the beheading, Thomas actually accomplished this act himself.  
 
It has always been of some interest to me that while Martha and several of their children were accused of being witches (only Martha was convicted and executed), I have never found any mention of even the slightest suspicion of an accusation of Thomas.  Now, no one knew for certain who Charles’ actual executioners were (they were masked), although we do know that when Charles II was returned to the throne, he made strenuous efforts to seek out and punish 49 named (known) individuals and the two unknown executioners as regicides (a capital offense).  The story that Thomas was one of the “… two unknown executioners….” was, apparently, known in Salem, at least as rumor, and would seem to have made him somewhat vulnerable.  But, although his wife and family were accused of witchcraft, I have encountered no references to Thomas being accused (of witchcraft or anything else) in the research I have done regarding the witchcraft trials.  In fact, he is virtually ignored.  
 
What brings all of this to mind is my recent acquisition of a copy of the book, Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft.  This is an interesting read (although not an easy nor a quick one) at least if you have an interest in the occurrences at Salem.  In this 1974 book, Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum spend their efforts developing the idea that the Salem experience was an outgrowth of changes in the social, economic, political, and religious circumstances in Salem Village (now Danvers).  I have to admit that I think they make a pretty good case, as far as it goes.  My objection is that it doesn’t seem to go far enough.
 
The focus of this study is almost exclusively on the relationships between two family-based factions which developed in Salem Village in the period leading up to 1692.  One group, the Putnams, seems to have been beset with a repugnance for the growing mercantile direction of Salem Town, desired their own church and minister in the Village (which lacked official recognition as a separate entity) and focused on the, generally, declining fortunes of the Putnam family and its allied neighbors.  On the other hand, the Porter family (and its supporters) was increasing its fortunes, was not desirous of separating from Salem Town and did not support the minister (Samuel Parris) chosen (largely by the Putnam group) for the congregation set up in the Village.  It is worth noting that Salem Village had gone through a series of disputes over who should be their minister, that person’s pay and other details of the agreement between the community and the minister for quite some time.  So, while there was a church building (and a parsonage) established in the Village, the exact status of the congregation and recognition of their minister had been something of a bone of contention for a number of years.  
 
In a somewhat lengthy and highly detailed argument, the authors develop their idea in considerable, and reasonably convincing, detail.  However, at the end one is left with the impression that, while their position could explain at least some of the tension and turmoil which led to the first accusations of witchcraft, it does not seem to shed any light on how the firestorm of accusations spread out of Salem Village and across the colony as far as the city of Boston and settlements in Maine.  If this discussion is to hold up, it would seem that it must offer some understanding of how the accusations spread until something over 140 people had been accused.  Of these, some simply escaped and fled, but many were arrested and jailed, although only 19 were, in fact, tried, sentenced and hanged.  The provincial problems of Salem Village do not appear to be an adequate explanation for this sort of orgy of recrimination.  I’m left with the strong impression that some of these social forces could well have been partially responsible for some of what happened, but this book doesn’t seem to be adequate to explain the entire experience.
 
What it does seem to support, however, is the notion that a mixture of socio/economic insecurity, religion and politics were probably at least a part of what caused the entire conflagration.  I confess that I do not find this surprising.  Part of the background to the First Amendment, I believe, was that the notion of a state established religion (as was common in virtually all of Europe at the time of our Revolution) should be viewed not just with skepticism, but with great trepidation.  I believe that I am correct to assert that a number of the early colonies were founded to escape from forcible involvement with the “official” religion of England. I find it worth noting that the Amendment reads; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”.  
 
To me, this seems to be saying that it’s none of the government’s business to be involved with matters of religion; that government should neither support nor restrict religion, nor should it have anything to say about the exercise of religious worship, or the lack thereof.  My suspicion has always been (and I find it increasingly supported by my researches into the Salem experience) that probably the worst thing that can happen to our country is to allow religion and politics to intermingle.  As best I can tell, this should not be limited to the US. It seems to be the case that whenever politics and religion join forces, bad stuff happens, freedom is limited, people suffer, perhaps even die.  We need to remember that.  Religion seems to be invariably concerned with belief in “the one great truth.”  The nature of that “truth” is what differentiates one religion from another. Politics should be concerned with how we can get along without allowing (or insisting) that OUR “truth” (whatever it might be) gives us the right to destroy/oppress you and/or YOUR right to believe in something different.  
 
The mixture of politics and religion is the foundation of the fanaticism which led to the Inquisition, many of the historic European wars, the Salem trials and a good deal of other less than pleasant stuff.  As Americans, we need to resist any and all efforts to encourage such a mixture as “Un-American!”
 
LLAP
0 Comments

    Just personal comments about things which interest me (and might interest others).

    Archives

    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly