Posts tagged history
Austerians don’t get off on other people’s suffering. They, for the most part, honestly believe that theirs is the quickest way through the suffering. They may be right or they may be wrong. When Krugman says he’s only worried about ‘premature’ fiscal discipline, it becomes largely a question of emphasis anyway. But the austerians deserve credit: They at least are talking about the spinach, while the Krugmanites are only talking about dessert.
Paul Krugman’s Misguided Moral Crusade Against Austerity by Michael Kinsley (via thenewrepublic)
Perhaps.
But here’s a historical analogy that I remember from an ancient civilizations class so many years ago. The anecdote was so radically counter-intuitive to anything I had ever been taught, that it blew my mind. I’ve been thinking about citizenship and democracy in different ways ever since. It’s a story about the Roman Republic.
As a republic, Rome relied on citizen-armies to fight its wars. When Rome was setting off for war, the male citizens would gather in the Field of Mars (the god of war). Military needs would dictate the number of troops that needed to be raised for a campaign. Then, the citizens would be drafted, one by one, until they made up the requisite number.
But here’s the counter-intuitive part: Because Rome’s was a citizen-army, the citizen-soldiers had to provide their own military equipment. So the wealthiest citizens were always drafted first. (According to my professor, in the history of the Roman Republic the poorest class of citizens were never drafted.) Even when they fought, the wealthier (better armed) citizens always took the front ranks.
This seemed to me remarkable. The wealthiest Roman citizens held the most power in the republic. Only they could enter the Senate or hope to serve as consuls or tribunes. And yet they were the most exposed to the risks of war. Because those who exercised the most power also bore the greatest responsibility—and put their own skin in the game.
Today, America’s military is predominantly manned by the lower social classes. Few members of the social elite ever enter military service. Not surprisingly, austerity politics has followed suit. We’re more likely to cut services for the poor than subsidies for the wealthy or middle class.
I wonder. Would an average ancient Roman citizen even recognize our system as a “republic”?
BTW, it’s perhaps not immaterial to point out that the Roman Republic lasted nearly 500 years (that’s almost three centuries longer than the US has existed). By around 50 BC or so, the citizen-army model gave way to “professional” militaries, often recruited from among the poor. These private armies served under individual (wealthy) generals—like Julius Caesar, who gave us the Roman Empire.
Via globalvoices:
History Retouched: Two Versions of Mao’s China
One of China’s top ten micro-blogs published historical photos showing two versions of Chinese history during Mao’s Era (1949-1976).
See the complete photo set here.
A fascinating look at how history was “retouched” in China for political purposes.
A referendum in which the colonists will take part, the descendants of those who evicted the true inhabitants of those islands, means a disrespect to intelligence and to national and international law,
Argentine Vice President Amado Boudou, who apparently doesn’t know Argentina’s history with its own indigenous populations or has no sense of irony. Via Argentina attacks Falkland Islands referendum - Telegraph (via westernhemisphereanalysis)
Oh, historical anachronisms!
Why the history of the Constitution matters
Let’s be very clear on something: The US Constitution, as every textbook (at any level) makes very clear, was not written with the primary intention of limiting the central government.
Sure, the Founding Fathers (peace be upon them) were motivated by a liberal suspicion towards strong central government.
But the Founding Fathers had already created a government with a weak central government. It was called the Articles of Confederation. It was the failure of that government (which lasted until 1789) that prompted the Founding Fathers to create a new constitution that gave more powers to the central government and took powers away from the states. (I’m also pretty sure the Civil War definitely answered this issue.)
In fact, one of the things that prompted the creation of a new, stronger central government was Shay’s Rebellion. My old office (at Dickinson College) was on the very corner where General George Washington assembled the militia that marched off to put down Shay’s Rebellion (there’s a plaque and everything).
It’s also useful to remember that the original Constitution included a number of things we would probably find distasteful today. And not even in the Bill of Rights (which, remember, only came later—years after the Constitution was adopted). For example, slavery was legal and slaves (African-Americans) only counted as 3/5 of a person. And women weren’t allowed to vote. Stuff like that.
I love the US Constitution. It’s not perfect (no such document is). But it’s not a sacred text. I do, however, wish more people got sworn in with it (like Rep. Kyrsten Sinema did).
![From theatlantic:
Study: American Income Inequality Was Better in 1774 Than It Is Today
Here’s a finding that would have made for great Occupy sign last year: American income inequality may be more severe today than it was way back in 1774 — even if you factor in slavery.
That stat’s not actually as crazy (or demoralizing) as it sounds, but it might upend some of the old wisdom about our country’s economic heritage. The conclusion comes to us from an newly updated study by professors Peter Lindert of the University of California - Davis and Jeffrey Williamson of Harvard. Scraping together data from an array of historical resources, the duo have written a fascinating exploration of early American incomes, arguing that, on the eve of the Revolutionary War, wealth was distributed more evenly across the 13 colonies than anywhere else in the world that we have record of.
Suffice to say, times have changed.
Read more. [Image: Jordan Weissmann]
Historical economics is fascinating—and often also illuminating. But here, I’m left with a very uncomfortable question: Does the 1774 figure include slavery? If so, does this mean that today’s America is more unequal than an America that widely practiced slavery? Read the first sentence again. Yes, yes it does.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_malo8hp7io1qcokc4o1_400.png)
From theatlantic:
Study: American Income Inequality Was Better in 1774 Than It Is Today
Here’s a finding that would have made for great Occupy sign last year: American income inequality may be more severe today than it was way back in 1774 — even if you factor in slavery.
That stat’s not actually as crazy (or demoralizing) as it sounds, but it might upend some of the old wisdom about our country’s economic heritage. The conclusion comes to us from an newly updated study by professors Peter Lindert of the University of California - Davis and Jeffrey Williamson of Harvard. Scraping together data from an array of historical resources, the duo have written a fascinating exploration of early American incomes, arguing that, on the eve of the Revolutionary War, wealth was distributed more evenly across the 13 colonies than anywhere else in the world that we have record of.
Suffice to say, times have changed.
Read more. [Image: Jordan Weissmann]
Historical economics is fascinating—and often also illuminating. But here, I’m left with a very uncomfortable question: Does the 1774 figure include slavery? If so, does this mean that today’s America is more unequal than an America that widely practiced slavery? Read the first sentence again. Yes, yes it does.
![Why history (and understanding/learning from it) matters.
Via theatlantic:
The History of Muslim Anti-Western Protests Is Older Than Obama or Bush, Drones or Israel
In August 1857, a century before the United Nations would declare the Israeli state in what had been Palestine, before British and French diplomats would formally carve up the Middle East, before the U.S. would back a coup in Iran, before political Islamism would emerge, and before the U.S. would arm unmanned airplanes to kill Islamism’s most violent and radical adherents, the British empire found itself besieged by Muslim protesters.
Officers at Fort William, in the Indian city of Calcutta, were the first to require colonial troops to grease their rifles with a compound that included cow and pig fat, a mixture guaranteed to offend both Hindus and Muslims. Many of the troops, known as sepoys, protested. The protests spread and turned violent, growing into an uprising that effected much of the British Raj at a time long before it was unified by roads or telephones, much less cell phones or the Internet. […]
As the Western world once again endeavors to understand the roots of apparently anti-Western rage that have again surfaced in large parts of the Muslim world, it’s worth remembering the history of offense and backlash that has been a recurring theme of their intersections.
Read more. [Image: Reuters]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mai78yK5Bq1qcokc4o1_400.jpg)
Why history (and understanding/learning from it) matters.
Via theatlantic:
The History of Muslim Anti-Western Protests Is Older Than Obama or Bush, Drones or Israel
In August 1857, a century before the United Nations would declare the Israeli state in what had been Palestine, before British and French diplomats would formally carve up the Middle East, before the U.S. would back a coup in Iran, before political Islamism would emerge, and before the U.S. would arm unmanned airplanes to kill Islamism’s most violent and radical adherents, the British empire found itself besieged by Muslim protesters.
Officers at Fort William, in the Indian city of Calcutta, were the first to require colonial troops to grease their rifles with a compound that included cow and pig fat, a mixture guaranteed to offend both Hindus and Muslims. Many of the troops, known as sepoys, protested. The protests spread and turned violent, growing into an uprising that effected much of the British Raj at a time long before it was unified by roads or telephones, much less cell phones or the Internet. […]
As the Western world once again endeavors to understand the roots of apparently anti-Western rage that have again surfaced in large parts of the Muslim world, it’s worth remembering the history of offense and backlash that has been a recurring theme of their intersections.
Read more. [Image: Reuters]
Talking about the single transferable vote (STV) electoral system in INST 316 (Electoral Systems & Party Systems). STV is used in only a small handful of countries in the world—one of which is Ireland. We went over how it works on Monday, took a break to talk about linear regression on Wednesday, and today will have a student report on how STV affects Irish elections.
I thought it might be useful to help explain the Irish political system—and particularly its deep roots in the Irish Civil War of 1922-23—through music. The war came on the heels of Irish independence, which began in earnest with the Easter Rising of 1916 (which inspired the famous ballad, “Foggy Dew”). If you’re looking for a great Irish history site, there’s none better than the National Library of Ireland, which has a great online exhibit of the 1916 Rising.
So I’m playing for my students the Black 47 song “Big Fellah.” I think the song does a good job of laying the groundwork for the basic framework for understanding post-independence Irish politics: The Irish rose up in 1916 using the [Dublin] GPO (General Post Office) as headquarters, fought together against the “black & tans” (the English), but then became divided over the terms of the peace treaty (which “came back with an Ireland divided up in two!”), then fought a civil war amongst themselves. The song also focuses on Michael Collins (the subject of a recent film, staring Liam Neeson), who was later killed by his former partisans because he backed the partition settlement.
If you want to watch a more powerful film on the subject, I highly recommend The Wind that Shakes the Barley. It’s the tragic story of two brothers who fight for Irish independence, then end up on different sides in the Irish Civil War. That film, perhaps more than any other, shows the political divisions between what later became the two most powerful parties in Ireland: Fianna Fáil (the party that opposed the partition treaty) and Fine Gael (the party that supported the partition treaty).
Remembering the Six Million
From kohenari:
Today is Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Rememberance Day.
As we remember the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis, let us also recommit ourselves to fighting intolerance, injustice, and human rights abuses around the world.
If you’re looking for something else to read to mark the day, here is my piece on visiting the Buchenwald concentration camp.
Titanic Survivors: A Breakdown by Class
A very interesting way to start a discussion about social class. How would this compare to, say, Katrina?
Via shortformblog:
- First Class Passengers: 63% survived (200 out of 319 lived).
- Second Class Passengers: 43% survived (117 out of 269 lived).
- Third Class Passengers: 25% survived (172 out of 699 lived).
Any death, regardless of class, is a horrible and tragic thing, but on the anniversary of the Titanic’s sinking it’s important to remember one of the things that night symbolizes: that, even in moments of terrible crisis and great collective peril, we remain divided and valued by the ticket we can afford.
A great lesson told through numbers.
Happy Valentine’s Day Eve. Up until the 1967 Loving v. Virginia US Supreme Court case, inter-racial marriage was illegal in large parts of the US.
On the race issue, frequent comparisons are made between the US, Brazil, and South Africa. For comparison, similar laws were abolished in South Africa only in 1985. No such laws existed in Brazil during the 20th century.
Via newyorker:
In 1950, a young man from Central Point, Virginia, went seven miles down the road to hear some music. Seven brothers named the Jeters were on that night, playing bluegrass in a farmhouse. The young man had come for the music, but couldn’t help noticing a young woman in the audience. The man, Richard Loving, was white; the woman, Mildred Jeter, was black and Cherokee. Seventeen years later, as a result of their meeting, the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act, along with anti-miscegenation laws in fifteen other states, ending the legal prohibitions against interracial marriage.
On view until May 6th at the International Center of Photography, “The Loving Story” highlights the human element of the Loving v. Virginia case, bringing the ardor that fuelled the Lovings’ half-decade of appeals into heart-rending focus…- For more selection of photographs of Richard and Mildred Loving: http://nyr.kr/wLrC3t
- Page 1 of 3
- Next »
