Making history (up)

The current presidential administration has been making history.

I don’t mean making history the way that phrase is typically used. I mean the Trump administration has been making history up, by erasing facts that don’t meet the administration’s standards for political correctness. The erasures have taken place in several formats, including on federal websites, in federal training materials, etc. The American Historical Assoc. and the Organization of American Historians have issued a “Statement Condemning Federal Censorship of American History”; I’ll include the full statement below.

A few of the changes have been stopped by public protests, such as removing the Tuskegee Airmen from Air Force training videos. The Air Force removed the Tuskegee Airmen from the videos because they intepreted Trump’s executive orders against DEI as applying to any mention of the history of a Black combat unit. Given the wording of the executive order, I feel the Air Force made a reasonable interpretation of the order, i.e., the fault lies not with the Air Force but with the executive order.

Other changes to American history remain in place. For example, as of right now the home page of the Stonewall National Monument doesn’t contain the word “transgender,” and the the acronym “LGBTQ” has been replaced by the acronym “LGB.” (The Internet Archive Wayback Machine shows that the acronym “LGBT” was used prior to the Trump administration executive orders; see e.g. this archived webpage from 2022.) Since trans people were integral to the Stonewall riots, the simple removal of the “T” from “LGBTQ” does in fact represent a major rewriting of history by the federal government. The Trump administration may not like transgender people, but like them or not, they were most definitely a part of the history of the Stonewall riots.

I see several things going on here. First, while the Trump administration and their allies denounce “cancel culture,” this looks like cancel culture to me. Second, while the Trump administration and allies denounce censorship, this looks like censorship to me. And finally, as I said at the beginning of this post, this is political correctness — which the Trump administration and their allies have also denounced.

No surprises here. The Trumpites are not the first politicians to spin stories that have little relationship to facts, but which help to bolster their agendas. But it seems like a good idea to document the amazingly vast extent to which the Trump administration is just — making stuff up.

(Thanks to…)

Continue reading “Making history (up)”

Practical politics

In his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell provides historical context that helps us understand why philosophers tackled certain problems at different times in history. In much of the Middle Ages, there was no philosophy. So Russell describes the battles between various polities, and the struggles between the Roman Catholic Church and secular authorities, which helped set the stage for the blossoming of scholastic philosophy in the thirteenth century.

In 1154, Hadrian IV became Pope. Hadrian soon became embroiled in a struggle with Frederick Barbarossa, who had become king of Germany in 1152, and wanted the Pope to crown him Holy Roman Emperor. According to Russell, however, Hadrian IV and Barbarossa were able to find common cause when the city of Rome sought to become an independent city. A poulist faction in Rome wanted an elected body of lawmakers, and they wanted the right to choose their own emperor. The Romans brought in one Arnold of Brescia, a man known for his saintliness. Russell doesn’t make it entirely clear what Rome hoped to get from Arnold, but I suppose they wanted moral credibility.

Unfortunately for Rome, Arnold was a heretic. Russell describes his “very grave” heresy thus: “he maintained that ‘clerks who have estates, bishops who hold fiefs, monks who possess property, cannot be saved’” [i.e., cannot be saved from damnation in the Christian scheme of the afterlife]. Arnold maintained that clerics should abjure material things and devote themselves solely to spiritual matters. However, Arnold’s biggest heresy was that he was supported Roman independence. This enraged Barbarossa. Hadrian IV became equally enraged when there was a riot in Rome in which a Roman Catholic cardinal was killed.

This happened during Holy Week, the week leading up to Easter which was the most holy week of the year for the residents of Rome. Hadrian banned the Romans from joining in the Easter rites, unless they got rid of Arnold. The Romans submitted to Hadrian, and expelled Arnold from Rome. Arnold went into hiding, was discovered by Barbarossa’s soldiers, executed, his body burned, and the ashes disposed of in a river. Literally nothing of Arnold remained around which resistance could be organized.

Once Arnold of Brescia was disposed of, Hadrian and Barbarossa could resume their political battle without further distraction. Russell comments:

“The honest man being disposed of, the practical politicians were free to resume their quarrel.”

This is a useful lesson for our own time. Since at least the time of Newt Gingrich, it feels like the honest people have slowly been forced out of politics by the “practical politicians” who seem mostly interested in their personal grabs for power.

What youth engagement can look like

In the last 1990s, I took Prof. Robert Pazmino’s course in teaching practices and principles, aimed at education in local congregations. One of Bob’s memorable insights was that congregations should have a teen voting member on every church committee, including the governing board. As Bob pointed out, not only is that the best way for teens to learn how congregational governance works, it’s also good for congregations who want to figure out how to meet the emerging needs of the rising generation.

This principle holds true for all nonprofit organizations. In 2014, when the Religious Education Association annual conference was in Boston, I went with a group to visit the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI). This community group, which served a white-minority low-income neighborhood, had 4 seats on its 25-seat board dedicated to teens. Not only did DSNI benefit from the insights of its teen board members — not only did the teens benefit enormously from this real-life experience — but serving on the DSNI board as a teen provided a direct path into city government for ambitious teens; this helped both the teens, and DSNI, who now had a sympathetic ear in City Hall.

Now Hamilton Ontario is applying this same principle to the public sector:

“When Hamilton [Ontario] first set its sights on bolstering youth engagement, it focused on some of the places it could connect with the greatest number of young people: local universities. After years of working with individual institutions in effective, yet often one-off and ad hoc ways, the city saw merit in striking a long-term partnership with its three core schools—Mohawk College and McMaster and Redeemer universities—with the shared aim of integrating students into public problem solving…. All four partners committed to a five-year pilot program—including funding, time, and even a physical building next to city hall—to turn the seat of local government into a classroom and the schools into extensions of city hall….” [via Bloomberg Cities Network at Johns Hopkins Univ.]

So… now you have even more motivation to get teens on your congregation’s board and committees.

Noted with comment

I’ve been rereading Dave Van Ronk’s memoir The Mayor of MacDougal Street (2006). Van Ronk was a musician best remembered for his fingerstyle guitar and his interpretations of blues music, although he thought of himself as more of as a jazz musician manque. He was one of the core musicians of the 1960s Folk Revival, though he never hit it big like his friend Bobby Dylan. Van Ronk was also a serious leftist. He started out as an anarchist, joined the IWW, and wound up as a Troskyite. In his memoir, he reflected on the politics of the 1960s:

“I was encouraged by a lot of the changes that were happening in the 1960s, but as an orthodox leftist I was also a very strong critic of the student movement and the New Left. Of course, I agreed with a lot of their stances — I was strongly pro-civil rights and strongly antiwar — but most of those people were not really radicals, just a bunch of very pissed-off liberals. They had no grounding, and indeed no interest, in theory, and their disdain for studying history and learning economics infuriated me. The core problem with the New Left was that it wasn’t an ideology, it was a mood — and if you are susceptible to one mood, you are susceptible to another. They wanted the world to change, but essentially it was a petty bourgeois movement that had no connection with what was really going on. The working class at least has some power — if the working class folds it arms, the machinery stops — and as for the ruling class, its power is obvious. But what power does the middle class have? They have the power to talk: yak, yak, yak. To interpret, reinterpret, and re-re-reinterpret. And that is the history of the New Left in a nutshell.”

Interestingly, I feel the current Republican party actually does have a serious theoretical grounding. I disagree violently with the Republican party’s economic policies, but you have to admit that they are firmly grounded in Milton Friedman’s economic theories. Even if today’s Republicans have drifted away from Friedman in some respects, still a great deal of their agenda — doing away with Social Security, privatizing the National Park System, getting rid of the Post Office, etc. — comes straight out of his work.

Who on the American left offers any theoretical grounding to compete with Friedmanism? If Dave Van Ronk were still alive he’d no doubt advocate for Troskyism, although to my mind that’s a non-starter in 2025 America. Personally, I’d vote for William J. Barber’s Poor People’s Campaign. However, I suspect Barber’s Christian affiliation is a dealbreaker for many of today’s pissed-off liberals; plus it has proved difficult to get pissed-off liberals to focus on poverty as a central issue.

Reading list: more on Asian history

Brief notices of other histories of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries that I’ve been reading

Tuttle Publishing’s “Brief History of…” series

Tuttle Publishing says that its core mission is “to publish best-in-class books informing the English-speaking world about the countries and peoples of Asia.” Founded in Rutland, Vermont, back in 1832, they now have offices in Vermont, Tokyo, and Singapore. Their “Brief History” series provides popular one-volume histories of various countries in East Asia and Southeast Asia. Current titles in this series cover the following countries: China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (including North and South Korea), Singapore and Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. An although Bali is part of Indonesia, there’s also a separate book on Bali in this series.

I’ve read all these titles except the ones on Bali and Japan. I can affirm that each book I’ve read gives exactly what they promise: a brief introduction to the history of each country. Each one is competently written and entertaining, and each one generally relies on secondary (and tertiary) sources rather than primary sources. If you want something more than a Wikipedia article, but something less than a dry scholarly history, these are the perfect books to read. While the quality of the books is consistently high, I’ll offer brief comments on the relative strengths of each volume. Then I’ll discuss two other books published by Tuttle that offer more in-depth accounts of two polities.

Nine books on Asian history arranged in a grid.
Continue reading “Reading list: more on Asian history”

Reading list: Southeast Asia

For some reason, I got interested in the history of Southeast Asia a year or so ago. Mostly I was interested in learning more about a part of the world that was completely neglected in my schooling. Below are brief summaries of three of the books I’ve been reading.

Books piled on one another.
Continue reading “Reading list: Southeast Asia”

Reading list

Reviews of three books I’ve read recently.

The Tenant of Wildfell Hall by Anne Bronte

This romance novel from 1848 begins with Gilbert Markham, the male protagonist, telling how he saves a small boy from falling off a high wall. The boy’s mother, the widowed Mrs. Helen Graham, sees him do this; but instead of thanking Gilbert, she treats him coldly and with suspicion. Nevertheless — or perhaps precisely because she treats him so badly — Gilbert falls in love with Mrs. Graham, abandons his previous sweetheart, and pursues this mysterious widow despite her attempts to keep him at arms’ length. So ends the first part of the book. Gilbert manages to portray himself as weak-willed and foolish, and thus not the typical hero of a romance novel.

The second part of the book consists of entries from Helen Graham’s diary, whose real name turns out to be Helen Lawrence Huntington. Helen has given this diary to Gilbert so he can understand her better. In the diary, Helen tells how she fell in love with Arthur Huntingdon, a weak-willed and unscrupulous man. She foolishly marries him. To her astonishment — but not to ours — after their marriage, Arthur reveals himself to be abusive, irrational, domineering, and nasty. Helen puts up with him until she sees that their son is beginning to imitate his father. This she cannot stand, so she flees the marriage with her son, and hides in the country under an assumed name, where she meets Gilbert Markham. So ends the second part. Will her life improve in the third part?

Continue reading “Reading list”

Questionable quotes

While researching the provenance of quotes from the UUA’s “Wayside Pulpit” quote collection, I’ve uncovered a number of questionable quotes. Some of the quotes are clearly spurious or otherwise wrong. Others, however, may be real quotations, but my research didn’t happen to turn up a firm attribution. Since some of my readers enjoy working on this kind of puzzle, I’ll post some of the results of my research below.

Continue reading “Questionable quotes”

Quotes for the Wayside Pulpit

The “Wayside Pulpit” is a long tradition for Unitarian Universalist congregations. In the old days, the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) would print up large poster-size sheets with various inspirational quotes on them, and congregations would purchase those sheets, and post them in signboards outside their church or meetinghouse. Nowadays, the UUA provides free PDFs and you print them yourself.

When we installed a Wayside Pulpit outside the meetinghouse of First Parish in Cohasset, Mass., I started looking for some more (and more recent) quotations to add to the ones I found in the UUA website. I quickly discovered that the web is inundated with spurious quotes, and quotes with inaccurate attributions. Then I noticed that some of the quotes provided by the UUA had problems. As an example, the quotation “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing” gets attributed to Edmund Burke, but the Quote Investigator website states that this attribution is wrong. Or take the quotation that says “If I cannot do great things, I can do small things in a great way” — the UUA attributes this to James Freeman Clarke, but I couldn’t find it in Clarke’s published works (which are mostly digitized and easily searchable online), and various online sources attribute this same quote to Napoleon Hill or Martin Luther King, Jr.

After many hours of research, I finally came up with 77 quotes where I had reasonably good evidence that (a) the quote was actually said by the person it’s attributed to, and (b) it represents pretty much the same words that the person actually said or wrote. For each quote, I included attributions showing their source. (In a couple of cases, I shortened quotes so they’d fit into the Wayside Pulpit format; I’ve noted where I’ve done so, and I also give the original wording.)

Several of these quotes date from the past five years, including words from Brene Brown, Joy Harjo, Tricia Hersey, Yara Shahidi, Taylor Swift, and Greta Thunberg. I’ve also added a couple of quotes from non-White UUs including Mark Morrison-Reed and Imaoka Shin’ichiro. (Update: just added a bunch of quotes from scientists, for those of us who are geeks.)

You can see this collection of quotes here.

A sign in front of the corner of a New England clapboard meetinghouse.
The Wayside Pulpit in front of the 1747 Cohasset Meetinghouse.

Turning twenty

(I wrote this a few days ago, then forgot to post it. Here it is now….)

On February 22, 2005 —twenty years ago last Saturday — I wrote my first blog post. If you want a summary of this blog’s boring history, try here, here, and here. But I don’t want to look at the past, I want to think about the ongoing role of independent blogs like this one.

Twenty years ago, most blogs were a mix of day-to-day trivia, snarky commentary, and a few more serious long-form posts. All three of these have now migrated to other platforms.

The day-to-day trivia gets posted to social media outlets like Facecrook, TikFok, YouCrude, Instacrap, etc. Much of it consists of images, graphical memes, and videos. There’s no longer much interest in text-based day-to-day trivia.

Snarky commentary has also moved to social media outlets. Again, there’s been a movement away from text-based snark to videos, graphical memes, and images. Snark has also declined in intelligence, creativity, and kindness; I wouldn’t even call it snark any more, I’d call it Rage Porn.

Long-form text-based posts have moved to outlets that cater to that format, such as Substack and Medium. This move is generally a good thing; writers can focus on writing, and they can stop worrying about the technical challenges of publishing online.

In short, most of what appeared on independent blogs twenty years ago has now moved to other platforms. There’s a good reason for these moves: it has become increasingly challenging to stay current with web technology.

Take, for example, WordPress, the blogging platform I use. I started out in 2005 using WordPress 1.5, when it was simple and uncomplicated blogging software. Today, WordPress has morphed into a major CMS capable of running today’s most complex websites. I no longer have the time to stay current with its capabilities. That’s one of the reasons I still use a nine-year-old theme: I don’t have the time to make the move to a new theme. Sure, I could hire a WordPress consultant to do it for me; but that gets away from the DIY ethos that I found so appealing about blogging back in 2005.

Whatever platform you choose, web security has become increasingly difficult, as the evil hackers get bolder and more skilled. I’m lucky I have a good web host who helps me keep current with security issues. But it’s getting harder and harder for me to stay current with web security. I can thoroughly understand why writers would want to move to a platform like Substack or Medium.

Beyond the challenge of staying current with technology, I don’t think there’s much of an audience for independent text-based blogs any more. Most of my early readership long ago migrated to social media platforms. Once you’re hooked in to a social media platform, there’s not much reason to go visit an independent website. Potential new audiences tend to prefer audio or visual podcasts; they don’t want to read text, they want to watch or listen to content.

The only reason to write an independent text-based blog like this one is because you like to write. That describes me. I enjoy the process of writing, and I write all the time. As long as I’m writing something, I might as well publish it. And even though publishing a blog has gotten more difficult in the past twenty years, it’s still far easier than the printed fanzines I used to publish in the 1980s and 1990s.

So what if the audience for independently hosted blogs is tiny? I’m still having fun, which has always been the point of this blog. I hope you’re still having fun, too — and thank you for continuing to read.