7 Occasions that Europe Changed the Time

The continent of Europe is complicated politically, culturally and linguistically. And if you delve a little deeper into history, you realize that the continent’s association with time is equally complex and surprising. Here are seven of the most peculiar ways that time has been changed in Europe. Samantha Arrowsmith explains.

Adolf Hitler and then Spanish leader Francisco Franco in 1940. Franco adjusted Spanish time to align with German time during World War Two. Picture from Heinrich Hoffmann/Krakow-Warsaw Press Publishing, available here.

Ever wondered who you should thank for losing an hour’s sleep every year? 

I’m not a big fan of bugs, and my golf game is, well, let’s just say that getting off the tee is an achievement, so it seems odd that both should have had such a big impact on mine and millions of other people’s daily life.

If Benjamin Franklin was being satirical in his 1784 paper suggesting the firing of canons every summer morning to get people up earlier, New Zealand scientist George Hudson made the first serious suggestion to change time in 1895; he wanted more daylight hours to engage in his bug hunting. The cause was later taken up in the UK by William Willett who, wanting the chance to play golf for longer, published The Waste of Daylight in 1907 hoping to promote the idea. 

By 1916 and the onset of the Great War, the argued reason to change the clocks in order to save energy took on more urgency; Germany was the first to introduce the policy in April 1916 and Britain adopted the practice a month later along with France, Italy and Russia.

So, the next time you wonder who causes you to lose that hour’s sleep every year, you can blame bugs and golf.

Did you think that a year could only be either 365 or 366 days?

It is a fact that every child is taught in school that the year consists of 365 days in a standard year and 366 in a leap year. Fact, yes?

Well, not in Europe.

In 46BC, when Julius Caesar introduced his new calendar, he created a year that was 445 days long. Unfortunately, the Julian calendar gained a day every 128 years, so, by 1582, a new calendar, the Gregorian, was introduced which required Europe to lose days. Every time a country swapped to the new calendar, they lost between 10 and 13 days a year. In the UK, the first day of the year was actually March 25, so when they and their dominions (including America) finally made the change, it meant that the year 1752 was only 282 days long.

Why were France and Britain not always in the same year?

The countries of Europe were, and are, pretty good at disagreeing with each other and, unfortunately, the introduction of the Gregorian calendar sparked all sorts of underlying religious turmoil. It was seen by some countries as a papist plot not to be trusted and certainly to be resisted. So, when France, Spain, Italy and other Catholic countries adopted the new calendar in 1582, a lot of Protestant countries didn’t. And, so began five centuries during which different parts of the continent used different dates. It was often the case that they were even in different years. Take just one date - January 1, 1700: France, Spain Italy and even Scotland (which by then was part of the United Kingdom) were all in 1700, whilst England and Wales were still in 1699 and remained so until March 25. Even after the UK as a whole moved in line with the majority of Europe, other countries did not – Europe was not on the same calendar until Greece finally transferred in 1923.

Who made the decision to cancel Christmas?

The name of the man (and it would have been a man) who decided the timing of the change to the Gregorian calendar in the Spanish Netherlands is now lost to us, but he was surely an inspiration for Scrooge and the Grinch.

By December 1582 it was clear that 10 days would be wiped out of existence by the change; the people of Italy, Spain, Portugal and Poland had gone to bed on October 4 and woken up on October 15. So, making the decision to make the change on December 21 was surely asking for trouble? Unfortunately, for the Spanish Netherlands that is what happened and, officially at least, there was no Christmas Day for them that year.

Which raises the question of why Greece didn’t learn the lesson. Their change in 1923 also affected the Christmas season, with New Year’s Day occurring before Christmas Day. However, Greece did manage to come up with some kind of solution and 1924 saw two Christmas celebrations. 

Why the years 1793-1806 never existed in France

The French Revolution ushered in a lot more changes than just the removal of the monarchy. The New Republic’s leaders were also keen to introduce a scientific revolution that saw the introduction of all things metric. This was the era of the meter, something that we have since adopted, and the decimalization of time, something that has not been as successful. 

Under the French Republican Calendar, years remained 12 months long, however, the first day was changed to 22 September and the old dating system was abolished. The year 1792 ceased to exist and instead was renamed Year One of the Republic.

Not just mathematicians, but also poets and painters were employed to design the new calendar, with special pictures used to represent the months, ten-day décades replacing weeks, and months being given new names.

A new clock was also created, introducing ten-hour days with a hundred minutes per hour and a hundred seconds per minute.

For twelve years France operated on a separate time and dating system until the Republic fell in 1806. Whilst the French have undoubtedly come up with some stunning inventions over the centuries, 100,000 seconds a day clocks and months named after fruit are not two of them.

Is the UK ten minutes late?

In 1884 (when Britain dominated all things naval and trade) it was decided by the International Meriden Conference in Washington that Greenwich in London would become the prime meridian, or, in other words, the center of time. It would mark Longitude 0º and it would be from here that the various zones would span out around the world.

But Greenwich had a rival in Paris, whose longitude is 9 minutes and 21 seconds ahead of GMT.

This was also the era of Anglo-Franco rivalries and no self-respecting French navigator or scientist was going to allow the nation’s time to be dictated to by the English. Paris Mean Time (PMT) had been created in 1881 and, being only 2 degrees east of Greenwich, there was no future for it in a world now dominated by GMT. It would take until 1911, before France finally gave up their hope of it remaining a contender as the Prime Meridian and turned their clocks back by 9 minutes and 21 seconds to match GMT. Nevertheless, it remained as Paris Mean Time; any reference to Greenwich was firmly kept out of the title.

So, all was well…and then along came the Nazis.

How Hitler caused a late lunch in Spain

Trying not to turn this into an essay on my failings, I’ve never been that up on geography. I know a few capital cities, can tell you the names of the continents and can actually locate a few countries on a map, but in nearly 50 years on this planet, I never noticed that a large proportion of Western Europe is not where, or rather when, it should be.

And we have Hitler to thank for it.

Until the 1940s the countries of France, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg were all on GMT/UTC as fitted their latitudinal position. But the Nazis wanted their war machine to be coordinated, and they adjusted the time of their occupied territories to match Germany’s. Although nominally neutral, Spanish leader Franco ensured that Spain changed to the new time zone to show support for his Fascist ally.

At the end of the war, France should have moved back to GMT+0, but two weeks before they were due to do so in November 1945, the French government changed its mind and decided to stay on Central European Time (GMT+1). 

Similarly, Spain did not return to GMT, a decision which has been linked to the reason why the Spanish eat so late in the day compared to other countries; lunch stayed at the same solar time whether the clocks had jumped forward or not.

I doubt that when Hitler set out on his chosen career path of genocidal maniac, he did so with the intention of disrupting Spanish mealtimes or leaving a lasting impression on European time. Nevertheless, he did.

The future?

Time still remains an issue in Europe, from whether to keep Daylight Saving Time to if Spain should revert back to GMT to be in line with Portugal. But for us who live on the continent, we can only hope that the days when we weren’t even in the same year are over. 

What do you think of changing the time in history? Let us know below.

References & Further Reading

Time and Date.com

The Guardian: Paris Mean Time

Vanessa France: A brief history of (French) time

WEBEXHITS: Calendar - French

The Atlantic: The creation of modern time

ADSB: Calendar Reform 1752

Atlas Obscura: Why England was a year behind Belgium, Spain and Italy for 170 years

Time and Date: The Julian-Gregorian switch

Mirlibooks: Confusion and Myth in the Gregorian Calendar reform

Here’s why Spain has been in the wrong time zone for the past 76 years

Why do we Love History?

The study of history has very important across cultures, and places for millennia. But why has it been so important for so long? Here, Tom Daly explains some of the reasons why he loves history – via stories, understanding, knowledge, and context.

You can also read Tom’s articles on the Princess Alice Disaster on London’s River Thames here and 14th century French female pirate Jeanne de Clisson here.

The 1471 Battle of Barnet in the Wars of the Roses. The Wars of the Roses are often said to have influenced the TV series, Game of Thrones. Representation shown is from the Ghent manuscript, 15th century (Source: Ghent University library, MS236).

A conversation at work about our favorite school subjects led to me, naturally, enthusiastically declaring my love for history. My colleagues were in general agreement that they too had enjoyed history at school, but had not necessarily loved it. Too narrow, they said. Why did we have to learn about the Liberal government’s welfare reforms in the early 20th century? Who cares about Weimar Germany? Where was the glamour, the action, the irresistible storyline, in Jethro Tull’s agricultural revolution?

I resisted the urge to say that all those subjects are interesting, in their own way. But the wider conversation got me thinking – why do I love history so much? I had never really thought about it because it has always been natural to me - history was always my favorite subject at school, and something I loved learning about outside of school. But what is it about history that still draws me in? It sounds like a simple question, yet it is so difficult to answer.

Stories

I suppose the first place to start is in the name itself – history. Derived from the Greek word ‘historia’, which roughly means the act of inquiring, it shares its roots with the word ‘story.’ Therein lies reason number one for loving history; it is, in a sense, a collection of personal and societal stories that have interwoven and shaped the world we live in today. These individual stories are often exciting, and there are so many intriguing characters and sensational plot lines throughout history that it can sometimes feel like a TV show. It is no coincidence that so many successful films and TV shows have been based on real historical events; indeed, it is commonly accepted the entire Game of Thrones saga was loosely based on the Wars of the Roses, a very real era that was full of scarcely believable figures – greedy, lustful, treacherous and occasionally brilliant men and women – all vying for the throne of England. History is interesting, dramatic, full of action.

Understanding

Characters in history can be fun, but they are also useful for understanding the lot of certain groups in society throughout the ages. Read about the life of Eleanor of Aquitaine, or Queen Matilda, or even the two Margarets of the Wars of the Roses (Anjou and Beaufort), and we gain an understanding of the situation women found themselves in during the Middle Ages – difficult, their lives often defined by their relationships with the men around them, but able to exert considerable power if they could dictate those relationships on their terms. Boudicca is another interesting example, as we learn from her story that women commanded a large degree of respect in Celtic Britain, but that she was still undermined by male violence and misogyny. Of course, the important caveat here is that these are all examples of women of high birth, and the opportunity for common women to exert such power was virtually non-existent. But then perhaps the same could generally be said of men who were not born into nobility. In any case, the point still stands – the stories of individuals can help us learn about the lot of groups they belonged to.

Curiosity

A third, perhaps more personal, reason for my love of history is a simple fascination with the way people lived in the past. I constantly find myself looking at videos or photographs from over 100 years ago (I’m not pretending I’m the coolest person on earth) and being genuinely fascinated by the people I see. What was their story? What brought them into that image or video on that day? What did they do after that image or video was taken? It doesn’t sound academic, but simple curiosity is a completely valid reason for loving history – in fact, it is probably what attracted most of us to history in the first place. While paintings from the pre-photography age cannot give the same sense of realism and relatability as photographs, these eras can still be brought to life. In London alone, there are numerous roads and buildings that have stood for centuries, and it does not require a huge leap of imagination to picture a scene from hundreds of years ago, with normal people scurrying around, with people to meet and places to be. Venture to Pudding Lane in London and you can imagine the scene one evening in 1666 as the Farynor family escaped their bakery, unaware that the fire in their dwellings was to rage for days and destroy most of the city. Nearby, the Tower of London has witnessed some of history’s most famous figures parting company with their heads. Of course, London is only one example – all across Britain, across Europe and North America, across the world, there exists remarkable pieces of history. Ever visited the temples at Angkor Wat in Cambodia, and imagined the mysterious rulers who presided over them? Ever walked the streets of Pompeii and imagined the hustle and bustle of a wealthy Roman city? Real people, with thoughts and hopes and emotions just like ours, walked those very streets on their way to work, to watch sporting events or meet their friends for a drink. Just like us.

Context

Perhaps a more academic reason for loving history is the way it allows our world to be put into context. The most obvious example of this has come in recent times, with the turbulent politics we have seen in the Western world over the past few years having led to constant historical comparisons, with the 1930s in particular. Whether you think these comparisons are merited or not, it is important that we are able to make them, to contextualize our world and learn lessons from the past. Incidentally, I personally happen to believe that the slide towards populism and nativism in the past decade would have been even starker were it not for people being wary of what happened all those years ago. Though people like me see history as a past time, it also has a vital role to play in our understanding of where we are and where we are going. History matters. Don’t let people tell you otherwise.

History Today

These are just a few reasons for my love of history, and I’m sure anyone reading this could add to my short list with a whole range of reasons. History is so wide-ranging and all-encompassing that it can mean different things to different people. To me, it is fast, exciting, intensely interesting – and constantly evolving. This may sound morbid, but despite the agony of the current pandemic it is not lost on me that we are witnessing history first hand. What will our descendants think of us and the way we dealt with it? It is a question any history lover will ponder. 

Why do you love history? Let us know below.

Now, read more from Tom at the Ministry of History here.

Was it Right to Topple President William McKinley’s Statue? Part 1 – Statue Toppled

William McKinley was the 25th president of the USA - from 1897-1901. While before becoming president his political career was focused on Ohio, there was a status of McKinley in Arcata, California until it was toppled in February 2019. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the case for and against the removal of the statue.

In part 1 we provide the background to the statue removal and look at how McKinley treated Native Americans.

William McKinley is sworn in as US president by Chief Justice Melville Fuller. To the right is outgoing President Grover Cleveland.

Introduction

With media attention focused on statues of former slave-owners, very little media coverage has focused on the removal of a 111-year old statue that took place on the west coast of America. It was not Father Serra or Columbus. In fact, little information got to the general public about this statue to a figure not usually linked with California history: William McKinley, 25th president of the United States. In the small town of Arcata, California a diverse group of activists and city officials targeted the statue for removal beginning in 2017. The average American has not even heard of McKinley let alone that a statue of our 25th president graced the Golden State. He clearly is famous, or infamous, enough, though, to have stirred the wrath of the residents of this lovely seaside community. 

The illustrious career of William McKinley Jr. came to a sudden and untimely end at the hands of an assassin. This pointless act of violence took place on September 6, 1901 at the Pan American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. McKinley was greeting a long line of visitors at the Temple of Music. He liked people and, to the consternation of his security service, insisted on shaking everyone’s hand. Among those who waited in line to meet the president was an anarchist named Leon Czolgosz. When his turn came McKinley reached out but instead of an open hand Czolgosz presented a revolver. The assassin fired at the president at point blank range twice. Taken to a nearby house for medical attention, McKinley, despite rallying briefly, succumbed on September 14 due to infections caused by the wound. The death of the popular McKinley was immediately met by a widespread and genuine outpouring of national grief. 

As if that terrible ending of his life were not bad enough, he has recently been condemned to a “second death” by character assassination. The questions the article seeks to consider are:

·       Was the decision to remove this statue appropriate?

·       What standards were used to justify the statue’s removal?

·       Did the standards have merit?

This article will attempt to answer these questions by examining the arguments of those that demanded the removal of the McKinley statue. The facts of the case will be submitted to the candid readers that they may decide if our 25th president deserved his “second death.” Let’s begin!

Copy-Cat Statue Topplers?

In this small community of 17,000, overlooking the Pacific only two-hours’ drive from Oregon, debate over the statue can be traced to the 1970s. Discussion turned into a demand for action after the Charlottesville, Virginia riots over the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in 2017. With a reputation for being one of the most left-wing cities in the country, any statue politically to the right of Ho Chi Minh would probably have not survived long in these extremist times. Inspired by Charlottesville, local Native American activists began a petition drive to remove the statue. Protests became a fixture on the plaza where the statue was located. Normally dull City Hall meetings came alive as both defenders and opponents of McKinley’s removal generated lively public debate. A common rationale amongst the protestors was that after seeing Confederate statues fall, they became convinced that their remote city needed to take care of its own “statue-problem.” Rapidly all the real and alleged grievances of Native American activists and other marginalized groups were projected onto the silent, long-suffering 8 ½’ image. Essentially, McKinley became a symbol of everything the protestors opposed or disliked. 

What holds Water?

Now let’s look at each accusation in turn and weigh their merits. As lovers of history I invite you to be deeply concerned that history is “done right.” The standard we use is not whether it is right or wrong to topple a statue or whether McKinley took actions that are deemed morally wrong by the protestors. Was McKinley actually guilty of the charges brought against him? Also, the issue is whether McKinley’s actions were justified in the context of the 19th century given the norms of the time and the information McKinley possessed. For example, a nineteenth-century factory owner whose employees contracted illness due to exposure to chemicals cannot be condemned if no one at the time was aware of the effects of those chemicals, and he otherwise treated them fairly. 

McKinley and Indigenous Americans

Now, on to the accusations: first, Chris Peters, head of the Arcata-based Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous People called McKinley a proponent of “settler colonialism” that “savaged, raped and killed.” He furthermore claimed that McKinley was responsible for "directing the slaughter of native peoples." 

How does this accusation hold up? First, clarity is needed on the terms “settler colonialism.” Settler colonialism is a form of colonialism that results, often unintentionally, in the replacement of the original population of the colonized territory with a new society of settlers. This phenomenon has been going on since Ancient Egypt. It also includes what amounts to “settler colonialism” among American indigenous tribes themselves. For instance, the Lakota Sioux undertook a migration to the south in the same century that McKinley lived, in which they pushed aside the Omaha tribe. In the words of one source “Attacks from the Sioux Tribe and disease often meant the relocation of the villages.” Following Peter's logic, every statue created since the days of the Pharaohs should be removed and the statue of Crazy Horse, near Mount Rushmore, as well. This is the first reason the accusation is unfair: one cannot apply different standards to different people for the same crime.

Second, McKinley is absolutely innocent of this charge for the following reasons. The Homestead Act was passed when McKinley was a 19-year-old sergeant in the Union Army and thus he had nothing to do with that measure. During the post-Civil War period he was busy establishing a career in Ohio as a lawyer and raising a family and had nothing to do with anything remotely akin to “settler colonialism.” Elected to congress in 1876, the up-and-coming politician ultimately gravitated toward the Ways and Means Committee and became an expert on the tariff. His focus was on policies that would encourage national prosperity, which he felt would benefit all people. Once again, he was not known for any overt statements or actions promoting “settler colonialism.” From 1892 to 1896 he was Governor of Ohio and continued to have nothing to do with policy towards indigenous peoples. On the other hand, since McKinley served as president for several years, he did ultimately direct policy affecting Native Americans. Is it here that McKinley committed the alleged misdeeds? Let’s look at the McKinley presidential record with regard to Native Americans.

President McKinley and Native Americans

Counted among his many friends were two men who were themselves great friends of Native Americans: Senator Matt Quay and Ethan Allan Hitchcock. Mr. Quay was part Native American, and an official member of the Delaware tribe. He was also a champion of both Native American and African-American rights. Hitchcock served as McKinley’s Secretary of the Interior from February 20, 1899. He has been called the most effective leader of the department in its first half century of existence. Among other things, the Department handled issues related to Native Americans. As Secretary, Hitchcock set a new standard for the department, vigorously prosecuting land fraud and assisting Native American peoples and protecting their rights. This represented a turning point in the Office of Indian Affairs, which had been notoriously inept. Additionally he fully embraced the conservation movement, influencing McKinley in taking many measures to expand and protect forests and other resources.

One example of McKinley’s attitude towards indigenous people regards the Navajo Tribe. A bill was sent to the chief executive’s desk which involved a group of white entrepreneurs scheming to open up what was left of the Navajo lands to exploitation. McKinley and Hitchcock saw through the scheme and flatly rejected it, ruling in favor of the tribe. In fact, this was the most important veto the 25th president ever issued. In a careful and strongly worded message, McKinley explained why he would not sign the bill. He began by describing the condition of the tribe and the land, that, under the treaty of June 1, 1863 and subsequent executive orders, was reserved for the Navajo people. He next declared that those boundaries were inadequate for the tribe. He had thus, by executive order on January 8, 1899, enlarged the tribe’s boundaries. The territory of the Navajo was therefore significantly extended so as to, in his own words, provide “sufficient grass and water for their flocks and herds, and avoiding the prior contention and friction between them and the whites.” The president’s opinion was that it would be neither “just nor possible” to confine them to the previous smaller reservation. McKinley next noted that the Navajo had accepted the new, revised boundaries. He then turned to the proposed bill, which desired to open a substantial amount of the Navajo land to mining operations. McKinley protested that no effort had been made to gain the permission of the Navajo people. He stated that the inevitable effect of the law would be to take the remaining land from the Navajo and asked why such a bill was being proposed that made no effort to negotiate with the tribe in question. He also praised the Navajo’s “habits of industry and husbandry.” More than once he mentioned his concern for the Navajo’s flocks of sheep, which are, by the way, an extremely important part of Navajo culture and economy.

This doesn’t really sound like “savagery, raping and killing” does it? In studying the career of McKinley one will find the same pattern of fairness, high standards and broadmindedness in most of his dealings. When McKinley had the facts, in this case given to him by the vigilant Hitchcock, he was eager to do what was just. His Secretary of the Interior Hitchcock was alert to prevent further injustices to Native Americans. He knew his boss McKinley shared his views and so the two worked as a team to do what they believed was right by the Native Americans.

Now you can read part 2 on McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans here.

US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Real Change, Enduring Change

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933-2020) was on the US Supreme Court from 1993 until 2020. She was a very influential figure while on the Supreme Court and part of the liberal wing of the court. Here, Amanda L. Walton tells us about Ginsburg’s cases as an attorney, her time as part of the Supreme Court, and her lasting legacy.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg accepting the Supreme Court nomination in 1993. President Bill Clinton is next to her.

“Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG) spoke these words about the impact of change and how we all can make a difference, but there couldn’t be better words to describe her lengthy career working towards equality and justice for all. Ginsburg was a pioneer, activist, lawyer, and eventually justice who dedicated her life to fighting for equality and social justice. She is one of the few women who truly worked their way up the patriarchal ladder.

Her career is defined by the work that she did to help ensure that women would have gender equality and marginalized peoples would have equal rights under the law. She co-founded the Women’s Rights Project under the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1961. This project helped to guarantee that women would have equal pay and equal employment rights.

Fighting for Equality – A Look at RBG’s Landmark Cases as an Attorney

Ruth started at Harvard Law School in 1956 where she was one of just nine women who were admitted to the program. Harvard only began allowing women to attend law school in 1950. As a lawyer, she would try six cases in in front of the United States Supreme Court. 

While Ginsburg was largely fighting alongside the ACLU to prove that women deserved to have equal protections and rights under the law, she would go on to try cases that dealt with issues facing men. This was a unique and strategic way of being able to open the doors for cases where women could prove that they were being discriminated against legally.

Equal Protection Under the Law – Frontiero v. Richardson

On January 17, 1973, Ginsburg first stepped foot into the Supreme Court to argue for the ACLU and assist with expertise and insight that has a bearing on the case. In this case, Shannon Frontiero had sought to have her husband get the dependent’s allowance that her fellow soldier’s wives were receiving. The law at the time stated that husbands could not be considered dependents unless their wives were the providers of more than 50% of the total income. In a ruling on May 14, 1973, the court ruled that this violated the due process clause and equal protection requirements based on the fact that the government could not legally justify gender-discrimination, as it was the same as race-discrimination. 

This case was one of the first to discuss gender discriminations and how women and men should be viewed the same under the law. 

Arguing Against Gender Clauses – Kahn v. Shevin 

Ginsburg argued for the appellee on February 25 & 26, 1974 in a case based on gender biased Florida law that allowed for widows to be granted a $500 property tax exemption that did not apply to widowers. She lost this case with a ruling on April 24, 1974 that stated that women faced more hardships when they were without a spouse and therefore needed this type of protection that men did not.

While the ruling was not in her favor, the dissents argued that gender classifications (a classification where there is no control) should be looked at judicially and that to have a gender-based classification there needed to be a significant justification that was not present.  

Social Security Gender Discrimination Cannot Stand – Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld

On January 20, 1975 Ginsburg argued for the appellee in Weinberger v. Wisenfeld. In this case Stephen Wiesenfeld had applied for survivor benefits for himself and his son after his wife died in childbirth. Wiesenfeld claimed that he was being discriminated against based on sex, because if he had died both his wife and son would have received benefits. The Supreme Court issued a ruling on March 19, 1975 that gender-based discrimination did not serve a valid legislative purpose.

This case paved the way for women to fight against gender discrimination as the court had ruled that there was no legislative purpose for gender-based discrimination. 

Old Gender Laws Must Go -- Challenging the 5th Amendment with Califano v. Goldfarb

In this case, Ginsburg argued on October 5, 1976 for the appellee, Leon Goldfarb. He had been widowed and was denied Social Security survivor’s benefits because he was a man and he was not getting half of his support from his wife at the time of her death. Under Social Security Act 42 U.S. C. Section 402 men were required to receive at least half of their income from their spouses in order to claim this benefit, but women were excluded from this clause. The Supreme Court ruled Goldfarb’s favor on March 2, 1977.

The courts rejected the generalization that women were more likely to depend on men for support as the old notions of gender law did not apply to justify different treatment of widowers and widows.

Tried by a Representative Jury – Challenging the 6th & 14th Amendments with Duren v. Missouri

Ginsburg argued the case of Duren v. Missouri on November 1, 1978. In this case, she challenged the petitioner’s right to be tried by a fair cross section of the community (a right that is guaranteed by the 6th & 14th Amendments to the Constitution). The issue came from a Jackson County, MO rule that allowed all women to be exempted from jury duty on request. Thus, in a county where the population was 54% white women, the jury for his case was comprised of all men who were selected from a panel that included 2 women and 48 men. On January 9, 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that selection process violated Duren’s Constitutional rights.

This case proved that the underrepresentation of women was unconstitutional.

Ginsburg’s 6th Supreme Court case was Edwards v. Healy (argued on October 16, 1974 and decided on June 9, 1975) which was vacated and reprimanded after the State of Louisiana changed their state constitution to be on the right side of the law.

Serving the People – A Look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Time as a Supreme Court Justice

In 1993, President Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. However, before she served there, she was serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which she was appointed to in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter.

While being seated as a justice for 27 years, Ginsburg heard a number of landmark cases. It would be impossible to talk about all of the cases that she was a part of without writing a book. There are some landmark cases that she took part in whether through decisions or dissents that show her as a champion for women’s rights.

Cosmopolitan Magazine politics contributor Sara Li argues that there are five basic rights that we would not have without Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court rulings. These are: 

·       The right to equal pay and a fair wage

·       The right to have an abortion

·       The right to attend any public university regardless of if you are a man or a woman

·       The right to marry anyone whom you may fall in love with

·       The right to be a part of the community if you have a mental illness

Court Decisions

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a part of many landmark court decisions. Many of the cases that she wrote the opinion for had to do with social justice or women’s rights issues.

Ginsburg wrote the opinion that gender equality is a Constitutional right in 1996 under the U.S. v. Virginia. The case centered around the Virginia Military Institute’s gender discrimination that only allowed men to attend. As a public university, it was decided that gender discrimination would not be tolerated in higher education. This case supports that women have a place in all areas of public life even within the U.S. military.

Ginsburg also fought for those who were suffering from mental illness. She wrote the opinion for Olmstead v. L.C. in 1999. This case focused on the rights of individuals who were suffering from mental illness and her opinion supported that individuals suffering from mental illness are guaranteed the same rights and protections under the law. The case revolved around two women who had finished treatment at a state hospital in Georgia and were cleared for release, but then held against their will in isolation.

She became a champion for marriage equality. When ruling on Obergefelly v. Hodges in 2015 which granted the right to marriage for same sex couples, The Guardian reported that she was asked about procreation and she argued that a couple in their 70s could not procreate but was still allowed to marry. She went on to say, “Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female that ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982 when Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down… Would that be a choice that states should (still) be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was.”

In 2007 she wrote the dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear which was a case that centered around the gender wage gap. She argued that the law was biased, because it did not account for the fact that comparative pay information was not readily available for employees. She urged Congress to amend Title VII. It was not until 2009, when Obama took office, that this would be signed into law. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was the first bill that Obama signed after taking office.

Finally, in 2016 she supported the upholding of Roe v. Wade in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt. This case challenged the Texas abortion bill that put unnecessary restrictions on the process to obtain an abortion that made abortions inaccessible to many women. The court ruled that the bill was to be struck.

Court Dissents

Communications professor, Katie L. Gibson, argues in her book Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Legacy of Dissent: Feminist Rhetoric and the Law that one of Ginsburg’s most powerful attributes is that she was willing to take a stand on issues of democracy through her court dissents. On page 2 she writes, “one of her great contributions to American law is that she boldly challenged the traditional boundaries of legal language to make way for a feminist jurisprudence and more democratic rule of the law.”

One of her major dissents was with the 2000 Bush v. Gore where instead of writing “respectfully” in her dissent she began “I dissent.” This case changed the course of history for voting and elections as there was a Florida Supreme Court request for a manual recount of the presential election votes. This case has paved the way that in a tight election, there is no recourse for vote recounts, even if there could be potential errors with automated voting machine readings. Her dissent is powerful because it is a dissent that protects the voting rights of all citizens.

In 2013 when she wrote her dissent on Shelby County v. Holder which was a case that resolved around minority voting suppression, she said, “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory practices is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” The court’s ruling was that it was a violation of the Constitution for Congress to set election terms rather than the state.

In the 2014 case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Ginsburg wrote her dissent against the ruling that the company would not have to provide access to birth control and emergency contraceptives for their employees. Her dissent argued that it gave a disadvantage to employees who had different religious views than their employers.

Finally, in one of her last dissents in July 2020, Ginsburg argued that striking down Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate was forcing women to have to look into alternative healthcare options on their own. She argued that this was forcing workers to “fight for themselves.”

Legacy

Whether it was through the landmark court cases that she fought in front of the Supreme Court or her opinions and dissents as a Supreme Court justice, RBG paved the way for women to stand up and fight against the suppressive culture within the United States that often led women to believe that there were things that they could not do. In 2018 On the Basis of Sex was released about her career. In an article on the popular website The Daily Beast Ginsburg fact checked the film and said, “This film is part-fact, part-imaginative, but what’s wonderful about it is that the imaginative parts fit in with the story so well.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg helped to pave the way for social justice and gender equality. In 2017 she spoke at Stanford and said, “I wish that there was a way that I could wave a magic wand and put it back to where people were respectful of each other, when Congress worked for the people, and not just along party lines. That’s the kind of legislature that the United States should have. I hope that comes when I’m still alive.” Sadly, with the current turmoil amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and one of the most contested elections in history, Ginsburg lost her long battle with cancer on September 18, 2020 before this wish could be realized. 

What do you think about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy? Let us know below.

References

https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/17-powerfully-inspiring-quotes-from-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html

https://libguides.wlu.edu/c.php?g=601727&p=4166850

https://www.aclu.org/other/about-aclu-womens-rights-project

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1978/77-6067

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-699

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-759

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-1892

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-78

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1694

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-rulings-to-know-about

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/772/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/rbg-supreme-court-decisions-dissents/index.html

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a34097011/ruth-bader-ginsburg-most-important-supreme-court-case-rulings/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/28/ruth-bader-ginsburg-gay-marriage-arguments-supreme-court

https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-fact-checks-her-own-biopic-on-the-basis-of-sex

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/02/07/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-speaks-on-the-court-the-state-of-womens-rights-and-a-meaningful-life/

Gibson, Katie L. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Legacy of Dissent: Feminist Rhetoric and the Law. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 2018. 

Resnik, Judith. “Opening the Door: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Law’s Boundaries, and the Gender of Opportunities,” Columbia Journal of Gender and the Law 25, no. 1 (2013): 81-91.

Rurbio-Marín, Ruth. “Notorious RBG: A Conversation with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” International Journal of Constitutional Law 15, no. 3 (2017): 602. 

Siegel, Reva B. “Equality and Choice: Sex Equality Perspectives on Reproduction Rights in the Work of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” Columbia Journal of Gender and the Law 25, no. 1 (2013): 63-80.

Joe Lieberman: Senatorial Maverick

Joe Lieberman (born 1942 and Senator for Connecticut from 1989 to 2013), a Democrat before becoming an Independent, had support from conservative, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalists alike. He voted conservatively on some issues, but also had a liberal voting record. It was his independent conservative Democratic voting record which led to his position as Al Gore’s Jr’s. presidential running mate in 2000. It was Lieberman’s nonpartisan policies which made him a unique, memorable, long lasting, and well-respected senator. 

Daniel Boustead explains.

Joe Lieberman with President Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Joe Lieberman first ran for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut in 1988 as an observant Modern Orthodox Jew (1). This was evident because the nominating convention was on a Saturday and he could not go (1).  He accepted the nomination in a pre-recorded announcement, and it was all over the Connecticut newspapers ([1].) The fact that Joe Lieberman would not do politics on a Sabbath won wide support from both people of Jewish and Christian faith in Connecticut while running against three-term incumbent Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (1). Early in his U.S. Senate career Joe Lieberman friend, then U.S. Senator  Al Gore Jr., would turn on certain lights for Joe Lieberman when he stayed over with him at his parents’ house out of respect of Joe’s religious practice of  refraining from work on the Sabbath(17). In 1995, Joe Lieberman co-sponsored a bill called the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, calling on the President to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to the holy city of Jerusalem([2]). This bill helped garner support with Jews and Fundamentalist Christians. In 2011 Joe Lieberman co-wrote a book with David Klinghoffer  entitled The Gift of Rest: Rediscovering the Beauty of the Sabbath(3). This book showcased his religious observance in his own life and helped inspire both Jews and fundamentalist Christians. In 1988 in a Senate debate between Lieberman and liberal Republican Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr., he said he would not sign a letter that Weicker signed demanding negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians(4). The same letter also mentioned that Israelis should follow U.N. Resolution 242 in which they would withdrawal from all Arab territories captured in the 1967 Six Day War (4). To many Christians Fundamentalists and Jews in Connecticut, Lowell P. Weicker Jr., had committed an act of sin and high treason and this helped ensure Joe Lieberman’s Senate victory. 

Cuba

Liberal Republican Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr. admitted in a debate on October 20th, 1988 that during the time he went to Cuba and brought American hostages out, he talked with Fidel Castro about normalizing relations and ending the economic trade embargo. (4). This effectively ended Weicker’s career (4). Joseph Lieberman said of Weicker’s visits to Cuba “I know from public records that Mr. Castro gave him $100.00 worth of Cuban cigars to bring back with him” and in another quote “He has become the Senate’s No.1 patron and advocate for Fidel Castro”(4). Weicker countered that Joe Lieberman’s campaign was being financed by Cubans from Miami, Florida. This was divisive, and to which Joe Lieberman replied: “I have received some contributions from the Cuban American community because there are two people in the world today that they and I would like to see out office one is Fidel Castro and the other is his better advocate Lowell. P. Weicker Jr.”(4).  In another devastating blow the National Review and conservative host of Firing Line William F. Buckley Jr. as well as his brother former U.S. Senator of New York James Buckley, formed BuckPac to support Joe Lieberman over Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (5).  On September 2nd, 1988 William F. Buckley Jr. featured a story to showcase his support for Joe Lieberman in his National Review entitled “Does Lowell P.  Weicker Jr. Make You Sick”(5). The fact that Lowell P. Weicker Jr. was so pro-Castro alienated him from the predominately conservative Christian and republican leaning Cubans as well as Jews, the Republican establishment, and other Americans. This helped ensure Joe Lieberman’s victory.

On March 5th, 1996 Joe Lieberman was one of the 74 U.S. Senators that successfully passed the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act of 1996, which sought international sanctions against the Castro government in Cuba, to plan for support of a transition government leading to a democratically elected government in Cuba, and for other purposes (6).

Violent video games

In 1993 Senator Joe Lieberman chaired a hearing on violent video games because he was disgusted by the content of many games (7). This hearing lead to the formation of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) on September 16th, 1994, which gave a video game rating system that exists to this day. The ESRB rating system is enforced via the voluntary leverage of the North American video game and retail industries for physical releases; most stores require customers to present photo identification when purchasing games carrying the ESRB’s highest age ratings, and do not stock games which are not rated. Additionally, major console manufacturers will not license games for their systems unless they carry ESRB ratings, while console manufactures and most stores will refuse to stock games that the ESRB has rated as being appropriate for adults only (8). Joe Lieberman became a hero to parents of Christian and Jewish faiths of all political persuasions who wanted to protect their children from the effects of violent video games.

Supreme Court record

On October 2nd, 1990 Joe Lieberman voted yes to confirm David H. Souter to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (9). On September 29th, 2005 Joe Lieberman voted yes for John G. Roberts Jr. to be Chief Justice for the United States Supreme Court (10). Lieberman appeased some Connecticut conservatives, Republicans, Christian Fundamentalists, and Jews by voting yes for some conservative Supreme Court Justice nominees. 

Joe Lieberman (throughout his time in the U.S. Senate) had a pro-choice stance on abortion (11). On October 15th, 1991 Joe Lieberman voted against Clarence Thomas for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. (12).

On January 31st 2006 Joe Lieberman voted against Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (13).  Lieberman was pro choice and voted against Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. for the U.S. Supreme Court – this was one of many reasons why he survived the tough 2006 re-election campaign as an independent for liberal and Democratic voters. This was especially the case when his Democratic opponent Ned Lamont made issue of Joe Lieberman voting yes for the authorization of force against Iraq which caused Lieberman to lose the Democratic Primary, but he still won as independent (14).

Gore and Lieberman

Joe Lieberman was critical of Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky and his voting record made Vice President Al Gore Jr. choose him as his running mate in the 2000 Presidential Election (11). Al Gore Jr. also shared his conservative democratic voting record.

In addition, Lieberman supported Gore and his wife Tipper’s efforts in the 1985 Parents Music Resource Center senate hearings to regulate explicit content on musical records (15). The Parents Music Resource Center senate hearings lead to the sticker on records to this day that state Parental Advisory Explicit Content (15).

In the 2000 presidential campaign Gore-Lieberman effort resulted winning 17% of the conservative vote (which includes conservative democrats, conservative republicans, and conservative independents) and 8% of the Republican vote (16). The fact that both men had a conservative voting record on some issues helped take away conservative and Republican voters whose votes would have gone to Bush-Cheney. Gore-Lieberman won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.

Joseph Lieberman never apologized for his practice of Orthodox Judaism. Christian Fundamentalists, Jews, conservatives and Republicans admired him. His voting record also helped him reach republicans and conservative voters. Lieberman also still maintained his liberal base during his time in the Senate. Al Gore Jr’s. choice for him to run was an inspired choice. Joe Lieberman was the first Jewish candidate to be on either presidential party ticket.  Joseph Lieberman’s policies helped him stay relevant from 1989 to 2013. Throughout his 4 terms in the Senate, he was greatly admired by his colleagues on both sides.

What do you think of Joe Lieberman? Let us know below.

[1] Lieberman, Joe. “Joe Lieberman”. Interview by Rabbi Mark S. Golub.  L’Chayim. June 27th, .2019, jbstv.org>lchayim-senator-joe-Lieberman. 

17 Lieberman, Joe. Interview by Ed O’Keefe. The Washington Post, December 5th, 2012, www.washington.post>video>thefold>2012>12>05. Accessed 18th October 2020. 

[2] “Joseph Lieberman (1942-)”. Jewish Virtual Library. Accessed on October 5th, 2020. https://www.jewishvirtuallibary.org/joseph-lieberman.

3 Mayefsky, Chana. “Joe Lieberman: Embracing the Sabbath. Last Modified August 31st 2011. Publishers Weekly. Accessed October 7th 2020. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/48528-joe-lieberman-embracing-the-sabbath-html.

 4 Connecticut Senatorial Candidate Debate . Sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Hartford Courant. C-Span. October 20th, 1988. 

5 May, Clifford D. “Buckley’s Are Backing a Democrat”. Last Modified August 16th, 1988. The New York Times. Accessed on October 7th, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/16/nyregion/buckleys-are-backing-a -democrat.html

6 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 104th Congress=2nd Session-Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 927. United States Senate. Washington D.C., 6.https://www.senate.gov/legistlative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=1047session=2&vote=00022

7 “Joe Lieberman”, Gamepeida.com, October 5th, 2020, https://gamicus.gamepedia.com/Joe_Lieberman.

8 Entertainment Software Rating Board-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board. 

9 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 101st Congress-2nd Session-Nomination Description: David H. Souter, of New Hampshire, to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington, D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=2&vote=00259

10 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 109th Congress-1st Session-Nomination Description: John G. Roberts Jr., of Maryland to be Chief Justice of the United States- United States Senate-Washington, D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legistlative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245

11 “Joseph Lieberman”. On the Issues.org. Accessed on October 5th, 2020. https://www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm  

12 United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 102nd Congress-1st Session-Nomination Description: Clarence Thomas, of Georgia, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States- United States Senate- Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00220

13 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 109th Congress-2nd Session-Nomination Description: Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legistlative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002

14 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 107th Congress-2nd Session-On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114)-United States Senate-Washingotn D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

15 Grow, Kory. “Tipper Gore Reflects on PMRC 30 Years Later”. Last Modified September 14th, 2015. Rolling Stone. Accessed on October 6th, 2020. https://www.rollingstone.com/politcs/politcs-news/tipper-gore-reflects-on-pmrc-30-years-later-57862/

16 “How Groups Voted in 2000”. Cornell University-Roper Center, October 6th, 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20180213193326/https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/

References

Connecticut Senatorial Candidate Debate. Sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Hartford Courant. C-Span.October 20th, 1988.

Entertainment Software Rating Board-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board. 

Grow, Kory. “Tipper Gore Reflects on the PMRC 30 Years Later”. Last Modified September 14th, 2015. Rolling Stone. Accessed on October 6th, 2020. https://www.rollingstone.com/politcs/politics-news/tipper-gore-reflects-on-pmrc-30-years-later-57862/

“How Groups Voted in 2000”. Cornell University-Roper Center, October 6th, 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20180213193326/https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/

“Joe Lieberman”, Gamepedia.com, October 5th, 2020, https://gamicus.gamepedia.com/Joe_Lieberman

“Joseph Lieberman (1942-)”. Jewish Virtual Library. Accessed on October 5th, 2020. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-lieberman.

Lieberman, Joe. “Joe Lieberman”. Interview by Rabbi Mark S. Golub.  L’Chayim, June 27th, 2019, jbstv.org>lchayim-senator-joe-lieberman

“Joseph Lieberman”. On the Issues.org. Accessed on October 5th, 2020. https://www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

Lieberman, Joe. Interview by Ed O’Keefe. The Washington Post, December 5th, 2012, www.washington.post>video>thefold>2012>12>05. Accessed 18th October 2020. 

May, Clifford D. “Buckley’s Are Backing a Democrat?”. Last Modified August 16th, 1988. The New York Times. Accessed on October 7th, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/16/nyregion/buckleyes-are-backing-a-democrat.html

Mayefsky, Chana. “Joe Lieberman: Embracing the Sabbath. Last Modified August 31st, 2011. Publishers Weekly. Accessed on October 7th, 2020. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/relgion/article/48528-joe-lieberman-embracing-the-sabbath-html.

United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 109th Congress-2nd Session-Nomination Description: Samuel A. Alito J, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002

United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 104th Congress-2nd Session-Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 927. United States Senate. Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00022

United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 107th Congress -2nd Session-On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114)-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 109th Congress-1st Session-Nomination Description: John G. Roberts Jr., of Maryland to be Chief Justice of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C, https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245

United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 101st Congress-2nd Session-Nomination Description: David H. Souter, of New Hampshire, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=2&vote=00259

United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 102nd Congress-1st Session-Nomination Description: Clarence Thomas, of Georgia, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00220.

The Life of One of the 20th Century’s Great Writers: George Orwell

George Orwell, or Eric Blair as he was officially known, was one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. His novels, most famous of which are 1984 and Animal Farm, still remain popular and very relevant. Here, Douglas Reid tells us about Orwell’s life and the books he wrote.

A digitally colorised picture of George Orwell, c. 1940. Source Cassowary Colorizations, available here.

There never was an English writer named George Orwell, at least a legal one. The man the world knows as George Orwell was Eric Blair. His first book, “Down and Out in Paris and London”, a mostly accurate account of his tramping days, was his first attempt at a book-length literary product. The young writer was concerned that the book would flop and reflect poorly on his nascent essay-writing career. Orwell suggested that the editor use a pen name. He offered for consideration:

George Moore

George Orwell

H. Lewis Allways

The editor, Victor Gollancz, chose the name in the middle and a literary star was born. Gollancz, in later years, would state he chose the middle option because the Orwell River flows near the Blair family home in Southwold. Orwell was 31 at the time and for the rest of his life the writer would respond to either name whether in person or in correspondence. To his early friends he would always be Eric. To those who entered his life at a later date he was George. In later years friends suggested he should have his name legally changed. His standard response – “No thanks – that means going to see a lawyer and that puts me off.”

Eric Blair was the son of a British bureaucrat who, as a retiree, would shift to a domicile in Southwold, Suffolk, England. This would be young Eric’s home until going to Eton school as a scholarship boy. Tellingly, Eric was the only Etonian of his year to eschew both Oxford and Cambridge universities. Instead, to the wild surmise of family and friends, he signed on for a five-year term with the British Imperial Police. That experience led to the fictional “Burmese Days”, clearly the work of a novice. His other early work, “Down and Out in Paris and London”, is significantly better and this is no surprise. It is almost totally autobiographical, and although written before “Burmese Days” was published later. Although both were published a decade and a half earlier than “Nineteen Eighty-Four” the early directional signposts are unmistakable. 

Orwell in Myanmar and early writing

Orwell soon became aware of the unspoken central task he was expected to perform – keep the native people of Burma (Myanmar) in line. For the recalcitrant native the brutal overseer, or the policeman himself, was waiting in the shadows. “On Shooting an Elephant”, one of Orwell’s best known essays, provides fresh insight for the sensitive man of just whom is the controller and whom the controlled:

 “And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man’s dominion in the East. Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd – seemingly the leading actor of the piece but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind. I perceived at this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.”

Although this gloomy episode and its companion piece, “A Hanging,” serve as early direction pointers on the Road to Barnhill, Orwell does provide a comic event in “Down and Out” worth re-telling. Orwell’s intention was to play the part of a down and outer. He could play the part consummately well but he was at a loss to voice the part. He had decided he wanted to experience some time in jail. Accordingly, he got himself good and swished and staggered down the street in full view of a policeman. But when the gendarme heard Orwell’s plumy Etonian tones he stopped up and he became immediately gentle and solicitous – “Sir, are you a gentleman?” And just like that the game was up.

Pogo

Orwell’s early prose concludes with his lightweight novel. “A Clergyman’s Daughter” which deals with none of the salient themes of his major works. These themes may be identified as politics and the English language, the increasing threat of the emergence of the police state, and the eradication of history. At this juncture it seems right to introduce Pogo. Pogo illustrates the distance Orwell is now leaving his contemporaries behind.

Pogo was the eponymous name of a comic strip produced by Al Capp decades ago. Pogo was an alligator who lived in a swamp. And Pogo was a kind of rural philosopher who ruled the denizens of the swamp with wit and wisdom. In the panel I have in mind Pogo is depicted standing on his tail and with one hand shielding his eyes. He is peering into the distance and he is saying:

I have seen the enemy. He is coming. And he is us.

On the trail of Orwell

I arrived one Monday morning at the University College, London, early, not much past 7 am. The only persons in sight were two public school boys wearing their crests and colors. I needed directions so I approached the boys, Alphonse and Dudley.

“Say, could you tell me where the Orwell Archives are at?” Dudley snorted as he surveyed me – t-shirt, jeans and sneakers, a provincial if he ever saw one … ”Around here, my good man we don’t end a sentence with a preposition.” Well, wasn’t I the chastised one? So, I asked again. “Say, could you direct me to where the Orwell Archives are at, horse’s ass?” Actually that is only an approximation of what I actually said but I have to get this by the editor.

Later on the same trip I was able to trace the bookshop where Orwell worked part-time after teaching school all day. He still found time to work on his new novel – book number four –“ Coming Up For Air”. It is with this book that Orwell begins to address his concerns about government control in its citizen’s lives. His protagonist is George Bowling, a middle-class insurance salesman. Bowling is tolerably happy with his marriage as well as his job but he resents a tightening pressure from both without and within. Then, predictably, he breaks away when opportunity presents itself.

Bowling finds his way to the racecourse and backs a long odds winner. His first thought is to share his windfall with his wife. But the road to freedom leads out of town and Bowling, almost without thought, breaks away from his standard, homogenized life. He checks his rear-view mirror anxiously half-expecting a car full of freedom police chasing him…

THERE HE GOES… AFTER HIM… STREAMLINE HIM… FASTER… GET HIM.

George Bowling speeds along until he senses freedom. He veers into a side road and pulls up at a long-lost magical spot where a country bridge shades deep pools of shadowed water. And Orwell remembers. 

Orwell spent many happy childhood hours here. They watched the great fish swirl and flash in the depths. Those great lunker trout and dace still made his heart flutter. Memories. Fishing was always magic for Orwell. George Bowling was by far the nearest to his creator. Even their names reflect the connection. They are both named George And Orwell and Bowling are not far from being anagrams of one another. Orwell was always alive to prose that was animated and syntax that was as simple as was necessary to convey the intended idea.

Orwell as journalist

Orwell was a journalist and an essayist before he was a recognized novelist. There is a hard-to-find four-volume edition of his collected essays, letters and journalism – over 2,000 pages. On my set I have scribbled marginalia everywhere but the most memorable is the essay “Politics and the English Language.” Every first year student in whichever department or faculty should be encouraged to grasp its essentials. Otherwise they may end up writing and communicating in the way of Professor Harold Laski, a contemporary of Orwell’s:

“I am not indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth century Shelly had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate.” 

Tender minds should be exposed to strong, direct, and clear language. For instance Orwell would have them influenced by this famous passage in Ecclesiastes:

“I returned, and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill, but time and chance happeneth to them all”.

49 words, 60 syllables nobly expressed.

Here is the same passage written in Newspeak, the language in the book “Nineteen Eighty-Four”:

Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.”

38 words, 90 syllables, inflated language.

In total Orwell produced nine books – six novels (counting “Animal Farm”, which technically is an apologue). Also three non-fictional narratives. Yet almost everyone only identifies and names two – “Nineteen eighty-four” and “Animal Farm.” “The Spanish Civil War” is less cited, while “The Road to Wigan Pier” ennobles a poor class in England and Wales – miners.

George Orwell was a driven man with few vocations or hobbies. One was wood-working or cabinet-making. According to his friends he tackled both with more enthusiasm than skill. His other pursuit, fishing, was the one that gave him a measure of success and great enjoyment. He was dedicated to his craft, but not to his health.

The Golden Country

Orwell lived in London for a long time but as he grew older he began to forge, in the smithy of his brain, a place that is tranquil and where the living is healthful. He gives his imaginary Utopia a name – the Golden Country. Perhaps he ought to have made his plans of escape sooner. Five years earlier he had contracted tuberculosis, first in one lung, then in both. In the spring of 1946 he left London to seek the Golden Country, wherever that may be.

In time Orwell was successful, The Golden Country turned out to be Barnhill, a deserted white-washed vacated country home on the remote Island of Jura in the Western Hebrides of Scotland. By the autumn of 1947 Orwell had settled to writing the first draft of what would be his Magnum Opus – “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

The Golden Country was close to Orwell’s vision of lakes and streams where the surrounding atmosphere was pristine and the waters are heavy with great lunker fish that swirl and swish in the depths. Wish me a rainbow indeed. The thing about Barnhill is even on this remote isle it was difficult to reach. A ferry service was available intermittently at the extreme south end of Jura while Barnhill was 19 miles away in the extreme and almost uninhabited north. A traveller to reach Barnhill had to beg a bumpy ride for nine miles by jeep. How to negotiate the remaining seven miles was open to suggestions. 

Barnhill would not look special to you or me but it was Mecca for Orwell. Barnhill is a fairly spacious deserted house with a rickety porch. Inside there are four bedrooms, three down one up. Orwell chose the hilly one upstairs for his bedroom-writing room. Old Barnhill hinted at a Gothic existence. Orwell settled and wrote a first draft of 1984. Orwell sought a peaceful life but he was not a hermit. He gave detailed travelling instructions so friends could visit. They came from London by train, ferryboat, land rover, motorbike, and sometimes on foot. On the down side Orwell’s health was an increasing problem. He had developed tuberculosis in both lungs. 

Orwell’s friends thought he was mad to live through a Jura winter with Barnhill as his prime shelter, but the writer defends his choice thusly:

 “Its funny, you always think Scotland must be cold. The West part is not colder than England and the Islands I should think decidedly warmer on average.”

Sadly, after the completion of his great novel the author’s health began its final descent. Visitors still made the trek from London but by now he knew he was in a race with death. Orwell prevailed but early in the new year he left his beloved Jura. He was now coughing up copious amounts of blood, he left Scotland reluctantly and was taken to University College Hospital.

He declined rapidly with not a soul nearby. In the early hours of January 10th, 1950, George Orwell – Eric Blair - died.

There were books strewn about his bed. Leaning against a green wall, all forlorn stood his fishing rod.

What do you think of George Orwell? Let us know below.

Now you can read Douglas’ article on Thomas Paine, the man whose book may have led to the American Revolution, here, and the American heroine Abigail Adams here.

Do Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Handling of Issues of Race show he is not the ‘Ideal Democrat’?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president of the USA from 1933 to 1945. He led the country out of the Great Depression and into World War Two. But, was he the ideal Democrat? Here, Donna Catapano argues that while his economic policies suggest he is, his social policies suggest otherwise - notably on issues of race.

Franklin D. Roosevelt meeting a Japanese delegation in the White House in 1933. During World War Two, Japanese Americans would be interned under Roosevelt’s presidency. Picture source: Harris & Ewing, available here.

Franklin Roosevelt is often looked at today by people as the “ideal Democrat”; the person who shaped the present-day Democratic Party. Many of those people, including educators, discuss this turning point in history when Roosevelt “made” what the Democrat is today.  When Roosevelt won the Presidential Election in 1932 by a landslide against Republican Herbert Hoover, the Democratic Party was introduced to a new level of government involvement. Even though his economic ideologies would still be considered relevant to Democrats today, his social ideologies would not.  His dismissal of the social issues of the 1930s and 1940s caused a ripple effect that we are still feeling in 2020. Roosevelt’s social principles, including those regarding lynching, racial profiling and discrimination within his New Deal programs, contradicts his status as the “ideal Democrat.”

As the years went on, the “Democrat” as we know it today, who is one who typically is in favor of federal government spending for public programs, associated those beginnings with FDR. Therefore, people typically describe Roosevelt as the “ideal Democrat”. However, one can argue that in 2020, Roosevelt would not be deemed that way. In his 12 years as president, he took many actions that today might fall elsewhere on the political spectrum.  Although he took several actions (and inactions) that might raise further questioning, three stand out.

1.     His refusal to sign a federal anti-lynching bill 

Between the years 1882 and 1968, more than 3,500 African Americans were murdered by white mobs. At the time, almost none of them were arrested and/or convicted for their brutal crimes. What emerged was an anti-lynching movement, whose participants demanded government action to stop these hate crimes. The extent to which Roosevelt spoke out against lynching was a fireside chat on December 6, 1933, when he briefly discussed the “vile form of collective murder -- lynch law-- which has broken out in our midst anew”. He went on to very briefly condemn the issue, stating: “We know that it is murder, and a deliberate and definite disobedience of the Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’. We do not excuse those in high places or in low who condone lynch law.”  Twenty-eight African Americans were lynched the same year he gave this 1933 fireside chat.  However, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt spoke out against lynching on several occasions, joining the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in Roosevelt’s first term in 1934 and having a close professional relationship with its president at the time, Walter White. She even went so far as to set up a meeting with White and her husband to encourage Franklin to publicly support the Costigan-Wagner bill, which he refused. Roosevelt stated to White at their meeting: 

“If I come out for the anti-lynching bill now, they will block every bill I ask Congress to pass to keep America from collapsing. I just can’t take the risk.”

Roosevelt stood his ground, fearful that the Southern Democrats in Congress, representatives he relied on to get his New Deal programs passed, would turn their back on him and  the New Deal. One can ponder: If FDR was president today, would he back the #blacklivesmatter movement, or would he spend more time worrying about his own Congressional agenda?

2. Japanese Internment during World War II 

During the Second World War, the federal government saw Japanese American citizens as a threat.  However, when President Roosevelt passed Executive Order #9066 in 1942, it made it acceptable for the Secretary of War and any designated Military Commanders to:

“Whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion”.

Moreover, it made it legal for said Commanders to prescribe what they called “military areas”, or relocation camps, for any and every person they deemed necessary: in this case, Japanese Americans. This executive order essentially allowed Japanese American citizens to be removed from their homes and relocated to internment camps where they were not allowed to leave, for not committing any crime but being of Japanese descent. This was perhaps one of the largest government-run racial profiling events in American history, and Roosevelt labeled it “A-OK”. One may ponder: how does this make Roosevelt different from the present-day with the current level of racial profiling that takes place for minorities such as African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Muslim Americans?

3. A New Deal for Some of the American People 

When you learn about FDR in school, you most likely associate him with the New Deal and how it helped the American people recover from the Great Depression.  As mentioned above, these federally funded programs were set out to create and give jobs to suffering citizens. However, it did not include all Americans.  For example, the National Recovery Administration (NRA) of 1933 “not only offered whites the first crack at jobs, but authorized separate and lower pay scales for blacks”.  Furthermore, the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) of 1934 “refused to guarantee mortgages for blacks who tried to buy in white neighborhoods,” and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) of 1933 created to employ young men on environmental projects, maintained segregated camps.  According to author Eric Rauchway, “Roosevelt never said anything outwardly about the fact that minorities were the last to get hired for New Deal jobs”. Once again, Roosevelt appealed to the conservative southern Democrats who were influential in Congress and oversaw many committee chairmanships, in fear of them blocking his pieces of legislation if he got involved with the “race question”. One may ponder: How might Roosevelt have handled job discrimination in 2020? 

Conclusion

The aforementioned reasons why President Roosevelt may not be seen as the “ideal Democrat” of 2020 are a few of a number of examples we can consider. Segregation in the military existed and he did not speak out against it. Regarding the Nazi persecution of Jews, he did not actively intervene or welcome Jewish refugees to the United States.

Franklin Roosevelt did much for the United States as a country economically. He revolutionized certain aspects of the Democratic Party, while staying silent on the pivotal social issues of the time. The birth of the present-day Democrat can be accredited to Roosevelt when it comes to the involvement of the federal government in citizen’s livelihoods, but not the social issues of the 1930s and 1940s.

So, in 2020, would FDR be considered the ideal Democrat? Let us know what you think below.

Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?

The Nazi V-2 rocket became infamous during the latter part of World War Two in Europe; however, there was a different weapon commonly used by Japan against the Allies. Here, Daniel Boustead explains the importance of Japanese Kamikaze suicide attacks – and compares their military impact to that of the Nazi V-2 rocket.

A Kamikaze suicide dive against the USS Essex on November 25, 1944.

During World War II the Nazi V-2 Rocket achieved fame and infamy in its operational launchings against allied targets in Europe from 1944 to 1945. The Nazi V-2 rocket also served as a predecessor for the Saturn V Rocket that brought man to the moon in 1969. The V-2 rocket also influenced the U.S. Missile program.  However, the V-2 Rocket’s impact during World War II was much less than the Japanese suicide ‘weapons’ which were made by the Japanese Kamikaze units. Japanese Kamikaze planes were more effective than the German V-2 Rocket. 

Kamikaze plane sinkings

The regular Kamikaze piston engine aircraft sunk 46 ships from October 25th, 1944 to July 29th, 1945 - and 3 out of those 46 ships sunk were aircraft carriers (the most important target the Japanese wanted to destroy) ([1]).

The Japanese Model 11 Ohka “Cherry Blossom” suicide rocket plane sunk the American destroyer Mannert L. Abele off the coast Okinawa on April 12th, 1945([2]).

The Japanese Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo sunk the American fleet oiler Mississinewa (AD-39) off the coast of Ulithi on November 20th, 1944 after it was launched from Japanese submarine I-47([3]).  The Japanese Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo sunk the large landing craft infantry LCI(L)-600 at Ulithi on January 12th, 1945 ([4]).  On July 24th, 1945 the American destroyer escort Underhill was sunk by a Japanese submarine which fired the Type 1 Kaiten suicide torpedo at the  vessel and made a direct hit  sinking it in the Philippine Sea area([5]). A total of 3 American ships were sunk by Japanese Kamikaze Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedoes  during World War II. 

The Japanese Shinyo suicide motorboats sunk between the dates of January 9th and January 10th, 1945 the American landing craft infantry-mortar LCI (M)-974 in the Lingayen Gulf in the Philippines([6]). On January 31st, 1945 Japanese Shinyo suicide motorboats sunk the American sub-chaser PC-1129 in the Philippines (6). On February 16th, 1945 Japanese suicide Shinyo motorboats sunk the American Large Landing Craft Support, MK  LCS (L) 3-26, LCS (L) (3)-7,  and LCS (3)-49 in the port of Mariveles in the Philippines (6). On the dates of April 3rd to April 4th, 1945 Japanese Shinyo Suicide motorboats sunk the American landing craft infantry-gunboat  LCI (G)-82 off the coast of Okinawa([7]).  A total of six American ships were sunk by the Japanese Shinyo suicide motorboats during World War II. 

A grand total of 56 American Ships were sunk by Japanese Suicide Weapons during World War II: 46 American ships sunk by regular Kamikaze piston engine aircrafts, 1 by the Japanese Okha model 11 Okha “Cherry Blossom”, 3 by the Japanese Kaiten type 1 suicide torpedoes, and 6 by the Japanese Shinyo suicide motorboats).

Impact of Kamikaze suicide weapons

The Japanese Kamikaze suicide weapons not only killed people and caused valuable equipment to be lost, but also created psychological fear in the American military who faced them. This combination made the Japanese Kamikaze weapons very effective. In contrast the German V-2 Rocket was designed principally to be a terror weapon against civilians and thus had very little effect against military targets([8]).  The Kamikaze weapons, then, had some advantages which the German V-2 Rocket lacked in military terms.

The Japanese Kamikaze suicide piston engine aircraft, the Japanese Model 11 Ohka Cherry Blossom suicide rocket planes, and Shinyo suicide motorboats had increased accuracy because humans were inside them. The German V-2 rocket lacked this and was guided to its target using a combination of radio control transmitter a control receiver, and a gyroscope([9]). The Japanese Kaiten Type 1 suicide  torpedo had a 3,400 lbs. warhead and its fuel was a kerosene and oxygen mixture, which meant that it would not leave a white trail of water behind it, making it hard to spot after it was fired ([10]).

In contrast while the V-2 rocket and the Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo were invulnerable after being launched, the Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo was more destructive than the German V-2 rocket. The reason is that the German V-2 rocket warhead was filled with 1,650 pounds of the explosive Amatol([11]). The fact that Japanese Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo carried a 3,400 lbs. warhead made a far more destructive weapon than the German V-2 rocket. According to the series Nazi Mega Weapons: German Engineering in WW II: Axis Weapon - The Kamikaze, historian Tosh Minhora stated: “The Kaiten was intended to sink a very large battleship - just with one shot it packed a large punch!”([12]). Also, the fact that the Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo had human guidance improved its accuracy over the V-2 rocket’s complicated guidance system. The Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo was probably the strongest Kamikaze suicide weapon.

The combination of Japanese Kamikaze weapons, the fanatical and diehard Japanese refusal to surrender, (that the allies witnessed fighting the Japanese in the Pacific and Asian Theatre), and little to almost no opposition to war at home in Japan or by ethnic Japanese in their occupied territories, forced the Allies to enact three drastic measures. The Americans used atomic bombs on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 and then again on Nagasaki on August 9th, 1945. Thirdly the Soviets’ launched Operation August Storm which retook the Japanese occupied colonies of Manchuria, Kuril Islands, and Sakhalin Islands. It was only after these three events that the Japanese capitulated to the Allies on August 15th, 1945 and signed a peace treaty aboard the American Battleship U.S.S. Missouri. In contrast, “while the V-2 Rocket resulted in the Allies having to divert manpower from other necessary military operations to civil defense, aerial reconnaissance, and bombing of the flying bomb sites - England was not terrorized into surrender and the flow of military supplies to Antwerp, Belgium and Liege, Belgium was barely affected”(8).

The V-2 rocket achieved infamy and brought about destruction in Europe from 1944 to 1945, and it would serve as the model of the rocket that put a man on the moon in 1969. However, the German V-2 rocket did not have the strategic and tactical impact that the Japanese Kamikaze weapons had. These unconventional Japanese weapons were clearly superior in destructive power and military effectiveness. 

Do you think the Japanese Kamikaze weapons were more effective than the Nazi V-2 rockets? Let us know below.

[1] Gordan, Bill. “47 Ships Sunk by Kamikaze Aircraft”. Kamikaze Images. Accessed August 28th, 2020.https://wgordon.web/wesleyan/edu/kamikaze/background/ships-sunk/index.htm 

[2] Grunden, Walter E. Secret Weapons & World War II: Japan in the Shadow of Big Science. Lawrence: Kansas. University Press of Kansas. 2005. 152. 

[3] Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and  World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval  Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 169. 

[4] “NavSource Online: Amphibious Photo Archive- USS LCI(L)-600”. August 28th, 2020. https://www.navsource.org/archives/10/15/150600.htm

[5] Frank, Richard B. Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: New York. Random House. 1999. 159. 

[6] Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SHINYO!: Explosive Motorboats based in the Philippines 1944-1945. Last Modified. 2009-2011. Nihon Kaigun.  Accessed August 28th, 2020. http://www.combindedfleet.com/PhilippinesEMB.htm

[7] Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SHINYO!: Explosive Motorboats based at Okinawa  1944-1945. Last Modified 2009-2011. Nihon Kaigun.  Accessed August 29th, 2020. 

[8]  Kennedy, Gregory P.  Germany’s V-2 Rocket. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History. 2006. 79. 

[9] Kennedy, Gregory P. Germany’s V-2 Rocket.  Atlgen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History. 2006. 51-53. 

[10] Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. BlueJacket Books Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 39 

[11] Kennedy, Gregory P. Germany’s V-2 Rocket. Atglen: Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military History. 2006. 48. 

[12] Minohara, Tosh. “Axis Weapon-The Kamikaze”. Nazi Mega Weapons: German Engineering in WWII. PBS. 2014-2015. 

Bibliography

Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II.  Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 

Frank, Richard B. Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire.  New York: New York. Random house, 1999.

Gordon, Bill. “47 Ships Sunk by Kamikaze Aircraft”. Last Modified 2007. Accessed August 28th, 2020. https://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/kamikaze/background/ships-sunk/index.htm

Gruden, Walter E. Secret Weapons & World War II: Japan in the Shadow of Big Science. Lawrence: Kansas. University Press of Kansas. 2005

Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SHINYO!: Explosive Motorboats based in the Philippines 1944-1945”. Last Modified 2009-2011. Nihon Kaigun. Accessed August 28th, 2020. http://www.combindedfleet.com/PhilippinesEMB.htm

Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SHINYO!:” Explosive Motorboats  based on Okinawa 1944-1945”. Accessed August 28th, 2020. http://www.combindedfleet.com/OkinawaEMB.htm

Kennedy, Gregory P. Germany’s V-2 Rocket. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History. 2006. 

Minohara, Tosh. “Axis Weapon: The Kamikaze”. Nazi Mega Weapons: German Engineering in WWII. PBS. 2014-2015. 

“USS LCI9(L)-600”. NavSource Online. Last Updated August 23rd, 2019. Accessed on August 28th, 2020.https://www.navsource.org/archives/10/15/150600.htm

Violent Protests in American History: Part 2 – Race Riots and Racial Protest

American history has had many violent protests, and these often went on for significant periods of time. Here, Theresa Capra continues a series looking at the 2020 protests in America from an historical perspective.

In this article, she considers race-based protests in American history. She looks at how African-Americans often suffered from racist protests in the 19th and into the 20th centuries – and then considers how anti-racist protests in the 1960s and 1919 compare to those of today.

You can read the first article in the series on how 2020’s protests compare to the Bacon’s, Shays’, and Whiskey Rebellions here.

Dr. Theresa Capra is a Professor of Education who teaches education, history, and sociology at a Community College. She is the founder of Edtaps.com, which focuses on research, trends, technology, and tips for educators. 

Policemen and a soldier during race riots in Chicago, Illinois, during the Red Summer of 1919.

How are you doing during these unprecedented times? 

It’s a well-intentioned, but inaccurate, rhetorical question that has become standard in 2020. Indeed, 2020 is a blockbuster year for the American history books: a global pandemic, one of the worst wildfire seasons on record, and in our social media feeds, unrelenting social unrest. But it’s all far from unprecedented - especially the protests. 

Race has been an impetus for countless violent uprisings since the inception of the United States - usually with whites perpetrating the violence upon Blacks. And although the antebellum South was undoubtedly the most oppressive place and violent time for African-Americans, it’s also a widely covered, even romanticized period, teeming with blockbuster movies and best-selling literature. The consequence of this extensive treatment is that many people fail to fully understand racism in early America beyond slavery, even though race riots were common in free states. Furthermore, many white Americans tend to view well-known historical events such as the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement as punctuation marks, periods to be exact, which ended odious periods of Southern history such as slavery, racism, and Jim Crow. However, a closer look handily flips that perspective on its head. Likewise, there is no moral high ground that cosmopolitans or Yankees can claim.

The Big Apple & City of Brotherly Love 

One example can be traced to 1834 when destructive riots, which targeted Blacks and abolitionists, ripped through New York City. Irish Catholics were settling in Manhattan in droves and they frequently clashed with Protestant abolitionists. Additionally, white residents resented the free Black population for becoming assertive and challenging racial norms. Tensions mounted, and white mobs ultimately burned buildings and homes, destroyed municipal property, and attacked African-Americans. They held parts of the city hostage until it all ended. 

Free Blacks in Philadelphia experienced the same ugly racism as their New York City counterparts. A particularly egregious event occurred in 1838 when Pennsylvania Hall, a building erected for abolitionist and suffragette meetings, was burned to the ground by racist mobs. Not one single culprit faced any legal recourse. Originally, whites and Blacks intermingled, and a prosperous African-American community cropped up along Lombard Street. But their success did not go unnoticed and by 1842, residents of Lombard Street came under a full-scale attack by Irish immigrants, who also attacked police officers when they intervened.

Things only worsened as working-class Whites turned their animosity towards African-Americans, whom they viewed as economic competitors. Wealthy, white Philadelphians were sympathetic to the South because they shared commerce, as well as summers in beach resorts such as Cape May, New Jersey. The city that is home to the Liberty Bell and Constitution Hall can also claim some of the harshest racial violence in America’s history.

Go West! 

As Americans moved west, they brought horses, carriages, and racism. Midwestern Cincinnati attracted Irish and German immigrants after the Erie Canal reached completion and ultimately became a hotbed of race riots launched by angry whites who feared economic competition from the growing population of free Blacks. Similarly, in Alton, Illinois, whites were agitated by the number of escaped slaves settling in the town due to its border with the slave-state Missouri. They feared economic reprisals from southern states and attributed the situation to a prominent abolitionist and printer Elijah Lovejoy. On November 7, 1837, a murderous mob set fire to a warehouse and shot and killed Elijah Lovejoy. The rioters evaded justice because some of the mobsters were clerks and judges. 

Farther west brings us to Bleeding Kansas (1854-1861), (or Bloody, as some prefer) - a dress rehearsal for the Civil War replete with looting, arson, property destruction, battlelines, small armies, and murder. The original issue, whether Kansas should join the Union as a free or slave state, should have been settled through popular sovereignty, but that was not to be. Both sides hunkered down and belligerent pro-slavery Missourians, known as border ruffians, tampered with elections and used physical intimidation to let the Kansans know which way the wind was blowing. One particularly violent incident occurred when ruffians crossed into the town of Lawrence, a free-state concentration, and sacked, looted, and blew property to smithereens. 

Interestingly, a similar vigilante scenario is surfacing today. Since May 2020, there have been at least 50 reports of armed individuals appearing at Black Lives Matter demonstrations inciting violence while claiming to be peacekeepers. One example is the Kenosha Guard in Wisconsin, a militia group that launched a ‘call to arms’ on social media encouraging ‘patriots’ to rise up and defend property from protesting ‘thugs.’ Kyle Rittenhouse answered their call. He shot three protesters, killing two. 

The Misunderstanding of the Civil War

Obviously, the most violent uprising over race was the American Civil War. Insurgents in seven southern states coordinated an aggressive assault on their own countrymen by first declaring sovereignty, then attacking Fort Sumter while recruiting more rebels along the way - all to preserve chattel slavery in perpetuity. The Confederate States of America, as they called themselves, were willing to cause wanton death and destruction for white supremacy, mostly in their own backyards, which they pulled off six ways to Sunday with a million casualties and unfathomable property damage. Property sequester and destruction were key tactics for both the revolters and quashers. For example, General William T. Sherman affirmed that his March to Sea laid mostly waste to Georgia: “I estimate the damage done to the State of Georgia and its military resources at $100,000,000; at least $20,000,000 of which has inured to our advantage, and the remainder is simple waste and destruction.”

Today, Americans tend to forget all this history while admonishing protesters for property damage. They focus on the aftermath rather than the reasons. Agreeably, on its face, the aftermath is shocking. As of June 2020, it was estimated that Minneapolis amassed around 55 million dollars in damages, and Portland over 20 million. In July 2020, the Downtown Cleveland Alliance estimated over 6 million dollars in damages resulting from property ruin and lost revenue. However, evidence demonstrates that the majority of rallies have been peaceful, despite the public’s perception that protesters are laser focused on destruction. Ironically, a lot of the property destruction is because of the Civil War - protestors have toppled statues of Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson in Richmond, one of Robert E. Lee in Alabama, a Confederate Defenders monument in South Carolina, and a statue of Charles Linn, just to name a few. 

Isn’t it curious that there are so many monuments glorifying perpetrators who orchestrated the bloodiest riots in American history? As it turns out, revisionists successfully translated a lost cause into the Lost Cause. Around the turn of the 19th century, the Lost Cause movement lobbied to portray Confederates as freedom fighters for state’s rights rather than armed traitors in rebellion over slavery. The Civil War became viewed as a singular political event with causes exacted by both sides. But, it’s better understood as the culmination (and continuation) of a series of extremely violent and destructive uprisings because of race and slavery. 

Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it 

The summer of 2020 has been compared to the Long Hot Summer of 1967 when approximately 160 uprisings exploded across the United States in response to police brutality and systemic racism. Some historians have also noted parallels to 1968 - another year full of racial unrest that resulted in the permanent demise of once vibrant urban centers such as Trenton, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore. However, farther hindsight is needed for 2020 vision. For instance, the Red Summer of 1919 featured a series of violent racial clashes and like today, it happened upon the backdrop of a deadly global pandemic, the Spanish Flu. Despite the pandemic, one of the most virulent massacres against African-Americans occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when angry white mobs decimated the vibrant metropolis known as Black Wall Street. Tulsa is not very different from its predecessors: Lombard Street, Alton, Cincinnati, or New York. The issues are also not much different than Minneapolis on May 26, 2020, when George Floyd was killed by police officer, Derek Chauvin.

How does this story end? It doesn’t. Today, African-Americans are disenfranchised, underrepresented, too often relegated to low-paying jobs, subjected to chronic unemployment, poverty, and overall subjugation by any standard. White Americans want to know why violent revolts are still happening and perhaps promoting raw history can help. Still, I posit there is not one single comparison to be evenly made. The whole story must find its way back into social institutions, such as schools, in the name human progress.

What do you think of the comparisons between protests in 1919 and the 1960s and those of 2020? Let us know below.

Is Anti-Semitism Often Overlooked? A Historical View

Anti-Semitism has sadly been a problem for Jewish communities for millennia. Here, Ophir Barak explains this in its historical context and asks whether and how anti-Semitism is often overlooked today when compared with other types of racism.

A Sovier Jewish prisoner of war with a gold star in August 1941, during World War Two. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-267-0111-36A / Friedrich / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

“There are two sets of people who nobody has really wanted to challenge; Jewish and KKK but being in business for 20 years you start to understand why”.

This was one of the many of anti-Semitic tweets that British rapper Wiley took to social media with in the summer.

Such words, though only expressed in this very recent incident, epitomize the anti-Semitism that Jews have faced throughout history.

Indeed, anti-Semitism is just one of the many forms of discrimination and bigotry that have existed for centuries and unfortunately, continue to persist today. But in a clear discordance with other forms of discrimination, an end to anti-Semitism only seems to be truly sought after and pushed for by the Jewish communities around the globe that bear the brunt of its bigotry. 

Today we seem to be in an era of heightened discrimination, where many people who aren’t part of the targeted minorities proclaim their support on social media for those minorities. This is especially the case with the Black Lives Matter Movement; as soon as news broke about the horrific murder of George Floyd, millions of people took to social media to proclaim their support for the movement. However, I’ve seen only very few non-Jewish people post or share anything on social media recently, that highlight their support for the Jewish communities, following Wiley’s tweets. It seems strange that people who aren’t part of targeted minorities and who have publicly claimed to be against prejudice of any kind have been silent following Wiley’s tweets.

And whilst this infuriates me, unfortunately it doesn’t surprise me, as this has been the case for centuries. Throughout history, there have been very few non-Jewish people who have fought alongside Jews to alleviate anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism in history

Anti-Jewish sentiment can be seen going back to the 3rd century BCE in Alexandria, where priests and historians would write scathing and nasty comments about the Alexandrian Jewish Community, regarding them as barbarians. This eventually sparked an attack on the Jews in Alexandria, where thousands were killed. These verbal and physical attacks mainly led to an outcry of protests and revolts from Jewish people, specifically the Maccabees, whom in 170-160 BCE initiated a revolt in Judea.

And of course, it wouldn’t be an article on anti-Semitism, if I didn’t mention the case of Nazi Germany. This political movement arose following WWI and incorporated anti-Semitic ideologies, expressed in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. These anti-Semitic ideologies spawned out of Hitler’s belief that the Jews were the reason for Germany’s defeat in WWI. Hitler’s first five years in power saw the implementation of mass violence against Jews, as well as the laws that dehumanized them. These brutal treatments culminated in the Holocaust, where between 1941-1945, Hitler and the Nazi regime systematically murdered six million Jews, through mass murders in concentration camps and gas chambers. 

Whilst conducting research for this piece, I noticed a lot of resistance movements against the Nazis’ anti-Semitic ideas, were founded by and largely consisted of Jewish civilians. There were many fewer non-Jewish people who participated in rescuing Holocaust victims. According to Yad Vashem of Israel’s Holocaust Memorial Centre, just over 27,000 non-Jewish people participated in rescuing Jewish Holocaust victims, compared to over 70,000 Jewish rescuers. However, it is also important to bear in mind that rescuing Jewish people was extremely difficult due to the potential ramifications of siding with Jewish communities and the potential outcomes for any supporters of the Jewish cause.

A lack of support

These two historical cases of anti-Semitism along with Wiley’s tweets, illustrate a common theme that clearly seems to have existed throughout history - not enough non-Jewish people are talking about anti-Semitism or taking action against it. And for years I’ve been trying to understand why anti-Semitism seems to be among the forms of prejudice and discrimination that are less spoken of. To be honest even today I still don’t understand why. 

So please, if you are someone who is Jewish or not and is part of a targeted minority and claim to be against prejudice and discrimination of any kind, then I encourage you to show your love and support for the Jewish community, especially in the wake of Wiley’s tweets. History and the present day have shown us that to truly inspire change, societies need to come together to push through reform. It can’t only be the targeted groups fighting for their own causes, rights and equalities. Wiley’s anti-Semitic comments serve as one the many discriminatory incidents that have sparked an outcry of messages and petitions from the public all over social media and if we’re to truly inspire change, Jewish people should not and cannot be an exception to the rule that systemic racism needs to be stamped out of our societies.

What do you think of the writer’s arguments? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Ophir’s article on the culture wars in Britain here.

Writer’s note: This is in no way my attempt at stating that Jews deserve more support from people than other targeted communities, or that Jewish communities have it worse than other targeted communities. I’m aware that Jews do have some privileges that other targeted communities may not have, but I am writing this out of a belief that people who aren’t part of Jewish communities can do a lot more in terms of supporting them.

Sources

https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/26/what-did-wiley-say-tweets-investigated-alleged-antisemitism-13039775/

https://www.yadvashem.org/righteous/statistics.html

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002200949503000104?journalCode=jcha

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-resistance

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/477384-as-non-jews-its-our-job-to-combat-anti-semitism

Leni Yahil, The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 394