Perils, Panics and Pandemics: The Liverpool City Council investigation of Chinese Communities in 1906-07

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in February 2020, something troubling started happening to Britain’s Chinese community. Some people started blaming people of East Asian appearance of spreading the virus. In that context, Doctor Robert Brown looks at a panic in 1906-07, involving ugly, unsubstantiated allegations against the British Chinese community in Liverpool.

A Chinese woman and child in the 1920s UK. Source: Harry B. Parkinson, available here.

In February 2020, the shriller voices in Britain amongst a suspicious and poorly informed public began blaming any Chinese Britons or people of East Asian appearance they could find for the spread of the virus.(1)  The community became a focal point for a moral panic that pathologized them as a biological threat to the body politic.  Jenny Wong, Director of the Manchester Chinese Centre recounted to the Manchester Evening News the numerous complaints she received about Chinese children excluded from interacting with other children because parents saw them as ‘virus carriers’.

Suspicious stereotyping towards Chinese communities in the UK and throughout the English speaking world is nothing new, although the tropes driving these stereotypes may mutate.   Around 113 years prior to the pandemic another Manchester based newspaper, the Sunday Chronicle, on December 2, 1906 had broken a hysterical scare story about the activities and vices of Chinese migrants in England’s North West, clustered around Liverpool. According to reports, these Chinese had been spotted dealing drugs and dragging young white girls into prostitution. The article examines the moral panic this generated.  Local outrage against the Chinese was whipped up to the point where Liverpool City Council felt compelled to intervene by conducting a detailed investigation of Chinese activities in Liverpool.  Their findings paint a fascinating picture of official confusion and paranoia about the perceived degenerative physical and moral impact of interracial contact between European and Chinese bodies.

Eugenics, Elections and the Chinese Question in Edwardian Britain

By 1906, suspicions toward Chinese immigration in Britain and the ‘White men’s countries’ of the empire were at an all time high.  Trade Unions and politicians in Australia and South Africa had already laid the groundwork for controversies in Britain.  In attempts to protect their ‘white’ workers from labor competition, they successfully pushed the narrative that Chinese immigrants were fundamentally not compatible with European communities.  In 1905 this came to a head in Transvaal colony, South Africa, where anger about the British government’s importation of Chinese mine workers drove the progressive criminalization of Chinese activities. The feedback from this hit Britain hard in the 1906 General Election. The Liberal Party won a thumping landslide against the incumbent Conservative and Liberal Unionists, partly by claiming the Tories had given ‘South Africa for the Chinese’, and partly by promising to stop the importation of Chinese labor in Britain from escalating.(2)

This political unrest unfolded against an anxious hum of background noise in the popular science and the eugenics movements regarding a perceived biological ‘degeneration’ of the British population. The Departmental Committee on Physical Degeneration (1904) noted that a shocking proportion of working class recruits for the Second South African war had to be rejected as physically unfit to serve.(3)  According to some eugenicists, such as the Liverpudlian physician Robert Reid Rentoul, the physical decline of Britain’s population was caused by interracial marriage, and could be solved by segregating or excluding non-whites from the country. In Race Culture; or, Race Suicide? (1906), Rentoul claimed that, ‘terrible monstrosities’ were ‘produced by inter-marriage of…the white man with the Chinese’ and that naturalisation of foreigners was ridiculous since Africans were dangerous ‘perverts’ and ‘nymphomaniacs’.  While his arguments against racial equality probably did not reach the ears or breakfast tables of the working classes of the North West, his intellectualisation of anti-Chinese prejudice certainly reflected anxious stereotypes about immigrants expressed on street level.(4)

Sensationalist publications about Chinese communities in Britain had certainly not helped.  If anything, articles such as Hermann Scheffauer’s The Chinese in England (1911), for Harmsworth’s London Magazine had helped flesh out constructions of Britain’s Chinatowns as opaque dens of evil and subversion connected in a global web with larger Chinese enclaves in Melbourne and San Francisco. Even worse, The Yellow Danger (1898) by West Indian author Matthew Phipps Shiel was a highly popular and xenophobic ‘yellow peril’ science fiction novel depicting a Chinese invasion of Europe led by the ‘yellow Napoleon’ Dr. Yen How. Littered with ‘germ’ metaphors equating hordes of Chinese shock troops with an infectious plague, the British ironically beat back the invasion by using biological warfare. Chinese prisoners injected with a deadly disease were used to infect and cripple their own armies. These anti-immigrant, ‘germ-phobic’ tropes reflected the nastier anxieties toward the Chinese in Edwardian Britain.

Liverpool City Council’s Investigation

In response to one such article ‘Chinese vice in England’ in the Sunday Chronicle, a special meeting of Liverpool City Council was called on December 12, 1906.(5)  The ‘sensational character’ of the accusations against Chinese workers in Liverpool had stirred up public outrage that could only be assuaged by the ‘closest investigation’.(6)  The Chronicle claimed Chinese owners of laundries and lodging houses were engaged in the organized seduction and corruption of teenage white girls. This stirred a local belief that a sinister and inscrutable ‘oriental’ menace was in their midst, and the City Council clearly took this seriously enough to form a commission comprised of clergymen, local newspaper editors and two doctors to gather evidence and write a report.(7)  Published on July 26, 1907, the report on ‘Chinese Settlements in Liverpool’ included a section on the ‘morality of the Chinese’.  It began by refuting a local rumor that the Chinese on Liverpool’s Pitt Street ‘were in the habit of giving sweets impregnated with opium to children’.

Far greater concern was expressed in the investigation of Chinese ‘relations with white women’.  On the one hand, it was noted that several white British women had married Chinese men, and that, ‘the women themselves stated that they were happy and contented and extremely well treated’.(8) On a darker note however, was the reportedly widespread corruption of English girls from ‘respectable’ backgrounds who became ‘acquainted’ with Chinese men, mercilessly groomed to ‘drift into what can hardly be described as otherwise than prostitution’.(9)  In three cases it was claimed, ‘the girls taken advantage of were under 16 years of age at the time’.  Although there was no record of complaints being made, and insufficient evidence for such cases to be brought to trial, the commission was adamant that the, ‘evidence of seduction of girls by Chinamen is conclusive…the Chinese appear to much prefer having intercourse with young girls, more especially those of undue precocity’.(10)  This exposed a prominent anxiety of Edwardian society that young white women in their associations with ‘men of colour’ were the ‘unwitting revolutionaries’ in a biological sense, for the overthrow of Britain’s white ‘race culture’.(11)

Recommendations of the Report

The report recommended that the Liverpool Watch Committee be warned of the ‘Chinese danger’ so that law enforcement could be vigilant in future.  The report was similarly alarmed about the possibility of ‘miscegenation’, the increase in ‘mixed race’ children arising from the Chinese control of brothels. However no formal evidence of Chinese men running brothels in Liverpool could be substantiated despite the allegations that all laundries acted as fronts for the sex trade.(12) In a letter to the undersecretary of state at the Home Office on December 8, 1906 entitled ‘Chinamen in Liverpool’, the Liverpool Head Constable had tasked his officers with taking a census of the Chinese residing in Liverpool who ‘seemed to be in regular employment’.  The figures listed, ‘15 Englishwomen married to Chinamen, 4 English women cohabiting with Chinamen, and 2 English women employed in Chinese laundries’. A ‘half-caste’ (mixed heritage) Chinese-English woman also ran a brothel with her Chinese husband, and was arrested for this in July 1904.  In the Head Constable’s opinion there was:

At present a great outcry on the subject, mostly due to a lying article in the Manchester Sunday Chronicle, but there is no doubt a strong feeling of objection to the idea of the ‘half-caste’ population which is resulting from the marriage of the Englishwoman to the Chinaman, but I cannot help thinking that what is really at the bottom of most of it is the competition of the Chinese with the laundries and boarding house keepers.(13)

As in the Transvaal, in Liverpool there was an official awareness that commercial interests were partly at play in pushing racialized anti-Chinese talking points and feeding the insecurities of the working classes to stifle business competition. This foreshadowed a far bigger panic in the 1919 race riots against Chinese and other non-white shipping workers in Britain.

Conclusion

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was talk of a second Cold War between China and the West. We will see this narrative grow and mutate in global media discourse over the coming years.  However the debacles of 1906-7 and 2020 also teach us that international anxieties can have more localized consequences. They potentially catalyse regional panics about Chinese communities and Chinese influence that can lead to ugly rumours and uglier results.  It also tells us that germ-phobia, stereotypes surrounding ethnic groups and anxieties about immigration have become entangled in Britain to create a toxic atmosphere in which false information and hatred flourishes. In the modern world citizens have frequently treated the nation-state like a body vulnerable to infection. Developing scientific solutions and vaccines to cope with the covid pandemic has been a painful learning curve, and so too will de-toxifying and disentangling the language linking borders, pathogens, and the contemporary Chinese question.

What do you think of the events surrounding the panic and subsequent report in 1906-07 in Liverpool?

References

1 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/09/chinese-in-uk-report-shocking-levels-of-racism-after-coronavirus-outbreak

2 See Appendix I.

3 Geoffrey Russell Searle, The Quest for National Efficiency: a Study in British Politics and Political Thought 1899–1914 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), Geoffrey Russell Searle, Eugenics and Politics in Britain 1900–14 (Leyden: Noordoff InternationalPublishing, 1976).

4 Robert Reid Rentoul, Race Culture; or, Race Suicide? : (a plea for the unborn), (London, Walter Scott, 1906), p.3-5.

5 Sunday Chronicle, 2nd December 1906, ‘Chinese vice in England’.

6 City of Liverpool, Report of the Commission appointed by the City Council to enquire into Chinese Settlements in Liverpool, 26 June, 1907, HO 139147/15

7 Sascha Auerbach, Race, law, and “The Chinese Puzzle” in Imperial Britain, (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2009), p.50

8 City of Liverpool, Report of the Commission appointed by the City Council to enquire into Chinese Settlements in Liverpool, 26 June, 1907, HO 139147/15

9 Ibid, p.7

10 Ibid, p.6

11 Henry Reynolds, Nowhere People, (Penguin, 2005), P.35

12 City of Liverpool, Report of the Commission appointed by the City Council to enquire into Chinese Settlements in Liverpool, 26 June, 1907, HO 139147/15, p.7

13 HO 45/11843, Part 2

American Tanks and Tank Destroyers of World War II: A Flawed Necessity?

American tanks and tank destroyers played an important role in the later years of World War 2. Here, Daniel Boustead looks at the most important of these tanks and the role they played in some key battles.

A Sherman tank during the Allied Invasion of Sicily in July 1943.

American Tanks and Tank Destroyers in World War II are very well known to the public and historians. The inferiority of these weapons was a direct result of government and U.S Army policies and doctrine. Extensive research has been done about the technical mediocrity of these weapons. The logistics and transportation of these weapons played a role in their technological inferiority. Very little could be done to improve the American Tank and Tank Destroyer’s marginal effectiveness. In contrast, Airpower and Artillery were the most effective Anti-Tank weapons. 

At the end of World War I the U.S Military was trying to re arrange the peace time army.  The Cavalry, Infantry, and Artillery branches of the U.S. Army viewed the Tank and the infant American Tank Corps as a threat and an encroachment to their turf and authority!. In 1919 General John J. Pershing (said in testimony before Congress) that the American Tank Corps “should not be a large organization”(1). General John J. Pershing also said (during his 1919 testimony) “it should be placed under the Chief of the Infantry as an adjunct to that arm”. Pershing’s testimony resulted in a significant event. In 1920, the U.S Congress passed the National Defense Act of 1920, which eliminated the infant Tank Corps. It also placed the Tank Corps under the Chief of Infantry as adjunct to that arm of the U.S. Army. This act seemingly destroyed any hopes for a future independent armored force. In October, 1931, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur disbanded the “Mechanized Force”. He also ordered the Infantry and Cavalry branches to separately devise their own distinctive tanks and rules for their use(2). The resulting “Infantry tanks” would be used to accompany men on foot at a slow pace. In contrast, the light and under-gunned “Cavalry tanks” conducted reconnaissance and exploited enemy weakness. Mildred Gille said about General MacArthur’s decision, “When MacArthur saw fit to split the development of mechanization, the association of the two branches automatically resolved into an internecine competition for money, men and equipment”. The rivalry stifled any technological development in tanks. 3rd Armored Division member, Belton Cooper, recollected “As a young ordnance ROTC cadet in August, 1939, I was shocked to find that our total tank research and development budget for that year was only $85,000. How could the greatest industrial nation on earth devote such a pittance to the development of a major weapons system, particularly when World War II was to start in two weeks?”(3).

World War II

The M4 Sherman Tank was heavily influenced by the polices in 1942 from the Army Ground Forces Development Division (4) The Army Ground Forces Developmental Division had two primary criteria for a new weapon: “battle-need” and “battle-worthiness”. 

“Battle-need” meant that the new equipment had to be essential, not merely desirable. This policy was articulated by. Lt. General Leslie McNair. McNair was insistent that the Army should not be burdened with too many weapon types since the U.S. Army would be fighting thousands of miles from the continental United States and could not afford to complicate logistics. As a result, the U.S Army was unwilling to adopt a specialized tank with heavier armor for the infantry support role.

“Battle-worthiness” meant that the design had to be capable of performing its intended function but to be sufficiently rugged and reliable to withstand the rigors of combat service without excessive maintenance demands.

The M4 Sherman Tank perfectly fit the criteria of “Battle-need” and “Battle-worthiness”. These policies of “Battle-need” and “Battle-worthiness” meant that the Army Ground Forces did not favor the development of new tanks. This was until the combat situation forced them to do otherwise.

In Army Ground Forces or the AGF manual issued in September 1943 stated, “the primary role of the tank was not to fight enemy tanks, but to destroy enemy personnel and automatic weapons” (5). To have denied the infantry armor protection would have resulted in men being senselessly slaughtered by machine gun fire. Until 1945, the US Armor doctrine reflected the interwar school of thought that tanks existed to support Infantry, and the Cavalry’s preference for using them as weapons of exploitation to hit the enemy’s weak rear. These decisions led to the development of the Sherman Tank. However these policies also lead to the deaths of thousands of Tank and Tank Destroyer Crewmen.

In contrast the enemy armored threat was to be solved by the individualized tank destroyer battalions (6). The primary Tank Destroyer of the war was the M10 Gun Carriage. Another important American Tank Destroyer was the M18 Hellcat (7). The M18 Hellcat also was used in combat in Europe and the Pacific (8). The M36 Jackson Tank Destroyer also served in Europe(9).

Specifications

The hull front armor of the King Tiger II Tank was 150 millimeters thick(10). The King Tiger II’s 88 Millimeters KW.K 43 L/71 gun, using the shell of Pzgr. 39/43 could penetrate the front Gun Mantlet of the Sherman Tank at 2,600 meters at a side angle of 30 degrees (11). The King Tiger could also penetrate the front turret of a Sherman Tank using the same ammunition at a range of 3,500 + meters at a side angle of 30 degrees.

In contrast, the Sherman Tank equipped with either the 75 Millimeter gun or the 76 Millimeter gun was unable to penetrate the frontal armor of the King Tiger II Tank from a side angle of 30 degrees. The German JagdTiger Tank Destroyer had a fixed armored body that had 250 millimeters of front armor inclined at 75 degrees (12). The Sherman Tank, either equipped with the 75mm gun or the 76mm gun, was also unable to defeat the frontal armor of the JagdTiger based on front shot at a 60 degree angle (13).

The M-18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer was protected by thin armor and an open top turret which exposed the crew to fire from aircraft (14). The M18’s 76mm gun fired a shell that could seldom kill heavily armored German panzers in one shot. Even the M26 Pershing Tank when it fired the T44 HVAP shell could only penetrate 244 millimeters of homogenous armor at range of 500 yards at a 30 degree angle (15). The M26 Tank would have had some difficulty in destroying the JagdTiger.

In a December 6, 1944, article titled “Plan No Changes in Sherman Tank”, an unnamed War Department Official spokesmen said, “Should our tanks be as heavily armored as the German ones, this would bring up almost insurmountable difficulties in transportation, since many of the tanks now are still being landed on beaches” (16). In addition, Army Regulation 850-15 stated “American Tanks had to be able to fit into landing crafts, and to cross hastily built or repaired temporary bridges. Army Regulation AR 850-15 (which was revised in August, 1943) limited U.S. Tanks to 35 tons (17). The M26 Pershing Tanks’ weight was roughly 45 tons, and the Sherman Tanks average weight was 35 tons. In contrast the German King Tiger Tank was nearly 70 tons (18).

Attacks

On July 11, 1943, at Gela, Sicily, Naval gunfire rescued American tankers and infantry pinned down by fire from Nazi Tiger I Tanks(19). Sergeant Harold Fulton said of airpower “I could write all day telling of our tanks I have seen knocked out by more effective guns. Our best (anti-tank) weapon, and the boy that has saved us so many times, is the P-47 (Thunderbolt fighter-bomber, used to support Allied Tanks” (20). 

On the dates of September 22, 27, 28, and October 2 and 7, 1944, a series of five bombing raids hit the Henschel plant. This is where the King Tiger II was being produced (21). These five raids resulted in destroying 95% of the total floor area of the Henschel Plant. Another bombing raid on the Henschel Plant on December 15, 1944, delayed further recovery. Heavy bombing raids on the Kassel vicinity on October 22 and 23, December 30, 1944, and January 1, 1945, further delayed King Tiger II production. The Allied Bombing campaign from September 1944 to March 1945 caused the loss of at least 657 King Tiger II’s out of 940 that were originally planned to be built.

The American government and military decisions both contributed to these weapons’ deficiencies. Logistics and transportation prevented the weapons from being as formidable as their German counterparts. Thankfully, Tank and Tank Destroyer crews were saved by outstanding Air Power and Artillery.

What do you think of American tanks in World War II? Let us know below.

Now, you can read World War II history from Daniel: “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here, “Japanese attacks on the USA in World War II” here, and “Was the Italian Military in World War 2 Really that Bad?” here.

References

Bryan, Tony, Laurier, Jim and Zaloga, Steve J. New Vanguard 35: M26/46 Pershing Tank 1943-1953. Oxford: United Kingdom. Osprey Military of Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2000. 

Cooper, Belton Y. Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II. Novato: California. Presidio Press. 1998. 

DeJohn, Christian M. For Want of a Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WWII. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2017. 

Doyle, David. Legends of Warfare Ground: M18 Hell-Cat 76mm Gun Motor Carriage in World War II. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2020. 

Doyle, Hilary and Spielberger, Walter J. The Spielberger German Armor and Military Vehicle Series: Tiger I and II And Their Variants. Schiffer Military History of Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2007. 

Doyle, Hilary, Jentz, Thoms L, and Spielberger, Walter J. The Spielberger German Armor and Military Vehicle Series: Heavy JagdPanzer, Development, Production, and Operations. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History of Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2007. 

Doyle, Hilary L and Jentz, Thomas L. Germany’s Tiger Tanks: VK 45.02 to Tiger II: DESIGN, PRODUCTION, & MODIFICATIONS. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History of Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1997. 

Jentz, Thomas L. Germany’s Tiger Tanks: Tiger I & Tiger II: Combat Tactics. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History of Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1997. 

“M-18 Tank Destroyer “Hellcat””. U.S. Army Heritage & Education Center: Army Heritage Trail Experience a Walk Through History. Accessed on April 3rd, 2022. https://ahec.armywarcollege.edu/trail/Hellcat/index.cfm.

Footnotes

1 DeJohn, Christian M. For Want of a Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WWII. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2017.  42.  

2 DeJohn, Christian M. For Want of a Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WW II. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2017. 46. 
3 Cooper, Belton Y. Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II. Novato: California. Presidio Press. 1998. 295. 

4 Bryan, Tony, Laurier, Jim and Zaloga, Steve J. New Vanguard 35: M26/46 Pershing Tank 1943-1953. Oxford: United Kingdom. Osprey Military of Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2000. 4 to 5. 

5 DeJohn, Christian M. For Want of a Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WW II. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2017. 105.

6 Bryan, Tony, Laurier, Jim and Zaloga, Steve J. New Vanguard 35: M26/46 Pershing Tank 1943-1953. Oxford: United Kingdom. Osprey Publishing Military of Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2000. 4. 

7 Doyle, David. Legends of Warfare: Ground: M18 Hell-Cat 76 mm Gun Motor Carriage in World War II. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2020. 8. 

8 Doyle, David. Legends of Warfare: Ground M18 Hell-Cat 76 mm Gun Motor Carriage in World War II. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2020. 64. 

9 DeJohn,, Christian M. For Want of a Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WW II. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2017. 234 to 236 

10 Doyle, Hilary L and Spielberger Walter J. The Spielberger German Armor and Military Vehicle Series: Tiger I and II and their Variants. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History of Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2007. 204

11 Jentz, Thomas L. Germany’s Tiger Tanks: Tiger I & Tiger II: Combat Tactics. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History of Schiffer Publishing Ltd 1997. 14

12 Doyle, Hilary and Spielberger, Walter J. The Spielberger Germany Armor and Military Vehicle Series: Tiger I and II and their Variants. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History of Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2007. 153. 

13 Doyle, Hilary, Jentz, Thomas L. and Spielberger, Walter J. The Spielberger German Armor and Military Vehicle Series: Heavy Jagdpanzer: Development, Production, and Operations. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History of Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2007. 185

14 “M-18 Tank Destroyer “Hellcat” “. U.S. Army Heritage & Education Center: Army Heritage Trail Experience a Walk Through History. Accessed on April 3rd, 2022. https://ahec.armywarcollege.edu/trail/Hellcat/index.cfm. 

15 Bryan, Tony, Laurier, Jim and Zaloga, Steven J. New Vanguard 35: M26/46 Pershing Tank Pershing 1943-1953. Oxford: United Kingdom.  Osprey Military of Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2000. 10. 

16 DeJohn, Christian M. For Want of a Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WW II. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2017. 215. 

17 DeJohn, Christian M. For Want of a Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WW II. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2017. 274. 

18 DeJohn, Christian M. For Want of a Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WW II. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2017. 334. 

19 DeJohn, Christian M. For Want of a Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WW II. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2017. 135 to 136. 

20 DeJohn, Christian M. For Want of a Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WW II. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2017. 266. 

21 Doyle, Hilary L and Jentz, Thomas L. Germany’s Tiger Tanks: VK 45.02 to Tiger II: DESIGN, PRODUCTION, & MODIFICATIONS. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History of Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1997. 59 to 60. 

Mao Zedong’s Childhood — A Telling Catalyst

Mao Zedong is often considered the main perpetrator of the Great Chinese Famine, the harrowing ramification of a series of incompetent and shortsighted policies that engendered the deaths of tens of millions of people. A good majority of the blame is often put on Mao, owing to his brutal and ruthless behavior and little regard for human life. But what is it that forged such a malevolent personality? What about him leads some to believe he was instead a benevolent ruler? To understand one’s inherent mindset and actions, many often look at his upbringing to determine how it affected his character. This brings forward the question: to what extent, good or bad, did Mao’s childhood affect who he became?    

David Matsievich explains.

Mao Zedong, from circa 1919.

Mao’s Parents

It is imperative that we first discuss the background of Mao’s parents. Mao’s ancestors came from the valley of Shaoshan, in Hunan, having lived in this humid region for five-hundred years. Mao’s father, Yi-chang, was born in 1870 to a peasant family. He was a hard-working man. After leaving the army, which he had joined to pay off family debts, he brought back home savvy business ideas, beginning to sell top-quality rice to a nearby village, in time becoming the richest man in his village. He was able to afford a six-room house, although the rooms stayed furnished with only the most basic structures: wooden beds, wooden tables, wooden chairs, some mosquito nets, etc..

Before all of this, however, when Yi-chang was fifteen, he married Wen Qimei, or literally “Seventh Sister Wen”. Wen Qimei, being merely a girl, was not given a name, so as she was the seventh sister of the Wen clan, she was duly given her title. Her betrothal to Yi-chang was arranged for a practical purpose: the Wen family resided in a village ten kilometers away from Shaoshan, but they had a deceased relative buried in a grave in the latter which had to had rituals be undertaken from time to time; therefore, having someone from the family in the area would be ideal. 

Early Childhood and Education

Born into a rural community of traditionalists on December 26, 1893, Mao was the third and only son to survive his infancy. His given name, Tse-tung, or Zedong, literally means “to shine on the East”. Auspicious names were reflective of parents’ expectation that their children would be successful in life. However, in order to not tempt fate with such a grandiose name, he was given a pet name by his mother — “the Boy of Stone,” Shi san ya-zi. After an elaborate ritual, somewhat like a “baptism”, at a rock deemed to be magical, he became “adopted” by the rock. He expressed his fondness for this name even in his older years.

Until the age of eight, he lived with his mother at the Wens’ village. He was loved by all his family there, and his uncle even became his Chinese equivalent of a godfather. Life was happy and careless, Mao only doing mild farm labor like gathering pig fodder and taking the buffalo for a walk by a shaded pond. It was in this idyllic village that he began learning to read.  

He returned to Shaoshan only to attend primary education. Mao had to learn by rote the Confucian classics, then an essential part of education in China, at which he was exceptionally talented. He was known by his pupils as a diligent and smart student, gathering a good foothold in Chinese history and learning to write legible calligraphy. Mao absolutely adored reading, flipping through pages well into the night when the entire village was asleep.

Father and Son

Nevertheless, he was a very recalcitrant and obstinate child. He was expelled from at least three schools for disobedient behavior. When he was ten, he ran away from his first school because, he claimed, his teacher was strict and harsh. This — and Mao’s dislike for menial laborious work — put him at odds with his father. The hatred of physically demanding work was especially what engendered the conflict between father and son: Yi-chang only obtained his wealth through hard labor, and he expected his son to do the same. 

Mao despised his authoritative father, who would hit him whenever he did not comply. Some scholars even put forward that Yi-chang was abusive towards Mao and his mother. Whatever the case, Mao likely never forgave his father, whom many years later, when Mao was chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), he said he would have liked to be treated as brutally as all other political prisoners, had Yi-chang still been alive.

But Mao, as reflected in his future years, was never a submissive man; he fought back. On one occasion, as Jung Chang writes in her book The Unknown Story: Mao, after Yi-chang berated his son in front of guests, Mao ran from his father to a pond and threatened to jump in if his father came any nearer; Yi-chang relented. However, other scholars claim a different outcome; instead of backing down, Yi-chang demanded that Mao kowtow to him, which Mao did, in exchange for avoiding a beating. Two different realities offer two different implications. If we trust the latter, it would be further proof of the severity, and perhaps abusiveness, of Mao’s father, which might evoke sympathy for Mao. But if we are to choose the other, we are shown that Yi-chang did indeed love his son — and that Mao’s unscrupulous cleverness and opportunistic mindset developed at a young age. “Old men like [Yi-chang] didn’t want to lose their sons,” Mao allegedly said. “This is their weakness. I attacked at their weak point, and I won.” Either way, it was an unpleasant father-son relationship.

Yi-chang wanted to tame Mao, to make him docile and responsible. His resolution was to have his son marry his niece, after whom Mao would have to take care of, a mild “white elephant”. And so in 1908, Mao, at the age of 14, married Luo, 4 years his senior. (For the same reason as Wen Qimei, Luo was given not a name but rather a title: “Women Luo”). Mao had no affection for her. “I do not consider her my wife…” Mao said to journalist Edgar Snow in 1936, “and have given little thought to her.” He didn’t even live in the same house as her. She died barely a year later in 1910 (from natural causes, of course). In an article written years later, Mao decried his forced marriage with Luo, and all arranged marriages in general: “This is a kind of ‘indirect rape.’ Chinese parents are all the time indirectly raping their children…” This hatred of paternal authority naturally turned his father into an arch-nemesis. 

A Loving Mother

A pious follower of Buddhism, Mao’s mother became even more devout to the Buddha so that he would protect her only surviving son hitherto. Unlike with his father, Mao’s relationship with his mother was endearingly harmonious. Neat and kindhearted, she was also tolerant, indulgent, and, according to Mao, never raised her voice at him. At a young age he followed her around everywhere, attending Buddhist rituals and visiting Buddhist temples. In emulation of her, Mao espoused Buddhism, although he later forsook it in his later adolescence. His love of her was a complete polar opposite of the hate for his father. In October, 1919, Mao, in his twenties, was horribly distraught to learn of his mother’s death. Yet only a few months later, when Yi-chang was on his deathbed and wished to see his son for the last time, Mao coldly refused to come visit him. He was indifferent to his father’s death.

Once again another controversy opens up, this time about Mao’s absence at Qimei’s death. The generic argument is that Mao simply wasn’t there, away at studies or work, simple and believable. But Jung Chang proposes a more contrived and unpleasant motive: selfishness. Mao had always perceived  his mother as a healthy and clean woman; he did not want that idyllic image to be spoiled by his now ailing mother. He supposedly said to a close staff member, “I wanted to keep a beautiful image of her, and told her I wanted to stay away for a while… So the image of my mother in my mind has always been and still is today a healthy and beautiful one.”

He had agreed with his understanding mother to this arrangement. Mao did indubitably love her very much, but so did he his own interests.

Mao’s childhood: a catalyst?

More attention is usually focused on Mao's later stages of life, like in his early adulthood, when he “became” a communist, and especially later adulthood, when he was chairman. But it cannot be denied that childhood in essence is the foundation for later acts of life. For one, Mao’s ardent hatred and snubbing of traditional customs, like arranged marriage and filial piety, prompted him to espouse the newfangled Chinese Republican values in the early 20th century — and especially develop some very radical ideas of his own — culminating in his notorious communist image, although, as Jung Chang claims, with an “absence of heartfelt commitment” in this new ideology.

It is widely believed among Mao's supporters, past and contemporary, that his Shaoshan peasant background contributed to his empathy and astute concern for peasants in his party years. Mao himself purported that he indeed benevolently cared for the rural and marginalized people of China. Is this true? Jung Chang provides a concise answer: no. There is no sufficient evidence to prove he felt about them this way in her earlier days. Although he had referenced them in a few of his writings, there is no tangible or strong emotion in them to indicate sorrow or sympathy for peasants. In fact, he voiced more emotion on the “sea of bitterness” that was being a student, of which he was one. Mao additionally claimed that his emotion was first roused by the execution of a certain P’ang the Millstone Maker, although there are no records corroborating the existence of such an individual.

It’s safe to conclude that in order to attain a better understanding of Mao’s outlook on the world, it’s worth examining all stages of Mao’s life, not least his college years, where his egotism and fringe ideas were first transcribed on paper. But what qualities did transfer over from his childhood? From what we can confirm, his stubborn behavior is definitely reflected in his later attitude to the CCP leadership; his defiance of his orthodox-viewed father encouraged his adoption of the novel ideas and ideologies, such as democracy, republicanism, and communism, flooding into the country into early 20th century China; and his early-discovered love of books correspondingly prompted him to absorb one after another these recently translated socio-political writings, ranging from moderate to extreme. Although Mao’s childhood was perhaps not the most major period in his life, nor the one in which he adopted communism, it was to a fair degree a stepping stone to his controversial career.  

What do you think of Mao’s early life? Let us know below.

Now read David’s article on the Medieval European Jewish State here.

References

Chang, Jung, and Jon Halliday. The Unknown Story: Mao. Anchor Books, 2005. 

Spence, Jonathan. “A Child of Hunan.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2000, https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/spence-mao.html. 

Snow, Edgar. “Interview with Mao.” The New Republic, The New Republic, https://newrepublic.com/article/89494/interview-mao-tse-tung-communist-china.

Henry Ford’s “Ship of Fools”: Ending the First World War through Citizen Diplomacy

In 1915 American industrialist and business magnate Henry Ford launched an amateur peace delegation aimed at stopping the First World War raging across Europe. Although it turned out to be disaster rand subject to ridicule, the mission offers an important example of the unorthodox ways in which private citizens have sought to broker peace.

Felix Debieux explains.

A December 1915 Punch cartoon "The Tug of Peace". It ridicules Ford’s peace mission to Europe.

When we think about ‘diplomacy’, a number of images spring to mind. Official-looking statesmen in grey suits, facing off across long tables as they discuss the terms of treaties, ceasefires and trade. This image is a narrow one, and places a great deal of importance on the work of nation states. We might call this ‘Track One’ diplomacy, that is to say the kind of diplomacy conducted in official forums by professional diplomats. There is, however, a second track. Indeed, ‘Track Two’ diplomacy – sometimes referred to as ‘backchannel diplomacy’ - refers to the non-governmental, informal and unofficial diplomacy of private citizens, major corporations, NGOs, religious organisations and even terrorist groups. 

Easily overlooked, this second track has sought to shape major historical events – often at times where government-to-government diplomacy is perceived as inadequate, ineffective or to be failing in some way. This was certainly the case with American industrialist and business magnate Henry Ford, who in 1915 launched an amateur peace delegation aimed at stopping the First World War raging across Europe. Although it turned out to be complete disaster ridiculed mercilessly by the contemporary press, the mission offers an important example of the unorthodox ways in which private citizens have sought to broker peace.

A humanitarian industrialist

While Henry Ford’s motives for involving himself in international diplomacy have been disputed, Ford certainly held sincere pacifist sentiments and, from early 1915, had begun to condemn the war in Europe. Indeed, unlike the jingoism readily found among other automotive industrialists like Roy D. Chapin and Henry B. Joy, Ford described himself as a pacifist and aired his frustration with both the war and the profiteering associated with it. This caught the attention of two prominent peace activists, who approached Ford with an ambitious proposal: launch an amateur diplomatic mission to Europe and broker an end to the war.

The two peace activists play a crucial role in this story. The first was Hungarian author, feminist, world federalist and lecturer Rosika Schwimmer. Closely associated with a number of movements including women’s suffrage, birth control and trade unionism, Schwimmer from the very outset of the war had advocated for neutral parties to mediate a peace. In 1915, she successfully persuaded the International Congress of Women at The Hague to support the policy. Her companion was Louis P. Lochner, a young American who had acted as secretary of the International Federation of Students. In 1914, Lochner had been appointed as Executive Director of the Chicago-based Emergency Peace Federation, and – like Schwimmer – called for neutral nations to mediate an end to the war. Both were fervent champions for world peace, and they hoped to persuade Ford to throw his resources behind their proposal.

While their eventual meeting with Ford was a success, the proposal put to the industrialist was not entirely honest. Indeed, Schwimmer claimed to possess key diplomatic correspondence which proved that there were neutral and belligerent nations receptive to her idea of mediation. The documents, however, cannot be described as anything other than a complete fabrication. Nevertheless, they were enough to persuade Ford that there was appetite in Europe for negotiations and so he agreed to finance a peace mission. “Well, let’s start”, he said. “What do you want me to do”? 

Chartering a mission to Europe

With Ford sold on the idea of neutral mediation, Lochner suggested that they seek the endorsement of President Wilson. The President could establish an official commission abroad until Congress made an appropriation. If this ‘Track One’ diplomatic route was to fail, Lochner explained, then the President could back an unofficial mission to undertake the work. Ford supported the idea, and seemed excited at the promise of good publicity. Indeed, the industrialist revealed a natural flair for epigram, thinking up such pithy pronouncements as: “men sitting around a table, not men dying in a trench, will finally settle the differences”. 

On November 21, 1915, Ford, Schwimmer and Lochner lunched with a group of fellow pacifists. Everybody in attendance approved the plan of sending an official ‘Track One’ mediating mission to Europe and, if that failed, a private ‘Track Two’ delegation. To set the plan in motion, Ford and Lochner would travel to Washington to secure President Wilson’s backing. Possibly jesting, Lochner suggested to the group “why not a special ship to take the delegates over [to Europe]?” Ford immediately jumped at the idea. While some members of the group thought it ridiculously flamboyant, Ford liked the idea for that very reason. Almost immediately he contacted various steamship companies and, posing as “Mr. Henry,” asked what it might cost to charter a vessel. In no time at all, Ford had chartered the Scandinavian-American liner Oscar II. 

The very next day, Ford and Lochner arrived in Washington for an appointment with the President. The meeting began well enough, with Lochner observing how “Mr. Ford slipped unceremoniously into an armchair, and during most of the interview had his left leg hanging over the arm of the chair and swinging back and forth”. After exchanging pleasantries, Ford outlined the mission, offered to finance it, and urged the President to establish a neutral commission. While he approved of the principle of continuing mediation, the President explained that he could not anchor himself to any one project and, regretfully, that he could not support Ford’s plan. This was not what Ford had prepared himself to hear. He explained that he had already chartered the ship, and had promised the press an announcement on the following day. “If you feel you can’t act, I will”, he said. While Wilson did not budge from his initial position, this was not enough to deter Ford. “He’s a small man”, Ford said to Lochner as they left the meeting. An unofficial, ‘Track Two’ mission this was going to be.

Casting a net

Eager reporters began to arrive at Ford’s hotel. The industrialist opened his press announcement with a simple question: “A man should always try to do the greatest good to the greatest number, shouldn’t he?” He continued: “We’re going to try to get the boys out of the trenches before Christmas. I’ve chartered a ship, and some of us are going to Europe”. When pressed for more detail about the voyage, Ford explained that he was going to bring together “the biggest and most influential peace advocates in the country”. Some of the heavyweights he listed included Jane Adams, John Wanamaker, and Thomas Edison. 

The voyage, unsurprisingly, made front page news in both New York and around the country. While it is not clear what kind of coverage Ford expected, the reaction he did receive was generally derisive. Among his harshest critics was the Tribune, which ran with the headline:

GREAT WAR ENDS

CHRISTMAS DAY

FORD TO STOP IT

Other commentaries were more direct in their criticism. The New York Herald, for instance, described the mission as “one of the cruellest jokes of the century”. This was echoed by the Hartford Courant, which remarked that “Henry Ford’s latest performance is getting abundant criticism and seems entitled to all it gets”. Usually more sympathetic towards Ford, the World deemed the mission an “impossible effort to establish an inopportune peace.” 

Ridiculed though it was, the mission – even before setting sail – was at least generating the kind of publicity which Ford craved. This, however, only disguised the huge logistical problems which the organisers of the project faced. Indeed, having announced 4th December as the date of embarkation, Ford had left only nine days to assemble an entire delegation. This was not only unrealistic, but also put the project on the back foot from the very outset.

Wasting no time in racing towards an impossible deadline, invitations were sent out at once to prospective delegates. The general response provided only further ammunition for the jeering press. Indeed, within just one day of Ford’s press announcement, John Wanamaker and Thomas Edison clarified that they would not be joining the voyage. While Jane Addams confirmed that she, at least, did plan on joining, it was hard to ignore the avalanche of refusals. These included distinguished figures such as William Dean Howells, William Jennings Bryan, Colonel E. M. House, Cardinal Gibbons, William Howard Taft, Louis Brandeis, Morris Hillquit, and many others who would have lent their credibility to the project. 

Nevertheless, the net was cast wide enough that some notable peace activists were able to join. Leading suffragette Inez Milholland and publisher Samuel Sidney McClure signed up for the mission, along with more than forty reporters. Also committing to the cause was the Reverend Samuel S. Marquis, a close friend of Ford’s. In the end, the delegation was as large and distinguished as Ford could reasonably expect to assemble within such a tight timeframe. Indeed, the fact that so many were willing to abandon their commitments with only nine days’ notice, in some cases at their own expense, pointed to the prestige and appeal which they believed the mission carried. 

All aboard!

The Oscar II set sail from Hoboken, New Jersey on December 4, 1915. Much to the delight of the press, arrangements began to unravel just days before embarkation. On December 1, Jane Addams – one of the mission’s key delegates – fell unexpectedly ill and had to pull out of the voyage. This was a major blow, and no doubt undermined the leadership of the expedition. It was not enough, however, to deter a crowd of roughly 15,000 people from gathering to watch the Oscar II leave the dock. As the band started to play “I Didn’t Raise My Boy to Be a Soldier”, Ford appeared and was met with resounding cheers. 

There was certainly no shortage of entertainment to occupy the press. Indeed, just before the ship's departure, a prankster placed a cage containing two squirrels on the gangplank. An accompanying sign read "To the Good Ship Nutty". This was followed by a man who leapt into the water, and proceeded to swim after the ship as it left the dock. Once hauled ashore, he declared that he was “Mr. Zero” and explained that he was “swimming to reach public opinion.” Oblivious to the commotion, the crowd continued to wave and cheer. This clearly made an impression on Ford. As Lochner observed:

“Again and again he bowed, his face wreathed in smiles that gave it a beatific expression. The magnitude of the demonstration—many a strong man there was who struggled in vain against tears born of deep emotion—quite astonished and overwhelmed him. I felt then that he considered himself amply repaid for all the ridicule heaped upon him.” 

As the Oscar II faded out of sight, Americans waited to see what effect she might have. 

What nobody foresaw was just how soon the delegation would descend into squabbling and infighting. Much of this was triggered by President Wilson’s 7th December address to Congress, in which the case was made for military prepardness and an increase in the size of the US army. This proved to be an incendiary development, with the activists simply unable to agree on their collective response. Indeed, some aboard the Oscar II felt very strongly that the delegation should deprecate preparedness and call for immediate disarmament. Others, however, would not countenance criticism of either the President nor Congress. McClure made his position quite clear:

“For years I have been working for international disarmament. I have visited the capitals of Europe time and time again in its behalf. But I cannot impugn the course laid out by the President of the United States and supported by my newspaper”.

While some among the delegation understood this position, there were those on the voyage who were not so tolerant. Schwimmer, for instance, accused McClure of corrupting the delegation. Lochner went further still, asserting that supporters of preparedness who had joined the voyage must have simply come along for the “free ride”. Such comments only served to stoke disunity, and were lapped up by the ship’s reporters who narrated the infighting in day-to-day stories. “The dove of peace has taken flight,” cried the Chicago Tribune, “chased off by the screaming eagle”. Such reports were accused of having magnified the dispute. “The amount of wrangling has been picturesquely exaggerated,” wrote the activist Mary Alden Hopkins. “A man does not become a saint by stepping on a peace boat.”

While himself strongly opposed to preparedness in any form, it was in the end left up to Ford to patch things up. For him, the success of the voyage was paramount and, if that meant working alongside peace-lovers who supported a degree of preparedness, then so be it. Ford signed a statement, which outlined what he saw as the incompatibility between peace and prepardness but – more importantly – emphasised that all delegates on the mission were welcome. The damage, however, was already done. Indeed, delegates were very aware that their closely-held principles were being savaged in the press. “The expedition has been hampered at every step by the direct and indirect influence of the American press, by the Atlantic seaboard press,” declared one of the passengers.

As the Oscar II continued to steam across the Atlantic, the situation aboard went from bad to worse. An outbreak of influenza spread through the ship, resulting in one person dying and many others falling sick. Ford also fell ill, and retreated to his cabin in hopes of avoiding reporters. This led to a rumour that he might have secretly died, and so a group of the ship’s less considerate reporters forced their way into his quarters to check on the veracity of the story. At the same time, reporters had become highly suspicious of Schwimmer and the diplomatic correspondence she claimed to possess. After some negotiation, Schwimmer agreed to show her evidence but, angered by their comments, cancelled the exhibit. The Hungarian expressed her frustration by locking the reporters out of the Oscar II’s wireless room. By this point the group looked desperately forward to their planned arrival in Norway, where they had been promised a grand welcoming party. Like many other aspects of the mission, however, their expectations were not realised. 

Land ahoy! 

In the early hours of December 18, the Oscar II docked in Oslo. A handful of Norwegians came by later that morning to welcome the delegation, but this was nothing like the rousing welcome they had been promised. The reception was in fact much cooler, with many Norwegians generally supportive of military preparedness and sceptical towards the mission – particularly Schwimmer. Indeed, Norwegians felt that it was inappropriate for a citizen of a belligerent power to play a leadership role in the peace mission of a neutral country. Further still, Norwegians were generally pro-Ally and believed that peace could only be attained after Germany’s military strength had worsened. Onlookers were surely disappointed when a very sick Ford, who insisted on walking from the dock to his hotel, collapsed and went to bed. The most distinguished member of the delegation would make no further public appearances while in Norway.

Regretfully, Ford’s health showed no signs of improvement. He “was practically incomunicado”, recalled Lochner, who suspected that Ford’s friend, Samuel Marquis, was trying to talk the industrialist into returning to America. “Guess I had better go home to mother”, Ford eventually said to Lochner, “you’ve got this thing started now and can get along without me.” Lochner strongly objected, believing that Ford’s presence was critical to the success of the mission. This was to no avail, and on December 23 Ford began his long journey back to the US. 

The effect this had on the rest of the delegation is rather predictable. Some felt depressed, disheartened and perhaps even a sense of betrayal. Lochner attempted to re-motivate the group: “before leaving, [Ford] expressed to me his absolute faith in the party and… the earnest hope that all would continue to co-operate to the closest degree in bringing about the desired results which had been so close to his heart—the accomplishment of universal peace”. While certainly commendable, Lochner’s efforts to soften the blow fell short. After all, everybody knew that Ford was the only one among them who commanded the stature needed to impress and energise the representatives of neutral nations. Though he continued to support the mission both morally and financially, the activists who Ford left behind inevitably splintered further apart. Nevertheless, the disjointed delegation was able to claim one success: the establishment of the Neutral Conference for Continuous Mediation. 

Held in Stockholm, the Conference - attended by representatives from the US, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland - sought to encourage neutral governments to mediate an end to the war. On May 18, 1916, the Conference issued a manifesto asking belligerent nations to participate. The manifesto laid out three general activities: mediation between belligerents, propaganda to build public support for peace, and scientific study of the political problems. The Conference even managed to meet with the Danish Secretary of Foreign Affairs, its first formal recognition by a European government. Ultimately, however, there were no further successes that the activists could point to. Indeed, their quick work to develop a program failed to gain traction in the parliaments of the neutral nations; no action at all was taken by any of the targeted governments. By March 1, 1917, with the US moving closer to entering the war, Ford made the decision to discontinue the Conference. The total bill for the peace mission? Half a million dollars - $10,100,000 in 2022.

A total failure? 

How should we evaluate the peace mission? Former US Senator Chauncey M. Depew famously reflected that “in uselessness and absurdity” the peace mission stood “without equal”. This, perhaps, is the easiest assessment of the delegation’s efforts. Indeed, without ever agreeing on how they intended to achieve peace, the group failed to persuade any neutral nation to adopt a policy of mediation. In the process, those who boarded the Oscar II were subjected to relentless ridicule and criticism. This was always about more than bruised egos, with some believing that the ridiculousness of the mission risked the credibility of their deeply-held principles. The Baltimore Sun, for instance, judged that "all the amateur efforts of altruistic and notoriety-seeking millionaires only make matters worse".

Nevertheless, Ford himself asserted that the peace ship was a success. It "got people thinking” about peace on both sides of the Atlantic, he claimed, and “when you get them to think they will think right”. Was he hurt by the level of ridicule he was subjected to? It is impossible to say, but he later reminded people that at a time when no serious effort was made to bring the war to an end, he stood up and acted. “I wanted to see peace. I at least tried to bring it about. Most men did not even try”. Ford’s positive assessment of the peace mission was surely influenced by its commercial outcomes. Tellingly, he described the expedition as the “best free advertising I ever got”. 

Indeed, Ford was very much attuned to the commercial benefits of a highly publicised journey to Europe. Lochner, in fact, concluded that publicity was the only definite part of Ford’s thinking. “If we had tried to break in cold into the European market after the war, it would have cost us $10,000,000. The Peace Ship cost one-twentieth of that and made Ford a household word all over the continent”. While for the activists peace was everything, for Ford this was also an investment - an opportunity to advertise his benevolent character across Europe and America. After the war, Ford would go on to become the largest manufacturer of Liberty Motors for aircraft, blurring the boundaries he had once set between profiteering and pacifism. 

A rounded assessment of the peace ship would not be complete without considering its long-term impact. Indeed, it should be remembered that ideas stimulated during the mission eventually wound up in President Wilson’s Fourteen Points, a statement of principles for peace to be used in negotiations to end the war. Notably, the list included a commitment to transparent peace treaties, free from the greedy tentacles of private deals struck on the side. This was an idea thought up by activists who had participated in the peace mission. Though they might have failed to bring an end to the war, these ‘Track Two’ citizen diplomats can claim a legacy of sorts, pioneering alternative modes of peace-building less dependent on government leadership. 

What do you think of the ‘Ship of Fools’? Let us know below.

Now read Felix’s article on Henry Ford’s calamitous utopia in Brazil: Fordlandia here.

References

Open War Aboard the “Peace Ship", J. Mark Powell.

The Peculiar Case of Henry Ford, The University of Michigan and the Great War.

Henry Ford And His Peace Ship, American Heritage, Volume 9, Issue 2, February 1958.

The “Peace Ship”: An Early Attempt at Citizen Diplomacy, Read the Spirit.

The Peace Ship: Henry Ford’s Pacifist Adventure in the First World War, Barbara Kraft, New York, 1978.

The Odyssey of Henry Ford and the Great Peace Ship, Burnet Hershey, New York, 1967.

Second Track / Citizens' Diplomacy: Concepts and Techniques for Conflict Transformation, John Davies, Edward Kaufman, eds., Maryland, 2002.

The Washington Post’s Leader for Decades: The Life and Times of Katharine Graham

Few people have had such a profound impact on the American political and journalistic consciousness as Katharine Graham. Her major role was leading the Washington Post from 1963 until 1991. David Huff explains.

Katharine Graham in 1975, available here.

Overview

Born Katharine Meyer in 1917 in New York City, she was the daughter of Eugene Meyer, who was an American businessman and publisher of the Washington Post newspaper, which he acquired in 1933. After attending Vassar College, she transferred to the University of Chicago, where she received her B.A. degree in 1938. After college, she worked for a year as a reporter for the San Francisco News. After briefly employed in San Francisco, she joined the editorial staff of The Washington Post. In 1940, she married Philip Graham, who was a graduate of Harvard Law School.

In 1946, Philip Graham assumed the position of publisher of the Post. He served as publisher and later co-owner of The Washington Post and its parent company, The Washington Post Company. During his years with the Post Company, Graham helped The Washington Post grow from a fledgling local paper to a national publication and the Post Company expand to own other newspapers as well as radio and television stations. Tragically, however, Phillip Graham committed suicide in August 1963 after suffering from manic depression. As a result, Katharine Graham was transformed from a reticent widow to publisher and chief executive of The Washington Post. Strong-minded, gifted and engaging, Ms. Graham recognized the extraordinary talent of other outstanding individuals in the publishing community. She hired Benjamin Bradlee first as managing editor and then as executive editor to handle the newsroom operations of the growing and well-respected newspaper. Under their tutelage, the Post confronted major crises—the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate Crisis—that no one could have foreseen. Yet, Graham and Bradlee both possessed strong instincts and judgment, a tenacious and unequaled work ethic, and outstanding interpersonal skills that enabled them to survive these political tribulations.

The Pentagon Papers Controversy

In 1967, former Secretary of State Robert McNamara commissioned a study known as The Pentagon Papers, which was the history of the Vietnam War and the decisions made therein by American foreign policy makers from 1945–1967. As the Vietnam War escalated, with more than 500,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam by 1968, military analyst Daniel Ellsberg—who had worked on the project—came to oppose the war, and decided that the information contained in the Pentagon Papers should be available to the American public. In March 1971, he gave a copy of the report to The New York Times, which then published a series of shocking articles based on the report’s most appalling secrets. In sum, the papers revealed that the United States government had broadened the initial war in Vietnam into Southeast Asia with the military bombing of Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, and Marine Corps attacks. At that time, these seminal events were not reported by the American press.

On June 13, 1971, the Times began to publish a series of articles based on the information contained in the Pentagon Papers. After several published pieces, the Justice Department issued a temporary restraining order against further release of the material, arguing that it was harmful to the country's national security. In the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), the Times and The Washington Post joined forces to fight for the right to publish, and on June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the government had failed to prove harm to national security and that publication of the papers was justified under the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press.

Due to the favorable Supreme Court ruling, The Washington Post's reputation was enhanced by Graham's defiance of a restraining order by pursuing publication of the Pentagon Papers. To her credit, Graham fought U.S. government efforts to censor the material, which, in turn, upheld the First Amendment right of the free press against prior restraint by the government.

The Watergate Crisis

A year later, on June 17, 1972, a break-in at the Democratic National Committee ("DNC") headquarters in the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. triggered a political earthquake that shook the foundation of America's democratic institutions. The subsequent cover-up by people who worked for or with the White House, and by Nixon himself, created a constitutional crisis that not only threatened America's "checks and balances" in its democratic representative system, but also called into question the presidency itself.

During the crisis, Katharine Graham faced the full wrath of the Nixon administration as the paper's reporters—Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward—sought to piece together the story of the Watergate burglary. Throughout the Watergate Crisis, Woodward and Bernstein were fed leaks by a deep-background source they referred to as "Deep Throat," who was later revealed to be FBI deputy director W. Mark Felt, Sr. They kept up a constant stream of leads demonstrating not only the direct involvement of Nixon officials in Watergate activities, but also that the Watergate wiretapping and break-in had been financed through illegally laundered 1972 campaign contributions. In a shocking cover-page article, The Washington Post reported on October 10, 1972 that the Watergate bugging incident stemmed from a "massive, nationwide campaign of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of the president's re-election committee officials.”(1)

"The investigation of such a tangled web of crime, money, and mischief  would have been hard enough under the best of circumstances, but it was made much harder given the unveiled threats and major and minor harassments by a president and his administration,”(2) she wrote in an excerpt from her 1997 memoir, Personal History. At the end of 1972, Republican businessmen challenged the licenses of two Florida TV stations owned by The Washington Post Company, causing the company's stock price to drop by more than 50 percent.(3) "Sometimes I wondered if we could survive four more years of this kind of strain, of the pressures of living with an administration so completely at odds with us and determined to harm us.”(4)

Graham described her own role in the unfolding story as "a kind of devil's advocate, asking questions all along the way -- questions about whether we were being fair, factual, and accurate.”(5) She downplayed the notion that she had shown courage by standing by her reporters and editors, saying she had no choice. "By the time the story had grown to the point where the size of it dawned on us, we had already waded deeply into its stream.”(6)  "Once I found myself in the deepest water in the middle of the current, there was no going back.”(7)

After months of painstaking investigation by Woodward and Bernstein and U.S. Congressional hearings, coupled with the discovery of President Richard Nixon's secret tape recordings, the United States Supreme Court stepped into the unfolding political drama. On July 24, 1974, in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), the Court ruled in a unanimous decision against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to a federal district court. On July 30, 1974, Nixon complied with the order and released the subpoenaed tapes to the American people. Nine days later, on August 8, 1974, President Richard Nixon delivered a nationally televised address in which he announced his decision to resign the presidency, effective at noon on August 9, 1974. At that time, Vice President Gerald R. Ford was sworn in as the nation's 38th President of the United States.

Watergate had a profound impact on the American system. It provided the impetus for pernicious cynicism and collective alienation toward the American political process. The intrinsic values and institutions that many people held as sacred-honesty, trust, company loyalty, and faith in a benevolent government-had been tainted and corrupted during the crisis. As a result, many Americans lost faith in the federal government and the reputation of the presidency was greatly damaged. Furthermore, many Americans were astounded that their democratically elected officials were culpable of such undemocratic and criminal behavior. Moreover, from an historical perspective, the Watergate Crisis served to deepen the political disenchantment and growing cynicism that commenced after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the bloody quagmire in Vietnam.

Legacy

Katharine Graham faced many tribulations, but she rose above them, created a name for herself and, in my opinion, forever changed the face of journalism. Graham, who became America's first female Fortune 500 CEO, was a mover and a shaker whose breadth of knowledge and depth of character touched a deep and resonating chord in American society. Her life gave meaning to the phrase that adversity builds character. Through tragedy and disappointment, Ms. Graham's sense of moral clarity enabled her to adapt, to endure, to develop a will of iron in order to bear the burdens that fate dealt her with uncommon grace. Rather than retreat into isolation and self-pity, she rose to the occasion to summon and cultivate political and journalistic impulses that existed within her and in turn, utilized them to strengthen America's democratic institutions. 

Conclusion

Finally, despite Ms. Graham's continual political tribulations during the Nixon presidency, she maintained not only a firm and steadfast loyalty, but also a strong and unswerving commitment to her brave, passionate and determined counterparts at the Post. Ms. Graham's unparalleled support for her reporters as well as her editors led to landmark journalism, which reverberated through the highest levels of our government and culture. She helped to create one of the world's great newspapers, and her legacy lives on through the quality of reporting and editorial writing that Americans have come to expect from the Post and written media at large.

In essence, what the American people should gain from Ms. Graham's telling experience is that our political system is tilted more toward personal aggrandizement than to individuals willing and able to make a real contribution. Graham's story underscores the reality that a person's loyalty and experience - though important attributes - are often sacrificed for political expediency.

Ultimately, her success is directly related to those superb professional skills but, as with all great people, it is the result of the priceless qualities of depth of personality and strength of character. It is those latter traits, which America needs more than ever, that make her truly irreplaceable and will cause her to live forever.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

Now read David’s article on Jackie Kennedy’s influence on the arts here.

Controversial Heritage: An Approach to Racism from the Land of Black Pete

In the eyes of foreigners, the Netherlands has a controversial tradition. Every autumn an old man named Sinterklaas (a figure based on Saint Nicholas, patron saint of children and one of the sources of the popular Christmas icon of Santa Claus) with a staff, a miter and a long beard arrives in the Netherlands on a steamboat accompanied by dozens of servants, called zwarte pieten (Black Petes). These Petes have traditionally been painted black, have bright red lips, gold earrings, and curly hair. Black Pete hands out sweets and presents to children. To outsiders this whole tradition has an obvious stereotypical racist character, but for many Dutch people it is an innocent tradition: they say this has nothing to do with racism. In the last ten years in particular there has been increasing criticism of the racist character of Black Pete, both from minority groups within the country and from abroad. This is a very delicate situation in the generally liberal and tolerant Netherlands. Fierce discussions and demonstrations by supporters and opponents characterize the past ten years. Why is this tradition so highly valued and how should it continue?

Bram Peters explains.

Illustration from Jan Schenkman's book Sint Nikolaas en zijn Knecht (Saint Nicholas and his Servant).

Although Sinterklaas is a tradition for children, it’s always the adults who say Black Pete must stay black, not the children. This has to do with the fact that adults have an image from their youth of what Black Pete should look like. Children don’t have those memories. And that’s why it’s so sensitive. Adults feel that a tradition they have only fond childhood memories of may not be passed onto the next generation. Their tradition is under pressure to change and that hurts. Every survey shows that it is mainly older Dutch people who want to stick to the traditional appearance of Black Pete. Younger generations are more open to change.

Over the past ten years you can see that the annual recurring discussion is starting to influence public opinion. The number of Dutch people who are in favor of the traditional Black Pete decreases a little every year, but it is going slowly. International events also influence this shift, for example UN researcher Verene Sheperd’s criticism of the Dutch tradition in 2013 and the worldwide Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd in 2020. Slowly the tradition is changing: every year more Black Petes appear with only some soot smudges on the face rather than full blackface. Other Petes are painted in all kinds of colors.

When something is part of your own culture and tradition, it can be very difficult to understand that it can be hurtful to others. Something that is perceived as racist by others cannot be easily understood for people for whom it is part of their identity. There seems to be a blind spot. In addition, we live in a time when the world is changing rapidly. Globalization, migration and the rise of the internet and social media mean everyone is connected to everyone and old habits and customs are constantly under discussion. Many people experience a loss of identity and tend to cling to the old. Polarization is the result. It is more important than ever to keep in touch with each other and really understand why one wants change and why that change takes time for the other.

Global discussions

Similar discussions about racist heritage are also present in other countries. Take for example the situation in the United States, where statues of so-called Civil War “heroes” such as General Robert Lee are removed and the use of the Confederate flag on government buildings and other locations has become highly controversial. The statues and flag are widely seen by minority groups as symbols of slavery and oppression. And they find the majority of historians on their side. For white residents of the southern states, the situation is sometimes more nuanced. They see these symbols as part of their past and heritage and do not necessarily associate them with racism. The aforementioned blind spot seems to be present here too because most of these people aren’t white power supremacists. It is essential that this group enters the dialogue with the group that do find these symbols racist, even if one may not be used to talk with the other. This will help to get a better mutual understanding and hopefully accomplish a re-evaluation of the controversial heritage that simply exists, even if it will take time. And to make a stand together against the white power movement that is not only openly racist but is even proud of it and cannot be reasoned with.

What do you think about re-evaluating controversial heritage? Let us know below.

About the author: Bram Peters is an historian from the Netherlands. He has a MA in political history from one of the major Dutch universities, and specialized in national identity and traditions, as well as parliamentary history, the second world war and war propaganda. He worked for years as a curator at one of the largest war museums in the Netherlands. He likes to get involved in public debate by writing articles for national and regional newspapers and websites.

How Florida was Mapped: The First Survey of Coral Springs

Coral Springs is located in Florida, just north of Miami. It has seen its population boom in the post-war years. Here, Karl Miller looks at how the mapping of Florida took place in the 19th century - and how the area was formed in the 20th century.

The Coral Springs covered bridge, an old building in the city. Source: Legionaries, available here.

Like many cities formed during the rise of suburbia in post-World War II America, Coral Springs, Florida expanded extremely rapidly. Founded in 1963, it grew from just 1,489 residents in 1970 to over 134,394 in 2020, becoming one of the largest fifteen municipalities in Florida. Also like many other new American cities, its story started well before incorporation.

For over a thousand years, Tequesta natives occupied the area that would eventually become Coral Springs. Archaeological digs showed several areas of native occupation including camps and burial sites, ending when the last of the tribe, decimated by European disease, departed for Cuba in 1763. While Seminole natives and others likely crossed through the area in the decades after the Tequesta left, the first recorded visit to the future area of Coral Springs did not come until long after the Tequesta departed.

Upon receiving Florida from Spain by the treaty of Adams-Onis in 1819, the United States began to organize the territory they had acquired. Starting with the Land Ordinance Act of 1785, the United States adopted a common system, the Rectangular Method, for measuring land. Starting from a designated point called a meridian, the new territory was divided north and south into 36-square-mile blocks called townships that were further measured east and west by ranges. Measured from a meridian established at Tallahassee, the land that would eventually become Coral Springs sat at Township 48 South, Range 41 East.

Working through the swamps

George MacKay, a 35-year-old New York surveyor who had moved to Florida to conduct various business interests, was hired by the United States Surveyor General’s Office in 1845 to conduct surveying work in the southeastern part of the state. Valentine Y. Conway,  the Surveyor General of Florida, instructed MacKay to survey land south of Township 44 “to the Atlantic coast, and as far west as practicable.” Using a magnetic compass and a surveyor’s chain which was  specified to be “33 feet in length . . . containing 50 links . . . made of good iron wire,” MacKay’s team – which included his younger brother Alexander as well as several enslaved persons -  proceeded to work their way through the south Florida swamps, enduring the insects, heat, snakes, and alligators that the profession routinely experienced at that time.

On March 26, 1845, MacKay surveyed the area in which the future Coral Springs would sit. His brief survey notes show he found a rocky area with “scrub pine, cypress . . . and sawgrass.”  In a later account of his surveying expedition, MacKay described the conditions they encountered, stating often the weather was so still “there was not enough air stirring to move as aspen leaf” and that their measuring lines could only pass in places “by cutting away the lofty fresh grass and wading (or rather wallowing) through the mud and underrubbish.”  

Having completing his assigned survey, MacKay, after going on a difficult trip in which his boat “was driven back to New River two or three times by contrary wind, turned in his report to the Surveyor General’s headquarters in St. Augustine.”  Based on his account showing 888.6 miles surveyed, he was paid $3,555.  He eventually moved back to Caledonia, New York, where he died in 1880.

Growth

The land itself remained isolated for several more decades, until the state government sold it as part of a grant to speculator Richard Bolles in 1908. After the draining of south Florida swamps began in earnest under Governor Napoleon Bonaparte Broward, the land was acquired by Henry “Bud” Lyons in 1919 as part of his 20,000-acre green bean and cattle operation. In 1961, Lyons’ widow sold the land to developer James S. Hunt for $1 million, setting the stage for Coral Springs to be incorporated two years later.

As a case study in the growth of suburban America, the surveying expedition that first reached the area of the future Coral Springs illustrates a typical first step in development. It illustrates how a city can quickly go from an undeveloped natural setting to a major suburban municipality in only a few short decades. While in a sense this example shows the triumph of progress, it is also a cautionary story in that the path to rapid development came at the cost of destroying extensive areas of pristine wetlands and wildlife habitat. When faced with a similar situation in the future, hopefully a more balanced, deliberate outcome will result.

What do you think of the development of Florida? Let us know below.

1 U.S. Census Bureau, “Characteristics of the Population: Florida,” 1970, accessed January 15, 2022 at https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1970a_fl1-01.pdf;  U.S. Census Bureau, “QuickFacts: Coral Springs, FL,” 2020, accessed January 15, 2022 at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/coralspringscityflorida.

2 Joe Knetsch, "The Surveys of George Mackay: A Drawer of Lines on the Map of South Florida," The Florida

Surveyor, Vol. II, Issue 1 (October 1994).

3 C. Albert White, A History of the Rectangular Survey System (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1983): 332, accessed December 20, 2021 at https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/histrect.pdf, 332.

4 U.S. Government Survey Field Notebooks, Vol. 84, 1845: 283, accessed October 13, 2021 at https://ftp.labins.org/glo_all/Volume84_pdf/Folder%2013%20pg%20262%20to%20285_pdf.pdf.

5 Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1896): 261, accessed November 20, 2021 at https://www.google.com/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Board_of_Regents_of/Lt1f3-7J2xcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=weathermaking+ancient+and+modern+smithsonian+mackay&pg=PA260&printsec=frontcover.

6 A.H. Jones.  A.H. Jones to George MacKay, February 2, 1846. Letter. MacKay-Hutchinson Family Papers 1836-74, Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin.

7 U.S. Treasury Department, Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury Transmitting the annual report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office: 112, accessed December 21, 2021 at https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1607&context=indianserialset. 

8 New York, Death Index, 1880-1956, New York Department of Health, Albany, NY; NY State Death Index; Certificate Number 5870.

From American Reconstruction to the McDonaldization of Society

 American has seen so many changes since the end of the US Civil War in 1865. Here, Daniel L. Smith discusses some key trends that have happened since then, ultimately leading to the so-called ‘McDonaldization’ of Society.

Daniel’s book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

George Ritzer who wrote The McDonaldization of Society in 1993. Source: available here.

Rationality and logic were broken well before the 2000s and even before the 1960s. In fact, it was during the Reconstruction-era after the American Civil War that things fell apart quickly. Specifically, between 1863 and 1877. This was the catalyst for how American society would form as we see it today. During the Reconstruction-era, historical process was coming into play, such as the country adjusting the deconstruction of institutional slavery, as well as the security of our country’s unity as one – both outcomes of the Civil War. If it were not for a pardon from treason that was handed over to the Confederate generals and politicians after Lincoln was assassinated, I observe and stand on conscience that our nation would have looked much different today. I mean that politically and culturally. 

Of course with advancement of society came cooperation with differing minority groups. A differing narrative stayed alive in the black communities. By the 1930s, Southern Democratic politics had been changed. These politicians and business elites began to shift their views to how “interracial cooperation” could bring them success in the 1900s South.[1] Politics at this point and time begin to change rapidly with the introduction of industrialization. Skyscrapers would start to emerge. Entertainment became higher priority. And self-gratification such as at restaurants, movies, food, and alcohol, began to be in excess for all those who hung onto their traditional American roots.

Consumer culture

In the 1930s consumer culture was a tied knot of pestering and arrogance. Many of those at that time would begin to condemn mass-culture, which began to be viewed as fun, with an insistence on freedom for self-expression. Mainstream society began to view it as an antisocial counterculture. Critics of the consumer culture were easily characterized as “Puritan” in their own personal views on this way of life. So, we end up in the 1960s where the societal revolution would really take off. Media and corporate entities would help fast-forward this social revolution in America. The “permissiveness” of 1960s culture would be countered itself by the return of traditional religion in America.

McDonaldization

There has always been a “see-saw” like effect throughout politics and religion in history. If you pay attention to current events, you observe this. From watching the news, to social media, to living your daily lives – everybody sees the fallout from America’s fracture of the founders’ ideals. Most do not know that, but most also see it happening right in front of their own eyes. Think, Skid Row in Los Angeles, California. Tent city. The homeless empire.[2] 

This brings me to how professor and author George Ritzer came up with the clever slogan, “The McDonaldization of Society.” So here we are. We live in a society where a poll of elementary school children in 1986 concluded that 96% of them could identify Ronald McDonald over Santa Claus in name recognition.[3] Mind blowing to think that today it’s even worse. And on many differing levels. Social media, video games, movies. Everything today is on overdrive. But I digress to make the point that the McDonaldization of society, that is, creating an atmosphere of instant gratification, has caused a shift in how Americans live their lives today.

Ultimately, the McDonaldization of society was the turning point in how the entire world would come to learn and live in their daily lives. Someone once said, “The founding fathers would be turning over in their graves right now.” Well, I agree. With education being placed on the backburner by the elites in business and in government, can we pull ourselves into a new way of coping with post-modern America? 

To sum it all up, there has been much change from Reconstruction to our current post-Modern America. Yes. Many historians clarify our current era as post-Modern America. Today, we are living in a new world. Many nations across the globe are facing the same social, economic, and political problems that we face here in the United States. Fate is something that we all face. We are all handed our own cards at birth. With that said, we are all living history. We are all writing and living in history, even if you don’t even know it. 

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here), and an early European expedition to America (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

References

[1] Foner, Eric, and Eric Foner. A Short History of Reconstruction, 1863-1877. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2015., XXV. 

[2] "Skid Row : McSheehy, William. Internet Archive. Accessed February 19, 2022. https://archive.org/details/skidrow0000mcsh/page/n3/mode/2up. 

[3] Greenhouse, Steven. "The Rise and Rise of McDonald's." New York Times (New York, NY), June 8, 1986. 

Moral Principle and Political Reality in US History

An issue that often arises in a detailed exchange on the American experience is equality of opportunity. In many cases, it strikes a dynamic chord with many observers in our society. The essential tension that is inherent in this issue is one of moral principle v. political reality. Here, David Huff considers this in the US by looking at Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and the present day.

Former President Lyndon B. Johnson (on the left) and then Vice President Spiro Agnew (on the right, with sunglasses) view the lift off of Apollo 11 in 1969.

Many societies throughout history have grappled with how to reconcile equality of opportunities with the harsh political of their times. On the whole, societies, particularly in their infancy, have sacrificed equality of opportunity for the sake of political expediency.

In the American experience, the Founding Fathers were more concerned about ensuring the survival of the American Republic than achieving social, political and economic equality in society. The achievement of equality of women, Native Americans and African Americans were left for future generations to undertake.

Fortunately, the United States heeded history's call to action. The patrician reforms of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the civil rights struggle of the 1960s and the continual call for the creation of an adequate and equitable health-care system are indicative of the potent force that equality of opportunity has played in our society.

The Role of Federal Government v. Private Enterprise

Although I concur that people should not be given a free handout, I believe in offering an individual a hand-up. Furthermore, I think that it is the government's responsibility to ensure that if social inequities get our of hand, constructive remedies should be enacted to ameliorate the situation.

Clearly, the accounting scandals in private enterprise during the past forty years underscore that government ought to play a greater role in preventing the gross pursuit of money and power which results in excessive greed and corruption.

A hallmark of a civilized society is one in which a heightened social consciousness for the welfare of others plays a role in shaping a nation's character.  A government that embraces the political mantra that no social obligation is germane will stagnate and erode, becoming frozen by its own indifference and intolerance. If enterprising and wealthy individuals have the rare privilege of escaping the bonds of everyday existence to see life from an entirely different perspective, why not share some of that resourceful knowledge with others in society?

Abraham Lincoln's Role in Shaping American Society

As a nation, we have been blessed by a number of remarkable individuals who played an influential role in shaping the American consciousness. A central figure during the nineteenth century was Abraham Lincoln, who demonstrated tremendous courage and resilience during the bloody and painful struggle of the American Civil War. Determined, shrewd, and tough, Lincoln not only managed to keep the United States together, but also abolished the long-standing institution of slavery. His accomplishments set into motion profound changes that altered the cultural fabric of the American South.

Above all, Lincoln, by the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and his memorable Second Inaugural Address in 1865 raised the social and political consciousness of our nation. 

FDR's Impact on American Society

Another figure who played a prominent role in shaping the American consciousness was Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Elected president in 1932, Roosevelt initiated patrician reforms under his New Deal programs, which alleviated some of the human misery caused by the Great Depression. 

Although experimental in nature, his progressive reforms called for the federal government to play an active role in the social welfare of Americans.  The creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps, Works Progress Administration, which generated many job creation programs, the Soil Conservation Service, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Rural Electrification Act, and the Social Security Act, as well as the president's willingness to embrace collective bargaining power for labor, are all indicative of FDR's sweeping reforms that transformed the fabric of American society. 

The Emergence of the Kennedy Family and Lyndon B. Johnson

On January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy became the nation's 35th President of the United States. Both JFK and his wife, Jacqueline, as well as Lyndon B. Johnson played a profound impact on the transformation of American society. During his tenure, President Kennedy created the Peace Corps, introduced Civil Rights legislation and Medicare and Medicaid reform bills to Congress in order to provide greater health-care coverage and basic human rights to African Americans throughout our nation, and signed the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty in 1963.

In addition, Mrs. Kennedy taught the nation about culture and distinction by combining a unique sense of fashion with a strong sense of scholarship. Furthermore, intertwined with Mrs. Kennedy's interest in fashion was her commitment to the preservation of the arts and humanities, her commitment to the restoration of the White House, her push to host a dinner of the Nobel Laureates in 1962 and her avid interest in hosting youth concerts to encourage young people to study classical music. In my opinion, all of her efforts were indicative of her genuine desire that American civilization should be committed to the idea of developing a rich and diverse cultural identify of its own.

On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. It was a tragedy that shook the nation and the world. However, Lyndon B. Johnson, who became the 36th President of the United States, was determined to continue the progressive reform efforts that the Kennedy Administration had undertaken. Under his able leadership, President Johnson pushed through Congress an impressive legislative package, which included the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed the Medicare and Medicaid packages into law in 1965, and provided aid to education, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, and Head Start.

Unfortunately, Lyndon Johnson chose to enlarge significantly America's commitment to South Vietnam in July 1965. The president's determination that the United States could fight a costly war in Southeast Asia while enlarging the social welfare state at home led to the development of a choiceless society. In his mind, President Johnson thought we could adopt a two-prong strategy: conduct a war in Vietnam while enacting major social and economic reforms at home, which he called The Great Society. As a result, his willingness to engage simultaneously in the Vietnam War and The Great Society raised expectations beyond what the Federal Government could promise the American people. To that end, a powerful conservative movement began to take shape under the re-emergence of Richard M. Nixon and the 1966 election of Ronald Reagan as Governor of California. In sum, Lyndon Johnson was a tragedy in the real sense. He was the central figure in a struggle of moral importance that ended in ruin. 

Contemporary America

Now, at the dawn of 2022, that United States is in search of itself. In the wake of COVID-19, political division, economic uncertainty, social turmoil, and an inadequate healthcare system, many Americans realize that we need to revitalize our political, economic, and social institutions in order to provide greater opportunities for our fellow citizens. Only if Americans demand greater corporate accountability, insist that their elected leaders focus on strengthening America's economic infrastructure, push for the creation of a National Commission on Violence to examine the underlying problems that cause people, particularly youth, to choose self-destruction rather personal development, and demand a reduction in the national debt that is approaching 30 trillion dollars can we ever hope to restore our country to a healthy order.

In particular, in regard to the national debt, if the debt continues to climb, at some point investors will lose confidence in the government's ability to pay back borrowed funds. In essence, the higher the debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio, the less likely the country will pay back its debt and the higher its risk of default, which could cause a financial panic in the domestic and international markets. At this point, we will not be able to pay off the interest on the debt let alone the principal itself.

To attain positive change requires people, especially young voters, to play an active role in the political process. Perhaps the answer lies not only in parents instilling a sense of self-esteem and personal responsibility in their children, but also society encouraging youth to pursue higher education, community involvement, and state and federal campaign participation.

We must recognize that it is a matter of personal conscience, historical perspective and the inherit belief that equality of opportunity is a struggle of moral importance that as a nation we cannot afford to relinquish. After all, the future of our democracy, our way of life is contingent upon young voter's thoughtful engagement and passionate participation in the American political system. It is their future and their children's future that hang in the balance. 

Conclusion

Finally, the American people need to remember that our country's destiny is a journey, not a destination. It is a journey the American people have learned to savor, cherish and treasure. Our collective journey is filled with roadblocks and amazing achievements that provide the impetus for us to understand fully ourselves and those we love. With the passage of time. our country must learn to embrace faith that looks through adversity and enables us to flourish and thrive.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

Now read David’s article on Jackie Kennedy’s influence on the arts here.

How a Once Threatened Language is now the Seventh most Spoken in the World

Written by prominent columnist, Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury, the popular ‘Ekushey Song’ (Song of February 2t) was dedicated to his friends, who raised their voices against the oppression and laid down their lives to save our mother tongue – Bangla. Those who speak Bangla can never forget the day of February 21. Before making it through the International Mother Language Day, the Bengali language had to go through a bloody chapter in history, 70 years ago in 1952.

Rezaul Karim Reza explains. 

Khawaja Nazimuddin in 1948.

“My Brothers’ Blood Spattered 21st February

Can I forget the Twenty – First February?”

The Language Movement

Just after the fall of the British Empire in the Indian Subcontinent, two new countries emerged on the world map: India and Pakistan. Pakistan had two wings – West Pakistan and East Pakistan (Bangladesh today). There were no land borders between the two wings of Pakistan, and there were huge linguistic and cultural differences among the people of the United Pakistan.  

To eliminate the differences, especially the language, on March 21, 1948 in Dhaka, the founding father and then the Governor General of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah declared “Urdu and only Urdu” will be the state language of Pakistan. The declaration sparked protest among the predominantly Bengali speaking people, especially in East Pakistan where more than 90% of people used Bangla as their first language; whereas only 7% used Urdu as the first language.   

But the Pakistani government did not move an inch from their decision on making Urdu the state language. On January 27, 1952 in Dhaka, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Khawaja Nazimuddin, repeated Ali’s Urdu only policy and warned that there will be no compromise with it.

This time, people from all walks of life burst into anger. They demanded Bangla as the state language of East Pakistan. The angry protestors chanted ‘We Want Mother Tongue Bangla,’ bringing festoons and placards and marching through the roads. The students of Dhaka University called a General Strike on February 21, 1952.

When they brought out the procession on that day as planned, police reacted with massive crackdowns, including mass arrests and firing. Police killed several protestors and arrested many of their leaders.

As the news of the police brutality spread across the country, many more people gathered in the city of Dhaka and staged another protest rally. Again, police fired on and killed the protestors. Among the killings, Salam, Barkat, Rafique, Jabber, and Shafiur had been identified as the young students.

The Achievement

The significance of ‘Vasha Andolon’ or the language movement in 1952 left many a lasting legacy. In fact, the spirit of the movement embedded Bangladesh’s independence in 1971.

Today, the five students killed on that fateful day are recognized as ‘Language Martyr.’ In recognition of the sacrifice of the protestors for the language, a Martyr Monument has been erected on the spot of Dhaka University where they were shot dead. In addition, one of Asia’s largest book fairs known as ‘Ekushey Boy Mela’ or 21st February Book Fair is observed to commemorate the sacrifice of the protestors every year on February 21st in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

To remember the day, the most prestigious Bengali award, Ekusey Padak or 21st February Prize is given to many distinguished candidates for their contribution to certain fields, especially in linguistic and cultural diversity in the country every year.

Once a dying language, Bangla is now the world’s 7th most spoken language. The language movement motivated the people of East Pakistan to fight for their identity and a country of their own – Bangladesh. And it happened in 1971 – Bangladesh was born after a nine month bloody struggle. 

The legacy of the language movement did not always stay within the country; after the independence of Bangladesh, the recognition of the language movement went beyond the border. 

In 1999, the UNESCO announced that there should be an International Mother Language Day in reconnection of the struggle of the Bengali speaking people and their language – Bangla. The day has been observed to promote awareness of cultural and linguistic diversity around the world since its first observance in 2000.

As I read somewhere, learning a language is like discovering a new country, killing it could be losing a culture, a tradition, an identity, and a whole nation. But, Bangladesh survived both. Today, I take great pride in speaking Bangla as my mother tongue and living in an independent country – Bangladesh.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.