cloudstrider, posts by tag: history - LiveJournal

( See moreCollapse )

This is awesome; I will definitely use this in any applicable classes that I teach: From Smithsonian Magazine, December 2005, 95-108

Squanto and the Pilgrims: Native Intelligence
     The Indians who first feasted with the English colonists were far more sophisticated than you were taught in school. But that wasn't enough to save them BY CHARLES C. MANN

Remember the first Thanksgiving? American school kids are taught the story of how, in 1621, the Indian called Squanto helped the Pilgrim settlers in Plymouth survive by teaching them Native skills, such as the best method for growing corn. Thus was born the great autumn feast of thanks. But recent scholarly research is overturning the conventional understanding of Indians' relations with the settlers. In an excerpt from his new book, 1491, Charles C. Mann surveys this emerging view, which suggests that the Native Americans were far more sophisticated than previously believed-and yet at the mercy of forces that abetted the settlers' ambitions.

Read the full article (pdf form)

The poll doesn't close, but this is where the History Era poll stands now, out of ten voters, two of whom are Canadian and two of whom are Australian. That means only six of our American members voted; ironically, that seems to be on par with voter turnout levels in the U.S.

Ranking	Era	Mean	Deviation
1	Civil War	2.56	1.57
2	Great Depression	3.30	2.00
3	Revolutionary War	3.56	1.95
4	World War I	4.50	2.38
5	World War II	4.8	1.60
6	New Industrial Order	5.22	2.78
7	Vietnam/Cultural Revolution	5.67	1.63
8	Cold War	7.30	1.55
9	War on Terror	7.70	2.15

Again, that poll is still open, too, so if you haven't filled it out yet, please do. And, you can always change your answers if you have some sort of change of heart; just go to the poll and click on "Fill out Poll."

Perhaps if we did this in poll form, it would be more provocative:
I am borrowing the eight categories from Siena College's Trying Times--in American history--Survey and I have added the New Industrial Order era from the latter 1800s--the rise of monopolies, strikes, reform movements, American imperialism, etc. I also apologize to our Canadian and Australian members; yes, this survey is U.S.-American-centric, but I welcome your thoughts on this, as well.

For each of the nine eras, select where you rank each one as far as it being a "trying" era in American history(and yes, that is defined loosely). '1' would be what you consider the most trying of the group and '9' the least. Try to avoid ties and be careful that you fill this out correctly; use every number, 1 through 9. I'll be curious to see how this turns out.

( Take the poll/See the on-going resultsCollapse )

I definitely think that although we certainly live in somewhat dramatic times, we all could use a dose of what this survey of historians suggests: That this current era in American history isn't "so bad compared to other tough times in America's past." Every generation thinks they live in a special time, and, of course, they are all correct, but they must remember their generation's respective era is the only one that seems "real" to them--because they have a direct emotional connection to that particular era. (And eras before one's life are more so associated with boring textbooks!) Every generation should feel the drama of their times, as that feeling leads people to press for change/action of some sort. But, nevertheless, things should be kept in historical perspective. We certainly have our problems nowadays (and we should work on those!), but they're nothing compared to past crises.

Your thoughts on this survey and on our 'era'?

Good times

Today marks the 62nd anniversary of the start of theTehran Conference (read more about it at that link), the first meeting involving Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill. (Nov. 28 - Dec. 3, 1943, during WWII.)

Why were the three of them, when together, always photographed sitting down? Word has it that it's because a) Stalin was short and didn't want to appear small compared to the other two guys, b) FDR was crippled from polio and rarely stood, and c) Churchill was a drunk. Good times, indeed. And, perhaps a fitting metaphor for the strange alliance that it was.

Bits and pieces appropriated or summarized from Wikipedia Thanksgiving:

( background stuffCollapse )

In 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that Thanksgiving would be the next to last Thursday of November rather than the last. With the country still in the midst of The Great Depression, Roosevelt thought this would give merchants a longer period to sell goods before Christmas. Increasing profits and spending during this period, Roosevelt hoped, would aid bringing the country out of the Depression. At the time, it was considered inappropriate to advertise goods for Christmas until after Thanksgiving. However, Roosevelt's declaration was not mandatory; twenty-three states went along with this recommendation, and 22 did not. Other states, like Texas, could not decide and took both weeks as government holidays. Roosevelt persisted in 1940 to celebrate his "Franksgiving," as it was termed. The U.S. Congress in 1941 split the difference and established that the Thanksgiving would occur annually on the fourth Thursday of November, which was sometimes the last Thursday and sometimes the next to last. On November 26 that year President Roosevelt signed this bill into U.S. law.

( Thanksgiving in Canadia (yes, Canadia)Collapse )

I've been reading a boatload of history books about the question of America and empire, and so I could have made a long post about my thoughts on the matter. But, instead, I've devised this following poll because a) I'm lazy and b) I'm curious to see what other people's thoughts are on this. I'm especially curious about what intellectual but non-History-minded folk have to say (as in people who haven't sold their souls to the History gods and now read a handful of history books every week). (Of course you can still chime in, too, righteous_ani.) I'm also curious what the perceptions of our non-American members are. (After all, the U.S. did try to take Canada by force twice and by indirect means a handful of times! Canada successfully thwarted all such attempts!)

I've left this poll (not Pole!) intentionally vague. So, I won't be surprised if our ensuing discussion turns out to be semantic as much as anything else. If this goes well, in future, less-lazy, times I will make other posts relating to empire.

And now, without further ado:

We've all learned about Thomas Edison, for sure. He was a brilliant inventor from the turn-of-last-century. He improved the light bulb and telegraph and invented the phonograph and stock ticker, among countless other things at his Menlo Park laboratory in NJ. Woo-hoo, go Edison!

What we don't hear as much about, though, is that Edison was a cut-throat businessman who reaped the benefits of an age that saw the birth of modern utilities. Most of his patents were on improvements of exisiting utilities, such as light bulbs. Often, he found himself in court, battling challenges to his patents. Challengers claimed that Edison stole their ideas; Edison called his use of ideas as "research." Some fellow Menlo workers also claimed that Edison took credit for their ideas.

All the while, Edison continued to rake in the dollars.

Now, this all takes me to a very disturbing and darkly amusing example of Edison's cut-throat ways:

Edison was a major supporter of DC, as his patents were based on direct current. He also had a plan in mind for, essentially, an American power grid based on DC. Now, considering the nature of DC, Edison's plan envisioned a small power station on every block. If such a grid plan had gone into effect, considering Edison's patents, he would have brought in loads of royalties.

Now, the brilliant Nikola Tesla advocated using the much more efficient AC. (Interestingly, Tesla had worked for a time under Edison at Menlo.) Tesla had patented AC in Austria.

The War of Currents

Edison could not bear to see his DC plan lose out--costing him all of those precious royalties, and so he and some of his employees went on a campaign to discredit Tesla and AC. Apparently, some of Edison's employees invented the electric chair, which was based on AC, largely to prove the point that AC can be highly lethal; ironically, Edison was against capital punishment.

Then, Edison himself took the helm of this campaign. He put on a series of public demonstrations in a bid to show how dangerous AC was by...electrocuting animals!?! In his first demonstrations, he electrocuted (to death) puppies and other small animals! This apparently wasn't enough to scare people away from AC, so Edison then electrocuted a horse, killing it! This still was not enough, so Edison zapped and killed...an elephant. The elephant's name was Topsy, and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals actually approved of this "execution" because ole Topsy had killed three people. (I guess hanging it would have been pretty difficult.)

My point here is not simply to say that Edison was a driven businessmen, but to show how just a light read of History may as well be mythology. Students learn to "ooh" and "ahh" the great scientific progress of Edison's era, but less often do they learn the more important lesson that, as in most cases, the pocketbook was behind everything.

Oh, and I also just wanted to share some pretty wicked trivia. ;D

I knew that my Grandpa Phillips' brother, Peter Robert, was killed during World War II, in the Battle of the Bulge.
This was all that I knew:

• Served with: Battery B of the 285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion


• Died: December 17, 1944, The Battle of the Bulge (at 21 years of age)

( Read moreCollapse )