Reading the definitive book on Holocaust Denial 25 Years Later

In 1993 a relatively unknown historian, Deborah Lipstadt, published Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, to little notice outside of the field of Holocaust studies. She initially thought that there wouldn’t be enough material to put together a whole book, and even after successfully doing so she never thought that she would become the public face of the movement to challenge Holocaust Deniers. But this would change after one particular Holocaust Denier, David Irving, discovered her book and her less than flattering portrayal of him, and would eventually sue her for libel in the UK, forcing Lipstadt and Penguin to justify their description of him as a racist, anti-Semitic, holocaust denier. The trial would make both Lipstadt and her book famous, but you don’t hear much about the book itself anymore. The legal drama around it became the focus. Considering the book and legal battle occurred back when I was too young to notice it, and my utter surprise that there hasn’t been a 25th anniversary edition released, I decided to finally read the book myself, and see what all the hoopla was about.

Ok, so what exactly is the book about? Well, Holocaust Denial, but its not covering what you might assume a book on the subject would be. Most books, articles, and documentaries you find about Holocaust Denial focus on the arguments used by Deniers, and then debunk them. The primary function of these works is to equip people with the necessary information to debate Holocaust Deniers (something that Lipstadt doesn’t do, and advises others not to). Instead, Lipstadt decides to focus on the history and evolution of Denial, all the while warning about the things that inadvertently give Holocaust Deniers more publicity. If you’re looking for something that debunks Holocaust Deniers this isn’t the book you’re looking for. However if it wasn’t for this book and the huge boost in attention that Holocaust Denial received from the trial with David Irving, those other works probably wouldn’t exist. So this book, I believe, is an invaluable piece in your arsenal for debunking Deniers, because even abhorrent ideas have a history of their own. They don’t just come out of the ether.

Lipstadt traces the origins of Holocaust Denial to the WW1 revisionists, those who didn’t agree with the consensus that Germany was solely responsible for the war. They also like to point to allied propaganda during the war that either exaggerated, or outright fabricated atrocities. These pro-German/anti-Allies arguments would form the genesis of the anti-war movement in WW2. The second war saw numerous atrocities publicized, which resulted in numerous revisionists from the previous war questioning the veracity of the reports, considering how many false ones accumulated from the previous war. Even after the war when footage of the concentration camps made it back to the home front many had a hard time believing such a thing could or would have been done. The more extreme revisionists began to justify or minimize the Holocaust, but never denied it. But from the true revisionists, the Deniers would be born, refusing to believe the evidence and the accounts of survivors. From there Lipstadt traces the evolution of Holocaust Deniers through the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s.

The first Deniers were ardently anti-Semitic and openly associated with Neo-Nazis. Their writings are not expansive, and are mostly limited to pamphlets such as Did Six Million Really Die? and The Myth of the Six Million. Even when Holocaust Denial found its way into full length books it was never the main topic, but rather a small part of a bigger attempt to rehabilitate the Nazis and Hitler. The 1970s saw a book with proper scholarly formatting that was fully dedicated to Holocaust Denial in 1976 with The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, by Arthur Butz. It was the first Denial text to go mainstream because it was written by a tenured professor, (he taught electrical engineering, nothing related to history). Holocaust Denial would be openly embraced by some far right historians in the 70s and 80s, among them David Irving, who’s libel suite would make Dr. Lipstadt famous.

While researching the book and afterwards Deborah Lipstadt was asked to debate Holocaust Deniers, but she has always refused. Her primary reason for doing so is as a statement that the Deniers shouldn’t be taken seriously. However, she does believe that the ideas they push forward should be addressed, but they should be addressed with as little attention to the author as possible. This seems like a perfectly reasonable position myself, but something the author kept saying throughout the book would give me pause and force me to rethink her as a scholar. I wasn’t second guessing the historicity of the Holocaust, but every time Lipstadt said that we shouldn’t consider Holocaust Denial as “another side” of the debate had me confused. To me it seemed that it obviously was another side by the sheer fact that it existed.

It took me the entire length of the book to come to an understanding of what she meant by saying that Holocaust Denial wasn’t “another side” of the debate, or at least this is what I think she was getting at. In her mind, she only describes a position as being a genuine side of a debate if the arguments are based on facts and evidence. Because Holocaust Denial doesn’t use actual facts and evidence, it isn’t considered a genuine side of the debate. I personally wouldn’t make that distinction. I prefer making distinctions between well supported sides of a debate, and sides that aren’t supported. But her distinction, it seems, is motivated by ensuring that as few people take Holocaust Denial seriously as possible, and that’s a goal I can sympathize with.

Overall, I would give the book a positive review, and encourage everyone who is interested in both the Holocaust and Holocaust Denial give it a read. Here’s a tip though, if you buy it used on Amazon there’s a fair chance that you will receive an autographed copy.

Book Review: The Storm Before the Storm by Mike Duncan

Since its fall, the Roman Empire (by which I mean the western Roman Empire) has been at the forefront of western political thought. Every great power is compared to, by others or itself, to Rome, and they all wish to reach its heights, and to avoid its fall. During times of economic or political downturn we see slew of books and articles comparing the current state of the United States to the fall of Rome, but perhaps there is another period of Roman history that the current United States should be compared to. Mike Duncan, the creator of the History of Rome and Revolutions podcasts, and author of The Storm Before the Storm, argues in his first book that rather than comparing the current United States to the 5th century Roman Empire, we should be comparing it to the Roman Republic of the First and Second Century BCE.

The Storm Before the Storm is a narrative history, so very little of the text is dedicated to pointing out the similarities between the current U.S. and the late Roman Republic. In fact, if you didn’t listen to the numerous interviews of Mike Duncan on other podcasts around the books release in fall of 2017, or read the author’s note at the beginning of the book, you probably wouldn’t be aware that his intent was to draw attention between those two periods. In the author’s note, Duncan makes his intentions clear, “I was asked the same set of questions over and over again: “Is America Rome? Is the United States following a similar historical trajectory? If so, where does the  US stand on the Roman timeline.” Attempting to make a direct comparison between Rome and the United States is always fraught with danger, but that does not mean there is no value to entertaining the question.”(pg. xx) He accomplishes this task by crafting a narrative that anyone who is following current affairs is sure to notice the parallels.

He begins the narrative after Rome’s defeat of Carthage in the Second Punic War. Although not yet a Roman lake, Rome has no true rival for control of the Mediterranean. The Republic sees a lot of wealth streaming in after the war. Reading this immediately brought to mind the post World War Two United States, or even possibly the Post Cold War world. I think the author may have intended the post Second Punic War Rome to represent the post Cold War U.S., “After the Second Punic War ended in 202 BC, the economy of Italy endured a massive upheaval. The legions… returned home with riches on an unprecedented scale… For the majority of Roman citizens, the conquest of the Mediterranean meant privation, not prosperity…. Wealthy noble families exacerbated the sharpening divide between rich and poor.” (pg. 19-20) In these passages Duncan is channeling the modern Marxist concern over income inequality of the 21st century. The economic comparisons are continued into the labor market.

Among the “riches” brought by the legions back to Rome were slaves, whom displaced many peasants in agricultural labor, “The plight of the dispossessed citizens might not have been so dire had they been allowed to transition into the labor force of the commercial estates. But the continuous run of successful foreign wars brought slaves flooding into Italy by the hundreds of thousands. The same wealthy nobles who bought up all the land also bought slaves to work their growing estates. The demand for free labor plummeted just as poor Roman families were being pushed off their land.” (pg. 20) My first assumption was that the slaves were intended to be compared to illegal-immigrants taking American jobs, but upon further inspection this was more likely intended to be a comparison to factory workers being replaced by machines, which is a narrative much of the media has implanted into the voter base of President Trump. However, the concern over illegal immigrants is present in the book, but it’s a conflict of Ancient Rome your average person isn’t aware of.

The core of the late Roman Empire had been the Italian Peninsula, and we today generally think of Italy as a whole when we think of the Roman Empire, but that wasn’t always the case. The Roman Empire started as the city state of Rome, but overtime the city of Rome expanded its area of control across the peninsula, but it wasn’t all annexed directly. What usually happened was the Rome would defeat a neighboring Italian City state and force its government into an alliance with Rome, in which the citizens of these other city states would provide manpower for the Roman legions. Yet despite serving in the Roman legions, these Italians were not citizens of Rome, and therefore did not have the same rights as Romans. This is where the comparison with illegal immigrants comes into play . You have a class of people, living under Roman hegemony, but not having equal rights or citizenship. This topic is brought up time and again throughout the book, and when I read those passages it became clear. In the current U.S. there is a debate over the fate of over a million illegal immigrants, with a particular emphasis on DACA children. Most elected officials of the Democratic Party, and a surprising number of elected Republicans, support either giving full citizenship or some kind of legal status to DACA recipients and their families. In Ancient Rome this became a big issue to several politicians such as the Gracchi brothers, and Gaius Marius, just as there are politicians who make this their sole issue today. The Italians aren’t just a stand in for illegal immigrants, but in different parts of the book they are stand ins for African Americans, or poor people in general.

There’s a lot more about modern America that you can read into in The Storm Before the Storm, but I recommend you read the book for yourself to get the full impact. Despite my personal political inclinations I whole heartedly recommend The Storm Before the Storm to anyone interested in Ancient Rome, or Modern Politics.

The Oppression of... Ideas?

Can an academic field be a tool of oppression? Edward Said believed so, and in his book, Orientalism, he describes what he sees as a power structure that is based around an incorrect perception of the Islamic World, that is perpetuated by the West. However, Said’s assertion would not go unchallenged. World renowned scholar of the near east, Bernard Lewis, would take up the mantel to defend the discipline Said attacked. Both Said and Lewis would then be critiqued by political scientist, Fred Halliday, for ignoring what he believes to be the real question about Orientalism. We are going to look at what Said means by the term “Orientalism”, and his critiques of it. We will then examine Lewis’s interpretation of Said, and why he found it problematic. Then we will analyze Halliday’s critique of both Said and Lewis, and whether each of them believe historical objectivity is possible.

To Said, Orientalism is more than just an academic discipline. It is a power structure that is used to justify and facilitate the actions of western governments, in particular Britain, France, and the United States, in the Middle East. Beyond the base level academic definition, he defines Orientalism as “a style of thought based upon… distinction made between ‘The Orient’ and (most of the time) ‘The Occident’.”[1] He also defines a third level of Orientalism, “the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient.”[2] The “corporate institution” is the mechanical part of Orientalism as a power structure. According to Said, the academic level is used to define the geographic area of study; the second level is used to create a justification for imperialism; and the third level is used to facilitate the creation of stereotypes and justifications. This is how Said sees Orientalism as a power structure that is used as a tool of oppression.

The second level of Orientalism is where Said’s issues really begin. He implies that “the Orient” is not a creation of the peoples who live there, but rather a creation of outsiders. He talks about how the Europeans created the idea of the Orient as a political, social, and ideological construct.[3] To Said, the structure of Orientalism is ultimately a result of Western dominance over the East, and that this dominance in culture perpetuates the perception of the Orient as being “Oriental”. It can be interpreted as a self-perpetuating cycle. The more the West dominates the east, the more Oriental the east becomes. And the more oriental the east becomes, the more the west needs to dominate it.[4] But what does a self-professed Orientalist have to say about Said’s work?

Bernard Lewis, one of the last scholars willing to identify themselves as an Orientalist, directed his critique at Said’s terms, and how he defined them. He identified Said’s thesis as “Orientalism derives from a particular closeness experienced between Britain and France and the Orient.” He sees Said’s focus on late 19th and early 20th century British and French Orientalists as being problematic. To Lewis, this is far too narrow of a focus to accurately portray the field of Orientalism.[5] Lewis points to Said’s lack of German sources to be especially egregious. He also takes issue with Said’s implication that a non-Arab learning Arabic does not qualify someone to comment on the Orient. This implies that knowledge on a subject can have ethnic exclusivity. Lewis interprets that Said disapproves of how knowledge about the Orient is gathered, quoting numerous violent terms, Said used in reference to westerners acquiring knowledge about the Middle East. [6]

Halliday begins his critique of Said by putting Orientalism into a broader context, pointing to previous writers who critiqued the concept of Orientalism. He describes Said’s work as simultaneously “coming at the end of” and “negating an earlier body of debate.” Halliday was somewhat critical of Said’s rejection of a materialist critique, and choosing to use a literary critique instead.[7] The biggest critique Halliday has for Said is that his work focuses on the literary discourse of the Orient, rather than the societies or politics.

He has many of the same critiques of Lewis’s work as well. He describes both of their methodologies as being “literary” and “ideological.” Said is too focused on the literary and ideological thoughts of the British, French, and Americans, while Lewis is too focused on the literary and ideological thoughts of the people themselves.[8] Traditional Orientalists, according to Halliday, focus too much on language. Lewis expresses that the origins of words influence their future meaning. He attributes this to the influence of Classicists, who focus on studying ancient Greek and Latin in their attempts to understand the classical world. He is also critical of Lewis’s emphasis on the Islamic Religion for understanding the Middle East, portraying Lewis’s use of it to be deterministic.[9]

Halliday prefers “An element of distance,” when examining the region. He uses materialist approach to the Middle East, looking at what is actually done in the society and how it functions, rather than what the literary class portrays.[10] However, he does devote more time to criticizing Lewis than he does Said. This is most likely attributed to his personal relationship with Said.[11] Halliday is probably more inclined to be sympathetic to Said’s methodology, because of its connection to previous Marxist works, even if he eschewed a materialist analysis.[12]

So what do these three believe about scholarly objectivity? Of the three, Said is the least likely to believe, especially for westerners. He speaks of how the media in all its forms perpetuates stereotypes about the Orient and its people to the point where you cannot separate it from reality unless you are a member of the subject group.[13] Bernard Lewis is the most likely of the three to believe in scholarly objectivity. The fact that he is defending what he sees as an honorable academic field displays his feelings toward scholarly work. Why defend an institution and field of study if you do not believe it is possibly to obtain objective truth from it? Halliday is also likely to believe in scholarly objectivity, but unlike Said or Lewis, he believes it comes from a materialist analysis of society, culture, and politics, in contrast to Lewis and Said, who are inclined to focus on ideology and literature.

So is Orientalism a tool of oppression? If you are someone from a supposedly oppressed group, like Said, a Palestinian, than you are more likely to believe that the institutions and academic disciplines used to study your group are a tool of oppression. On the other hand, if you are a member of a group that is accused of being an oppressive force, like Bernard Lewis, than you are more likely to deny any such accusation. Both have a vested interest in defending their group, and to undermine the other, haven taken a level of pride in their group based identity. Said sees his group, and thereby himself, being negatively portrayed by Western institutions; While Lewis sees his group being accused of racism, which in the modern world is the most damaging accusation that can be leveled at someone of European descent.

So here we have learned of why Said sees Orientalism as a tool of oppression, and his critiques of said field over all. We have looks at Lewis’s response to Said, and his interpretation of his work. And we have look at Halliday’s response to both, and whether or not scholarly objectivity is possible.

[1] Edward Said, Orientalism, (New York: Vintage Books, 1978), 2

[2] Said, 3

[3] Said, 3

[4] Said, 6-7

[5] Bernard Lewis, “The Question of Orientalism”, The New York Review of Books June (1982), 9

[6] Lewis, 10

[7] Fred Halliday, “Orientalism and its Critics,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2 (1993), 148

[8] Halliday, 150

[9] Halliday, 151-152

[10] Halliday, 148

[11] Halliday, 149

[12] Halliday, 148

[13] Said, 25-28

What is a Historian?

What is a Historian? If  you get your answers from Dictionary.com, your answer will be “an expert, or authority, on history” and “a writer of history.” Although these are part of being a historian, professionals will tell you these are too simplified. When defining an occupation or identity, you must decide whether to be inclusive or exclusive, with our parameters. Should a historian just be someone who studies or writes history, or must there be certain methodological standards? Formally trained, or self-taught? Focused on writing and research, or on teaching? That’s what we are going to look at.

Is it what they do, or how they do it?

First, should a historian just be someone who studies and writes history, or should there be a standard as to how they go about their research and writing? An excellent example to look at for this would be the legal case of Irving v. Penguin Books Ltd. This trial (depicted in the film “Denial”, as well as the book of the same name) created a legal standard for historical experts in English courts. To be an “objective historian,” they must meet the following qualifications:

1. The Historian must treat sources with the appropriate reservations;

2. The historian must not dismiss counter-evidence without scholarly consideration;

3. The historian must be even-handed in treatment of evidence and eschew “cherry-picking”;

4. The Historian must clearly indicate any speculation

5. The Historian must not mistranslate documents, or mislead by omitting parts of documents

6. The historian must weigh the authenticity of all accounts, not merely those that contradict a favored view;

7. The Historian must take the motives of historical actors into consideration

This, I believe, is a good starting point but it fails in two regards; the standards need to be further elaborated, and they don’t define “Historian,” as much as what a “competent” historian is.

Can they be self-taught?

Should historians be formally trained, or must they be self-taught? This must be answered. A large number of people who are currently recognized as historians would no longer be so. The earliest known historians such as Herodotus, Bede, and Ibn Khaldun, were all self-taught. It wasn’t until the 19th century that history truly became its own subject. Edward Gibbon, the author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was self-taught but is often referred to as the first modern historian. More recent historians such as David McCullough, David Barton, and Ron Chernow are also self-taught. If we are to exclude self-taught people from the definition of “historian”, we are going to be removing a large portion of the western canon of history.

Advantages of being trained in historical research are; exposure to academic standards, different schools of thought, and methodology. In contrast to this, a self-taught historian is mostly just reading whatever they can get their hands on, with little direction. Being a professional self-taught historian is very difficult. The same goes with every other profession. So unless we want to eliminate the work of thousands of years of writings, we should probably include self-taught historians in the definition.

Teaching, Writing, and Researching

Should historians be focused on writing and research, or teaching? This is a surprisingly contentious issue. Many historians who only teach often feel ostracized by rest of academia because they aren’t contributing to the creation of new knowledge. A similar sentiment is felt amongst historians who only write and research. They are made to feel that if you aren’t bestowing their knowledge upon students, then they aren’t fulfilling their roles as historians either. And if we look at those who do both, it is safe to assume that they feel like they don’t have enough time to dedicate to either to make a difference.

So what is a historian? Perhaps the best answer to this question is that the word “Historian” shouldn’t be an exclusive label, but rather an umbrella term, and beneath it are numerous categories describing their activities, areas of focus, and levels of competency.

What Would An American Dictatorship Look Like?

As we enter into a new presidential administration, we enter into a new period of the President being compared to Hitler. President Obama had those who compared him to Hitler, but never before has the comparison been so readily embraced by a political opposition as it has by those who oppose President Trump.

Comparing the sitting president to a tyrant is a long standing American tradition. Andrew Jackson was compared to King George III for his expansion of executive power. In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt was compared to Napoleon Bonaparte when he tried to get a third term as President. But it would be World War Two that shifted political comparisons from monarchs to dictators.

As a people who once revolted against a ruler that was portrayed as a tyrant, we are quick to fear dictators. However, we don’t really know what a dictatorship in the United States would look like. Whenever we imagine dictatorships we think of the Nazis, or George Orwell’s 1984. The dictatorships we imagine are always highly militarized, and heavily influenced by early 20th century totalitarians. However, Dictatorships look different depending on where they are, so if we want to know what an American Dictatorship would look like, we need to look at different examples.

5. Brave New World, by Adolphus Huxley

George Orwell’s 1984 is everyone’s favorite fictional dictatorship to cite. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen memes over the past 8 years that said “1984 is supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.” If a political leader isn’t being compared to Hitler, than their administration is being compared to 1984. This scenario is very militaristic, inspired by the rise of fascism in the early 20th century.

However, the United States has never been nearly as militaristic as the rest of the world. There are many who would disagree with this statement, pointing to graphics like this that list the wars the U.S. has been involved in, and how they cover almost the entire history of the U.S. since 1776.

However, most of these conflicts are Indian Wars. These were limited engagements, concentrated in a particular region. On top of this, they had limited impact outside the area they were fought in. If you look at all these wars, most of them were very low level. If you put these wars onto a graph, with a Y axis representing relative cost and scale, America’s War history would be relatively flat, with occasional spikes of intensity.

This is why we should look at Huxley’s Brave New World. 1984 is dark and militaristic. From both the inside and the outside, this world looks like a dystopian dictatorship. Brave New World, on the other hand, is a pretty nice place to live, all things considered. Everyone has a job, and all your needs are taken care of. Everyone is required to take drugs, but this is usually followed by orgies, sooo….

In this world, religion has been virtually wiped out, and everyone is kept distracted with drugs, sex, and frivolity. Humans aren’t born naturally, but grown in tubes. They are also genetically engineered, with some people being purposely given better or worse genes. People are punished for going outside the norms. The focus on this dictatorship is keeping people distracted with things that, in our world, are luxuries. If people are happy, or don’t know they should be sad, they don’t rebel.

So why is this a better example than 1984? Let’s look at public schools for a moment. Children today are medicated at higher rates than ever before. There are places in the United States today where people are not allowed to send their children to public schools unless they are vaccinated. Before I go any further I should tell you, I am pro-vaccination. Everyone for whom it is healthy to get vaccinated, should be. However, this doesn’t change the fact that we are seeing government mandated drug use. On top of that there is a greater emphasis today on medicating every problem a person has.

We also see more and more how people are being conditioned, for better or worse, to accept, celebrate, and participate in alternative life styles, and to feel no shame in behavior once labeled, perverse. The anti-Religion policies of the world government in Brave New World have shadows in our society today.

When looking for fictional examples of what a dictatorship would look like in the U.S., look for ones that have a softer hand.

4. The Roman Empire

Do you want to teach a lesson about power corrupting? Rome has it.

Or how about the over extension of empire? Rome’s got it.

Economic ruin due to a flawed monetary system? Rome has that too.

In the West, Rome is the ultimate example of what all nations want to be, and what they want to avoid.

Those are all important, but they are self-evident. I want to cover what people tend to miss about Rome, and how it is a great model for deciphering what an American dictatorship would look like.

When we think of dictatorships, we think of people coming to power by military force, doing harm to his people for his own personal gain, and putting a halt on democracy. But that’s not Rome.

There were plenty of Roman Emperors who came to power by military force, but that’s not how it starts. Historians debate over when exactly the Rome transitioned from a Republic to an Empire, but the latest possible point any of them point to is the assassination of Caesar, and the Rise of Augustus.

The death of Julius Caesar triggered a civil war, in which his nephew, Octavian, came to power. Octavian was given the title of Augustus by the Senate. As Augustus, he said that he was restoring the republic. And under Augustus, the Republic seemed to continue operating as it did before. The Senate continued to meet until the 7th century A.D. Elections continued to occur, and all the democratic elements of society continued to function.

The vestigial elements of the Republic lived on. What changed was the power these institutions had. The Senate went from being the legislative branch of government, to being an advisory body for the emperor. The Consuls went from being executives and generals, to being a pressure valve for those who sought political advancement. Elections went from being the way citizens participate in the political process, to being a public ritual, like saluting a flag.

3. The Wilson Administration during World War One

When people think about the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, if they think about it at all, is mostly as a tragic story of a man who had a solution for world peace, but was undercut by those who put politics above ideals. Well, that’s not really the case.

Wilson’s first term was pretty uneventful for the most part. However, after he got re-elected by promising to keep the U.S. out of war, he asked congress for a declaration of war. During the U.S.’s short time in the war, the federal government put in place a number of boards that regulated the domestic consumption of goods such as paper and coal.

There was also the Espionage Act of 1917, and Sedition Act of 1918. Between these two pieces of legislation, the federal government arrested those who publicly opposed the war, or promoted non-compliance with the government’s war actions. The most famous case for these acts was of Socialism Activist, Eugene V. Debs, who ended up running for President from jail, winning over 3 percent of the vote.

The Wilson administration has many of the hallmarks of a dictatorship. But because there was a war going on, and his attempts at creating the League of Nations, we usually give him a neutral to positive review.

2. Franklin Delano Roosevelt

What are some things we think of when we think of twentieth century dictators? They wage wars? Check. They retain power for long periods of time? Check. They assert large amounts of control over the economy? Check. They round up people who are determined to be threats to their regimes? Super check.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt took power in 1933, and only vacated office after his death in 1945. He was not the first president to attempt to violate the 2 term precedent set up by George Washington (Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in 1880, and Theodore Roosevelt sought a third term in 1912), but he is the first to actually obtain a third term, and the only one to attempt a fourth term. It’s merely coincidental that his years in power coincide with that of Adolf Hitler, but that’s not the only similarity.

Both Hitler and FDR asserted massive control over their economies. Contrary to popular opinion, Hitler was indeed a socialist, and his regime asserted massive control over the economy. FDR’s record on this is well known, and so I won’t get into it here.

The biggest similarity between FDR and the worst dictators people usually think of is his rounding up of Japanese Americans into internment camps. They were targeted because they were a different race, and the American populace was receptive to the policy in a time of uncertainty, similar to the willingness of Germans to the fate of the Jews. The only real difference between the two of them, aside from scale, is the intent of said actions.

1. Abraham Lincoln

Comparing Abraham Lincoln to a dictator will get the accuser into some socially messy situations. Lincoln is portrayed as the Man who freed the slaves. To oppose such a guy is socially hazardous. If you say anything negative about Lincoln, you are accused of being a racist, or at best a southern sympathizer. But if you look at what his administration actually did without any cultural lenses, you will see many of the major signs of a dictatorship.

When it comes to control over the economy, the Federal Government nationalized both the telegraph and railroad industries during the war. They used their control of these industries to move soldiers and war materials around, as well as to coordinate the movement of armies. We see nationalization of industries regularly during dictatorships in other countries.

Just like Rome, elections continued to occur during the American Civil War, but the Lincoln administration did some underhanded things to suppress opposition voters. The most notorious of these was to make sure that soldiers who were registered Democrat weren’t given leave during election time, so they couldn’t go home and vote.

On top of the nationalization of entire industries, President Lincoln also had property confiscated from southerners who supported the Confederacy. The most famous of these was the Emancipation Proclamation, and executive order freeing slaves in the occupied territory. Culturally, we see this event as being good, but it is still an assertion of power that any judge before the war would have ruled unconstitutional.

The biggest, of course, was the government’s declaring of an entire segment of the country to be enemies of the state, which is dictatorship 101.

Conclusion

When thinking about what an American Dictatorship would look like there are two things we need to keep in mind; The Aesthetics, and the Setting.

All the previous examples that were not from U.S. History, were all scenarios where the Aesthetics of Dictatorship were pleasant, or non-apparent. And all the examples that were from U.S. History are taken largely from War Time, which is when the power of the Presidency usually grows.

So is Donald Trump a dictator? If he is, than there are quite a few presidents before him who should also be called dictators as wells, including the man many of the protesters hold up as the greatest president who ever lived.

Originally published February 22, 2017

Natives in Far Away Places: How New Zealand Handled the White Settler Colony Dilemma

New Zealand was one of the last inhabitable places on earth to be settled by humans, the first doing so approximately 800 years ago.[1] It was also one of the last successful white settler colonies. Not just of the British Empire, but of any European Empire. The capital of New Zealand, Wellington, is over eleven-thousand miles away from London, making it the furthest away colony from the metropole.[2] This distance was the first major problem presented to the empire, but it was not the only colony to struggle with distance from the mother country. New Zealand’s struggle with distance was merely the most extreme example of a common problem with empire. The second major problem the empire had with governing New Zealand was with the native Maori people. Being the last successful White Settler colony, this means that the British Settlers of New Zealand eventually became the majority of the islands’ population. Between the first settlement, and when the whites became the majority population, the fate of the colony was uncertain. We are going to look at the history of the New Zealand, how the white settlers became the dominant power, and how the colony could have been governed, given twenty-first century hindsight.

The Islands of New Zealand were settled by Polynesian Peoples. Starting around 200 A.D., they began sailing south and eastward from the Islands of Samoa and Tonga. By 800 A.D., they had settled the Marquesas, Hawaii, and Easter Island.[3] The exact year, or even century the Island was first settled is in dispute. It ranges anywhere between 800 and 1300 A.D. [4] [5] Like many native peoples the British encountered in their colonial ventures, the Maori were a tribal hunter-gatherer society, supplemented by small amounts of agriculture.[6] And like all places colonized, these natives were not a monolithic force, but rather a hodgepodge of warring tribes and clans.

The first European discovery of New Zealand was by a Dutch Sailor named Abel Tasman. Tasman was on a mission from the Dutch East India company, and instructed to establish relations with “civilized” peoples of the region.[7] They encountered the islands on a voyage between the summers of 1642 and 1643.[8] He had originally named the set of islands “Staten Landt”, but the rest of Europe referred to them as “New Zealand”, after the province of Zeeland, in the Netherlands.[9] They had a brief encounter with the natives, whom they found to be hostile. They killed four of Tasman’s men, and left the island with an unfavorable perception.[10] It would be over a hundred years before another European, Captain James Cook, would explore the island and interact with the natives.[11]

Captain Cook first sighted the northern island of New Zealand on October 8, 1769, being the first European since the Dutch sailors under Abel Tasman to see the Maori people; “We saw in the Bay several Canoes, People upon the shore and some houses in the country.”[12] Cook and some of his men first went ashore on October Ninth. In an interesting side note, Captain Cook referred to the natives he saw on the island as “Indians”. In his journals, he goes back and forth between using the words “Indian” and “natives”.[13] Cook and his crew used a native priest they had picked up on another island to communicate with the Maori.[14] [15] Whether the priest and the Maori spoke the same language, or they just spoke very similar languages is not stated. Over six months, Cook would map out much of the coastline of New Zealand. Cook had received advice from the President of the Royal Society, the Earl of Morton. Morton was more concerned with putting a check on European bloodshed than on “savage violence”, saying, “They are human creatures, the work of the same omnipotent Author, equally under his care with the most polished European… No European Nation has a right to occupy any part of their country, or settle among them without their voluntary consent.”[16] This shows a marked difference from the thoughts of earlier colonial expeditions in the western hemisphere, which determined land ownership by its productive use. This is an early sign of how the natives of New Zealand would be treated differently than the natives of North America and Australia.

In the course of three voyages, Captain Cook would visit New Zealand four times, with the total number of days added up being just short of a year. The short-term impact on the Maori was relatively small, but the long-term impact was immeasurable. The introduction of metal tools to the island would have dramatic consequences. They also left behind several venereal diseases where the sailors stayed longer. They also left a number vegetables behind. The potato would become a big part of the Maori economy and diet by the 1800s. The introduction of firearms to New Zealand would have the greatest impact.[17]

Between the first voyage of Captain Cook, and 1840, the islands would see a small stream of explorers and settlers. During Cook’s first visit to the islands, he passed by another European sailor headed toward the island, the French explorer, Jean de Surville. Three years later, in 1772, another French explorer, Marion du Fresne, visited the island. His encounters with the natives did not fair as well as Cooks. He was killed by a Maori tribe. In retaliation, his second in command, Julien Crozet, massacred two-hundred and fifty Maori tribesmen. And before leaving the island, he claimed the islands in the name of France, renaming the islands “France Australe”.[18] The French claims to New Zealand were never seriously maintained. Within five years of making them, they would become involved in the American War of Independence, which would financially bring them to the brink, resulting in revolution in 1789.

The problem of distance that New Zealand faced would ultimately be solved in two ways: technological development, and settlement. Technological development would allow for faster ships, which could sail to the South-Pacific quicker. On top of this there would be the eventual construction of the Suez Canal, which would shorten the distance between Britain and the rest of her Empire in the east. The other solution, settlement, would simultaneously mitigate the problem of distance, and combat the problem of native dominance.

Settlement was originally slow. It would take the whaling trade to bring a greater number of permanent settlements. European Whalers sought to set up stations around the islands, and the Maori were readily willing to grant them land to do so. The early relationship between the Europeans and the natives were co-operational. European captains were married to high ranking Maori women, and Maori men were recruited to work on European trading vessels.[19] Polynesian whalers became so common in the 19th century, that they make appearances in the literature of the day. The character Queequeg, from Moby-Dick, is one of the more notable ones.[20] The Maori had become addicted to European goods they were incapable of making themselves, especially guns.[21] The Maori encouraged European settlement, going so far as to shelter ship-jumpers and ex-convicts. They would give the settlers wives and land to ingratiate them within the tribe. They chiefs wanted to use them as intermediaries between the tribe and European traders.[22]

Up to 1840, a careful and peaceful balance was maintained. The Europeans were drastically outnumbered by the Maori. On top of this, the metropole was over eleven-thousand miles away. If the Europeans angered the Maori to the point of violence, their superior technology would not be enough to defend against the Maori’s superior numbers. And the great distance from the metropole meant that it would be months before the European would find out what happened, and several more months before they could respond.[23] The Maori, however, also had reasons for not wiping out the Europeans. The Maori had become dependent on trade with the Europeans. They had grown a taste for European textiles and tools. But the most important good imported from the Europeans was guns. The tribes were not technologically capable of manufacturing firearms, which had become a staple in inter-tribal warfare. The tribes that did not have muskets became subservient to those that did. Because of this, all the tribes welcomed the Europeans, and encouraged settlements.[24] These conflicts between the tribes would become known as the “Musket Wars”, and would end after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, which granted the British Sovereignty over New Zealand. Or at least it did so in the English version of the treaty.[25]

In 1840, many Maori Chiefs were gathered in a place called Waitangi. On February 6th, they signed a treaty, written by William Hobson, which established an independent and unified New Zealand.[26] The move to annex New Zealand and sign a treaty with the chiefs was motivated by the evangelical religious beliefs of the Colonial Office officials.[27]

The Treaty of Waitangi gave the British control over New Zealand, after a long series of wars between the Maori tribes, in which all sides were armed by the British. The English version of the treaty gives the Queen, “all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole sovereigns thereof”.[28] The differences in the wording of the Maori and English language versions would cause conflict. The English version uses the word “Sovereignty”, but the Maori language has no equivalent word or phrase. A word meaning “complete government”, was used in its place. The Maori believed that they would be allowed to govern their own internal affairs in exchange for giving authority over the islands to the Crown.[29] They believed that signing the treaty would guarantee them a substantial flow of white settlers that would increase trade for firearms and other goods.[30]

Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi also gave protections to the Maori. It was understood in both languages that the Crown would have exclusive rights to purchase Maori lands from the tribes. This system was designed to protect the Maori land rights, by ensuring that unscrupulous practices to acquire Maori land by private companies or individuals were avoided, as happened in other White Settler Colonies.[31]

The first major war fought between the British and the Maori was the Northern War, fought on the New Zealand’s North Island between March of 1845 and January of 1846. Chief Hone Heke was a prominent anti-British leader of the Ngapuhi tribe.[32] The traditional view on the Northern War is that Heke was trying to expel the British from the Island[33]. However, more recent historians, such as James Belich and Ganginui Walker, have brought more attention to materialist causes to the conflict. Belich emphasizes the British imposition of taxes on the Maori, as well as restrictions on the Maori timber industry, as motivating factors for the war. Biggest of all, Belich argues, is the moving of the Capital from Kororareka to Auckland. This was both a symbolic, and literal, relocation of power from a Maori dominated area, to a British controlled one.[34] Walker emphasizes the British seizure of Maori lands. Despite the Treaty of Waitangi being designed to protect Maori land rights, unscrupulous practices still managed to deprive the Maori of their land. The Treaty of Waitangi allowed only the crown, or as many would come to interpret it, institutions representing the crown, to acquire land from the Maori.[35] The New Zealand Company was being an institution representing the crown, and therefore had the right to purchase land. When signing treaties, and deals with the company, not all chiefs were aware of what they were signing. This resulted in many tribes losing land to the New Zealand Company.[36] The Maori saw the British as overstepping their authority by interfering with the internal affairs of the tribes, and denying the chiefs their traditional rights. Because of this, Belich believes that Heke’s real goals were not to expel the British, but rather to re-establish chiefly authority within the internal affairs of the Maori.[37]

Traditional Historians of New Zealand declare the British to be victorious in the Northern-War, but newer historians call this into question. The traditional narrative points to the rebel chiefs giving over their lands to the government as a sign of their defeat.[38] A counter to this point was the British granting amnesty to all of those who participated in the rebellion, despite earlier saying that it was “absolutely necessary to crush either Heke or Kawiti before tranquility could be restored”.[39] This was a sign of how weak the British control of New Zealand was in the 1840s. It could not afford to needlessly anger the Maori, revealing the threat the natives still presented.

Two more revolts broke out on the Northern Island near Wellington, and Wanganui, in 1846 and 1847. These rebellions were fought over land disputes, and followed the growing pattern of conflict being between Pro and Anti British tribes.[40] The 1850s was a quiet period of Maori-British relations, but the 1860s would see renewed conflict. During the 1850s, Maori tribes began refusing to sell land to the British settlers. This was part of a growing movement among the tribes to create a Maori Confederation, often referred to as the “King Movement”.[41] These confederated tribes elected a King, who’s son succeeded him two years later, in 1860.[42] Conflict erupted in the early 1860s for a whole host of factors. The British were irritated that the Maori had been refusing to sell their land. There was also the desire of the colonial government to assert more authority over the internal affairs of the tribes.[43] Between 1848 and 1860, the white population of New Zealand grew through immigration and high birth-rates. At this same time the Maori population decreased due to disease and low birth-rates. By 1860, the white population outnumbered the Maori but not on the North Island.[44] The wars of the 1860s would primarily be fought over land sale disputes, and would finally end in 1872, when the last rebel chief surrendered.[45] This ended what historians today refer to as the New Zealand Wars.

With the Maori tribes subjugated, Anglo-British control over New Zealand was secured. During the early twentieth century, there were fears over Japanese expansionism in the Asia-Pacific. The United Kingdom government had told the New Zealand government that if France fell, then the Royal Navy would not have enough strength to fight Germany, Italy, and Japan. The British government began relying on the United States to protect Australia and New Zealand.[46] However, the Japanese would never reach New Zealand. The surrender of Japan to the Allies in 1945 effectively eliminated the last threat to Anglo dominance of the islands.

So where did the British get their ideas for governing New Zealand? Cook’s instructions from the Earl of Morton to reign in European violence is a sign that the British had learned from their experience in North America. Despite this, the situation in New Zealand resembled all too much the situation in other white settler colonies. There does not seem to be any direct reference to other situations informing their choices, but the aggregate of previous experience was the most likely influence. The only successful white settler colonies were those that were geographically isolated from Afro-Eurasia. In the Americas, it was disease that killed off most of the native inhabitants. A combination of disease and superior weaponry eventually led to white dominance in these places. The story of the Maori is very like those of Native Americans and the First Peoples in the United States and Canada.

So how would I, with twenty-first century hindsight have governed New Zealand differently? This requires us to ask whether the current situation is substantially less than ideal. On top of this, we also need to determine what the ideal situation is. When it comes to New Zealand, I have an inherent bias. My father was born in the country, and his father was born and raised there. Had things not gone the way it did, you would not be reading this. However, I will try to remove my existentialist issue from this question. All things considered, New Zealand is a well-off country. They have a good human rights record, and are often ranked as one of the freest countries in the world.[47] But in a country, that started out as white settler colonies, the elephant in the room is the native population.

Americans are very familiar with the issue of our past behavior towards the Native Americans. The average American may not be able to name specific examples of mistreatment of the Native Americans, but they are all vaguely aware that bad things were done to them by white settlers who wanted to take their land. How have the Maori fared? The Treaty of Waitangi was a valiant effort, but it did not have enough teeth, or enough willing enforcers. In recent decades, the Maori have begun to see a recovery. After a century of declining numbers, the twentieth century saw a recovery in the Maori population.[48] As of 2004, almost a quarter of all businesses in New Zealand are started by Maori Entrepreneurs.[49] 1975 saw the Treaty of Waitangi Act passed in the New Zealand Parliament. This established the “Waitangi Tribunal”, which was responsible for hearing Maori grievances, and make suggestions to parliament.[50]And long before Parliament began reconcile with the Maori, the 1867 Maori Representation Act, guaranteed the Maori four dedicated seats in Parliament, which is more than the natives of Australia, Canada, or the United States have ever received.[51]

Any changes made to the way New Zealand was governed should take the well-being of the Maori into account, and in most cases, would probably be designed to ensure better treatment. The first major difference I would make is to put in stronger enforcement of the Treaty of Waitangi. I would have it amended to say that only the government can purchase land from the Maori, rather than allowing any individual or institution representing the government being allowed to do so. When Maori purchased land is being sold by the government, other Maori tribes or individuals should be given first right to purchase the land. If they do cannot, or will not pay the appropriate market price for said land, then the land can be purchased by anyone.

I would also amend the 1867 Maori Representation Act. The original act guaranteed a total of four reserved seats for the Maori. In 1996 the act was amended, which allowed a greater number of dedicated Maori seats, which better reflected the population.[52] I would amend the act to have Maori representation in Parliament be proportional to its population. In 1867 this would have earned them approximately 20 percent of the seats in Parliament.[53] Though this would not have been a number strong enough to overturn or stop the actions of whites by themselves, it would have given them greater power to work whites who were sympathetic to their cause.

New Zealand’s unique geographical location has left it a pristine preserve of natural beauty. And its indigenous peoples were the last to be utterly devastated, and one of the first to recover. The country’s distance from the metropole, and resilient Maoris, were the biggest problems facing its governance. All things considered, it turned out well.

[1] Michael King, The Penguin History of New Zealand, (Auckland: Penguin Books, 2003), 19

[2] “Distance From To: Distances between cities and places”, http://www.distancefromto.net/

[3] Ranginui Walker, Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle Without End, (Auckland: Penguin Group), 24

[4] Walker, Struggle, 24

[5] King, The Penguin History of New Zealand, 19

[6] James Belich, The New Zealand Wars, and the Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict, (Auckland: Penguin Books, 1986), 17

[7] Geoffrey W. Rice, edt., The Oxford History of New Zealand: Second Edition, (Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1992), 29

[8] King, The Penguin History of New Zealand, 102

[9] Rice, Oxford, 29

[10] Walker, Struggle, 78

[11] King, The Penguin History of New Zealand, 126

[12] James Cook, The Journals of Captain Cook, (New York: Penguin Books, 2003), 80-81

[13] Cook, Journals, 81-82

[14] Cook, Journals, 77

[15]Cook, Journals, 82

[16] Rice, Oxford, 29

[17]King, The Penguin History of New Zealand, 105

[18] Rice, Oxford, 30

[19] Walker, Struggle, 78

[20] Herman Melville, Moby Dick, (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003), 82

[21] Walker, Struggle, 78

[22] ibid, 79

[23] Belich, The New Zealand Wars, 19

[24] Belich, The New Zealand Wars, 19-20

[25] “Read the Treaty: The Differences between the texts”, (NZHistory.govt.nz), accessed November 27, 2016, https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts

[26] King, The Penguin History of New Zealand, 156

[27] ibid, 157

[28] “Read the Treaty”

[29] ibid

[30] Belich, The New Zealand Wars, 20

[31] “Read the Treaty”

[32] Belich, The New Zealand Wars, 29

[33] ibid, 30

[34] Belich, The New Zealand Wars, 30

[35] “Read the Treaty,” (NZHistory.govt.nz),  accessed November 27, 2016, https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-treaty/english-text

[36] Walker, Struggle, 103-4

[37] Belich, The New Zealand Wars, 31-2

[38] ibid, 64-5

[39] ibid, 65

[40] ibid, 73-80

[41] ibid, 75

[42] ibid, 76

[43] Belich, The New Zealand Wars, 77

[44] ibid, 78

[45] Rice, Oxford, 188-9

[46] King, The Penguin History of New Zealand, 400-1

[47] “New Zeland”, (Freedom House.com), accessed November 27, 2016, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/new-zealand

[48] Walker, Struggle, 186

[49] ibid, 313

[50] ibid, 210-2

[51] “Guaranteed Aboriginal Representation in Parliament”, (Senator Nick Sibbeston, Northwest Territories, Canada), http://sen.parl.gc.ca/nsibbeston/new_page_1.htm

[52] ibid

[53] Walker, Struggle, 144

Originally published on February 1, 2017

The Era of Bad Feelings

Every Presidential Election brings us concerns over what may happen. Will this new guy be the next (insert name of President you like here) or will he be the next (insert name of dictator here). The most recent election has many people concerned, if not about the man in the office, then by how politically divided the people are. This shouldn’t need much proof if you are reading this article around the time I am writing it, but just in case you are reading this at some point in the future, this is the cover of Time Magazine’s Person of the Year issue for 2016.

President of the Divided States of America. Donald Trump has certainly been divisive. The biggest issue I’ve had with Donald Trump is that we don’t know him very well. He’s a Dark Horse who came out of nowhere to win the nomination of a party he’s been a member of less than 3 years, and then defeated a candidate that had been running for President for 30 years. As a historian (or at the time of this writing a historian in training), it is my responsibility to find precedents for the situation we now find ourselves in. Even if it is just a vain attempt to learn from history.

In this attempt, I have found four historical precedents that I think could be informative about the time we are entering. From these precedents, I have developed scenarios based on American Political History, with modifications based on current political climate. These four scenarios are, in my educated opinion, the most likely scenarios we will see in the next 4+ years.

There is always the possibility that he will indeed end up like the dictator in waiting many make him out to be. However, people have been crying Hitler about every U.S. President since 1945. Because of this, I’m only looking at precedents from American History, rather than world history.

4. The John Tyler Scenario

John Tyler was the first Vice President to ascend to the office of President upon the death of a sitting President. William Henry Harrison had been nominated by the Whig Party in 1840. The Whig Party had been formed in opposition to President Andrew Jackson. They believed in a federal government that was dominated by the legislative branch, like Parliament was in the United Kingdom. They supported the creation of nationally funded infrastructure projects, such as roads, canals, rail. To pay for this they favored protectionist trade policies, placing tariffs on imported goods. This served the dual role of funding the federal government, and protecting domestic manufacturing from foreign competition. But at the top of their priority list was the establishment of a National Bank, after Jackson had vetoed the renewal of the Second Bank.

John Tyler had been a member of the Jeffersonian Republican Party until its breakup in the 1820s. At that time, he had followed Andrew Jackson into the Democratic Party, which favored States Rights, Free Trade, territorial expansion, and opposed central banking. To many, Andrew Jackson represented the common man, and the values of Jeffersonian Republicanism. Thomas Jefferson saw Andrew Jackson as a dangerous man, and John Tyler would eventually come to see the same. Under Jackson, the Democratic Party favored the power of the federal government be focused under the executive branch. Tyler had always considered himself a strict constructionist when it came to the constitution, and broke from the Democratic Party in the 1830s.

When 1840 rolled along, John Tyler had been a supporter of Kentucky Senator, Henry Clay, at the Whig Convention. Clay would not win the nomination, but Tyler would be selected as Harrison’s running mate, partly to appease Clay, but also to try and win over anti-Jacksonian Democrats. The plan worked, and in 1841, Harrison and Tyler took their respective oaths of office. Less than a month later, on April 4th, William Henry Harrison died, making John Tyler the 10th President of the United States. This transition was as smooth as could be expected. There was some resistance to him assuming the office, and there were those who did not see him as the legitimate president. Despite that, most eventually recognized him as the true President. Tyler’s real conflict would come not over his legitimacy, but over policy.

He had been elected as a Whig, and the leaders of the party (Harrison’s cabinet, and Henry Clay in Congress), assumed that he would go along with his predecessor’s platform and policies, but that would not be the case. Despite being a member of the Whig Party, Tyler was still a Democrat in terms of policy. What he opposed were the Jacksonians, not the Democratic Platform. Tyler still preferred state’s rights, low tariffs, and territorial expansion. What really brought him into conflict with the Whig Party was his opposition to the establishment of a new national bank, which he would veto twice. This lead to the leaders of the Whigs to expel Tyler from the party, leaving the President to fend for himself with no supporters.

The Similarities 

This, I believe, is the fourth most likely scenario to happen to Donald Trump. Let’s look at the similarities between John Tyler and Donald Trump. Both had been members of the Democratic Party shortly before their nomination by the other major party. Many people within the party they joined did not see them as a true member of their party. Both held onto most of the positions that the Democratic Party held onto at the time.

Trump is in favor of protectionism. Although both parties have paid lip service to free-trade over the last few decades, there has been for quite some time a strong undercurrent of protectionism within the Democratic Party, for the sake of the workers if not for the business owners. Unlike most Republicans, he has no intentions of scaling back entitlements or any kind of government spending. He has spoken in favor of raising the minimum wage, and establishing single payer healthcare plan. These positions would make Donald Trump a standard Democrat today, but he chose to run as a Republican. Why?

Like Tyler, I think Trumps departure from the Democratic Party has less to do with ideological differences than it does with leadership. Tyler left the Democratic Party because he opposed Andrew Jackson, and his concentration of power in the executive branch. Donald Trump seems to have left the Democratic Party because he opposed its leadership under Obama and Clinton. Back in 2011 he had paid for an investigation of President Obama’s birth certificate, claiming that he had evidence that Obama was not constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States. Later that year Obama released the long form of his birth certificate, which most likely motivated Trump to permanently break with the Democratic Party. Just like Tyler had once supported Andrew Jackson, Trump had once supported Hillary Clinton, saying that she was highly qualified. He was even a donator to the Clinton Foundation. His opposition to the Democrats was most likely based on a conflict with its leaders, not its platform.

So, we now see that Clinton is very much like Tyler. Both support the platform of the party they were not elected to, and have supported that other party’s candidates in the past. However, there are some limitations to this scenario.

Like Tyler, I do see Trump coming into conflict with Republican Leaders in Congress. If Trump opposes to much of what the Republicans want to do, we could see a rift form between the executive and legislative branches in Trumps term. However, unlike Tyler, Trump was nominated for the Presidency, not the Vice Presidency. So right from the start, Trump has more legitimacy than Tyler ever had within the Whig Party. There is also the difference between the balance of power within the parties today and the parties in the mid-19th century.

In the Antebellum period, the balance of power within political parties in the United States rested on the state level. State leaders held more power than the federal government, and within the federal government, congressional party members held more sway than executive branch members. In the 21st century this balance has drastically shifted. Today, power within a political party, especially that of the party that controls the Presidency, is centered at the top. The sitting President is the de facto leader of their party. This resembles the power structure of the federal government. Over the last century, power within the federal government has been concentrated within the executive branch. The balance of power within both parties has evolved to reflect this reality. Because of this, I don’t see Donald Trump being kicked out of his party, regardless of how much he steps on the toes of Congressional Republicans.

However, there is a possible alternative. What I do see potentially happening is Donald Trump being challenged in the 2020 Republican Primary. If he angers the leaders of the party too much, they may give support, covertly or overtly, to a primary challenger. However, the more likely scenario is that if a challenger appears, the party leadership will simply let it play out, and not openly oppose a challenge to Donald Trump’s leadership.

But that’s just the 4th most likely scenario, the third most likely is one that most people aren’t expecting.

3. The Chester Arthur Scenario

Chester Arthur was the 4th Vice President to succeed to the Presidency upon the death of a President, doing so in 1881. He was not exactly popular with the American Public. During the Grant Administration, he was appointed as the Collector of the Port of New York, meaning that he oversaw collecting import duties from foreign imported goods. This was a politically powerful position, which was often suspect to corruption and graft.

The corruption of the Grant administration lead to a reform movement within American Politics for government workers to be hired based on merit, rather than political connections. There were dedicated factions within both parties that opposed this reform movement. Within the Democratic Party this was Tammany Hall, which controlled the Democratic Party in the state of New York, and held sway within politics of New York City and State. Within the Republican Party, it was the Stalwarts, led by Roscoe Conkling, that opposed reform. Chester Arthur was a supporter of Conkling, who wished to keep the Patronage system begun under Andrew Jackson alive.

In the 1880 Presidential Election, sitting President Rutherford B. Hayes was not running for a second term, this left three main candidates seeking the Republican nomination. Representing the Stalwarts was former President Ulysses S. Grant, seeking an unprecedented third term. Then there was Senator James G. Blaine, supported by a faction referred to as the Half-Breeds, who were moderates that supported Civil Service Reform. There was also John Sherman, a member of the Hayes Cabinet seeking a middle road between the two. Initially, Grant and the Stalwarts were winning. After 35 rounds, the Blaine and Sherman factions decided to throw their support behind James Garfield, Dark Horse candidate from Ohio. Garfield managed to win, but the Stalwarts were still a formidable faction that could cause problems for the party is their support wasn’t gained. To placate them, Garfield’s supporters offered the Vice-Presidential position to one of Conkling’s men; first to Levi Morton, who declined upon Conkling’s advice, and then to Chester Arthur, who went against Conkling’s advice and accepted the position.

The Vice Presidency was the first publicly elected office that Arthur ever held, and after Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled office seeker, Arthur was thrust into a position no one thought he would see. He had asked Garfield’s cabinet to stay until Congress reconvened in December, but some left immediately. He replaced most of the resigning members with Stalwarts, which led many to believe that he would be a puppet for Conkling.

Arthur surprised everyone when he continued the support for Civil Service Reform that Garfield had given. He continued to support the investigations of government officials who were under investigation, and even had prominent Democratic Lawyers added to the investigation teams to show that he was serious about corruption. In 1883 he would sign the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act into law, stunning the Stalwarts and everyone who believed Arthur was just their puppet.

Like any Republican of his era, he was a supporter of Tariffs, and supported the construction of internal improvement projects. He also supported the lowering of excise taxes. In the realm of foreign policy, the Arthur Administration sought to stay out of the affairs of other warring nations. When it came to immigration, the Arthur administration supported the passage of laws that restricted it. In 1882, laws were passed that charged a tax on immigrants coming into the country, along with provisions that banned the immigration of those who were ill, mentally disabled, or unemployable. Under his administration, a Chinese Exclusion Act was passed that ban the immigration of Chinese to the United States, and blocked citizenship for any Chinese living in the United States, for ten years. He would not win the Republican nomination in 1884, and died less than two years after leaving office.

The Similiarities

So, what makes Chester Arthur similar to Donald Trump? Well, we can check the “from New York City” box right off the bat. There is also the similarity in the policies of the Arthur Administration and the promises of the Trump campaign. Arthur’s administration signed into the immigration restrictions, which is one of the Trump campaigns biggest attention grabbers, the Wall he has proposed to be built along the Southern Border. The construction of the wall can also fall under internal infrastructure projects, as was standard Republican policy in the 19th century. The exclusion of Chinese immigrants by the Arthur administration dovetails nicely with Donald Trump’s obsession with China, but instead of immigrants driving down the value of American Labor, Trump is concerned with Chinese imports driving down the wages of American workers. There is also, of course, both Trump and Arthur’s support of Tariffs, which is the one thing they are consistent on.

One of the biggest, and most surprising possibilities of a Trump administration may be financial and lobbying reform. During the campaign, Trump bragged about having bought political favors from those who he gave money to. And so far, many in the media have had a problem with his choice of cabinet members, many of whom are said to have conflicts of interest with their potential cabinet appointments. Trump is seen by many as a puppet of Russia, or of Wall Street and the Wealthy. These are all very similar to what Chester Arthur experienced. Arthur appointed many Stalwarts to his administration, and was seen as the last person who would possibly go for Civil Service Reform. But Arthur surprised everyone by becoming one of the biggest supporters of reform, and Trump could do the same.

Although he bragged about buying politicians during the election, he also said that he was the best person to stop that from occurring, and there is a logic this. Trump, or at least his lawyers and accountants, know how to use the tax code to avoid paying taxes on financial losses. He knows how to get around rules and regulations that restrict lobbyists. Like Chester Arthur, who knew how patronage worked on the ground level, Trump if familiar with how the wealthy use the loopholes in laws to buy political favors. He would certainly know how to curtail their actions, and if not end them, at least make it far more expensive for these kinds of actions to take place. During his campaign, he mentioned how he can stop the lobbyists, and that he would. Of course, promises from politicians are by rule always suspect, but I, and most everyone else has been wrong about Donald Trump so far, and so perhaps we will be wrong about this as well.

2. The Herbert Hoover Scenario

Herbert Hoover is probably one of the most unfortunate people to win a presidential election. He was elected at a time when an unavoidable economic calamity was about to hit, and was in the driver’s seat when blame was to be assigned.

He spent most of his life before the presidency in the private sector as a mining engineer. It was during the First World War that Hoover would begin his public career. During the war, he led relief efforts in Belgium, and after the war he lead relief efforts in Eastern Europe during the Russian Civil War. This, plus his background in engineering, landed him a job as Secretary of Commerce during the Harding and Coolidge Administrations. In 1928 he would win the Republican Party nomination, despite personal apprehensions from President Coolidge, and go on to win the general election.

On October 29th, the Stock Market crashed, and Hoover was in the middle of it. Up until that point he had been continuing the free market policies of the Harding and Coolidge Administrations, but after that point he abandoned those policies, and began the largest federal intervention into the economy up to that point. His administration passed works projects such as the Hoover Dam to create jobs. He also encouraged businesses to keep wages up. Up till that point, it was deemed the economically prudent solution to cut wages when the economy slowed down. This way, more workers kept their jobs. During the Roaring 20s, American workers saw a rise in pay and a decrease in the price of consumer goods. Hoover wanted to keep this standard of living going to coercing businesses to keep employee wages up. The businesses that agreed to do this ended up firing a large number of workers to make up for losses in sales.

The crash triggered a recession, but it did not become a full-blown depression until 1930, when the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was passed, which increased taxes on imported goods. During the First World War the countries of Europe couldn’t manufacture enough arms and other supplies to feed their war efforts, so they imported large quantities of U.S. goods, and although this died down after the war, the post war sales were still higher than the pre-war sales. When the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was passed, the nations of Europe retaliated with their own tariffs, creating a trade war. The loss of sales to Europe harmed the U.S. economy even more, causing more factories to shut down, and more people lose their jobs.

The Hoover administration did everything they believed to be within their power to keep the pre-crash economy going, but it did not work. In the 1932 Presidential Election, Democratic candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt, referred to Herbert Hoover as a socialist, who’s policies were ruining the country. He promised to balance the budget, increase spending, and cut down the debt, all at once. Roosevelt would go on to perform one of the greatest expansions of the federal government ever seen, dwarfing the policies of the Hoover administration that at the time were also seen as the biggest expansion of the federal government ever seen.

The Similarities 

Some of the similarities between Hoover and Trump were probably jumping out at your while reading this. Both men have spent most of their lives in the private sector, and for both, the Presidency is their first publicly elected office. And like most Republicans before the 1930s, Hoover supported Protectionism, which was a big theme of the Trump campaign.

The biggest potential similarity for both is an oncoming economic calamity. The 1920s had been a big era of economic expansion, but much of it was based on credit from an expansionary monetary policy from the Federal Reserve. In 1928 a new Chairman was selected for the Federal Reserve, and he believed in reigning in monetary expansion before it resulted in commodities inflation. This action, though a necessity, also made a crash inevitable. The crash occurred, and it was bigger than anyone at the time could handle. Whoever was in office, was going to lose to the opposition party.

Trump is most likely going to face the same thing. 2008 was the last major economic crisis the world faced, and it has been nearly a decade since then. Your standard economic cycle goes in cycles of about 8 to 12 years, meaning that we are due for another crash at some time in the next 4 years. This crash will probably be bigger than the 2008 crash because the problems from that crash were not resolved. Some economists argue that we still haven’t recovered from that previous crash, and say we are in a prolonged depression. If they are true, then we are about to hit a double dip depression. And even if we are not in a prolonged depression, a crash is still most likely coming, and it will be bigger than 2008, and there are numerous options. A stock market crash triggered by an increase in interest rates; a Sovereign Debt Crisis in China; a domino effect of nations leaving the E.U.; any number of things could set it off, and just like with Hoover, Trump (Or whoever could have inhabited the White House) was not going to survive.

Just like Hoover, President Trump will probably respond with what at the time will be the newest biggest federal intervention into the economy. Trump has not shown himself to be a free market guy. When talking about businesses that have moved manufacturing outside the United States, his solution is punish them instead of addressing the reasons why they left. He will most likely respond a crisis with protectionist measures, and perhaps a major construction project like the Hoover Dam. Many are now under the impression that Trump will most likely not build a wall on the southern border like he promised in the campaign. But if things go bad, building a wall would be a handy infrastructure project for him to pull up.

1. The Era of Bad Feelings

This last scenario I propose is unlike the others. While the previous scenarios were based on previous presidencies, this last scenario is modeled as the reverse of a previous administration. It is the Presidency of James Monroe.

James Monroe was the 5th President of the United States. He succeeded James Madison, who left office with high approval, having “defeated” the British in the War of 1812. At this time, the United States was a virtual one party state. The Jeffersonian Republicans (whom modern historians like to call the Democratic-Republicans) became overwhelmingly dominant in national politics. It was during this time that the Federalist Party became defunct. In the United States, there was a sense of hope and optimism, and a national pride coming from defeating their former colonial masters in a war. The economy was growing, people were moving out west, and families were having more children.

There were also foreign policy successes during the Monroe administration. Due to some unauthorized actions from Andrew Jackson, the United States ended up annexing Florida from Spain, finally gaining complete control of North America east of the Mississippi. There was also the introduction of the Monroe Doctrine, which signified a strengthening relationship with Britain, who were the real enforces of the policy until after the American Civil War.

There were some domestic disputes during the Monroe Presidency. Slavery started to become a big issue. The balance between slave and free states was in question, and was temporarily resolved by the Missouri Compromise, which set the standard that for every free state or slave state admitted, there would need to be one of the other admitted. This issue, for the time being, resolved without violence, but many, including former President Thomas Jefferson said that the Missouri Compromise was “the knell of the Union.”

Overall, the Presidency of James Monroe was peaceful, and quiet, and is referred to by historians, and people living at the time, as the “Era of Good Feelings.”

But that’s not what we are facing today.

The Similarities 

As shown on the Times Man of the Year cover, Donald Trump is coming into office of a country that this the most divided it has been since the civil war, and although I don’t think we will devolve into a civil war like was had in the 1860s, we are certainly heading into unprecedented territory, at least within living human memory.

Trust between citizens is at an all-time low. People are more likely to see their neighbors as enemies than foreign leaders. We can see this in protests across the country. As of writing this, Donald Trump hasn’t even taken office yet, but we are seeing violence committed in the name of opposing him. We are seeing marches to protest things that have not yet happened. Political discourse is at an all-time low, and people are failing to see each other as human beings. We are more pessimistic and skeptical than in any point in our history. These divisions did not start with Trump, but he will bear the brunt of the blame.

In contrast to Monroe’s presidency, which was a virtual one party state, we are now going to see a virtual multi-party state. We will continue to see Democrats and Republicans dominate party politics, but factions within each party will begin to act on their own. The Republicans were divided during the entirety of the election. The Establishment Republicans have embraced Trump for winning the election, but the opposition that began with the Tea Party Revolution are still a factor, and many of them are still not on board with Donald Trump. Within the Democratic Party we see similar divisions. The Clintonites who have dominated the party for the past quarter century are now at odds with the more progressive-socialist faction of the party, led by Senator Sanders and Senator Warren. Although these factions will nominally remain under their party banners, I predict that we will see them begin to act more independently.

In terms of foreign policy, unlike the Monroe Administration, which was riding off a post war high, the United States today is still resting off a power war low. The world, which was relatively peaceful after the Napoleonic Wars, is currently ratcheting up tension in a post-post-Cold War world. The Middle East is an obvious example of where things have only gotten worse in the last 25 years. Eastern Europe is also sketchy at this time. With Russia in Ukraine, and the U.S. now sending troops to Poland, we are seeing a much less stable international scene from what we have been used to since the fall of the Soviet Union.

And what about the Missouri Compromise? Is there any issue that is an equivalent of that? It’s hard to say. In a video, I made for my YouTube Channel, I argue that there isn’t one, but I am starting to think that I am wrong. But, for this issue to be comparable to slavery, it must be something that has significant social, moral, and economic impact, and depending on who you are, that could be multiple things. Abortion and contraception are one that both sides can moralize, but we don’t have an entire economic system based on either, and that is the case with most issues.

Conclusions

If we do enter this period that I am calling “The Era of Bad Feelings”, I predict that we are going to see two or three consecutive one term presidents, and that political division is not going to get any better. We don’t trust each other, and are willing to use the power of government to punish our enemies when it’s our turn to run things. And this will mark back and forth reprisals. I’m usually an optimist, but I go by the mantra of “things get worse before they get better.” Our society has a lot of negative energy that we haven’t been able to get rid of, and a Trump presidency will not relieve it. Neither would have a Hillary Presidency. The only thing that could possibly end this Era of Bad Feelings is an existential threat on the scale of September 11th, or a World War. I don’t know if things will come to that, but short of it, I don’t see how we release all this negative energy in a positive way.

Before I end this article, I would like to add that this final scenario can be combined with any of the previous ones. These scenarios are not mutually exclusive. They are just what I feel to be the most likely.

Let’s just remember to treat each other with basic human decency, and maybe, just maybe, well get out of this in one piece.

Originally published on January 18, 2017

The Forgotten Story of John Bull

Throughout history writers, storytellers, and satirists have used characters to represent different groups, persons, or nations. The United States has Uncle Sam, a national personification who represents the ideas, values, and actions of the United States, as seen by the illustrator or writer. Before Uncle Sam there was another national personification that represented English speaking peoples, John Bull. Created in the early eighteenth century, for over two hundred years John Bull was seen as the ideal Englishman. However the use of his image for propaganda or satire has sharply declined in the last century. What is the history of John Bull, and why has this character fallen out of use?  

Today characters like Uncle Sam or John Bull are associated with visual mediums such as political cartoons or propaganda posters, however John Bull’s first appearance was not visual but literary. In 1712 John Bull was created as the protagonist of a series of political pamphlets titled Law is a Bottomless Pit; The History of John Bull, by John Arbuthnot. The pamphlets told the story of a country squire named John Bull and how he took Philip Baboon to court over his inheritance of the late Lord Strutt’s estate. The story was a satire of the War of Spanish Succession, with the late Lord Strutt representing King Charles II of Spain, Philip Baboon representing the House of Bourbon, and John Bull representing England. In this court case John Bull serves as the lawyer for Philip Baboon’s cousin, Esquire South, who represents the Austrian Hapsburgs. 

John Bull is characterized as a simple tailor, who is very patriotic and relies on common sense. Before the death of Lord Strutt John Bull and Nic. Frog, who represents the Dutch, send a letter asking for Lord Strutt to make accommodations for the two of them in his will, or they will take his successor to court. This instance represents the threats that England and Holland made to Spain and the House of Bourbon near the death of King Charles II.  In Chapter Four of Part One, John Bull and Nic. Frog, supported by middle class tradesmen brought Philip Baboon and other characters representing other nations and institutions to court. Arbuthnot was a Tory, who were usually portrayed as land owners. John Bull is portrayed as a dimwitted, middle class Whig. John Bull did not like to be governed by others and was quick to quarrel. However he was easily flattered and deceived. Ultimately, John Bull was not meant to be a positive representation of England, but rather a negative portrayal of the Whigs. 

John Bull also had relatives who played a role in this early portrayal. John Bull’s mother, who is not named, is characterized as being sensible, sober, and discreet. She represents the Church of England. She tries to be unoffensive to as many as possible, and tries not to find offense in the actions and words of others. Though not ostentatious, she did not find a problem with possessing the finer things of life. This is how Arbuthnot and other Torries saw the Church of England. He also had a sister named Peg, who represented Scotland. She is described as being poor, pale, and malnourished. She had a cold and drafty living space. She was head strong and always squabbled with her brother John, just as England was always in conflict with Scotland. Peg would be married to a man named Jack, who represented Presbyterianism, who would tame her to a degree. John Bull’s mother would not see many appearances past Law is a Bottomless Pit, but Peg would see use in other mediums until the end of the eighteenth century.  

Though his first appearance was not a positive portrayal, as the eighteenth century moved forward this character would be appropriated by the very people it was intending to mock, and eventually it would become a symbol representing all of England by the end of the century. John Bull would mostly make appearances in visual mediums after his debut in Law is a Bottomless Pit.

By the time of the American War of Independence, John Bull was fully a representation of England as a whole, but not yet a representation of Great Britain. In a 1779 political cartoon published by J. Phillips we see John Bull dozing off while on duty, holding up a staff, and on top of the staff there is a hat that says “Liberty” on it. To Bull’s right there is a Scotsman who is holding off a Frenchman with one hand, while helping hold up Bull’s staff with the other. Kneeling on the ground to the right of Bull there is a Dutchman who is picking John Bull’s pocket, and an American Indian, representing the American Colonists, reaching for the Liberty Hat on top of the staff. In this depiction it appears that John Bull, meaning England, is not focused on bringing the American Colonial Rebels into line, leaving the Scottish Regiments to do the heavy lifting. However the Scots are incapable of holding off everyone, leaving the Dutch free to take advantage of weakened English shipping, and the Americans continuing to reach for independence.

Another comic from a year later in 1780 expresses similar frustrations. In this cartoon John Bull is depicted as an actual bull, and he has knocked a Spaniard into the air. To the right of the bull there is a Frenchman, with an American Indian hiding behind him. And behind John Bull there are several leaders from Parliament holding on to the bull‘s tail. In this comic the cartoonist is expressing frustration with Parliament holding back England’s full force to put down the American Rebels and the French. In 1780 it appeared to many English that they were close to victory and could win if Parliament was not restraining their military might. We see here an occasional theme of making John Bull more animal like when the cartoonist is trying to express the strength of England.  

The era of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars was the golden age for John Bull as a character in political cartoons. There is a glut of comics from artists on both sides of the Atlantic. James Gillray, a British engraver, drew a large number of cartoons during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. In 1796 he published a cartoon that depicted John Bull riding a thin horse. He is coming from the direction of place labeled by a sign as “Constitution Hill” and going down a trail labeled by a sign as “Slavery Slough via Beggary Corner.” On the road are a number of highwaymen with hats on the ground asking for loans. This comic is taking a jab at the policy of threatening to pass a new tax on citizens if they didn’t loan money to the government, frequently referred to as the “forced loan.” Ten years later Gillray publishes another comic about taxes. In this cartoon we see a tax collector knocking on the door of a London townhouse. We see John Bull with his wife and children through an open window on the second floor. The family is clearly in dire financial straits, but the tax man, labeled by the comic as the “Friend of the People”. Here we see the same cartoonist complaining about the same issue ten years apart. These comics show John Bull as an English commoner, upset with constant taxation.

John Bull was not just used to attack the British government, but to attack foreign governments as well. In 1803 a cartoon depicts a shirtless John Bull in sailor’s pants standing in the English Channel, staring across at a caricature of Napoleon Bonaparte in France inside a castle. John Bull is calling Napoleon out to fight, but Napoleon is not coming out. [12] This comic was published after the British declared war on France in 1803, and were waiting for Napoleon to fight them at sea. Napoleon is depicted in his stereotypical shortness, and is portrayed as a coward who will not challenge the British in open waters.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the Americans were making use of John Bull in their own political cartoons, especially during the War of 1812. A comic by William Charles, a Scottish born American, depicts John Bull in a red British Army uniform paying a pair of American Indians for White American scalps, with the title of “A Scene on the frontiers as practiced by the ‘humane’ British and their ‘worthy’ allies.“ Another cartoon from this time period depicts both John Bull and Napoleon being lectured by Lady Columbia, an earlier national personification of the United States, on free trade and open navigation of the seas. Napoleon states that because he is an emperor that he will not learn a lesson, and John Bull, holding a pamphlet that says “Power Constitutes Right”, says that he will read a different lesson. In these two cartoons John Bull is once again being used as a figure of insult toward British policies. However unlike in his original appearance in Law is a Bottomless Pit, where he is used to insult only the Whig Party, overseas he is being used to insult the entire nation.  

The character of John Bull would also become the go to symbol for representing British humiliation. A cartoon from 1813 depicts John Bull, dressed as King George III, and another national personification of the United States, Brother Jonathan, dressed as President James Madison, in a boxing match. Brother Jonathan has just punched John Bull in the nose, leaving him bloody. This comic was made to celebrate an American naval victory.

Another comic would depict John Bull, this time as an anthropomorphic bull, being chased out of Baltimore by American troops, representing the American Victory at the Battles of Baltimore and Fort McHenry. This comic was a sequel to one earlier that year that also depicted John Bull as an anthropomorphic bull, dictating terms to the defeated Americans after the Battle of Alexandria, Virginia.

Another cartoon from 1813, depicts an upright bear, representing Russia, attempting to negotiate a deal between a proud Lady Columbia, and a kneeling John Bull, mostly in human form, but possessing bull’s horns. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars John Bull had become a symbol representing Britain at home and abroad. When used at home he was a sympathetic countryman, frustrated with the policies of his own government, while abroad he was a symbol to embody the actions of the British government.  

For the rest of the nineteenth century John Bull retained the same purpose as it had before. However, at the turn of the twentieth century his use began to change. We begin to see political institutions (and those that support them) begin to use the character to represent their own policies in a positive light. An 1899 comic depicts both John Bull and Uncle Sam, with baskets on their backs, climbing a mountain. In these baskets are people from non-white countries representing the areas that both the United States and the United Kingdom had colonized. At the top of the mountain there is a golden pedestal that says “Civilization”. On the mountain there are rocks that say “superstition”, “Barbarism“, and”Brutality”, among other stereotypes whites had of non-white peoples. This was one of many comics illustrating Rudyard Kipling’s poem The White Man’s Burden. This was also a time when the “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom began to form. Many comics from this era show John Bull and Uncle Sam side by side, or back to back, dealing with similar issues such as the Boer War for Britain, and the Philippine War for America.

In the early twentieth century we begin to see the decline in the use of John Bull in political satire. The character of John Bull is co-opted by the Conservative Party to attack the policies of the Liberals. In one of these propaganda posters we see John Bull by a stable inspecting an animal who’s front half is a donkey but its back half is a horse. Liberal Party statesman David Lloyd George is standing next to the Donkey, trying to pass it off as a horse to John Bull. On the back end that looks like a horse it says “Socialism”, while on the front side with the Donkey head it says “Liberal Budget.” In this poster we see the conservatives portraying the Liberal Party as socialists who are trying to deceive the British public, represented by John Bull.

In another Conservative Party poster we see John Bull tied up by a sash that says “Free Trade Budget”, while being pushed toward a cliff by characters representing France, Germany, the United States, and Russia. Behind all these characters there is a walled city with a sign that says “The World’s Markets.” These posters were criticizing the Liberal Party government, and they wanted to portray these policies and those who proposed them intending harm to the British People, in the form of John Bull.  

The world wars would mark the end of John Bull as a frequently used character in political cartoons. We begin to see John Bull on posters encouraging Britons to enlist in the army or to buy government bonds. In one poster we see John Bull in his Union Jack Vest and blue waistcoat, and white trousers. Behind him stands a line of British soldiers. He is pointing to the observers of the poster and asking “Who’s Absent? Is it you?”

In a victory bonds poster from Canada we see John Bull standing in front of a fleet of Canadian ships, and to the side of him it says “He’s our best customer, but he needs credits. Buy Victory Bonds.”

In World War II we see similar posters. Aside from the famous “Keep Calm and Carry On” poster, another poster used to keep spirits and productivity up was one that depicted John Bull, standing on the Island of Great Britain alone, in his Union Jack Vest, rolling up his sleeves, and around him the poster says, “We’re up against it! We work, or we want.” John Bull fell out of use during the early twentieth century because the average Briton did not identify with the character. He used to be someone who represented the people, rather than the government. He now looked like an upper-class snob who was disconnected with the people. 

John Bull had an interesting evolution as a character. Originally used as an insult by Torries against the Whigs, he would eventually be used by their successors, the Conservatives, as a positive character representing the British people. Alongside those two points of evolution we saw the character go from representing the British people who were frustrated with the policies and actions of their government to being the symbol of their government’s policies. And now his use is so infrequent we must ask whether the myth of John Bull is dead? If it is dead, than it is because those in government tried to fit John Bull into a role that did not fit his myth. He was an embodiment of Anglo-Saxon common law, of wisdom and governance coming from the people, rather than rights and privileges coming from the sovereign. John Bull is dead. So how much longer will his American cousin survive? 

Originally published October 19, 2016

HBO's Rome: The Grittier Side of the Late Republic

Depictions of Rome on film and television usually focus on the grand, and glamorous. Cities of bright, white, marble, and crimson banners. Men in togas wondering the grand open square in front of the Senate. Or possibly the Colosseum, where gladiators fight to the death for the entertainment of thousands in the stands. HBO’s Rome, however, gives viewers a glimpse at a city we have never seen before. The dark, seedy, underbelly of Rome, where gangs run the streets, and murders done in plain sight go unpunished. This two season show focuses on the rise and fall of Caesar, followed by the ascension of Augustus. We will look at how HBO’s Rome depicts the city, and its portrayal of the rise and assassination of Julius Caesar, followed by an examination of the available texts. From there we will determine which text served as the primary source.

The first season of Rome focuses on the story of Julius Caesar’s rise to dictatorship, and later assassination. Like most HBO dramas, it tells this story from the perspectives of a wide cast of characters. Most of these characters are wealthy and politically affluent, such as Pompey, Brutus, and Caesar himself. These perspectives are balanced out by the presence of two semi-fictional characters, Titus Pullo, and Lucius Vorenus. These two characters are briefly mentioned by Caesar in The Gallic Wars.[1] Through all these characters we see Caesar’s rise and fall from the perspectives of those who favored and rejected him. The series begins with the death of Crassus, leaving only Caesar and Pompey to compete for power. The Senate sends an ultimatum to Caesar to either disband his army and return to Rome, or face civil war. Caesar is waiting for the Tribunes loyal to him in Rome to be killed or driven out of the city, thereby giving him a casus belli for war. This occurs, giving Caesar an excuse to take his army in Gaul and marches on Rome. The first half of the season centers on the war between Caesar and Pompey, and the occupation of Rome by Caesar’s army. After Pompey is defeated and killed in episode X, the remainder of the season is spent on Caesar solidifying his power over Rome, ending in his assassination.[2]

When talking about the life and career of Julius Caesar, the two main texts come from Plutarch and Suetonius. Other writers contemporary to Caesar in different writings reference him, in particular Cicero. However, most fictionalized portrayals of Julius Caesar are based on Plutarch and Suetonius. This is because those are the only ancient sources that tell the story of Caesar as a whole, rather than as scattered fragments. Plutarch and Suetonius are contemporaries of each other, and are both writing about the life of Julius. Caesar over a century after his assassination, doing so during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. Both writings are very similar, differing only seldom. This is probably due to the two of them using many of the same sources, including Caesar’s own writings. Both writers are, for the most part, neutral on the events of Caesar’s life, at least up to the point of Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Plutarch speaks of both Pompey and Caesar plotting to remove the other from power long before they came to blows. [3] It is the civil wars, especially the ones with Pompey’s sons, that they show a bias against Caesar. [4]

The creators of the show have not been forthcoming with the specific sources of the show. It is not mentioned in any interview, or in the special features of the home releases. Because of this, it is probably safe to assume that the writers of the show are using Plutarch or Suetonius, and supplementing it with other sources such as Cato and Cicero. The show focuses more on political events and maneuvering rather than on administrative or social reform. Because of this it is more likely that the creators are using Plutarch than Suetonius. Both give a detailed account of Caesar’s life before the civil war with Pompey, but after that point the similarities end.[5] [6] Plutarch’s work focuses more on the timeline of events around Caesar, while Suetonius focuses more on political and economic reform, such as debt relief for the poor, or giving land to soldiers who fought with him.[7]

One important area where the creators of the show differed from Plutarch was the portrayal of Brutus. At the beginning of the series, Brutus is portrayed as having solidly chosen the side of Pompey, and that this was the obvious choice for him. [8] Plutarch, however, paints a different picture. “When the Roman state split into two factions… it was generally expected that Brutus would choose Caesar’s side.”[9] Brutus was expected to pick Caesar’s side because Pompey had Brutus’ father put to death years before.[10] The show puts a good deal of emphasis on Brutus needing to be involved in the plot to kill, Caesar, with Cassis saying “A Brutus needs to hold the sword.”[11] This is most likely in reference to a statue that Plutarch describes, “Marcus Brutus was a descendant of that Junius Brutus in whose honor the ancient Romans erected a statue of bronze… They represented him with a drawn sword”.[12] Junius Brutus is credited with dethroning the Tarquins. Because of this, only someone from the Brutus family could be given the benefit of the doubt when killing a sovereign in Rome.

An important element of Rome is showing the conflict from not just the perspectives of political rivals, but also from the perspective of lower classes. This is where Titus Pullo, and Lucius Vorenus come in. The two of them are historical figures, but very little is known about them. Caesar mentions them once in book five of The Gallic Wars. They are described as being competitive with each other.[13] In the show, however, Titus Pullo is portrayed as being more subservient to Lucius Vorenus, or at least socially he is. Their lives in Rome are Semi-fictional. Because there is nothing written about these two after Caesar crosses the Rubicon, they are serviceable in portraying a wider social spectrum. They are used to show how the political conflicts of Caesar, Pompey, and Brutus impact the lower classes. The city of Rome is portrayed as being dirty and cramped. Murders go on in plain sight, and gangs control the slums. Both Vorenus and Pullo are recruited at different points by gangs to serve at street enforcers.[14] [15] We are shown the impact of some of Caesar’s governmental reforms when he gets Vorenus elected to the position of Magistrate, as part of his plan to reward his supporters, and ingratiate himself among the plebs.[16] Vorenus is characterized in the show as an honest man, who wants to please the gods and preserve the republic, while Pullo is characterized as a simple man, who is finding it difficult to adjust to life outside the army. As characters, they are meant to serve as the representatives of those watching, common people whom have little to no impact on the great game of politics being played by the upper classes, but are none the less impacted by them.

HBO’s depiction of Rome and the assassination of Julius Caesar is not like the others we have seen. HBO’s emphasis on political drama, and showing the grittier side of conflict, make it an excellent depiction. And its use of Plutarch as its main source allowed them to portray this conflict in a more neutral tone than most accounts.

 End Notes

[1] Julius Caesar, The Gallic War, (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, 2006), 90

[2] Rome, “Kalends of February”, Episode 12, Directed by Alan Taylor, HBO, November, 2005

[3] Plutarch, Fall of the Roman Republic, Translator: Rex Warner(Victoria, Australia: Penguin Books, 1958) 240-242

[4] ibid, 248-249

[5] ibid, 217-240

[6] Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, Translated by J.C. Rolfe (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004) 25-41

[7] ibid, 41-45

[8] Rome, “Stealing from Saturn”, Episode 4, Directed by Julian Farino, HBO, September, 2005

[9] Plutarch, Makers of Rome, (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965) 225

[10] ibid, 225-226

[11] Rome, “The Spoils”, Episode 11, Directed by Mikael Salomon, HBO, November, 2005

[12] Plutarch, Makers of Rome, (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965) 221

[13] Julius Caesar, The Gallic War, (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, 2006), 90

[14] Rome, “The Ram has Touched the Wall”, Episode 5, Directed by Allen Coulter, HBO, September, 2005

[15] Rome, “The Spoils”, Episode 11, Directed by Mikael Salomon, HBO, November, 2005

[16] Rome, “Triumph”, Episode 10, Directed by Alan Taylor, HBO, November, 2005

Originally published November 16, 2016

What is Pseudo-History

In my intellectual life I frequently find myself gravitating toward the unusual or uncommon, and I’m not sure as to why. Perhaps when I hear most people saying that something is X and then suddenly hear someone say that something is Y, it gets my attention. It reminds me of a study that was done about the attractiveness of facial hair on men. The study found that facial hair is considered more attractive when most of the men in an area are clean shaven, and visa versa, when most men in an area are bearded, it’s the clean shaven guy that gets the most attention from women. In other words, it’s about rarity. The rarer something is, the more attention it gets. Now this doesn’t always work well with dating, but it does apply to simply getting attention, and perhaps that’s why I’m drawn to the ideas that are not the norm.

I used to fear the rise of China until I read George Friedman’s The Next 100 Years, which put my thought about China’s position as a world power into a radically new perspective. The same thing happened when I read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism and John Green’s The Fault in Our Stars (for that last one I thought that all YA novels were terrible). So this idea of having your perception changed to what is not the commonly held view is not in and of itself bad. At least two of these three things have become publicly accepted since I read them. But at what point does going for an unorthodox idea cease to be open mindedness and turn you into a contrarian?

Pseudo-History is one of these areas where normally I would be all over that alternative viewpoint, but instead feels a bit off. Determining what is Pseudo-History can be difficult, especially because it can be easily mistaken for Revisionism or Apologetics. But before I go any further we should define Pseudo-History.

Robert Todd Carroll, a former Professor of Philosophy at Sacramento City College, developed a list of criteria for determining whether something should be considered “Pseudo-History”

It treats myths and legends as literal truth

The more recent a historical event has occurred, the more evidence and sources we have for it. This is because there has been less time for people to have lost the sources, be it by the destruction of written sources, or simply misplacing them in a giant collection. Because of this we don’t have sources for everything that has ever happened, and there are so many things that have happened that we will never know about.

The other reason we don’t have sources for everything that has happened is because some cultures did not develop writing. When a culture does not develop writing they are dependent on oral history which is subject to changing overtime due to faulty human memory and embellishing, and if people die before the knowledge is passed on than the knowledge is lost.

Because of this what few sources we have become precious. However, many of these sources describe supernatural events. The more militant atheists/secularists will automatically throw out any sources claiming that divine intervention caused an event (Though they are more forgiving of these sources if they are from religions that are no longer practiced). They are right to be skeptical, but to outright dismiss them because of this is faulty. This is where a trained historian is needed to examine documents such as these to ascertain the truth.

A Pseudo-historian will not question anything from these sources unless it does not support their conclusions.

It does not question its sources

This goes along very closely with treating myths and legends as literal truth. Though it’s not on the same scale as believing Beowulf is a literal work of history, historians need to be careful with all sources, especially ancient ones. Ancient sources are more likely to contain supernatural elements in them. The biggest reason to be careful of ancient sources is because it is hard to verify them. So few ancient cultures had writing systems, and even fewer have writings that have survived. There are so many stories of libraries being destroyed that it’s a wonder how any sources from ancient times have survived. One of the reasons we have been forced to accept ancient sources on face value for so long was because we had little else to go on. When the only stories about King David come from the Old Testament, it’s difficult to verify the validity of the account, or if the person even existed.

More militant academics have taken to discounting many ancient sources, simply because there are no other corroborating sources. This is something you should be wary of. Because there are no other sources telling the same stories doesn’t mean that you should ignore them. It just means you need to be careful and determine whether or not this story seems out of the blue for other stories from its region of the world, or if it conflicts with other corroborated sources.

It is used primarily for a political agenda

Have you ever read a history book and felt like the focus of it was to get across a political agenda rather than a historical survey? According to Robert Carroll this is a sure sign that something is Pseudo-History.

The first text that comes to mind when I think of history texts with a primarily political agenda is Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. Since its publication in 1980 it has become the standard for Marxist Historians, and in a not insignificant way, has become the orthodoxy of modern Academia. This is happening despite most objective reveiws of the text labeling it as unreliable history. However, because of the Marxist tendencies of much of Academia the book is treated with kids gloves, and even the Marxist Historians who view the book as bad history give it a positive review in order to promote the interpretation.

Is A People’s History of the United States a Pseudo-History? It’s easily arguable. Zinn himself said that the book was motivated more by politics than by historical accuracy. This particular instance is up for debate, but that’s the kind of thing you need to look for. Unfortunately it is difficult to parse. One man’s Pseudo-History is another man’s suppressed truth.

It Denies the existence of historical truth

This is where Pseudo-History begins to enter the realm of doublethink. For those who are unfamiliar with that concept, it’s when you hold two contradicting beliefs as equally true. What makes this doublethink is the Pseudo-Historian holding myths and legends to be true, while denying the existence of historical truth. This mindset is often justified by people claiming that because all sources are biased in one way or another, than no sources are completely reliable. This is true, but the Pseudo-Historian takes this one step further by accepting all of their own sources as true, while denying the validity of others, despite not believing in objective truth.

Histories should not be compared by traditional academic standards

What this means is that sources should be compared on moral and political truth rather than accuracy, probability, or consistency. Do you remember that scene from the third Indiana Jones movie when Indie talks to his class about Facts vs. Truth?

This is the issue here. Facts are not things that are discovered or created, they are simply acknowledged or denied. When you deny a fact you are incorrect. Facts are things that you cannot argue into or out of reality. Examples of facts: Water is wet, fire is hot. These two things cannot be reasoned out of existence. There is nothing to argue.

But truth is far more fluid. “God is Dead” or “God Exists” are statements of truth, which can be argued and reasoned, and whether they are true or false does not change reality. Water is no less wet if God exists or not, but non factual things, such as your view of human nature does change. Much of Pseudo-History is focused on moral and political truth, rather than on historical fact. They are trying to tell a narrative that matches a moral code, which may or may not be good fiction or life perspective, but it’s not good history.

Claims there is a conspiracy to cover up the real history

This is the be-all end-all root of all Pseudo-Historians. They always believe that there is a cover up of the truth by the powers that be. This is what makes most Pseudo-Historians fall within the realm of conspiracy theorists. The “Truth” is so obvious that the only possible reason people don’t know or believe their “Theory”, is because the powers that be don’t want people to know, usually for some kind of political or economic reason.

There have been histories and texts that have been suppressed by governments. The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn was actively suppressed by the government of the Soviet Union. The Truth About Muhammad by Robert Spencer, is still banned in Pakistan and most other Muslim majority countries. And India has banned Smash and Grab: The Annexation of Sikkhim by Sunanda Datta-Ray.

Like most of the criteria for what makes someone or something Pseudo-History there are circumstances when that particular characteristic is justified. The key is knowing when. With the cover up of history, most of these historical and current examples are done by governments for political reasons, which lines up with most cover up theories. It’s easy to dismiss the ones that talk about lizard people or major scientific or technological discoveries being hidden, but what about the ones that talk about covering up a mistake of the government? This is where things get tricky, and all we can do is hope that history trends toward facts and truth.

Originally published May 30, 2016

The Evolution of a Library

Recently I have been cataloging my personal home library, and in the process of doing so I’ve come across a lot of things I had forgotten were there. As a historian my library has changed a lot over the years. Books have come and gone out of my life, and far too many have come and gone without being read. I’m reminded of past projects I accomplished, past projects I attempted but gave up before finishing, and many projects that didn’t make it past the ‘buy a couple books on it’ phase. Having put some thought into it I think I have discovered why my library, and probably why many of your libraries, have changed over time.

Why Do I Have the Books I Have?

I love looking at book collections, especially ones that are not my own. It serves double duty as a kind of window shopping, but also as a window into who the owner is, or at least who they want, or at some point, wanted to be. The same, of course, can be said of my own library. I may not have read every book I own but I remember where I got it, and why I got it.

The better part of a decade ago I was more of a fiction writer. I was an active member of an online community, Alternatehistory.com. It was, and still is, the leading community driven website for self-published works of Alternate History. For those of you who might not be familiar, Alternate History is a genre of speculative fiction (usually placed in the Science Fiction/Fantasy section of bookstores) in which a writer explores what might have happened had something in the past happened differently. On AlternateHistory.com I wrote and read a number of these stories, or “timelines”, and in all of them you can tell if the person did more or less research into the subject, and the better ones usually had more research put into them. In my desire to write the next great alternate history story I bought many books with the intent of using them as research material to give greater historical context to my work of fiction. However, most of these story/timeline ideas never got past that ‘buy a couple books on it’ phase, and the remnants of these aborted projects can be found scattered around my library. 

Along the same lines as writing Alternate History stories a good number of books were also acquired for use in making videos for the YouTube channel, or for use in one of my podcasts. I have a sizeable Middle East history section, most of which was acquired with the intent to use in my narrative history podcast, History of the Modern Middle East. Most of them haven’t been used in the podcast, or even a video yet, but I have far more confidence in my intent to actually use them than most of my library. I’m less confident, though, in books I acquired for making videos, especially ones I procured a long time ago. More recent acquisitions intended for videos tend to get used, because I bought them for a project I’m working on now. The only problem with many of these books, however, is that they have not much use after I’m finished. So at least I can say that some books were used to their fullest intent. 

While the books in my library are a kind of momento to past and current ambitions, the size of it tends to reflect how I’m feeling right now. 

Does Size Matter?

Over the years my library has gone through periods of expansion and shrinkage, and these different states of my library have a tendency to reflect how I’m feeling about life at the time.

When my library is smaller for a prolonged period of time it usually means I’m anxious in some way. These times are usually marked by me going through my library and finding books I can take to my local used book store or Goodwill, along with a greater usage and purchase of digital books. Both of these habits are an attempt at downsizing the number of my physical possessions. Sometimes I feel uncomfortable with how many items I have just littering my home. Unfortunately this oftens has to do with the desire to make room for potential future acquisitions. However, it is just as frequently about me wanting to, or thinking about, making a big change in my life. Sometimes this is about changing jobs, or perhaps living situations, even if neither are realistically in the cards. In times like this, having fewer possessions is relieving, as though there are fewer things holding you back. But there are also times, like now, that my library is expanding.

Currently my library has expanded beyond the ability of my bookcases to accommodate it in a clear manner. I have observed two reasons why my library expands. One is my feelings toward the reliability of digital books. I was an early adopter of the Nook, Barnes & Noble’s e-reader tablet. I have multiple tablets and e-readers, all of them purchased from my local Barnes & Noble store. However in the last year or so there were rumors of Barnes & Noble discontinuing the Nook hardware, and although this wouldn’t have impacted my ability to access all the books I had purchased through the nook, it did foster feelings of uncertainty. On top of that there are also concerns over the legal status of E-Books, that being when you purchase one you aren’t actually purchasing the book, but rather the right to read that file. These types of concerns can lead me to expanding my physical library, however that is not the reason I do so now. 

The bigger reason for me preferring hard copy versions of books now is how I do research. Before now, and unfortunately during school, I didn’t put nearly as much time into researching for papers, podcasts, or videos as I do now. For school I had the tendency to do more precise strikes when writing papers. I used the index in the back of books to find specific information to support a predetermined conclusion, and that was for school. When it came to videos I simply consumed a lot of information, and then wrote a script from memory, or sometimes I had the wikipedia page for a subject opened. However late last year (2018) I began to change how I did my research. I began to read entire books, and take notes on what I was reading. Groundbreaking stuff, I know. The style of note taking I do now thrives on physical books, but how I take those notes is another issue entirely. 

How I Take Notes

I was never a good note taker in school, and I justified not taking notes while reading on my own because I was so certain that I was more of an “auditory learner” and therefore didn’t need to take notes. I wasn’t entirely wrong, but I wasn’t as good at memorizing all the information I needed as I assured myself, and did above average in school despite that. Starting with my video on Holocaust Denial, however, I began to take notes on what I read, and starting with the Exodus video I started keeping proper citations. This has changed my relationship with physical books. Around my office there are stacks of books with notepads on top or bottom of them; each stack representing a different project. 

I will go into my local Starbucks with a book and a notepad and take notes for several hours before leaving. I find taking notes on physical paper while reading a physical book to be the easiest for me. When I’m reading on a tablet or my laptop I can get distracted with all the not-reading I can do. But when I’m stuck with just a book, a pen, and a pad of paper I can focus on reading and taking notes, and enter into a kind of flow state, getting way more done than would normally be expected. How I take notes for podcasts is similar, but without the notepad. 

When reading for Podcasts I use these multi-colored tabs instead of a pad of paper. On each tab there is something from the paragraph I read that I was to emphasize, but the reason I do this instead of taking notes is because when writing podcasts I try to be expansionary because I don’t have to edit visuals. In contrast when taking notes for videos I try to summarize the information more, with a spattering of direct quotes. When writing a video script I try to minimize it because, quite frankly, making videos is more work than podcasts. So on top of the stacks of books and notepads for video projects, you’ll also find a stack of books with these colored tabs sticking out.

Conclusion

My library reflects who I am, who I was, who I want, or wanted, to be. Whether is bigger or smaller, filled with books I will never read, or ones that I will never read again, it will continue to be the staple of this historian’s work. 

Originally published on May 9, 2019

Learning from History

Can people actually learn from history?

“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

George Santayana

“Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”

Winston Churchill 

“Human nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us therefore study the incidents in this as philosophy to learn wisdom from and none of them as wrongs to be avenged.”

Abraham Lincoln

“In history, a great volume is unrolled for our instruction, drawing the materials of future wisdom from the past errors and infirmities of mankind.”

Edmund Burke

This idea has been repeated so many times It’s become cliché. Yet everytime we study history we come across someone, in particular someone in a position of power, that failed to learn from history and consequently made a huge mistake. Whether it be Hitler invading Russia in Winter, The US invading Afghanistan, or the American public with post 1996 Adam Sandler movies, we as humans, or at least those who are in positions of power, never seem to learn from history. But why is this?

Perhaps we are incapable. Some people are a bit more cynical about the human ability to learn from history.

“We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”

George Bernard Shaw 

“Rulers, Statesmen, Nations, are wont to be emphatically commended to the teaching which experience offers in history. But what experience and history teach is this – that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it. Each period is involved in such peculiar circumstances, exhibits a condition of things so strictly idiosyncratic, that its conduct must be regulated by considerations connected with itself, and itself alone.”

G. W. F. Hegel 

These sayings about history all come from what seems to be a universally acknowledged truth that history repeats itself. Which leads me to think that this saying would not have come about if people were capable of learning from history. However I would be careful of following this chain of logic too far because it takes you down a rabbit hole of existential dread. I think people are capable of learning from history, but on an individual level.

When we think of history we tend to think of it on a large scale. We think of the history of groups, be they an ethnic group, a religion, a nation, or a civilization. When we do look at the history of individuals they tend to be larger than life individuals. The so-called “Great Men” of history. Julius Caesar, Henry the 8th, Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Steve Jobs. And this is done with the best of intentions. I’m not going to write a dissertation about the influence my second grade teacher has had on the world because in the grand scheme of things it appears that her influence is very little.

I would say that we can learn from history, but it’s a much smaller scale of history. The history of individuals, be they ourselves or someone else. Basically the concept of learning from one’s mistakes is, in fact, learning from history. So why does it seem that world leaders don’t learn from history? Though nothing can be said for certain about the motives of leaders I conjecture it has to do with the dueling forces of certain persons or groups wanting things to stay the same and those believing that the future will be completely different.

Political forces in our world either want things to stay as they are or to change. Now whether either of these forces is good doesn’t matter to the grand scheme of this idea. Many of those making decisions or advising those who do want change will point out how different their idea is from what was done in the past. Or those who don’t want change will use the examples of past mistakes to rule out any potential new ideas.There is also the very good point that people a 100 years ago would not have predicted what the world looks like today. And yet when we look back at that 100 years we see very common themes that have been seen before, just with different names attached.

In my own studies I have adopted what I like to call the Mark Twain philosophy of history.

“History does not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.” 

History is the collective result of individual actions. The study of human interactions is Sociology. Both are considered soft sciences, as in you cannot measure them. This is an important distinction between history/sociology and something like engineering. In the hard sciences you can replicate a scenario and it will give the same results every time. But humans are different. We change our behavior based on our knowledge, or at least our perception of it. Because of this history can never repeat itself, or at least in the same way. A chemical reaction will repeat itself over and over because chemicals don’t learn. The number of variables in a human situation are incalculable and irreplicable.

This may seem like I’m pointing something out that is stupidly obvious but understanding this is important to understanding humans and the ability to learn from history. Because humans have memories, we change our behavior. Because we change our behavior nothing can be exactly replicated. And because no situation can be exactly replicated, that means we can’t perfectly learn from history. That is the heart of the Mark Twain quote, history can’t repeat itself, but it does look familiar. This means present day situations look similar to events of the past, but still have those incalculable and irreplicable differences that make it impossible to use history as a perfect guide.

So perhaps we should not be so harsh on those who fail to learn from history if for no other reason that it is impossible to perfectly do so. During each present moment we act according to what we think should have been done before. Because of this we as humans will always be a step behind the best possible action. So maybe we accept another universal truth, “to err is human”

Originally Published on July 10, 2015