In the introduction to his new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, Al Gore posits two questions that a hypothetical future generation could ask when looking back at this first decade of the 21^st-century:

Not too many years from now, a new generation will look back at us in this hour of choosing and ask one of two questions. Either they will ask, “What were you thinking? Didn’t you see the entire North Polar ice cap melting before your eyes? Did you not care?”

Or they will ask instead, “How did you find the moral courage to rise up and solve a crisis so many said was impossible to solve?”

Very touching, but a false dichotomy nonetheless.  There’s a third question, and I think it’s the more likely one.  Not “what were you thinking?”, but:

Were you thinking at all?

The age of “going green” could just as easily be remembered as a time of mass public hysteria.

(After all, it wasn’t so long ago that “global warming” was the scare term of choice, not the more ambiguous “climate change.”  The alteration of terminology was so subtle, I hardly even noticed it.)

There’s been a lot of talk recently about Climategate, the incident and outrage surrounding the Climactic Research Unit’s emails (revealed in November when the CRU’s server was hacked).  Some of the emails’ content suggests that climate change research has been/is being manipulated to produce more shocking “evidence” of radical warming.  Some of the more infamous excerpts:

Phil Jones, Nov. 1999

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Phile Jones again, 2004

“The other paper by MM is just garbage. [...] I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

And very recently, Kevin Trenberth in Oct 2009

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

But it isn’t just lack of evidence of global warming at the moment that’s a problem in maintaining the climate change orthodoxy.  There are a couple troubling historical trends that prove problematic as well: there’s called the Little Ice Age, and the Medieval Warming Period.

Around 800 CE, the North Atlantic region of the world experienced radical climate change—a warm spell that lasted approximately 400 years.  Financial Post writes:

The Medieval Warm Period, which followed the meanness and cold of the Dark Ages, was a great time in human history — it allowed humans around the world to bask in a glorious warmth that vastly improved agriculture, increased life spans and otherwise bettered the human condition.

As one example, the Vikings took advantage of the newly ice-free seas to establish a colony on the island of Greenland during this period.

And after the 400 years of the MWP came the LIA (Little Ice Age), during which the Atlantic pack ice began to expand, warm European summers became more erratic, and crop failures led to the Great Famine of 1315-1317 all throughout Europe.  The catastrophic nature of the events led many to think the Apocalypse had come (sound familiar?).  The population explosion of the MWP came to a screeching halt as starvation killed thousands—and weakened a populace that would be hit by the Black Plague in just a few decades.

The Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age proved a problem for modern climate change researchers as well—by providing a precedent for radical warming and cooling periods (and I don’t believe it was CO2 emissions driving global warming of the 800s), history challenged the established position that (one) we’re living in the warmest times on record and (two) this climate change must be human-caused.

How to fix this?  Change history.

This week the Financial Post ran an article on William Connolley, U.K. scientist and Green Party activist who served as a one-man Minitrue for the climate change backers.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site.

He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph.

He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

In the end, Connolley re-wrote over 5,000 Wikipedia articles.  But let’s give a round of applause for computer hackers (and historians, for that matter).

With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

For political ends, some scientists—the people we’re supposed to be able to count on to search out the truth—attempted to erase history.  This (not any of Al Gore’s fear-mongering) is what I’m ashamed future generations will have to learn about the first decade of the 21^st century.

I was reading the Maclean’s from a couple of weeks ago and came across an article about P.D. James and her latest book, a memoir of sorts about her experience as a mystery writer. I love mysteries – reading them, solving them and writing them. When you get right down to it – what is history but a mystery? Historians try to reconstruct the scene of a time, an event or a person. They sift through clues – written notes from the battlefield, a person’s journal, what other historian’s say about them. They trace down all the sources by going through the bibliographies looking for new information, new interpretations. All this reading, digging and research – it is what a detective does. Like a detective, good historians go to the scene of the crime, scan the landscape for clues, maybe do a little digging (otherwise known as the practice of archaeology). Why else would one spend days in archives, going through old newspapers on microfilm, gently sifting through original papers? Historians like detectives are in search of a clue, that one sliver of information that will shed new light on an old conundrum. The most mysterious thing to me is how so many people assume history is boring. The blame for this widespread misconception I lay at the feet of overworked, unimaginative history teachers who are chained to curriculum. History, like mysteries, can be quite addictive and entertaining.

When I write fiction, it inevitably boils down to a mystery, often inspired by history. I like the genre and like P.D. James I like the structure.  I love the search for the answer – when I write I have no idea how it is going to end and love the surprises that pop up along the way. By the time I get to the end of my first draft, it is like reading a book – I don’t know the end till I get there. It’s the editing that is fun. Now that I know the ending, I go back and tighten up the story, throw in the red herrings and slash the stuff that doesn’t belong. And I fall in love with the story, the characters and the mystery all over again.  The first time I completed a mystery novel, I was amazed – editing felt like cheating. I guess I naively assumed that mystery writers  just wrote out the story and all those cool twists and turns came out with the first draft. Then I discovered as a novelist I could add those cool twists in after and smooth it out so it flows. So much of writing history is linear but writing mysteries allows you to twist and swerve. How much fun is that.

Every year since I’ve become politically cognizant it seems I’ve had to endure people bickering about the ‘controversy’ over Christmas. Is it a war on Christmas, as right-wing TV and radio hosts purport? Is it offensive to say “Happy Holidays” or “Season’s Greetings” as opposed to “Merry Christmas?” Is being inclusive and saying “Happy Hanukkah,” “Happy Kwanzaa,” etc. a slippery slope? Is it hypocritical at best, politically or ethically untenable at worst, for non-theists to celebrate Christmas? Some non-theists don’t celebrate Christmas because of its religious connotations, and some theists think that non-Christians shouldn’t celebrate Christmas. It’s a whole, annoying bog.

The fact is that all of the alleged controversy can be rendered irrelevant by accepting that Christmas has become largely a secular holiday.

Out of the gate let me say that of course there is certainly a contingent of religious people for whom December 25^th is the birthday of Jesus Christ, and who celebrate the date as such. But generally the majority in the world who celebrate Christmas—even in countries with very few Christians—celebrate it as a secular tradition rather than a religious one.

Christmas is mostly about giving and receiving presents, eating a lot of food, getting shmammered, attending parties, and spending time with family and friends. For some, it is about all of these things and attending church. (Although in my experience I’ve found that many of the Christmas church-goers attend more out of habit, tradition, or ‘keeping up appearances’ than to worship a god. In many cases, the folks who attend mass on Christmas only go to church once or twice a year—the other being Easter.)

If the devoutly religious want Christmas to be purely about religion, then they must eschew all of the other Christmas traditions: gifts, food, lights, trees, etc. If they don’t and yet still complain about the secular ‘co-opting’ of Christmas, then they are nothing more than hypocrites.

But what is Christmas, anyway? Is it historically a purely religious, Christian celebration?

If it is true that Jesus were a real historical figure, it is the consensus of most historians and theologians based on available evidence that December 25^th was not the actual date of his birth. (Most accounts place it in the spring.) December 25^th was originally a Roman winter solstice festival known as Sol Invictus, which celebrated the “rebirth” of the Sun; several Sun gods were worshipped, including Sol and Mithras. Because it was already such a popular pagan holiday, it was claimed as the birthday of Jesus. Even so, celebrating the birth of Jesus was condemned and looked down upon by Christians for most of history, and Christians didn’t start celebrating Christmas as we know it until the 1800s.

The gift-giving part of Christmas—some would say the #1 Christmas tradition—was actually introduced long after the Church decided to celebrate the birth of Jesus. The tradition does not derive from the three wise men in the bible, as many believe. In fact, gift exchange derived from Saturnalia, a popular Roman holiday dating to 217 BCE that celebrated the god Saturn. Saturnalia involved sacrifices, a school holiday, and, yes, the exchange of gifts.

Even if we grant the war-on-Christmas types the two lies they claim as truth (that Jesus was born on December 25^th and that the gift-exchange tradition comes from the three wise men), I wonder how Jesus would feel about people celebrating his birth by literally trampling each other to death in a Walmart in order to buy the $450 video game on sale for $350.

As for that exalted symbol the Christmas tree—it is a tradition that dates to 16^th century Germany. It was considered good luck to hang an evergreen at the apex of a house, and over time this morphed into having the tree inside and decorating it. The tradition immigrated to North America along with the Germans.

Traditions are what society is based on, no matter where you live in the world or what your society looks like. Traditions are mostly benign. They are also malleable and tend to change over time. And generally society changes with them. We celebrate Halloween: kids dress up in costumes and beg for candy door to door; adults dress up in costumes and parade and/or party. We do not celebrate the Celtic festival Samhain, from which Halloween is derived, warding off evil spirits by disguising ourselves as them, or slaughtering livestock and casting their bones into bonfires. (At least I hope we don’t!)

Christmas may have meant one thing once upon a time, but now it means something different. No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus, but we can still celebrate Christmas. Even the non-religious can celebrate Christmas because it’s about tradition, merriment, nostalgia, and making new memories. It’s an excuse to get together with family and friends we don’t see very often. It’s fun to see the excitement and awe in children’s eyes. The food, candy, and chocolate are great and some people even like Christmas music. The sweaters are mostly bad, and feelings about egg nog are split.

As for me, I have grown increasingly weary of Christmas. It seems the magic goes out of it when you’re no longer a child and don’t have children in your life. But it’s the crass commercialism and pure gaudiness that I abhor more than anything. (But if that doesn’t bother you and you still have some names to cross off your shopping list, may I suggest The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas, edited by the brain behind the atheist bus campaign, Ariane Sherine.)

Christmas is no Halloween, but if I remove the religiosity and the crass commercialism, it’s a pretty nice holiday. For whatever reason The Sound of Music is always on TV this time of the year, and that’s enough for me.

So Merry Christmas, Happy Festivus, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Human Rights Day, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy New Year, Happy Omisoka, Happy St. Lucia Day, Happy Winter Solstice, Merry X-mas …and Happy any-other-December-holiday-you-may-celebrate-that-I-may-have-inadvertently-left-out!

A few quotations from well-known scientists, skeptics, and atheists on this subject:

“But of course it has long since ceased to be a religious festival. I participate for family reasons, with a reluctance that owes more to aesthetics than atheistics. I detest Jingle Bells, White Christmas, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, and the obscene spending bonanza that nowadays seems to occupy not just December, but November and much of October, too. So divorced has Christmas become from religion that I find no necessity to bother with euphemisms such as happy holiday season. In the same way as many of my friends call themselves Jewish atheists, I acknowledge that I come from Christian cultural roots. I am a post-Christian atheist. So, understanding full well that the phrase retains zero religious significance, I unhesitatingly wish everyone a Merry Christmas.” – Richard Dawkins

“It seems to me to be obvious that everything we value in Christmas—giving gifts, celebrating the holiday with our families, enjoying all of the kitsch that comes along with it—all of that has been entirely appropriated by the secular world.” – Sam Harris

“My personal war on Christmas is fought in a way the Bill O’Reillys of the world don’t even recognize: I blithely wish people a Merry Christmas without so much as a germ of religious reverence anywhere in my body. I take this holiday and turn it into a purely secular event, with family and friends and food and presents. I celebrate the season without thought of Jesus or any of the other myths so precious to the pious idiots who get upset when a Walmart gives them a cheery ‘Happy Holidays!’” – PZ Meyers

The Murphy report allows people to say openly what they knew already, that child sexual abuse was endemic in the Dublin archdiocese and that successive archbishops before the arrival of Diarmuid Martin systematically connived at covering it up.

Another fact which has nowcome into the public domain is that Archbishops McQuaid, Ryan, McNamara and Connell were out and out hypocrites, telling the people of Ireland what they could do, believe and read in the name of a religion whose tenets they were flouting.

McQuaid was a particularly egregious monster who sought to destroy many lives and reputations. But he was viewed as almost saint-like admiration by former bishop of Kilmore, Fracis McKiernan, a man who had a lot to answer for when it came to covering up the sins of errant priests on hiw watch. But McKiernan was such a great man and a historian of note. He was when he was alive the world’s expert on the O’Reilly clan. When a man sought the assistance of a certain research officer on a roject he was compiling about an O’Reilly of the late seventeenth century he received a reply stating the research officer’s complete ignorance of the O’Reilly involved – strange as the research officer is supposed to be an expert on the seventeenth century – and that sadly the person who would have known all about him – Dr Franbcis McKiernan –  had taken his profund intelligence on the subject to his grave.

I don’t think it is unfair to say that reports similar to the Murphy inquiryt, which would be esqually shocking to the public and embarassing to the Catholic church, could be compiled in most of the country’s dioceses. But then many of the bishops who could be castigated were only following Vatican instructions on pushing the whole thing under the carpet. Any problems were to be deakt with by one person in the Vatican, the former Nazi Joseph Ratzinger, currently the rather reticent Pope Benedict.

From my book CHILDHOOD MEMOIRS

SARASWATY- MYTH OR REALITY?

 The study of subterranean water channels (SWC)

 According to Hindu mythology Ganga, Yamuna and the underground Saraswaty meet at the holy Sangam at Allahabad. We tend to dismiss Saraswaty as just a myth, but invariably myth is based on some facts and are unraveled by historians. Remains of Dwaraka city have been recently discovered under the sea. Such instances are numerous.

 G. T. Vigne, Esq. F.G.S. who traveled in Kashmir and Ladak in 1830’s describes how the river Burengi goes underground near Shahbad and resurfaces at a point downstream:

 ”The Burengi river, after flowing for some distance under the bank, suddenly disappears beneath the ground. It first loses a portion of its water in numerous little whirlpools, that are seen in full play amongst the rounded stones in its bed; and all that escapes absorption in that place pursues its course for a little farther, where it suddenly disappears through the bottom of a large fissure, formed by the almost perpendicular position of the limestone strata, and nearly large enough to allow a man on horseback to sit upright in it. The natives say that the spring of Achibul, or Yech-I-bul, is but the reappearance of the river Burengi. Probability is strongly in favour of this theory. Walnut-shells that have been thrown in it in Burengi are said to have reappeared at Achibul; and the direction thus ascribed to the river is much the same, as it would have followed on the surface. The greater proportion, however, of the water of the Burengi river has been preserved from submersion, by a canal cut by one of the Mogul Emperors, by which it sinks, to some distance below it, and its waters are used for irrigating purposes.”

 Whirlpools are said to be common in the Ganga. These indicate vertical downward movement of water into a hole, somewhat similar to the movement of cyclones, but in the reverse direction. Water may thus enter even a subterranean channel inside the rock structure below the soil surface and re-emerge at unexpected points as springs which are quite wide spread and have attracted the attention of geographers from early 19th century. In the islands of Malta the inhabitants depend upon springs in the absence of wells. Springs are common in Europe and even in deserts. Hot springs of Iceland are famous from time immemorial.

 G.T. Vigne, Esq. F.G.S. has described a dozen springs in Kashmir and one hot spring even near a glacier in Ladak. Apart from the hot springs of Yamunotry, Gourikund and Badarinath, very little is known about the springs in the Himalayan region. It is desirable to have a compendium of springs in the whole of India showing particulars of:

1. Location.

2. Temperature.

3. Flow per second.

4. Perennial or seasonal.

5. Pure or containing minerals (analysis to be given).

 District collectors and other officials can help in collecting information regarding location of springs from the local people.

 Such information will help in understanding and mapping the SWCs.

 Water vents were discovered right at the bottom of the seas in 1976, of which early sailors were aware on account of the tremendous force with which the water flows upward and may even overturn vessels.

 If we imagine the earth without oceans and sands and surface soil, what is left will consist of continuous rock structure, extending from top of huge mountains to the bottom of deep oceans. The rock is porous and permeable. Water interacts with chemicals in the rock and dissolves them. Ice cracks up crevices and certain roots dissolve rocks, and, in millions of years, a whole network of channels are formed, filled with water. The total water content of SWCs is estimated to be thousands of times higher than the water content of all surface channels such as rivers, streams etc put -together.

 Unfortunately, very little is known and recorded about SWCs. Just as the rivers have been explored by geographers, SWCs too require concerted study by a group comprising experts from geology, hydrology, and oceanography, apart from geography, to determine their origin, route, and destination. After obtaining a three dimensional map of SWCs, it maybe possible to:

1.  Block a SWC at a suitable point and connect it to a stagnant lake to make it alive.

2.  Connect SWC reservoir to a dry river to augment the flow.

3.  Pump out the water from SWC for irrigation purposes or drinking.

This way, we can release pressure from the rock system,  to reduce the intensity of earthquakes.

 Even if no commercial exploitation is feasible, it is necessary to study SWCs for the sake of our knowledge. If millions of dollars can be spent, to study water in the Mars, should SWCs remain unexplored for want of money?

 What is the relevance of river Saraswati in this study?

 Considering the similarity in the source of Ganga and Yamuna, in glaciers of Himalayas, it is highly surprising that there is very little flow in the Yamuna. It is also noteworthy that at Sangam, the Ganga is clear whereas Yamuna is turbid. If the water of Yamuna goes underground to join SWCs which open at Sangam, the absence of water in the river and turbidity of the Yamuna at Sangam can be explained.

There is also the possibility that,  a part of the Alaknanda river goes underground, at the Mana pass. The guide actually shows the spot, I am told.

Some days are memorable. September 11, 2001 is one of them.  Everyone knows where they were and what they were doing during the hours the planes hit the World Trade Center. But before what is now known as Patriot Day, there was December 7, 1941 –Remembrance Day.

Frankin Roosevelt called it a “date that will live in infamy”.  The aerial sneak attack one early Sunday morning on a sleepy Hawaii  launched the participation of the United States in World War II.

What comes to my mind when I think of that day, however, is not the events but a professor I had at the University of Maryland who taught about it.  Gordon Prange was the best teacher  I ever had. I took at least two of his courses and could have lapped up more.  He was what a teacher should be, fun and inspiring.  As a teacher I wish I was like him.

Students obviously felt comfortable in his class. During one course on the origins of World War II a couple fellows came dressed in German war gear. He made a point of acknowledging them in a fun way.

He unfortunately died in 1980, a few years after I left College Park.  He left reams of research which a couple of his colleagues turned into best-selling books. One of them, “At Dawn We Slept”, a documentation of Pearl Harbor, I bought new for my brother.  He received a history degree from Maryland.  On Christmas morning I was finishing it up before I drove to his place to present it. It wasn’t “new” anymore as I had wolfed down its pages.

I am not his only fan. Years ago I heard a call-in radio program discussing his work. I made a point of calling in and mentioning how much I admired him.   

Any student of history will enjoy reading his books. A well-known movie was also produced as a result of it (“Tora, Tora, Tora.”) Happy Remembrance Day Professor Prange.

Dennis Allsopp

Dennis Allsopp (Author of Genota and Genota Forms) was visiting Johannesburg, so I dropped in to see him and we had an interesting chat.

We chatted about software for genealogists and family historians, and three topics in particular:

1. The need for an event-based database program for genealogists, historians, biographers etc.
2. Dennis’s own genealogy research programs, Genota and Genota Forms
3. Old utility programs for which there are no modern equivalents.

As a result, I’ve uploaded a few of the old utilities to the website of the genealogy software forum, in the hope that they may inspire some enterprising hackers to reverse engineer them for modern hardware and software.

There were programs called Nameview and Namedrop that scanned BBS messages for things like surnames of interest, and manipulated those messages to collect them. They worked with Fido Technology Networks, but no one seems to have written an equivalent that works with mailing lists, newsgroups, or web forums.

There were also utility programs that took data from genealogy programs (mainly PAF 2.x) and printed family grtoup sheets on 3×5 or 4×6 cards.

That is FAR more useful than the stupid trick of software developers who tried to make a computer screen look like a card index, which had all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of the cards themselves.

But those utilities were written in DOS, and modern printers don’t work with DOS. So the utilities need to be rewritten to use modern programs and modern hardware.

There was the Tiny Tafel Generator — which not only developed but matched Tiny Tafels. Trouble is, it was written in Turbo Pascal, which doesn’t work on fast machines. You need a slow processor for it to run, under 500 Mhz, I think.

There are a few more there — back in the old days we may have had less than we do now, but very often we could do more with the less we had. So I’m hoping some hackers will have a look at them, and see if they can reverse engineer them to produce new versions.

But the main thing we chatted about was the need for an event-based program to be used as a research tool, not only for genealogists and family historians, but also for general historians, biographers and others. It would differ from lineage-linked genealogy programs in that it would not only include people that were relatives, but friends and acquaintaces, work colleagues, and even enemies. It would be a useful tool for a biographer trying to keep track of  the events in the life of their subject, or for someone writing general history.

The basic outline of the program would look something like this:

Outline for an event-tracking program

Dennis introduced me to a rather nice mind-mapping and concept-mapping program called VUE (Visual Understanding Environment) which drew the above diagram (he has a far better drawing of it), and shows how the various parts of the program would relate to each other.

The main part of the database would be a chronological list of events, and people and organisations assocated with this events. The organisations could be both formal and informal groups — a political party, church, club, school, hospital, business firm, trade union, family or any other human group.

The “people” part would not only be for family members, as one finds in lineage-linked genealogy programs, but for non-related people, like friends, work colleagues, teachers, pupils, godparents, acquaintances and so on. Perhaps it could also be useful in testing theories of six degrees of relationship — that we are only six degrees of relationshop away from knowing everyone else on earth, and that my wife’s boss’s godmother’s cousin’s penfriend’s vet knows me.

One reason for posting this is to try to find out if there are any others who think that and event-tracking and chronology program would be useful, and if so, what you would like it to be able to do.

This blog was announced today on H-Business.

“The blog is called “In the Service of Clio” and is an extended discussion about career management issues early in your scholarly career as a historian. The individual running the website is Nicholas Evan Sarantakes, a professor of strategy at the Naval War College. The blog often features guest contributions from other historians. Previous essays have focused on the admissions process into grad school, strategies on how to get published, and what makes for a good dissertation. The blog is currently running a series of essays from history Ph.D.s who are using their degrees outside of the normal history department where everyone expects to find employment immediately after grad school. These essays have include topics like: teaching at the service academies, working at community colleges, and being a historian for the U.S. government, just to name a few. The blog is intended for grad students and newly minted Ph.D.s but I highly recommend it for all.”

Living History 14th Rhode Island Reenactor Program

Rob Goldman founded Living History, incorporated in October 2002. This past October his organization was selected as this year’s winner of the Tom Roberts Prize for Creative Achievement in the Humanities. Goldman lives in Elmwood, but has a particular interest in Dexter Field and the Cranston Armory on the WestSide.

How did Living History get its start?
I had been a the treasurer (and de facto development person) for Co. A 54th Massachusetts/Glory Brigade from 1994 to 2001. We (the 54th) had worked with Cathedral and English High Schools and the Timility Middle School bringing some of their students into re-enacating. At one point we had a program which was funded with left-over City of Boston summer youth  jobs money. This program was a collaboration with the National Park Service. When I moved to Providence I wanted to do something similar.

What’s the purpose of Living History?
We engage high school students in civic responsibility through  re-enacting. We launch them into careers in history and preservation. We educate the public about the role of African Americans in the Civil War.

Students are trained to become soldiers in the 14th Regiment Rhode Island Heavy Artillery (Colored). They learn about the material culture of the Black Civil War soldier. They receive additional training in historic interpretation which, includes research and media skills. Some students are placed in  internships with history and preservation organizations such as the National Park Service, Coggeshall Museum Farm, Tennis  Hall of Fame, Newport Collaborative Architects, and Providence Revolving Fund.

What are the three resources you need most to succeed?
Money, money, and money. Other than that we need a space in the Cranston Street Armory. This goal has been long sought after and frustratingly denied. The original 14th was trained on Dexter Field. [To offer donations or assistance, contact Goldman at RKGoldman@juno.com]

Who is involved in Living History? Why do students participate?
Living History has an Advisory Board of 5 people. There are 3 adult re-enactor volunteers who help with trips and encampments. There are 19 students enlisted as of 11/22/09. All but one student is from the Met High School.

Students join because: “It’s cool.”, “It’s bangin’ fun.” “My friend told me about it.” “I like history.” “I get to go on trips.”

Met students earn academic credit for participating. Service in the 14th provides them with required internships and real-world learning experiences. It also helps them fulfill community service requirements. There is an important career focus to the program which attracts kids and staff.

What’s your connection to the WestSide?
We used Dexter Field this summer for our Summer Youth Employment Program on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

We can’t get into the Armory! Arrrrrghghghghgh! The State Fire Marshall has it pretty well locked up. The State Properties Committee has refused to let us use the place three times. They won’t even let us make a presentation to them. They say we’re not a state agency and therefore can not submit an application to them.  We ARE a state agency. The 14th is an official Historic Command under the Adjutant General of Rhode Island.

As stated above, Dexter Field was the training camp for the 14th RI in 1863-64.

Can spectators attend? If so, what’s this year’s schedule?
Our public programs are high participatory. We’re all about interacting with the public, especially young people. Our schedule is posted on our website.

What future plans do you have that would affect the WestSide?
We expect to be back on Dexter Field in the summer of 2010. The Armory? I’m not giving up.

Pitching tents on Dexter Field.

The Danish People’s Party (DF) has strengthened its immigration stance by securing an agreement to pay ‘anti-social’ foreigners 100,000 kroner to leave Denmark. Refugees and those who come to Denmark under family reunification schemes currently get 28,256 in repatriation support if they leave, of which 11,000 is a bonus. The bonus is usually paid out a year after the recipient returns home and their right to Danish residency expires.

Neither the government nor DF has yet elaborated on what constitutes an ‘anti-social’ foreigner, but have said that it would be aimed at those who ‘can’t or won’t integrate’. (via Foreigners to get 100,000 kroner incentive to leave Denmark).

Not the first … not the last time

Its not just the Danes. The French feel let down because “immigrants were supposed to blend harmoniously into society and not exist in separate communities” – and they did not.

Behind this is a centuries old accepted political principle, a ’settled’ principle in the Desert Bloc – ‘Cuius regio, eius religio’ (meaning whose land, his religion; CRER) – the ruler decided his people’s religion.

After the Fourth Crusade (1202–1204), Vatican invoked the CRER principle (‘Cuius regio, eius religio’) during its brief rule over the Byzantine Empire to reject religious objections by the Byzantine subjects. Post Hussite Wars and the ‘Reformation’, establishing the CRER principle to settle Germany, giving rise to the logic of ‘ubi unus dominus, ibi una sit religio’ (One ruler, one religion). Just in case someone had religious disagreement, the logic was they could well emigrate – (ius emigrandi).

As the 19th century progressed, slave revolts made slavery impractical. Faced with a reality of ‘warm-bodies-shortage’, ‘liberalism’, ’secular’ Governments, Marxism, Socialism et al were invented in the 19th century. It is this principle which accounts for the low levels of diversity in the West – and which also accounts for the shrillness with which the West proclaims it ‘liberalism’ – facts being otherwise.

Melting pot vs Mosaic patterns

The need for ‘integration’, the concerns over the slow ‘assimilation’ of the Mexicans in the American melting pot, the Islamo-phobia, the Compulsive Jihadic Syndrome, are all sides of the same cube. The schizophrenic Christian aggression in India combined with hysterical protests against any backlash are symptoms of the same ideological thread.

While the West talks about the respect for the individual, facts are otherwise. Similarly, expatriate populations in the Middle East have to live with disrespect and intolerance of non-Islamic religions.

Lowest diversity vs. Biggest talk

The West today has the lowest levels of ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity – and persecutes whatever little is left, like the Roma Gypsies for example. Would critics like to mention any other country, where such a large minority Muslim population, has greater freedom and opportunity, than in India? Would you like to suggest France instead?

In the thrall of One

The Western concept of nation building requires the cornerstones of Desert Bloc – One God, One Book, One Holy Day, One Prophet (Messiah), One Race, One People, One Country, One Authority, One Law, One Currency, One Set of Festivals. This tyranny of the ‘One’ is the root of most problems in the world. From this ‘Oneness’, we get the ‘One’ Currency, ‘One’ Language logic  – a fallacious syllogism. Once you accept ‘One’, you will accept all others.

The Indic model

Unlike the Indian social system, where differences are respected and encouraged, the position of the French Government, paraphrases the thinking of the ‘desert bloc’. Indians believe that all are वासुदेवाय कुटुम्बकम ‘vasudevaih kutumbakam’ and ईसा वास्यो मिदं सर्वं ‘isa vaasyo midam sarvam’ (meaning we are all God’s family and God is in everyone and everywhere respectively).

The principle of Cuius regio, eius religio provided for internal religious unity within a state: The religion of the prince became the religion of the state and all its inhabitants. Those inhabitants who could not conform to the prince’s religion were allowed to leave, an innovative idea in the 16th century. The phrase cuius regio, eius religio as applied to the outcome is attributed to the early seventeenth century (1612, by the jurist Joachim Stephani (1544-1623) of the University of Greifswald[9]). (via Cuius regio, eius religio: Information from Answers.com).

After war … peace

All immigrants who do not ‘fit in’ or  who don’t ‘integrate’ into the Danish ‘community’, it was decided recently, will get an incentive of 100,000 kroner. By the Danish Government, to go back to their home countries. The ‘fitting in’ and ‘integrating’ refers to Muslims in Denmark.

The Danes are not alone. The French feel let down because “immigrants were supposed to blend harmoniously into society and not exist in separate communities.”

For centuries, the settled principle in the Desert Bloc was ‘Cuius regio, eius religio’ (meaning whose land, his religion; CRER) – the ruler decided his people’s religion.

After the Fourth Crusade (1202–1204), Vatican invoked the CRER principle (‘Cuius regio, eius religio’) during its brief rule over the Byzantine Empire to reject religious objections by the Byzantine subjects. Post Hussite Wars and the ‘Reformation’, establishing the CRER principle to settle Germany, giving rise to the logic of ‘ubi unus dominus, ibi una sit religio’ (One ruler, one religion). Just in case someone had religious disagreement, the logic was they could well emigrate – (ius emigrandi).

Haiti – and after

The CRER policy guideline was finally abandoned in post-bellum America and Europe after The Haiti Fright. With Haiti breaking loose, when slaves defeated all the major Euro-colonial powers, in battle after battle, slavery was doomed. More than 200 slave rebellions, revolts and conspiracies made slavery in the West impractical. Cuban slaves were the last to win their freedom – which sounded the slavery’s death knell.

Western propaganda has made slavery, an invisible factor in their ‘success.’ And they are on the half way mark, on the erasure in popular memory, about the use of colonies for Western enrichment.

Western political constructs

With an acute labour shortage, looming over the West, slavery made way for indentured labour – and America made way for immigrants from all parts of Europe, Japan, China and Philippines.

As immigrants of various colours and beliefs made their way across the world, the CRER principle was relegated into the background.

Added to this was the 1857 War in India, against Christian proselytism, which too had to take a back seat. Victoria Regina’s Colonial India Government printed leaflets in tens and thousands to proclaim that the British Crown had no intentions to dictate faith to its Indian ‘subjects’. The 1857 War also forced Euro-centric historians to change the entire drift of world history.

Faced with a reality of ‘warm-bodies-shortage’, ‘liberalism’, ‘secular’ Governments, Marxism, Socialism et al were invented in the 19th century. It is this principle which accounts for the low levels of diversity in the West – and which also accounts for the shrillness with which the West proclaims it ‘liberalism’ – facts being otherwise.

Melting pot vs Mosaic patterns

The need for ‘integration’, the concerns over the slow ‘assimilation’ of the Mexicans in the American melting pot, the Islamo-phobia, the Compulsive Jihadic Syndrome, are all sides of the same cube. The schizophrenic Christian aggression in India combined with hysterical protests against any backlash are symptoms of the same ideological thread.

While the West talks about the respect for the individual, reality is different.

Members of the Catholic Church note with anxiety (and so does the its replacement, The State) that “the continued insistence that Hispanics will soon pass through the assimilationist melting pot and be American like us is not only false, but also harmful for our Hispanic sisters and brothers, and thus for the church”.

Another study to measure ‘assimilation’ notes “Mexican immigrants are assimilating more slowly than Italian immigrants did at the turn of the last century”. Similarly, expatriate populations in the Middle East have to live with disrespect and intolerance of non-Islamic religions.

Lowest diversity vs. Biggest talk

The West today has the lowest levels of ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity – and persecutes whatever little is left, like the Roma Gypsies for example. Would critics like to mention any other country, where such a large minority Muslim population, has greater freedom and opportunity, than in India? Would you like to suggest France instead?

The language conundrum

India, has 15 official languages. (Note check comments below on exact number of languages in India).

Shameless vegetables

No other countries even had the courage to think of that. Various US state governments outlawed all languages – except English. It was only in 1923, was this finally set aside after the matter reached the US Supreme Court (read Meyer vs Nebraska). The USA gathered some courage to start timidly with more than English only after seeing India’s success with 15 languages. Switzerland has only four. Sri Lanka’s Sinhalas do not want to accept Sri Lankan Tamils as full and equal citizens – hence the 20 year old civil war.

In the thrall of One

The Western concept of nation building requires the cornerstones of Desert Bloc – One God, One Book, One Holy Day, One Prophet (Messiah), One Race, One People, One Country, One Authority, One Law, One Currency, One Set of Festivals. This tyranny of the ‘One’ is the root of most problems in the world. From this ‘Oneness’, we get the ‘One’ Currency, ‘One’ Language logic  – a fallacious syllogism. Once you accept ‘One’, you will accept all others.

EU wants to dictate rules to vegetables and fruits

For more than 20 years, EU had rules in place to allow vegetables of specified shapes and sizes to come onto shop shelves. After more than 20 years, the EU decided that it is easier to change laws than to make tomatoes, cucumbers and bananas follow EU rules.

The Indic model

Unlike the Indian social system, where differences are respected and encouraged, the position of the French Government, paraphrases the thinking of the ‘desert bloc’. Indians believe that all are वासुदेवाय कुटुम्बकम ‘vasudevaih kutumbakam’ and ईसा वास्यो मिदं सर्वं ‘isa vaasyo midam sarvam’ (meaning we are all God’s family and God is in everyone and everywhere respectively).

 On Monday November 8^th, I was listening to RTE’s “Drive Time” show, where a list of the various benefits to which people in the public services were entitled was broadcast. During a break the presenter read out some text messages. One was from a social welfare employee called Kay. She expressed her displeasure at facing a pay cut, and felt that resources should be given to her department, especially in the area of countering that great evil Social Welfare Fraud. “Kay” was perturbed about the way in which many claims for the dole were being fast-tracked. To her mind, this was allowing no end of fraudulent claims to get through. (Listening between the lines “Kay” was probably irate at payments to “fuckingforeigners”, “black bastars”” and other children of a lesser god.) She ended by describing the injustice of having to take a pay cut while giving out money to people who don’t deserve it.

 Does “Kay” not read the papers or listen to the news? We are living through an economic slump. Businesses and factories are closing on a daily basis, throwing thousands of people onto the dole. These people have worked in the private sector, and have had to face the ups and downs of the free enterprise system, unlike “Kay” and her colleagues in the public service, with their lifetime-guaranteed jobs. In short the days of the lad doing a nixer with the labour are gone. There are no jobs, not even part time. The same is true in Northern Ireland and the UK. I image that “Kay” is “no chicken”; she is obviously stuck in a 1980s time-warp dominated by Thatcherite-Tebbittite notions of the “work shy” who should “get on their bike” In fact, here ideas are motivated by prejudice; pity any poor bastard whose payments have to be processed by such a person. Most of those who find themselves unemployed need money in a hurry, to pay the bills. They may have families to support. It is bad enough that they lose their jobs without having to face needless penury because the department of Social Welfare can’t organise payments quickly. If it were left to them they mightn’t get any payments for at least a year, and even then they would lose the information,

 The department of Social Welfare is one of the biggest spending parts of government, but perhaps uniquely is spends such a large

Come back Paddy Reilly to the Taj Mahal

proportion of its budget on trying to find excuses for clawing back the money it has already spent. It does this in pursuit of supposedly fraudulent recipients. No other department as far as I know, goes to such lengths to uncover fraud, even though the amounts are much larger. But then the main reason is that people who defraud say the department of the Environment are not poor people. Indeed they are usually very much a part of the establishment, at both local and national level. That’s how they’re able to get away with it.

 “Kay” is a very sad specimen of humanity, though my experience with the department of Social Welfare leads me to believe she is far from unique. Now if the government really wanted to do something about the public finances or curb public spending, they should, at the very least, shear “Kay”’s pay and allowance. They ought really to sack her and her ilk, but this government, made up of crooked cowards, hasn’t the balls to do that. If they were feeling generous they could send her on a long course of counselling that might help her deal with her paranoia and the clear issues she obviously entertains about her fellow human beings.

 But I think “Kay” should be applauded for her honesty. She has shown that all the hipe from her department about providing a service, and looking humanely on benefit recipients as clients worthy of common respect, is nothing but spin. Benefit recipients are still all “on the make” until such time as the department of Social Welfare’s inspectorate declares otherwise.   Such people are “living it up” at public expense, though I think they’d have to pursue multiple claims to come close to the pay and allowances of even the most junior clerical officer.

 Minister Hanafin must take responsibility for the snarling attitude of her employees, which seems to be so general that it must but the result of training. It’s bad enough being poor, without having to put up with the prejudice of pen-pushers.

The 2010 History Newsletter is now available, covering the research carried out by historians at the University of Bradford in the past year.  Special Collections is well represented by an article by Helen Roberts about the PaxCat Project, and a feature about the recent Darwin conference.  The newsletter also includes John Jackson on schools in 19th century Bradford, and Dr Martyn Housden on Hitler’s would-be assassin, plus lots of news about our staff and students of history.

USA Today/David Colton—Compared with the neck-biting ecstasies of Twilight and True Blood, the vampires of Hollywood’s past are downright chaste. Not a drop of blood was shown in the original Dracula of 1931, and it wasn’t until the Hammer studio films of the 1950s that the screen flowed crimson.

Now two of horror’s top film historians take a look at the cinematic roots of the vampire phenomenon.

In Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff: The Expanded Story of a Haunting Collaboration, a revision of a 1990 title, author Gregory William Mank explodes many of the myths about the Hungarian-born Lugosi, the screen’s first Dracula.

Though Lugosi was a hit in Dracula on Broadway, he was only the sixth choice for the screen role, finally accepting $500 a week (half his previous fee) to star as the immortal Count. Lugosi claimed for years he turned down the role of Frankenstein’s monster, but in truth was rejected in favor of Karloff. And no, Karloff did not joke that Lugosi was “putting us on” at Lugosi’s funeral in 1956. Karloff wasn’t even there.

The Mank book, which he calls an “obsession” since his first interviews with Lugosi’s ex-wife in 1974, is meticulously researched and more than 300 pages longer than the original. It grandly paints a portrait of the two stars and the spooky past of Universal, Hollywood’s top scare studio of the 1930s and 1940s.

More @

Back to Halloween Main Page

Historians working for the Nuffield Institute for Health have discovered that teenagers actually did invent sex.  Their studies have also pinpointed the date for this radical innovation as sometime in the spring of 1906. 

The Nuffield Institute for Health commissioned Professor Pradeep Singh and his team from the University of Newcastle to carry out the investigation as part of a wider study into how attitudes to sex and sexuality have evolved since recorded history began. 

Professor Singh’s team spent months studying contemporary documentation, literature and oral traditions before making their startling discovery.  ‘We discovered that prior to 1906, the human race reproduced by a variety on non-penetrative methods – ranging from sleeping under a gooseberry bush at full moon, kissing when leaning against a maypole or holding hands after dark whilst unchaperoned – the process depending upon one’s social and economic standing.’

‘Then suddenly we began to find evidence of an explosion of sexual activity amongst young people.’ he reported.  ‘In every piece of documentation we found references to teenagers, shall we say, at it like rabbits.’ What Professor Singh had stumbled upon was concrete evidence that, sometime during the spring of 1906, a young couple had discovered, as he put it in his findings ‘that piece A slotted into groove B – and after a bit of experimentation one or two other places as well.’

The race is now on to identify this trailblazing couple and perhaps trace their descendants, and Professor Singh is keen to be at the forefront of this search.  ‘To successfully locate the progeny of these sexual pioneers would be a dream come true.  I’d just love to show them the evidence and ask them how proud they felt to know that their great, great grandparents really were a couple of little f*ckers.’ 

(Written 11 Mar 2009)

To say that history is contentious is an understatement. In fact just today I was reading a book review of two similar books with very different versions of the 1960s. In Australia, we only need to look at John Howard’s concern for how people have interpreted Australian history. His understanding of historians who wrote on the massacres of Aboriginals was to label them ‘black arm band’ historians because of their focus on massacres, death and murder instead of the people or events that celebrated Australia’s history. History for Howard was Gallipoli, Anzacs, peaceful settlement and the glory years of the 1950s.

Most of us only come into contact with history during high school and most are reluctant to choose it as a subject. Where history is seriously written about and researched is within academia yet the history written in this sphere is rarely read. One reason for this is the difficulty of reading academic jargon.  And to be honest, the other is the reluctance of some to have their work move outside the ivory towers of a university. Is it then more productive to have work published outside academia? The internet is an excellent way to get information out into the public that is factually correct as Marshall Poe points out.  While it is true that anyone can publish anything online, it is also possible that any book can be published if the publisher believes a profit can be made. Marshall Poe is concerned that “uncritical, poorly informed” people can publish incorrect information online. This is also true. But should this stop historians from publishing online?  The simple answer is no. Even within academia there are arguements over theory and facts, with debates continuing over many years. The internet is no different. People agree, people disagree. And people decide who to believe.

Something I thought of today, several days after writing down the thoughts expressed in my previous post, is a most frustrating thought about the freedom of the artist and the limits on the historian. As a historian, I am limited not only by an obligation to present factual information, but also by the expectations that I have read, am familiar with, and am not overlooking or ignoring, discourse. This applies not only directly relevant writings, such as, in the case of Edo period Japanese provincial histories for example, the writings of Wigen, Toby, Ravina, and Howell, but also everything from Said to Foucault, to Derrida, Saussure, Levi-Strauss, Freud, Kant, Heidegger, and all sorts of other philosophers and theoreticians I’d much rather not deal with. One is expected to be intimately familiar with theory, and also with previous scholarship in one’s specific niche as thoroughly as absolutely possible. One is restricted by the expectations and the standards held by the academic community, and also by trends, and by what niche or place one can find within a discourse.

Artists are of course subject to trends in the market, the standards and expectations of critics, etc. But, by contrast, they are quite free to be inspired by whatever sources they may choose, and while one of course would be chastised and criticized if one is too derivative, completely copying another artist’s style, forms, or ideas, to a large extent one is free to jump between media, themes, and subjects as suits one’s fancy.

Raad mentioned that he was quite inspired by the writings of Jalal Toufic, and in particular a work which addresses theoretical approaches to analysing culture and society, through the lens or conceit of being a book on Vampires in Cinema. If I, as a historian, were to adapt Toufic’s theories to my own historical writing, the academy would look at me like I was crazy, accusing me of having not read Ravina and Toby, of not fitting into the pattern of the issues and analytical approaches raised by Totman and Howell, and of doing all the things so criticized by Derrida, Foucault, Said, or Saussure. But when Raad does it, no one questions who or what his other sources are; he takes refined artistic skills and talents, combined with Toufic and whatever other sources or inspirations he wishes, and creates.

Perhaps I should give up being a (art) historian, and turn to being an artist.

Ever have coffee with a mentalist? Well, we did. Rory Raven is from Rhode Island, but he says he doesn’t “sound like it.” He grew up in the suburbs and purchased a house on the WestSide 10 years ago.

Rory performs mind reading at The Stadium Theater

What are the changes you’ve seen in Rhode Island over the years?
I don’t know that RI has changed a lot in my time; I suspect only the faces change and the circumstances don’t, or don’t by much.  There may be more money here than when I was a kid, but there are also more empty buildings, both old and new, so I don’t think that’s exactly progress.

Ultimately, though, I lose interest in most things after about 1900 or so. I tend to live very much in the past, so I probably pay more attention to what happened in 1830 that today.

What made you choose to buy a house on the WestSide?
My wife and I bought the house 10 years ago because we could afford it.

What changes would you like to see in the near future? Long term?
I’m skeptical that real change can be planned and implemented in the way people often seem to think.  I’ve seen a few pitch their “visions” of the neighborhood, and they always remind me of those hopeful, ridiculous Gernsbackian futures of flying cars and meals-in-a-pill and jumpsuits.  And some people were sure that’s what the future was going to be, and that it was going to happen on a schedule of some kind.  And that’s not how real change occurs.  It happens in its own way, on its own schedule.

But if I had to pick, I’d say more neighborhood-type restaurants like the Classic [Cafe], the Bubble Tea House, and Uncle Paul’s.

What is a mentalist?

A mentalist is a theatrical mind reader.  I’m not psychic, but I can read your mind … or so it would appear.  Some people see me as some kind of magician, some people see me as something else.  While some of what I do shares some building blocks with stage magic, mind reading shows (“mentalism” in the trade) really grow out of the weird parlor demonstrations of mesmerism and seances in the 19th century.  I really do enjoy creating that moment of mystery for people, where they think, “That can’t happen but it just did … “  It’s fun to place people in a situation where their brain kind of spins, even if only for a moment.

How long have you been performing?
I’ve been performing for about 12 years or so.  It’s not a real straight career path, so I can’t pinpoint quite where I may have begun.

You run Providence Ghost Walk and are the author of Haunted Providence. Who takes your tours?
This is the Providence Ghost Walk’s 10th season, I’m happy to say.  Anyone can take the Walk simply by showing up at the corner of Benefit and College Streets any Saturday and Sunday a few minutes before 3pm and buy tickets then.  Tickets are a low $7.  No need to make reservations, just show up. All kinds of people take the Ghost walk.  Teachers with their classes, teenagers, tourists, skeptics, believers — I had one guy show up with his grandfather in a wheelchair.  I’ve had private tours of young moms on a night out, a bachelorette party, and this year, 100 lacrosse players from Texas.
[Find out more on www.roryraven.com]

Being a multicultural city, are there different Providence ghost stories that vary among people from different cultures living in Providence?
I have come across a few stories that, while they feature Indians or African-Americans, may not be told by members of those cultures, but rather be a story simply re-cast with new characters from another ethnic group.  I found one 19th century story which purported to be a genuine Algonquin folktale, but when it turned out to be basically a version of Rip van Winkle, starring Chief Stick-In-The-Mud, I began to have doubts about its authenticity.

Have there been any hauntings on the WestSide?
I haven’t heard any stories about the West Side; I wonder why that is.  I’m more than happy to hear any stories people have.

You have a new book coming out soon. What’s it about?
The book is titled “Wicked Conduct: The Minister, the Mill Girl, and the Murder that Captivated Old Rhode Island.” The subtitle is something the publisher and I kind of Frankensteined together between us.  It details a murder case from 1832-1833, in which a minister from Bristol was accused of getting an unmarried “mill girl” from Fall River pregnant, murdering her, and then dumping her body in Tiverton.  This was a huge case in its day, with widespread newspaper coverage, pamphlets, books, poems, and even at least two plays being written in the years following the trial.  It’s very largely forgotten today, remembered only by some specialists, and it’s nice to bring the story to general readers who may not have heard of it, or only heard parts of it.  It should be out in late November, I’m told.

Thanks for your time, Rory. See you on the walk soon!

Rory’s appearance on today’s Rhode Show

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me” – Martin Niemoller.

Martin Niemoller was a controversial figure, whose motives and actions are still debated by historians, theologians and political theorists to this day. But his words (above) ring as true today as they did in the 1940s. Like many Lutheran pastors (and other religious leaders) in 1930s Germany, Niemoller was an anti-communist who opposed the democratic experiment of the Weimar Republic and its associated ‘decadence’, welcoming the Nazi accession to power in 1933 even to the extent of apparently having official meetings with Adolf Hitler.

Some of Niemoller’s preaching also contained decidedly antisemitic sentiments, something he certainly was not alone among his contemporaries in utilising for theological and political ends. But Niemoller’s views gradually began to change as Nazi power grew in strength during the 1930s, and he objected in particular to Hitler’s attempts to exert powerful state control over the church and religion. The deeply embedded and influential position of the various Christian churches within German society meant that government control over them could act as a way of legitimizing and strengthening the Nazi regime via the ‘support’ of the Nazified church, a move which would radically politicize Christianity in a way that many within the church, including Niemoller, objected to as being in direct opposition to their Christian values.

Niemoller, and others within the Protestant community in particular, made their objections to this policy perfectly clear; he and many pastors who had previously supported National Socialism began to visibly move away from its tenets, although Niemoller himself continued to be publicly critical of the Jewish community – despite the broader-minded and more tolerant approach taken by many of his anti-Nazi colleagues within the church. However, by the late 1930s, the Nazi government had got heartily fed up of the often vocal and public opposition from these men of the cloth; men whose words still carried a great deal of weight within their communities and who thus, almost by default, were considered a threat to the regime.

As a result, and between 1938 and 1945, Niemoller was imprisoned in Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps for ‘activities against the state’, only being released at the very end of the war. In the immediate aftermath of the war, he was a signatory to the Stuttgart Declaration of Guilt, a document produced by the German church in which it admitted that it had been inadequate in its opposition to the Nazi regime.

Niemoller himself is also said to have admitted he had been wrong in his previous personal approach to Nazism and the Jewish community, and that his wartime imprisonment had changed his way of thinking for the better (although there is some evidence that this may not have entirely been the case). He later became a confirmed pacifist, and very publicly (and often controversially) campaigned for nuclear disarmament up until his death in 1984.

His famous words, quoted above, were written at some point during the immediate post war period, and exist in a number of different versions – many bastardised by others since, but many also written by Niemoller himself. Whatever his motives were, and whatever his true views were, these words echo down the decades and, sadly, remain relevant today.

The first victims of the Nazi regime in Germany were indeed its political opponents – socialists, communists, anarchists, trade unionists and anyone who politically opposed or conflicted with Hitler’s government, including religious leaders like Niemoller. Dachau, the first concentration camp in Germany, was opened just outside Munich soon after the Nazis came to power, and it initially functioned as a political prison for such groups.

Soon after that, the Nazis began to target other groups in German society, including the mentally and physically handicapped, and the mentally ill – all of whom were considered ‘useless mouths’ by the regime; a viewpoint used to justify mass sterilisations and appalling gassing experiments (the disturbing lessons learned from the latter were put to use on a much larger scale in the extermination camps later set up in eastern Europe).

Next to be targeted on a wider scale were the Jews, the Roma and Sinti, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the LGBT community and various other groups who didn’t fit into the twisted Nazi ideal of Aryan purity – all of whom also became victims of officially state sanctioned murder, having already been the victims of political harassment and persecution. And on and on it went as the Nazis moved across Europe, spreading their message of hate and destruction.

And on and on it still goes –  all of these are groups still, to some extent or another, considered threatening, considered ‘other’ (with all that entails) by the far-right today. All of these groups remain the targets of far-right hatred and distrust, even now, in the supposedly liberal, tolerant 21^st century.

Last month marked the seventieth anniversary of the outbreak of World War Two, and it saddens me deeply to see that the kind of discrimination and hatred that defined the Nazi regime in Germany still exists in Europe and across the world – despite the deaths of millions as a result of it, and despite the post-war hope (perhaps naive?) that such bigotry had been destroyed by the efforts and personal sacrifices of the millions who fought against it.

Niemoller’s dictum has been on my mind a lot of late. Mainly because every time I read or watch the news there is always at least one more sign of such hatred; always more stories that evoke a sense of impotent anger and sadness in me. Over the last year or so, Europe alone has seen such disturbing sights as the political legitimation of far-right parties such as the BNP via domestic and European election victories, attempts to legislate homophobia in parts of eastern Europe, the disturbing and sinister growth of the Islamophobic and racist English Defence League, the use of Islamophobia by the media and far-right groups in a similar negative and fear-mongering way to the use of antisemitism in 1930s Europe, violent official collaboration with neo-fascists against left-wing and anti-capitalist opposition protesters in Greece, Roma refugees being hounded out of Northern Ireland by racist bigots, peaceful protesters being attacked by the police on the streets of London during the G20 summit, the shocking recent official destruction of the migrant camps in Calais (at the risk of further brutalising many and frequently very young individuals who are already deeply traumatized and often stateless), and – only very recently – the cancellation of Belgrade Pride because Serbian police, in the full knowledge that anti-gay groups were threatening further violence, could not or would not guarantee the safety of the marchers. And those are just a few examples off the top of my head. There are more such stories, and not just in Europe – just read any mainstream or independent news website and you’ll be virtually tripping over such stories.

Change a few details in the above examples and bring in the impact of the economic meltdown, and you could be talking about Europe in the 1930s – a time when the far-right was on the march, when the world’s economies were in collapse leading to poverty and suffering in many places, and when the ethics and necessity of wars and illegal invasions were being questioned by some. Sound familiar? We all know what happened after that.

Some political commentators and historians have been highly critical of such comparisons, seeing them as lazy and incorrect, but, as a historian myself, I believe the comparisons between the situation now and that in the 1930s to be entirely valid and particularly relevant – which is why I use them here. Refusing to look these comparisons in the metaphorical eye is a symptom of a wider refusal to acknowledge that there is actually a problem here. We are so smug and self-satisfied in our protective bubble of  modern superiority that we are quite happy to ignore genocide (Darfur, anyone?), and are happily convinced that the appalling actions of the Nazis could never happen again, because we are so beyond that level of barbarity now – despite the fact that contemporary events are beginning to prove that such hatred, violence and destruction never really went away, because those responsible, both then and now, have been allowed to get away with it.

In fact, those who commit such acts (whether governments, other authorities or organised groups of thugs), do so in the knowledge that they will face no opposition, or if they do, such opposition can be ‘neutralised’ and made ineffective. Why? Because the far-right is either politically legitimized or in the process of  becoming increasingly institutionalised across Europe, even going so far as to create links with ‘regular’ right-wing parliamentary parties (the recent and increasingly hysterical debate over the connections between the official British Opposition party, the Conservatives, and the deeply unpleasant Latvian For Fatherland and Freedom Party is but one example of this).

Such attempts to legitimate and ‘normalise’ the far right politically across Europe is evidence for exactly why it is becoming more and more crucial for all of us to stand up for ourselves, stand up for each other, and stand up against this growing far-right threat to all of us. And that means everyone – whether you are political or not and whether you are a member of one or more of the groups targeted by the far right or not just doesn’t matter.

It matters not to me where you stand in the political spectrum either: socialist, liberal, communist, anarchist, trades unionist, feminist, queer rights activist, apolitical, whatever. And neither does it matter who you are in a spiritual sense: Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, agnostic, one of many faiths or of no faith at all. What matters is that we forget about arguing amongst ourselves about the best way to deal with this threat, and that we start to speak out for ourselves and each other, working together as Martin Niemoller’s dictum so rightly suggests.

Because, on a purely personal and slightly selfish level, as an anti-fascist, as a left-wing political activist, as a part of the LGBT community, and as someone with long-term and potentially serious health problems, I don’t want to reach the point where there is no-one left to speak out for me.

And if we do nothing now, that point will come again; no matter how much we hope, pray, and fervently, sincerely believe it won’t.

“Other-side-of-the-desk-er” is a term I use when referring to people who try to promote the viewpoint of those who happen to be on the other side of the desk, literally or figuratively, from the history professional. I am one. Proudly.  In museum studies these folks are known as “visitor advocates.” I have found no sign of a serious movement in this direction in other fields where the people on the other side of the desk are known as patrons, researchers, users, students, on rare occasions clients, viewers, and (in a few papers I have written,) history consumers. Even should there be more “researcher advocates” or “user advocates” lurking out there, my view is less centered on the specific institutional term for the “customer” (I actually like that one, regardless of some of its implications) and more on the customer himself. My personal experience is that professionals tend to be very profession-centric, and expect their customers (ooh, that word again) to accept it. Good luck.

Personal experience?

When I was taking museum studies courses, as well as in the jobs I have had in or with museums, we learned about a concept called “visitor advocacy.” This concept was part of the evaluation/mission centered concept that was theoretically (and often actually) accepted as part of modern museum practice. In theory, the “advocate” tries to see the point of view of the visitor and incorporate it in professional decisions, and maybe even serves as an actual surrogate in advocating that point of view in professional discussions. I searched in vain for a similar concept in the archive literature and found that the archivists accepted no such concept as “user advocacy.” There were many things in the literature that suggested a “user adversary” was an acceptable concept, but little that suggested seeing the users’ points of view was important. (I apologize to Elsie Freeman Finch, in any version of her name under which she published. There were a handful of others out there that advocated the importance of use and users. She was the one consistent voice I found. I hope she won’t be offended to know that she encouraged my heresy.) This was no surprise for it all fit with my personal experience as a researcher.

When one of my mentors, a history professor and former state librarian and archivist, suggested that I do my graduate work in public history, maybe even in archives, I was astounded. He had heard my stories of how difficult it was to pry information from archivists, museum staff, librarians, historians and archivists (yes, I wrote “archivists” twice. They were the biggest thorn in my flesh, though, to be fair I had to actually go through them to get to my material more often than those others, so they would have been the largest segment of my informal research population.) He knew my research had spanned a couple of decades, been both professional and non-professional, and covered multiple areas of interest, multiple types of institution, and multiple geographic locations. He knew how little I appreciated the way these professionals often managed to waste my time, while making it clear that their time was of value and mine was not. He knew that I was very frustrated when one assumed superior knowledge that he or she did not, in fact, possess, or made it clear that I was fortunate that they happened to be there and allow me to use “their” collections, and how I felt that customer service should be the first course any of them took in their course load. He knew my opinion on archivists trying to restrict access to public material, improperly applying what they believed to be arcane laws and regulations (“Sorry. You will have to check but I think there may be a copyright restriction on that, so I am not sure I can let you have it. In archives, we abide by copyright law.” “Ma’am, it was written in 1842! Are you kidding me!”- True exchange in a major repository.) He further knew from his years of teaching, working on major projects and working with historical associations for professionals and students that, although he had not seen a study to the effect, my experience was common with other researchers, particularly students and “amateurs.”

Dr. Smith smiled (he had a subtle smile, was slow to speak, but his statements were always worth listening to) and said that this had been his experience as well, even when he was in the field, though there were many good archivists that did not behave that way. He suggested, among other things, that perhaps the profession needed more people who could speak from the researchers’ points of view and someone who was interested in finding out what they needed and being their advocate. I chose to work at being a public historian, and now, to a large degree, practice that field in the world of archives. But not just archives, so I am not just a “user advocate,” but an “other-side-of-the-desk” advocate, or as it has become, an “other-side-of-the-desk-er.”

I once complained at a grocery store that was part of the dominant chain in our area about a service issue. The manager told me that if I didn’t like it I “could go somewhere else. Oh, wait, there isn’t anywhere else!” There are now several chains in major competition with that one, which is losing the battle. When you drive by a major grocery store for several days before Thanksgiving and there are few cars in the lot while two of its competitors have folk cruising around looking for parking, it says something. Archivists, always secure in the knowledge that their collections were unique and they have until recently been “the only game in town,” should take note and read about the budget cuts, lack of financial support, and professional worries about low gate counts that have become pervasive topics in the professional news today. We are not the only choice for the “customer.” We cannot afford the attitude of one of my employees from my days in the restaurant business, who remarked that there were too many people coming in and he thought it would be a great job if we just didn’t have any customers. If we build that attitude, they may not come.

The Heretic

The Heretic is the nom du plume of a historian and archivist who works with the public and in religious institutions. He has been accused by others in his professional world of “heresy” as a historian, archivist and Christian (not formally, of course.) He does not zealously guard his identity, but on occasion voices opinions that he feels might embarrass others. It is out of respect for those persons that he uses the pseudonym. When he is convinced that it no longer serves a purpose, he will discard it. It is really just in fun, anyway. Most people who know him recognize the source of his words, or so he believes.