Armchair Historians's topics - tribe.net

Movies: who here avoids

2008-06-26T13:25:15Z

I have completely refused to watch "The 300" because of the blatant commercial ism
of its writing and trying to warp the near 200 year history into a
cliff notes for action addicts slammed onto cellulous.

Does anyone else here make movie watching a hard choice with any movie that is
history *inspired*?

Randy

posted in Armchair Historians - 10 replies

Antiques

2008-06-24T08:26:06Z

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Antiques-and-Swords-For-Sale

Bloke's thread got me searching for who possibly could that old fart be? As often happens on the net, I ended up surfing elsewhere, this time at an eBay shop, selling antiques... some nice antique swords here. I can't afford any of the items listed, but it was still nice to browse. Enjoy.

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

Anyone know who this is ???

2008-06-24T08:11:04Z

http://tribes.tribe.net/triviarocks/photos/61c5eb3a-674f-4491-b64a-bd827463d93e

posted in Armchair Historians - 10 replies

Napoleon's winner battle

2008-06-04T23:38:37Z

Ok, I remember hearing about a battle Napoleon fought in the middle of a snow storm I Russia? It was early in the invation, and though Napoleon won it some people said it led to his down fall.
Dose anyone know the one I'm talking about??

Patrick

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

Wreck of German raider Kormoran found

2008-05-28T17:41:01Z

Wreck of German raider Kormoran found
Sunday Mar 16 12:16 AEDT
The wreck of the German merchant raider Kormoran, believed responsible for the war-time sinking of HMAS Sydney in November 1941, has been found off the Western Australian coast.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, along with Australian Defence Force heads, announced the discovery at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra on Sunday.

He said the search body called Finding Sydney made the discovery on Saturday, about 150km west of Shark Bay.

"We are one step closer as a nation to hopefully finding Sydney," Mr Rudd said.

"This is an important part in solving a 65-year-old puzzle."

Australia's greatest maritime mystery claimed the lives of the Sydney's 645 crew.

Sailing from Sumatra back to Fremantle in November 1941, the warship encountered what purported to be the Dutch freighter Straat Malakka off the West Australian coast.

But the freighter was really the disguised German mercantile raider Kormoran.

After an ensuing fight, the Sydney went down with all hands and represents the greatest ever loss of life in an Australian warship.

It was also the largest vessel of any country to be lost with no survivors during the Second World War.

The 317 survivors from the 397 crew aboard Kormoran were picked up over ensuing days, giving the only eyewitness accounts of what occurred.

Source http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=392419

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

vincent of lerins

2008-05-14T19:52:47Z

Fifth century French monk / priest best-known for describing the Catholic faith as what has been believed "everywhere, at all times, and by all." (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est)

I'm interested in how his fortunes have changed throughout history. The Middle Ages largely ignored him; several Reformers cited him; he was cited by the bishops of the First Vatican Council but deliberately *not* cited by those of the Second, and has since become a frequent reference for Catholics who disapprove of Vatican II and especially the Novus Ordo Mass that came of it.

Anyone else interested in this guy, or with changing views of development / progress in Church history?

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Ancient Primary Sources and E-texts

2008-05-10T15:29:31Z

Enjoy :)

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_primary_texts.htm

posted in Armchair Historians - 7 replies

On the Reformation(s)

2008-04-30T19:00:14Z

I'm now reading Alister McGrath's "Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution--a history from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first."

Last year I read a short intro to the Reformation by Collingsworth and a dual biography of Leo X and Martin Luther.

I've read several histories of Christianity (Chadwick, Johnson, The Oxford Illustrated) but now want a deeper insight into the causes and consequences of the Reformation(s). I have no confessional ax to grind.

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

Little Known Facts of Former American Presidents

2008-04-30T15:42:15Z

http://www.althafahmed.com/part-4-the-men-in-charge/

If you were asked to tell something about your all time favorite American president, which one would you pick, and what would you say about him?

Think carefully, and then open up your mind to accept a few facts you may not have known.

George Washington was not actually the first President of the United States. The real first President was Maryland’s representative at the Continental Congress, and his unknown name was John Hanson. On November 5, 1781, Hanson, who was considered a black man because of his Moorish heritage, was elected by the Constitutional Congress to the office of “President of the United States in Congress Assembled”. He served for one year and was followed by 6 other Presidents before Washington was elected.

President Thomas Jefferson had a long time common law marriage with one of his slaves, a teenager named Sally Hemings. They had 5 children together. Jefferson also was an apparent alcoholic. During his 2 terms, he spent close to $11,000 just on wine, which was a huge amount in those days.

President Grover Cleveland was a draft dodger. He paid someone to join the service in his place. He was scorned for this by his political opponent, James Blaine until it was made public that Blaine had done the very same thing.

Warren Harding was addicted to gambling, he once lost an entire set of White House China.

Franklin Roosevelt was related to his own wife. Eleanor was his second cousin. This First Couples marriage was not a happy one, President Roosevelt was a closet cross dresser, and for 30 years, Eleanor Roosevelt was having an affair with another woman, Associated Press reporter Lenora Hickok.

John Tyler, who was President from 1841 to 1845, joined the Confederacy twenty years later and became the only President named a sworn enemy of the United States.

President Andrew Jackson believed the world was flat and for all of his life, he refused to accept the proven fact that the world was round. Jackson once severely beat a man with his walking cane, because the man disagreed with him. (About something else)

Woodrow Wilson was a racist, and an outspoken white supremacist.

James Monroe was a college dropout, had a serious dedication to drinking, and was completely controlled by his wife and daughters. They were so selfish and spent money so freely that Monroe was practically bankrupt by the end of his second term.

These are only a few of the presidents, and only a few of their faults. However, your children won’t learn these facts in history class. Even though they are things, we should all know.

posted in Armchair Historians - 2 replies

The good and bad of it.

2008-03-28T17:47:00Z

THE YEAR 1907

This will boggle your mind, I know it did mine!
The year is 1907.
One hundred years ago.
What a difference a century makes!
Here are some of the U.S. Statistics for the Year 1907:
************************************

The average life expectancy in the U.S. Was 47 years old.

Only 14 percent of the homes in the U.S. Had a bathtub.

Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.

A three-minute call from Denver to New York City
Cost eleven dollars.

There were only 8,000 cars in the U.S. , and only 144 miles of paved roads.

The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.

Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more
Heavily populated than California

With a mere 1.4 million people, California was only the 21st
Most populous state in the Union

The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower !

The average wage in the U.S. Was 22 Cents per hour.

The average U.S. Worker made between $200 and $400 per year.

A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year,
A dentist made $2,500 per year,
A veterinarian $1,500 per year,
And a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.

More than 95 percent of all births in the U.S. Took place at HOME.

Ninety percent of all U.S. Doctors had NO COLLEGE EDUCATION!
Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which
Were condemned in the press AND the government as "substandard."

Sugar cost four cents a pound.

Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.

Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.

Most women only washed their hair once a month, and used
Borax or egg yolks for shampoo.

Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from
Entering into their country for any reason.

Five leading causes of death in the U.S. Were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke

The American flag had 45 stars.
Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii, and
Alaska hadn't been admitted to the Union yet.

The population of Las Vegas , Nevada , was only 30!!!!

Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and ice tea
Hadn't been invented yet.

There was no Mother's Day or Father's Day.

Two out of every 10 U.S. Adults couldn't read or write.

Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.

Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over
The counter at the local corner drugstores. Back then pharmacists
Said, "Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind,
Regulates the stomach and bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian
Of health."

There were about 230 reported Murders in the ENTIRE U.S.A.!

Now I sent it to you and others all over the United States ,
Possibly the world, in a matter of just Seconds !!!!!!!!!

PASS THIS ALONG!!!!!

Just Try to imagine.....
What it may be like
In another 100 years !!!!!!!

IT STAGGERS THE MIND!

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

"Zwartboek" und "Der Untergang"

2008-02-05T15:19:00Z

"Zwartboek" (Black Book) und "Der Untergang" (Downfall)

I am going to watch these two films this weekend. Are they historically accurate or spiked with fantasy?

posted in Armchair Historians - 5 replies

Why Mayan civilization isn't worthy of the name

2008-01-19T21:23:48Z

http://www.culturecult.com/art_notes.htm

"I suppose it all depends on what you expect a civilization to offer. The Maya, and the Aztecs too, offered barbarism plus pyramids. "

"The ripples of Greek civilization spread globally, and deserved to. There were no ripples from the Maya. No enlightenment. Nothing. Just art and masonry and the dried blood of long-dead sacrificial victims. That is not nearly enough."

Pericles:
" Our political system does not compete with institutions which are elsewhere in force. We do not copy our neighbours, but try to be an example. Our administration favors the many instead of the few: that is why it is called democracy.

The laws afford equal justice to all alike in their private disputes, but we do not ignore the claims of excellence. When a citizen distinguishes himself, then he will be called to serve the state, in preference to others, not as a matter of privilege but as a reward of merit; and poverty is no bar…

The freedom we enjoy extends also to ordinary life; we are not suspicious of one another, and do not nag our neighbour if he chooses to go his own way. But this freedom does not make us lawless. We are taught to respect the magistrates and the laws, and never to forget that we must protect the injured. And we are also taught to observe those unwritten laws whose sanction lies only in the universal feeling of what is right.

Our city is thrown open to the world; we never expel a foreigner. We are free to live exactly as we please, and yet we are always ready to face danger. We love beauty without indulging in fancies, and although we try to improve our intellect, this does not weaken our will.

To admit one’s poverty is no disgrace with us; but we consider it disgraceful not to make an effort to avoid it. An Athenian citizen does not neglect public affairs when attending to his private business… We consider a man who takes no interest in the state not as harmless, but as useless; and although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it.

We do not look upon discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of political action, but as an indispensable preliminary to acting wisely. We believe that happiness is the fruit of freedom and freedom that of valor, and we do not shrink from the dangers of war.

To sum up, I claim that Athens is the School of Hellas, and that the individual Athenian grows up to develop a happy versatility, a readiness for emergencies, and self-reliance. "

posted in Armchair Historians - 158 replies

WW 1 Blogger

2008-01-09T21:48:36Z

This got posted in the Trivia Tribe
http://wwar1.blogspot.com/

"WW1: Experiences of an English Soldier

The blog is made up of transcripts of Harry Lamin's letters from the first World War. The letters will be posted exactly 90 years after they were written. "

( The Trivia Tribe thread is here http://tribes.tribe.net/triviarocks/thread/8dd12ead-ad0f-42be-8075-910613271161#21f729a3-5760-40e6-a780-90b946ff183b )

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Thoughts on HBO series "Rome"

2007-12-31T20:11:56Z

Just got done renting the whole first episode of Rome. It amazes me that the producers went into such detail to try to get props and settings as close to the real thing as possible by hiring a historian, who would check references etc...
check:
www.hbo.com/Rome

However much of the story seems to be highly stylized with extreme happenings, such as incest, lesbianism, murder, and plenty of S**. I understand some of these things were common place, but still we can't attribute the characters for having done such things.
Such as Cleopatra being impregnated by a common Roman Soldier.
Overall I thought it was excellent and a highly sophisticated version--very impressive.
Anyone else?

posted in Armchair Historians - 32 replies

The Catalpa Rescue - A Nineteenth Century Great Escape.

2007-11-28T16:30:20Z

(this post comes from the Trivia Tribe at http://tribes.tribe.net/triviarocks/threads which some of you might like...)

The Catalpa Rescue is the stuff of ambitious heroism and legend. A celebrated story in its day, a hundred and fifty years after the event, it has been largely forgotten. Never heard of the Catalpa rescue? You're not alone. Even in Western Australia where it happened, it has largely been overlooked..

To sum up the story of the rescue – it was a “can-do” and “go-getter” prison break, an olden-day global conspiracy with undercover agents and code books that took place with international coordination and effort from the US, Britain, Ireland and Australia.

The daring escape plan involved sending a whaling ship from New Bedford, Massachusetts, half way across the globe to bring convicts in Western Australia to freedom in New York over a distance of 18,708 kilometers (11,624 miles or 10,101 nautical miles as the crow flies and that’s the return trip only ! Captain Anthony navigated most of this distance without the use of a functioning chronometer which is considered a great feat of seamanship.)

The plan was the work of three meticulous minds – John Devoy, the cunning Irish spy, John Breslin, and whaling captain George Anthony. Together they devised an elaborate scheme to liberate imprisoned Irish Nationalists from Fremantle, one of the most hostile and remote prisons on earth.

Our story begins in Ireland in 1865 when the British started arresting Irish soldiers who had secretly joined the Fenian movement in the guise of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, which was a secret society that flourished in the 1860s. Its activities included (unsuccessful) armed rebellion against British Occupation of Ireland. (The Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) and “Young Ireland” were some of the progenitors to the IRA and Sinn Féin) .

Convicted of treason and/or sedition, many Irish Political Prisoners were transported to penal colonies through the British Empire including Australia. Some of these people committed “crimes” such as calling for Irish Independence and Freedom through the Press and speeches. ..

In 1868 more than 60 Fenians were transported to Fremantle as political prisoners on the “Hougoumont”, the last convict ship sent to Western Australia. Their arrival signalled the end of convict transportation to Australia.

The civilian Fenains were treated as political prisoners, whilst the military element were treated as ordinary criminals. In 1869 the civilians were granted clemency and freed while the military element were left languishing in prison, many without the hope of release for many years.

Those on board the Hougoumont in 1868 included John Boyle O'Reilly who has been an NCO in the 10th Hussars (the prestigious regiment of the Prince of Wales) when arrested in 1866 for assisting fellow soldiers to join the rebellious Fenians. Found guilty at his court martial, his death sentence was commuted to 20 year's penal servitude which automatically meant transportation (anyone sentenced to seven years or more was transported). As one of the convicted who served in the British Army – he watched as his civilian counterparts were freed in 1869. He escaped in the same year on an American whaler to the USA where he joined other Fenians to plot the rescue of the last of their 'military' colleagues still imprisoned in Fremantle. Six would later be rescued by an American whaling ship, the Catalpa, on Easter Monday, 1876.

Several years after first arriving in Fremantle , one of the prisoners got a smuggled message to their former Fenian commander, John Devoy. This desperate letter urged the exiled freedom fighter to mount a rescue bid and release them from hell. The letters potency provoked an extraordinary reaction from the Irish American community who donated money to liberate these political prisoners of the British Empire.

In the dramatic story that unfolded, the Fenians in America bought a cargo ship, the Catalpa, in New Bedford Massachusetts, and refitted the vessel as a whaler registered to a whaling company. In April 1875 Catalpa set sail, initially for the Atlantic whaling grounds, but with a secret mission to fulfil.

The escape took two years to accomplish and required the financial assistance of over 7,000 Irish Americans and depended upon the ingenuity of three pivotal characters to pull off one of the greatest propaganda coups in Fenian history. These were the Fenian leader and New York newspaperman John Devoy, the convicts former Fenian commander who masterminded of the rescue plot. Irish patriot and secret agent, John Breslin, who was sent to Fremantle to supervise the rescue by masquerading as American millionaire. Breslin even managed to find time to have a romantic affair in Fremantle. God bless the Irish LOL..

The most unlikely of the three was the American captain of the Catalpa, George Anthony, a ramrod-straight Presbyterian Yankee who seemed to have little in common with the passionate and raucous Fenians.

On the day of the escape, Breslin's carefully planned prison break seemed perfect. The Catalpa lay close to international waters and a small whale boat with its crew was waiting onshore to whisk the men to freedom.

Eight Fenian prisoners who were supposed to be in work parties outside the Prison and escape, unfortunately, two missed out because they were confined for insubordination. Complicit in organising the escape was prison chaplain and several other locals..

Following confirmation of Catalpa's arrival off Garden Island WA, six of the remaining Fenians made their getaway from work parties outside Fremantle Prison using two horse drawn buggies. At Rockingham they boarded Catalpa's longboat..

What should have been a discreet 4 hour row to the waiting ship and freedom, turned into 48 hours of harrowing drama in which the rescue party were challenged time and time again.

The mobility of the Catalpa, designed to maximise its chances of avoiding apprehension, made it difficult for the whaleboat to rendezvous with it easily as she cruised about to avoid suspicion while awaiting the longboat.

The longboat sighted the mother ship in the distance at 5.30pm, but by 7pm a squall caused them to lose contact in the gathering darkness. This meant that the crew and passengers of the open boat were forced to spend an unwelcome, uncomfortable and unscheduled night at sea.

Meanwhile, the Western Australian authorities had found out where they had disembarked and set off on a hair-raising chase to apprehend the prisoners before they boarded the ship. Indeed the Catapla was challenged while the convicts struggled towards her in the longboat. Through storm and in front of their pursuers, the fugitive Fenians in the longboat finally made it to the ship on the day after leaving shore..

What followed was a standoff between an unarmed whaling ship and a British ship which had loaded onboard a full compliment of armed police and artillery..

The coastal steamer Georgette, one of at least two ships in pursuit, made contact with the Catalpa at 8 am Wednesday 19th April, firing shots across its stern and bow. The Catalpa hove to, but Captain Anthony, claimed they were in international waters under the American flag, and challenged the steamer to create a diplomatic incident if it dared (Britain had just lost a 3 million pound case involving a similar situation with an American ship)..

The master of the steamer, uncertain if Catalpa was in international waters or not, felt he had no choice, and reluctantly let the ship sail away. Triumphantly carrying the Fenian escapees, Catalpa arrived in New York in August 1876.

The odds were stacked against the plotters. It's difficult to believe they got away with it given the byzantine nature of British intelligence. Plenty of Fenians had been betrayed in the past by a loose word in the pub. But, amazingly, despite many near-misses, the rescuers pulled it off.

News of the escape flashed around the world. The British Empire had been humbled and humiliated by Irish pluck and American doggedness. Britain considered American involvement as a near act of war after the Catalpa had outran the Royal Navy and deposited its politically dangerous cargo in New York Harbor in August 1876

The Catalpa escape created a massive international sensation in its day. Its articulate heroes were celebrated as models of Irish wit and ingenuity and their story was handed down to the generations that followed them.

In Dublin and New York, the rescued six were seen as freedom fighters; in London and Perth they were officially portrayed as traitors and felons.

As the plots mastermind Devoy predicted, the prison break bolstered Irish morale and spurred the fight for independence onwards. This was finally won in 1922. Devoy lived long enough to realize that lifelong ambition and, half a century after being exiled, returned to the country he had fought so hard to free.

The Catalpa became a symbol of defiance against Great Britain and would loom large in the revolutionary rhetoric of Michael Collins and was the subject of many a fireside tale. .

Some More Catalpa Trivia
“The Ballad of the Catalpa” so annoyed the police that it was officially banned in Western Australia. Given that this law has not been rescinded, in theory one could be arrested for singing it in public even today!

During the escape, 16 men, stores and weapons were crammed into the whaleboat for the trip out to the Catalpa waiting offshore.

Spies were sent from America to Fremantle, Western Australia to coordinate the Catalpa escape. A code was developed and only two copies were made, one held by Captain Anthony and the other by the spy John Breslin.

The Catalpa was registered to John T. Richardson's whaling company After this episode the Catalpa continued its career as a whaler. Richardson finally sold it in 1884.

Captain Anthony would never again sail into international waters for fear of arrest by the British government

Sources
http://www.fremantleprison.com/history/history32.cfm
http://www.irishaustralia.com/Australian/Patriots/catalpa.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_irish/index.html
http://www.anmm.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=378&c=1783
http://www.rte.ie/tv/hiddenhistory/catalparescue.html
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22641666-5003422,00.html
http://www.anmm.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=403&c=2108
http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/irish-luck-looms-large-over-jail-break/2007/10/24/1192941129055.html
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/deepend/stories/2006/1753667.htm
http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A050426b.htm

Distance tools:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distanceresult.html?p1=196&p2=179
http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/calculate-distance.html

posted in Armchair Historians - 2 replies

Pre-Columbian Horse

2007-11-24T00:39:13Z

I was curious if there were any horses in the Americas before Columbus and the Vinland expedition.

http://ancientlosttreasures.yuku.com/topic/4601?f=1

I found this and I am sure there is more, but what of horses that crossed the Bering strait? Any ideas there people?

Randy
..........,

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

WHAT NEW HISTORY BOOKS DO YOU RECOMMEND?

2007-11-13T23:50:00Z

Joseph Ellis, David McCullough, Doris Kearns-Goodwin, .....

Any outstanding New History books written lately that you would highly recommend?

I highly recommend " Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present" By Michael B. Oren.

And PLEASE.....no overtly political books......

posted in Armchair Historians - 10 replies

"The War"

2007-10-03T05:29:58Z

Though historically accurate, this series lacks the narrative quality of "The Civil War": For one thing, I miss the music and also the narration (of David McCullough) which helped the earlier series keep the quality and consistency which held it together through nine episodes. Neither the music nor narration in "The War" is memorable, though surely better alternatives were available.

Another problem is with the material itself. In "The Civil War," Burns quoted freely from Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Walt Whitman and others, people who were great speakers and writers. But now, the material comes mainly from ordinary people, which gives it a movingly personal quality, though lacking in the wit and eloquence which so embellished "The Civil War."

I also miss the occasional narrators, people like Garrison Keillor, Morgan Freeman, Sam Waterston and Studs Terkel, who took turns speaking for war participants long dead, and the commentary by historians like Shelby Foote and Ed Bearss. Here, the story is largely confined to what the individuals knew about it, and told in their voices, a historiography of details and incidents. It is the historian's job to generalize, and Burns refuses to do so.

posted in Armchair Historians - 15 replies

Presidents of the past

2007-09-26T03:10:03Z

The worst president ?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/

Then an article :

What Will History Say?
He's The Worst Ever

By Eric Foner
Sunday, December 3, 2006; Page B01

Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55 historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from "great" to "failure," such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who study the American past.

Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. When the first poll was taken, the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to former slaves, was rated "near great." Today, by contrast, scholars consider Reconstruction a flawed but noble attempt to build an interracial democracy from the ashes of slavery -- and Johnson a flat failure.

More often, however, the rankings display a remarkable year-to-year uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt always figure in the "great" category. Most presidents are ranked "average" or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy the bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them. A look at history, as well as Bush's policies, explains why.

At a time of national crisis, Pierce and Buchanan, who served in the eight years preceding the Civil War, and Johnson, who followed it, were simply not up to the job. Stubborn, narrow-minded, unwilling to listen to criticism or to consider alternatives to disastrous mistakes, they surrounded themselves with sycophants and shaped their policies to appeal to retrogressive political forces (in that era, pro-slavery and racist ideologues). Even after being repudiated in the midterm elections of 1854, 1858 and 1866, respectively, they ignored major currents of public opinion and clung to flawed policies. Bush's presidency certainly brings theirs to mind.

Harding and Coolidge are best remembered for the corruption of their years in office (1921-23 and 1923-29, respectively) and for channeling money and favors to big business. They slashed income and corporate taxes and supported employers' campaigns to eliminate unions. Members of their administrations received kickbacks and bribes from lobbyists and businessmen. "Never before, here or anywhere else," declared the Wall Street Journal, "has a government been so completely fused with business." The Journal could hardly have anticipated the even worse cronyism, corruption and pro-business bias of the Bush administration.

Despite some notable accomplishments in domestic and foreign policy, Nixon is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and abuse of presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S. citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.

Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.

One other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk. Some historians admire him, in part because he made their job easier by keeping a detailed diary during his administration, which spanned the years of the Mexican-American War. But Polk should be remembered primarily for launching that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory for the United States.

Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war -- an alleged Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right to attack another country "whenever he shall deem it necessary," Lincoln observed, would make it impossible to "fix any limit" to his power to make war. Today, one wishes that the country had heeded Lincoln's warning.

Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history.

efoner@aol.com

Eric Foner is DeWitt Clinton professor

of history at Columbia University.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Charity of Randy W.
***********************

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

OLIVER CROMWELL ----Monster responsible for the Irish / English divide?

2007-09-25T03:29:46Z

Let's hear the Armchair Historians hash this one out. This man truly had a tremensdous impact on World history.

He is the man responsible for creating the legendary " RED COATS " ...the first true British Standing Army...

He was Lord Protector of the British Empire, responsible for the creation of the English Commonwealth.... after declaring that monarchies were corrupt and having King Charles I beheaded.

He was also a puritan, in search of religious liberty ....yet he was murderously intolrant of Catholics...murdering men, women and children in the name of God during his siege at Drogheda.

Is he a monster?...A Military Genius....?...Man of faith on a mission defending his country or an overzealous religious monster?

posted in Armchair Historians - 5 replies

Partition

2007-09-25T01:11:26Z

Next week marks the 60th anniversary of the partition of India. Two new books on the subject—Yasmin Khan's The Great Partition and Alex von Tunzelmann's Indian Summer—are reviewed in recent issues of the Economist and The New Yorker, respectively. And though neither review mentions today's Iraq, (except, at most, in passing), the parallels are ominous and inescapable.

Anyone who believes that U.S. troops can simply and suddenly leave Iraq without risk of unleashing great horror—or who regards religious or ethnic partition as a solution instead of a desperate ploy—should look back at the summer of 1947, when the British Empire packed up and India fulfilled its "tryst with destiny" (as Jawaharlal Nehru described its awakening to independence), only to plunge into a monstrous spree of ethnic cleansing (12 million people uprooted, as many as 1 million murdered) that continues to take its toll today.

As India's independence and Britain's withdrawal seemed inevitable in the wake of World War II, the country's long-suppressed internal fissures began to rumble like a reawakened volcano. Gandhi's followers in the Congress Party campaigned as a secular movement. But Muslims saw it as a cover for Hindu domination, and Gandhi's rival, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, though a secular Muslim, played the religion card to the hilt to attract fundamentalists' favor.

On Aug. 15, when the British pulled out, millions of Hindus on Muslim land and Muslims on Hindu land—and lots of Sikhs on either—were brutalized, raped, or killed. Many packed their belongings and moved, but, unprotected, they were slaughtered along the way. The Indian Army, which had been created by Britain, also divided along religious lines, and, as the New Yorker review notes, "many of the communalized soldiers would join their coreligionists in killing sprees, giving the violence of partition its genocidal cast."

http://www.slate.com/id/2172001/

A much less violent "population exchange" took place between Greece and Turkey after WW1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

Hundred Years War

2007-09-10T19:02:10Z

Can anyone recommend a good source on this?

posted in Armchair Historians - 4 replies

Rome 2 is out!!!

2007-08-24T08:03:44Z

So I saw Rome Series 2 is out now at blockbuster.....currently working my way through in a hurry.
I am sorry but Atia is way too demonized. there's no way a woman could get ahold of another aristocrat and do such horrible things without being penalized...just my thoughts...any others?

posted in Armchair Historians - 4 replies

Iraq v. Vietnam

2007-08-23T20:16:30Z

The American withdrawal from Vietnam is widely remembered as an ignominious end to a misguided war — but one with few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies.

By the time these Americans were lifted off a roof in Saigon in 1975 , few American combat forces were left in Vietnam.
Now, in urging Americans to stay the course in Iraq, President Bush is challenging that historical memory.

In reminding Americans that the pullout in 1975 was followed by years of bloody upheaval in Southeast Asia, Mr. Bush argued in a speech on Wednesday that Vietnam’s lessons provide a reason for persevering in Iraq, rather than for leaving any time soon. Mr. Bush in essence accused his war critics of amnesia over the exodus of Vietnamese “boat people” refugees and the mass killings in Cambodia that upended the lives of millions of people.

President Bush is right on the factual record, according to historians. But many of them also quarreled with his drawing analogies from the causes of that turmoil to predict what might happen in Iraq should the United States withdraw.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/washington/23history.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=94cb59430f3958f2&ex=1188014400&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1187892540-g23EnX61uugge+1w7mQDXw

One problem with the Vietnam analogy is that in Vietnam we were fighting an organized enemy that could conceivably have been defeated by military means. In Iraq, we find our selves in chaos of a civil war between many conflicting forces, most of them native to the country itself, so a purely military victory is impossible, as Gen. Petraeus himself has said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.petraeus/index.html

This has not prevented many on the right from claiming that a military victory is imminent:

While the U.S. pursues stability and democracy, our enemies are merrily capitalizing on mayhem to carve out spheres of influence and bleed us dry. The only thing that could conceivably alter their calculations is a change in the balance of power on the ground. That is what Army Gen. David Petraeus is trying to achieve. But he is being undermined by incessant withdrawal demands from home, which are convincing our enemies that they can wait us out. Only if the other side faces the probability of defeat — or at least stalemate — can negotiations produce a durable accord.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13854/iraq_isnt_vietnam_henry.html

However, Americans have already heard this too often before. Ever since Bush's notorious "Mission Accomplished" speech, we have heard glowing reports of progress in Iraq, most of which eventually proved illusory. George Will: ". . . remember the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq, Iraqi voters' purple fingers, the Iraqi constitution, the killing of Saddam Hussein's sons, the capture of Hussein, the killing of Zarqawi, etc."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082202402.html

Victory is always around the corner, but it never seems to arrive.

George Will further warns that the United States is in danger of the disease which plagued the German Weimar Republic: Rightists claimed that German liberals had lost WW1 by defeatism (the "backstab" theory). This divided the republic into mutually hostile factions and undermined democracy in Germany.

In fact, we already had a bout of the "backstab" disease after the Vietnam War. It is asserted on the right that the war would have been successful if Congress had not cut off aid in the face of a North Vietnamese offensive. Melvin Laird: "The truth about Vietnam that revisionist historians conveniently forget is that the United States had not lost when we withdrew in 1973. In fact, we grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory two years later when Congress cut off the funding for South Vietnam that had allowed it to continue to fight on its own. "

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101faessay84604-p10/melvin-r-laird/iraq-learning-the-lessons-of-vietnam.html

This is where Bush's analogy breaks down: He blames the fall of Vietnam not on the aid cut-off, but on the withdrawal of troops, that is Nixon's "Vietnamization" plan, which is generally praised by conservatives as a success . . . This was in fact the model for our previous strategy in Iraq:

Our strategy can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down, and when our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051119-5.html

So, Bush is condemning as defeatist the strategy he himself previously endorsed.

The central problem in Iraq is that the Iraqis have *not* stood up for their country, they have divided into warring militias. It is folly to suppose that the United States can prop up the Iraq state by military force, when the Iraqis themselves have no confidence in it. The difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that the situation in Iraq is worse.

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI

2007-08-09T21:18:24Z

Both intensily controvertial moments from World War II,

The fire bombings of Dresden,

The nuclear bombs dropped over both Hiroshima AND Nagasaki.....

were these bombings necessary to win the war???....

Lets' hear it!!

posted in Armchair Historians - 69 replies

WWII the missing pices

2007-08-09T12:03:31Z

I've been a world war II buff for some time now, and have found a lot to read and watch on the subject. While there are some things there seem to be no end to meteal on, Pearla Harber, D_Day and so on, there are other I can find all most nothing about. These are:
1943 in the Pacific
China North of the Hump air fields
Red Chines after 1941
Russia after Kursk and before Berlen.

Any help Please?
Patrick

posted in Armchair Historians - 19 replies

Red China's army

2007-08-09T11:31:02Z

Can some one recomend a good book on history of the Red Army?

Patrick

posted in Armchair Historians - 5 replies

Are there any anti-communist films coming out of Hollywood?

2007-08-08T17:51:05Z

All I ever see are positive spins on communism: The Motorcycle Diaries, Reds,,,etc...

or anti-american films depicting the US Government push to rid hollywood and America of communist influence. ( you name the films...I'm not here top promote them )

I have never seen any films depicting the horrors of communism, not coming out of Hollywood, anyway......

God knows they have been responsible for the most deaths in the 20th century...what with the horrors attributed to Mao and Stalin and post WW II leaders in the Eastern block nations and to a smaller extent, but no less horrible, Castro and his ilk.

Please help me....If i'm missinformed...I would LOVE to know....

posted in Armchair Historians - 32 replies

Fine ancient jewelry for history geeks

2007-07-25T05:03:55Z

Hello, my name is Kerry Drew, AKA Sir Kerry the Rock.

An active member of SCA back in the late 60's, I have been a history buff since I was 8 or 9 and I am especially interested in the Scythians, Celts, Mayans, Greeks, Thracians, and Ancient Egyptian cultures, but nothing of historical significance fails to interest me.

I am a highly skilled jeweler, and metalsmith, with over 30 years experience, who offers his services to the general public, but particularly to those who prize fine craftsmanship in antiquities, and ancient style jewelry.

In order to support myself and pay for my collecting hobby, I sell hand-crafted jewelry, and high quality fine art reproductions on Ebay, as well as directly to the public. Custom jewelry commissions are welcomed!

Currently, I have several items available which any true lover of ancient art and antiquities might wish to see, and very possibly own!

Here is one notable example, an auction item which is ending very soon, of special interest to Viking buffs:

http://tinyurl.com/2shefe

I am offering Celtic, Viking, Egyptian, Roman, and other fine items of authentic historical jewelry.

Please patronize your fellow tribe members, and myself in particular!

http://stores.ebay.com/HYPERBOREAN-GIFTS

(Help keep a well meaning jeweler, and artisan on the straight and narrow!)

In addition, I specialize in the careful treatment of antiquities, while reproducing them, so that the designs can be worn and appreciated on a regular basis, with no risk to rare and fragile antiquities.

Should you have a ring, seal, scarab, buckle, amulet or other item of any material, which you would like to reproduce, in silver, gold or bronze, please let me know.

References are available by request.

Thanks for your kind attention!

Sincerely,

Kerry Drew @}:^)>c

Richmond California, USA

kerryika@gmail.com

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Bush v. the Historians

2007-07-11T17:03:02Z

Perhaps in part because of his shabby academic record, George W. Bush has never made a good impression on historians. As early as 2004, in a survey of 415 historians, 81% rated his administration as a failure.

http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html

It is probably safe to assume that his rating has not improved since then. Historians give him a much lower rating than he receives in popular opinion polls, so one may assume a political bias among historians. On the other hand, some strongly conservative presidents (especially Reagan) are generally rated much higher than Bush, a difference which cannot be attributed solely to liberal bias.

Bush himself has sometimes scorned the opinions of historians: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead," he told Woodward in 2004. But in the next breath, he claimed historical credit for victory in Afghanistan and Iraq: "The big news out of this isn't how George W. makes decisions. To me the big news is America has changed how you fight and win war, and therefore makes it easier to keep the peace in the long run. And that's the historical significance of this book, as far as I'm concerned."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html

Now, this historical lesson on "how you fight and win war" seems less creditable than it once did. Recently, Bush has taken comfort in the history of Harry Truman, once a very unpopular president: "Fortunately, we had a President named Harry Truman, who recognized the threat, took bold action to confront it, and laid the foundation for freedom's victory in the Cold War."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060527-1.html\

One wonders what "foundations" Bush thinks he has laid: Anything equal to NATO, the United Nations and Marshall Plan? Surrounded by supportive aides, he may well imagine that he has:

A tiny trusted circle around the president constantly reassures him that he is a messianic liberator and profound freedom fighter, on a par with FDR and Lincoln, and that history will vindicate his every act and utterance.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/worst_president_in_history/page/2

As he comes to the end of his term, history is a subject of growing interest to the President; soon it will be all there is left of his administration. And he continues to dream that he will one day be vindicated. Today he stated at a press conference:

This may not interest you, but I'll tell you anyway -- I read three histories on George Washington last year. It's interesting to me that they're still analyzing the presidency of our first President. And my attitude is, if they're still analyzing 1, 43 doesn't need to worry about it. (Laughter.) I'm not going to be around to see the final history written on my administration.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070517.html

My question is, does he have any reason for confidence? We don't need to see another list of his failures. What I want to know is, does he have any notable accomplishments? What would they be?

posted in Armchair Historians - 39 replies

40th anniversary of Israeli attack on U.S.

2007-06-14T04:02:14Z

Today is the 40th anniversary of the unprovoked attack by Israel on the intelligence-gathering ship USS Liberty which left 34 American sailors dead.

Read about it here: http://www.ussliberty.org/

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

Black Plague

2007-05-23T13:17:21Z

Does anyone know how/when it came to Europe, or how long it stuck around? Or how many people it killed?

posted in Armchair Historians - 32 replies

Quiz #6

2007-05-22T22:30:05Z

Okay well here's an obscure but easy one. Who will be the next horse out of the gate?

Question: How did Tamerlane get his name? Bonus question: What was his relationship to Sullyman?

posted in Armchair Historians - 2 replies

Answer for #5

2007-05-19T22:29:18Z

The Packers were the closest I could come to without giving it away. You got it dude! Good googling. IT'S NOW A THREE HORSE RACE! Wooooo! Check out the big brain on Brad! (Pulp Fiction)

The Pestigo fire and the Chicago fire both happened the same night of October 8th, 1971 leading some to believe that they were connected via some kind of big meteror shower. This hypothesis is still a contentious debate. In any event the Peshtigo fire was the largest ever in North America. It's like taking every huge California wildfire you have ever seen and puting them all together. And even THEN, it's bigger. When it swept into the area of GREEN BAY wisconsin, it was five miles wide and a mile tall moving at 50 miles an hour. After burning it's way to the water, the burning cinders were sufficient enough to LEAP GREEN BAY and start a conflagration on the other side wiping-out about a dozen towns total on both sides.

In Peshtigo which I guess was the worst hit, they buried 400 bodies in a mass grave which you can see if you google it. So, those clues DO fit-together you see? Incidentally, when the U.S.A.A.F. firebombed Tokyo in 1945, they studied the Peshtigo event as an example of what could happen. That one raid killed about 100,000 people.

Three horse race now. Forest horse leads by half a length. He only gets the half a point cause the Nazis at the South Pole info I never knew about.

Swaz

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Quiz #5 (cheating okay)

2007-05-19T22:27:46Z

Okay now for this one I'm going to sound like a schizo-alzheimer-retard and you're task is to connect the dots and make sense of this. Cheating is okay. What a mench I am. Okay....

THE GREENBAY PACKERS CAUSED THE CHICAGO FIRE WITH AN ASTEROID!

posted in Armchair Historians - 6 replies

Quiz #4

2007-05-18T13:17:08Z

I am going to make this one in reverse like jeopardy. To answer you must do it in the form of a question. This is some real cool historical shit on this one. Try not to google unless it is built into your armchair.

A: This is a "Vespuccian".

posted in Armchair Historians - 8 replies

Quiz #3

2007-05-17T22:37:14Z

Man you cheaters are making my life hard with this. But I must admit I'm having fun. Be like the Forrest horse and venture a guess. That Forrest horse is a smart horse. Now then...

Question: What people explored and colonized more unknown territory than anyone else in history? The answer will surprise you and is certain to foster quite a debate. Even if you cheat and google you'll be buried in a morass of data.

posted in Armchair Historians - 16 replies

Quiz #2

2007-05-11T04:56:56Z

Okay. I'm really trying hard with this one cause I know you guys are all going to google everything and pretend you're a BRILLIANT horse. (this is a fair horse race. No doping) So then....

Question: Over the years many places in the Antarctic have been named after either their discoverers or in honor of something or someone from their home countries. What did the Nazi's name?

posted in Armchair Historians - 11 replies

1632-1634

2007-05-10T13:15:46Z

Any one out there that's read David Weber and Eric Flint's history fictions 1632, 1633, or 1634 who can tell me how well they caught the feel of the 30 years war?

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

Quiz #1

2007-05-10T00:51:27Z

On the West Coast of Africa there is a country named Sierra Leone. How did it get it's name? There will be 100 in this series. Let's see who wins the horse race.

Swaz

posted in Armchair Historians - 11 replies

GEORGE B. McCLELLAN - Young Napoleon? or Arrogant, insubordinate coward?

2007-05-07T06:48:46Z

GEORGE B. McCLELLAN - Young Napoleon? or Arrogant, insubordinate coward?

posted in Armchair Historians - 7 replies

Attila's burial and it's location

2007-05-06T14:29:09Z

I am wondering if anyone has ever come across a source that mentioned the type of burial he recieved and a where.

In my distant memory, I believe someone told me that his men buried him under a river.

Don't worry, I'm not like that guy who keeps bugging Mongolians about the wherabouts of Ghengis Khan's burial site. lol!

I'm actually more interested if there is an account on how it was done.

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

Eric Flint

2007-05-04T02:51:19Z

Any one out there that's read David Weber and Eric Flint's history fictions 1632, 1633, or 1634 who can tell me how well they caught the feel of the 30 years war?

Patrick

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Grassy Knoll

2007-05-03T18:04:32Z

I've never been the least interested in the various Kennedy conspiracy theories, except maybe as exhibits in my mental museum of conspiracy theories. But David Talbot, whose journalism I respect, just wrote a book called Brothers, which details Bobby Kennedy's investigations into his brother's death. Apparently, he did believe that things were not what they seemed. There's an excerpt here: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/02/brothers/

I'm not so much that this book proves that there really was a conspiracy, or aims to. Rather, it demonstrates that Bobby thought there was one, which is interesting. Whether the former US Attorney General was onto something, or thinking through a haze of grief, I don't know.

There's an excerpt here: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/02/brothers/

Thoughts?

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Only have one

2007-05-02T00:21:48Z

Just last night Arbian nights was playing on Tevee, and the way I think I have been wondering lots and lots about the advent of A-bomb , H-bomb and debates of where to drop it if a foreign power decided to hit *just* one city. In Arabian nights the famous Aladin had *only * three wishes. Ahhh, *and this only*** question plagues me historically,
Back in the Early Cold war days college students would morbidly debate the question of it a foriegn country intented to drop *just their one* bomb on a city, which would it be.
Many claimed that New York should be the target, and every disaster movie seems to confirm (as well as the recent 9?11/2001 attack) that this is the place to best strike and
cripple the U.S.A. but as the recent Hurricane that wiped out New Orleans spurred someone to post on one of my Yahoo groups, actually New Orleans now, but especially during the early cold war years, it was an excellent choice as a target because of the
economic value as the bottle neck of most of the manufactured goods and grains, meats
ect produced in the Bread Basket of G.N.P of U.S.A.
Currently San Diego (my home) considers itself a prime target because of the military
consolidation of equipment and personal here. I still though wonder if a singular miltary
strike would be as useful as a singular strike against the economic underbelly of a nation.
The terrorists struck the WTC I feel because it is/was the center of economic interface with other nations and the business web to the rest of the world. The Pentagon was an obvious
ICONIGRAPHIC target, but not very feasible to hit as there is no true power or assets there.
If a foriegn power wished to cripple U.S.A. where might they *really * hit if they had only
*one shot* with a nuke.? This question for 1954 and for 2008...

Randy
>>>>>>

posted in Armchair Historians - 11 replies

WAR .....WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR???

2007-04-27T16:20:15Z

Is war EVER good?.....or justified?....

Was it justified for the United States to go to war during the Civil War?

Was Hitler stoppable without war?.....how about the Japanese?....

posted in Armchair Historians - 38 replies

What kind person was Hitler when he was not in public?

2007-04-25T21:27:20Z

I am wondering if anybody has information how Hitler was as a private person. Maybe interviews with people who dealt with him or similar.
I have never heard any voice recording of him other than his public speeches. Is anybody aware of any recordings?

posted in Armchair Historians - 26 replies

WINSTON CHURCHILL: A HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES

2007-04-19T23:42:12Z

Well written , knowledgeable and interesting, this is an excellent primer for the casual historian. Insightful comments on the events that sometimes seem small but have an effect in shaping the direction of history...

Churchill observes that the English-speaking people have played an important role in shaping the economic progress and political freedoms that the world at large enjoys.

From abolition to property rights to political independence....

posted in Armchair Historians - 2 replies

watching events become hiSTORY

2007-04-17T19:14:15Z

I don't know if everyone can view the "discussions" page on wiki, but these last two days have been fascinating to watch a single event without present historical implications, become "hiSTORY', as wiki editors tackled teh events as they came in, to fashion teh "article".

what facts matter, what facts don't matter, and what fights shall we get into to demand our facts stay in the article.

almost as fascinating to watch humans edit teh story, as to see people have to deal with the very reality of a violent culture.

i'm sure the news is much teh same way, in building history out of an event, too young to have history. course we do it all the time "BLIZZARD OF 2007!!!!"

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

United Nations: Mend It or End It

2007-04-17T19:00:15Z

United Nations: Mend It or End It

The US taxpayers fund more than twenty percent of the annual budget of the United Nations. We house them in New York City, on some of the most valuable real estate in the world. We constantly defer to them on matters of international importance, even at the risk of our own security. Why do we continue to fund this collection of advocates for international criminals and dictators?

Recent speeches given by world leaders at the UN have brought the problems plaguing that organisation into sharp focus. The President of the United States made a speech about spreading freedom, democracy, human rights and reform, and received some polite applause. A Communist dictator from Venezuela and the mouthpiece of the Islamofascist theocrats who rule Iran made speeches attacking America, accusing our country and our President of horrible crimes, and received ovations.

"Every nation that travels the road to freedom moves at a different pace, and the democracies they build will reflect their own culture and traditions," President Bush told the assembled delegates. "But the destination is the same: A free society where people live at peace with each other and at peace with the world." Hugo Chavez of Venezuela repeatedly referred to President Bush as "the devil" during his own speech, ostentatiously crossing himself, and complained that "it smells of sulfur still today." Ahmadinejad of Iran ended his speech with a prayer for the return of the 12th Imam, asking that Allah "make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause." (Imagine the furor that would have erupted had President Bush ended his speech by praying for the Rapture and asking that God make everyone a Christian.)

Every year, thousands of lives are lost to the UN's corruption and vacillation, and untold numbers of crimes, large and small, are committed by its representatives. I'm not just talking about the reams of unpaid parking tickets issued annually by the NYC police, either. More than 800,000 Tutsi and Hutu died in Rwanda in 1994 while UN troops watched, prevented from acting by layers of bureacracy and a divided Security Council. Thousands of Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered by Serbs in Srebrenica while UN observers, well, observed. More recently, UN peacekeepers watched as Hizballah terrorists launched rockets attacks against Israeli civilians on a daily basis, even reporting that Hizballah "fired from the vicinity of five UN positions" in July 2006. Indeed, the UN's legacy of inaction is exceeded in criminality only by its actions.

After President Clinton brought NATO in to stop the slaughter in the Balkans, the region was turned over to the UN, by whom it is mismanaged to this day. UN peacekepers ran forced prostitution rings in Bosnia and Kosovo until turned in by an American worker. UN peacekeepers have been involved in rape, slavery, child prostitution, black marketeering, bribery and food-for-sex scandals from East Timor to West Africa. In the biggest disgrace in history, France, Russia and China used their votes on the Security Council to prevent action against Saddam Hussein in order to protect oil contracts they had made with his regime while he brutalised the Iraqi people. Prominent and influential people in those countries and many more took bribes from Saddam to use their influence on his behalf. The scandal reached all the way up to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself.The largest criminal organisation in history -- that's what our tax dollars are funding.

Right now, genocidal attacks are taking place against blacks in the Darfur region of Sudan, carried out by the Arab Janjaweed militias, while the UN passes resolutions "deploring" the slaughter but doing nothing to stop it. Sudan, coincidentally, is a member of the UN's Human Rights Commission, along with Cuba, Libya and China. Iran has defied repeated UN demands to stop enriching uranium in pursuit of nuclear weapons, while Russia and China -- again protecting their business partner, as they did Iraq -- block the Security Council from recommending even the weakest sanctions. Iran, again coincidentally, is vice-Chair of the Disarmament Commission. After ten years of trying, the UN is still unable to write a resolution condemning terrorism, for fear of offending terror-supporting member states. In fact, the United Nations is unable to do anything at all to fulfill its purpose, which -- as written into its charter -- was "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace."

The problem stems from the UN's insistence on treating all member states the same, regardless of their record on human rights, terrorism, war or democracy. It is long past time for us to either change the United Nations or disband it in favor of a more effective council of nations. Either way, nations who do not practice democracy within their own borders should not be allowed to cast votes on any international actions. Pretending that delegates of governments that do not represent their people somehow speak for those people is a joke. Nations under any kind of censure for disarmament or human rights abuses should not be allowed to sit on, let alone chair, those commissions.

As long as we continue to pretend that the United Nations is what it should be, rather than what it is, we have no hope of reforming it. It's time to look at the UN's problems honestly and work to fix them, or else halt its funding and remove its headquarters from our soil.

Posted at Sunday, September 24, 2006 by CavalierX

http://guardian.blogdrive.com/

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

How Vietnam Really Ended

2007-04-11T20:00:08Z

How Vietnam Really Ended
Events abroad—not domestic anti-war activism—brought the war to an end.
By Gideon Rose
Posted Monday, Jan. 22, 2007, at 11:14 AM ET
With the Iraq war going badly and a hostile Congress looking for the exit, comparisons to Vietnam are all the rage. Accounts of that war's endgame have generally been spun politically or distorted by hindsight, however.

Congressional anti-war activism, for example, was neither a heroic reining in of a runaway government (as the left claims) nor a perfidious stab in the back (as the right charges). It was simply the predictable epilogue to a drama that had largely played itself out years before. And while domestic politics established the broad guidelines within which different administrations operated, White House officials had substantial leeway to set policy as they wished. The real constraints, then as now, lay not in what was saleable at home but in what was achievable abroad.

http://www.slate.com/id/2158016/

posted in Armchair Historians - 37 replies

WWF

2007-03-30T04:10:27Z

After reading through a back log of posts, I realized that with all the posing, name calling, ete, its like WWF for geeks.

posted in Armchair Historians - 5 replies

kurd

2007-03-29T08:12:04Z

would anybody answer me when the kurdish nation was divided into 5 countries, and why?

posted in Armchair Historians - 18 replies

Anyone Interested in 18th Century Ideas and History

2007-01-28T01:30:10Z

Open Invitation for Anyone Interested in 18th Century Ideas and History:
"Dr. Johnson and the Age of Reason" is a group for anyone interested in "the long 18th century" from Voltaire to the fall of Napoleon. Thomas Paine, London coffeehouses, Franklin, Voltaire, Burke, the French and American revolutions and theTerror-- I'm fascinated by how these people shaped our world and how many of the arguments carry on in modern dress.
It may especially interest those persons fond of Dr. Samuel Johnson, late of Gough Square, London, just around the corner from the Cheshire Cheese (where for many years lived the foulest-mouthed parrot in London, who, being exhausted from imitating the sound of a champagne cork on New Years, 1926, died of an apoplexy, and whose obituary was featured in over 200 newspapers.)
The tribe address is http://tribes.tribe.net/drjohnson

posted in Armchair Historians - 2 replies

Nolichucky Jack and the Fourteenth State

2007-01-25T20:18:22Z

(reposted with corrections)

http://www.sitemason.com/files/lcPalq/johnsevier.jpg

Every schoolchild knows there were thirteen original states. But time and history have forgotten our fourteenth state - the one the others would not accept into the Union.

Our fourteenth state (actually, its founders called it an independent republic) existed for only four years, from 1784 to 1788. During that time it was a subject of continuous controversy and bitter debate. At one point, its governor came close to signing a treaty with Spain that would have been disastrous for the fledgling United States. He also almost got into a war with North Carolina. But what could one expect from a state that would elect a governor named "Nolichucky Jack?"

The fourteenth state covered an area of 29 million acres and was named after one of the nation's most illustrious founding fathers - Benjamin Franklin. It was called the Free Republic of Franklin.

The Franklin saga began in the early 1780s, when North Carolina's western border extended all the way to the Mississippi River. At the conclusion of the War for Independence, public funds were in short supply, and especially so in North Carolina. With the end of the war, hundreds of Carolinians crossed the mountains to settle in North Carolina's western wilderness. By 1784, the frontier inhabitants were demanding that North Carolina's government protect them from hostile Indians and roving bands of outlaws that plagued their settlements.

Most North Carolinians considered the western settlers to be little more than ruffians and outlaws themselves and did not want to spend their tax money to protect them. That prompted North Carolina Governor Alexander Martin to come up with a plan that proved politically popular with his constituents. He dumped the problem into the lap of the Continental Congress. At the urging of the governor, the North Carolina Assembly ceded its western lands back to the Continental Congress, making that body responsible for protecting the wilderness region. What Governor Martin did not plan on was the fierce independence of the western settlers or the stubborn nature of Nolichucky Jack.

Jack's real name was John Sevier. A native Virginian descended from a French Huguenot family, his exploits as a frontier character were legendary. He was a hero at the Battle of King's Mountain during the War for Independence and before that had earned a reputation as a pathfinder and Indian fighter.

Shortly after North Carolina ceded the territory to the Continental Congress, Sevier and a group of his frontier cronies held a secession convention. On August 23, 1784, they declared North Carolina's western counties of Sullivan, Greene, and Washington to be independent. Sevier and his friends then held a constitutional convention and formed a provisional government they called the Free Republic of Franklin. Sevier was elected its governor.

The secession of the western counties did not concern Governor Martin. That was a problem for the Continental Congress. But the formation of an independent republic on his western border upset him mightily. He quickly moved to have the North Carolina Assembly reclaim the territory, but by then the Franklinites were enjoying their new status as a free state. North Carolina, they insisted, had no jurisdiction over their republic. Governor Martin responded by declaring the western territory in a state of rebellion and threatened to send troops to reclaim it. Sevier responded by vowing to raise an army to defend his republic.

On May 16, 1785, William Cooke, representing Franklin, arrived in New York to present to the Continental Congress a petition seeking statehood. Caught by surprise, North carolina's delegation protested. Following a heated debate, a vote was taken. Seven states voted to admit Franklin to the Union. Although a majority, it fell two votes short of the required two-thirds needed for approval.

What followed was a period of chaos in Franklin. Because it had no means to back a currency, barter became the prevailing system of exchange. Governor Sevier's salary was fixed at 1,000 deer hides per year.

North Carolina would not give up its claim to the territory. In 1786, the North Carolina Assembly passed the Act of Oblivion. It promised to waive all back taxes if the citizens of Franklin would simply return to the fold. But, behind the scene, others were wooing Franklin. Across the ocean, Spain's monarchy was formulating a plan to form a number of frontier colonies into a Spanish alliance in North America. A minister from Spain arrived in Franklin, seeking Governor Sevier's cooperation. Had Sevier accepted the Spanish proposal, he might have become a wealthy man; but he turned it down.

Ignoring Franklin's claim of independence, North Carolina sent its own officials into the republic, creating two sets of authorities and a great deal of confusion. Rival clerks of court issued marriage licenses and recorded land transactions. Rival justices handed down conflicting decisions, and rival sheriffs got into fistfights. It seemed everyone was in control - and no one. Taxes went unpaid because no one was sure to whom they should be paid.

In exasperation, William Cooke wrote to Benjamin Franklin, urging him to intervene on behalf of the republic that bore his name, pointing out that the region was in a state bordering on anarchy. As it turned out, the aging Franklin was so far out of touch he was not even aware the troubled republic was named for him. In a letter of reply dated August 12, 1786, he noted: "I had never before been acquainted that the name of your new state had any relation with my name, having understood that it was called Frankland."

Franklin went on to suggest that representatives from Franklin and North Carolina approach Congress to serve as a mediator. But North Carolina's legislative delegation was working behind the congressional scenes. In November of 1787 Congress decided that a new state could be admitted to the Union only after affirmation of nine of the thirteen states "and the consent of the state that originally claimed the territory." North Carolina had won the legal battle, but the ever-combative Nolichucky Jack was not about to give up.

In desperation, Governor Sevier turned once more to Spain, requesting a defense loan to protect Franklin's citizens from a military invasion by North Carolina. However, before a deal could be struck, a company of North Carolina law officers, led by John Tipton, invaded Franklin to arrest Sevier, clap him in irons, and spirit him back across the mountains. He had barely settled in his jail cell when a contingent of frontiersmen from Franklin showed up to break him out of jail and escort him back home.

By then, Sevier had realized the futility of continuing the struggle. In February of 1788, he and other leaders of the ill-fated venture crossed the mountains into North Carolina and surrendered to authorities. They stood trial, but their only punishment was to take an oath of allegiance to the State of North Carolina.

Ironically, Sevier wouldbecome a state senator representing Greene County in the North Carolina legislature. Also odd: As soon as things settled down, North Carolina once more ceded the same territory back to the federal government. This time it was accepted by Congress, and the "Territory of the United States of America South of the Ohio River" was formed. On June 1, 1796, a new state was created from the territory that once had been the troublesome Republic of Franklin.

They named it Tennessee. Its first governor was none other than the illustrious Nolichucky Jack Sevier.

-Thomas Ayres

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

Movies about ancient Rome

2007-01-09T20:17:52Z

Hi....I've been in love with movies about this time period since I was a kid,and I know that from an historical aspect most are totally incorrect but that doesn't stop me from loving them. Films like Quo Vadis,Spartacus,sign of the Cross,Cleopatra..right up to Gladiator.It made me want to read everything i could on the empire. but it always seems funny to me that nobody made a film about the later years of Rome. I always thought Hadrian's life would make a perfect movie. Any others you can think of

Mike

posted in Armchair Historians - 7 replies

While there is some talking of Rome...

2006-12-29T06:39:30Z

First, thank you to Melissa, Duchess of Pie, moderator of this tribe, for sharing in a pic I uploaded to this tribe quite some time ago, as the main pic -- Veduta de Avanzi della Villa di Mecenate, by Giovanni Piranesi. Thanks!

When I first stumbled upon Piranesi in the late 90's, and upon this etching in particular, his etchings helped to bring so much more of Roman history (and history, in general) into clarity. Of all the Piranesi etchings that I have, this one stands out for many reasons, especially as a view of history, of Roman history, architecture, romantique, and, as I soon came to find (as I was espeially struck by the etching as a whole, at first) upon closer inspection, as an allegory of sorts upon some reflections of the human condition.

I'm interested to hear other points of view on this etching -- if for nothing else, this will be sort of a first for me, discussing this art with folks who have a variety of viewpoints to contribute.

I also draw your attention to the link below, where you can zoom in a bit upon the etching. Unfortunately, when I first uploaded this image to this tribe and elsewhere on tribe.net, the link provided then allowed you to zoom a bit closer than current program will allow. Anyways, there are five noticeable people in the etching, and, like many Piranesi etchings, they provide a story, two, or more within the larger canvas.

What does this etching say to you?

Towards the bottom left, just right of the title heading, one will see what seems to be two men, discussing something.....

But the other three people in the etching have been particularly interesting to me -- At the gate of the Villa, up to the entrance, one sees what seems to be a wandering pilgrim, traveller, stopped, looking towards the entrance, ...paused. At the entrance, one seems to make out a half-asleep, or, just plain bored and lazy guard,...But the most interesting figure is just above that entrance, on the next floor of the villa, looking out from the second archway from the left -- a woman, dressed in relatively little, arms raised,...

search.famsf.org:8080/view.shtml

A few of the questions I have always mulled this etching over with:

1) What is Piranesi saying with the ruins and with the villa, its paricular view, the environment, the times he etched it in, and regarding history before then (ca 1763)?

2) Ways that this as other of his etchings are precursor to the approaching age of Romanticism, while as classical as classicism gets...

3) The pilgrim, the woman, and the relation between them according to Piranesi. An etcing of just the villa itself is breathtaking itself. But Piranesi went further, introducing rather unconventional figures - metaphors - stories - allegories.

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies