Tag Archives: News

Current Affairs, Diplomacy, Empires

Diplomacy: Vital for the Success of a Nation

Leave a comment

In the early years of the young republic, the United States struggled to gain the respect of the great powers; the ones who dictated and dominated the western world. Men like John Adams and Ben Franklin worked tirelessly to carve out a place on the world stage for the fledgling nation. Early diplomats struggled to gain the respect of their foreign counterparts, partly due to their dislike of the pomp and protocol that was part of a system they had revolted against in 1776. A greater hindrance was due to the perception that the young nation was unskilled, uncultured, and unprepared for the world stage. It would take skilled craftsmen in the art of diplomacy to change this perception.

An early diplomat for the United States was the savvy Benjamin Franklin. He understood what was needed in order to gain his objectives, but he also contributed to the perception of a nation less sophisticated than the great nations of Europe. He was hugely popular in Europe and was the life of the social scene. The more he portrayed the backwoodsman in the coonskin hat, the more he garnered favor, and in doing so gained access to the powerful people who dominated the political world. His flamboyance and charismatic appeal were offset and balanced by his diplomatic counterpart, the puritanical, John Adams. Both men were vital to the early diplomatic efforts of the United States, but Franklin was the one who would stand out due to his charisma. His high intellect, vast accumulation of knowledge, savvy people skills served the United States well in those early days.

Savvy statesmen and skilled diplomats were vital to the survival and growth of the United States, especially during the first hundred years when the position of US ambassador did not exist. Rank, especially when dealing with European powers, eased diplomatic efforts, and the rank of minister did not guarantee the audiences desired by US diplomats. In short, the United States needed to earn its place in world politics, and it need to earn its place as great power. While the wars of the nineteenth century aided in shifting global power, the efforts of diplomats, working often behind the scenes, did much more to change the role of the United States in world affairs. Even as the wars of twentieth century dramatically shifted power, diplomacy was what made the United States stand out. Military strength alone would only have made the world stand in fear of the young nation. Diplomacy showed that while young, the nation had wisdom beyond its years. Strong and wise, the United States would celebrate its 200th birthday as one of the greatest nations of modern history.

Like all nations, the United States has a spotted history. No nation, regardless of its origin, can ever achieve virtuous standing, but a nation can seek virtuous goals. The founders of the United States sought a better system, a fairer system, a more virtuous system. They sought political and social equality, even as they were bound by social and economic constraints of their age. Diplomacy, foreign and domestic, was central to the formation and the growth of the nation. Discourse, dialog, debate – this is how a nation formed, a nation dedicated to the goal of making their corner of the world a better place. The bullets and battlefields cleared the path for the diplomats to do their work.

History tends to give the credit and the blame to the leaders of nations. However, a thorough study of history shows that the success and failure of any leader rests on their chosen advisors and subordinates the leader. Charisma only goes so far. Successful leaders are ones who utilize others wisely, seek knowledgeable advisors, and value opposing opinions. When such wisdom of leadership is coupled with charisma, then the world takes note. When this wisdom is lacking, chaos is feared.

When the United States was young, it worked hard to gain a place on the world stage. Like any youth, it made mistakes, but it also worked with the goal of becoming as good, if not better than the rest.  Did it achieve its goal, and then like so many, lose sight of what it had originally sought? Did it reach its goal and then decide it no longer needed the tools that had helped it achieve the goal? Or is it an ongoing journey – one that is fraught with obstacles and lessons?

There are many lessons the study of history can teach. The wise will study the history of great nations and see that diplomacy has always been as vital for success as military and economic might has been. Without it, there is only fear and contempt rather than respect and deference.

 

Further Reading

The American Century: A History of the United States Since the 1890s    by Walter LaFeber, Richard Polenberg, Nancy Woloch

From Colony to Superpower: US Foreign Relations Since 1776     by George C Herring, Robert Fass, et al.

American Revolution, Cold War, Current Affairs, Education, War, World War I

Liberty vs. Servitude: the Value of Education

Leave a comment

Stupidity is not owned by any one group, and education has long been viewed as intrinsic to the strength of the nation. In recent decades, attacks on education have been virulent. Anti-intellectualism has spread like a plague which is undermining the health of the nation. A nation that once celebrated literacy is now a nation deriding education and rewarding ignorance. Knowledge, whether from a book or in the form of a skill, should be celebrated rather than criticized. Instead of encouraging the pursuit of knowledge, there has been a call for the use of plain speech, a euphemism for dumbing down the content of shared information, which mocks the very foundation of the nation.

The men and women of 1776 were unique in their day due to high rate of literacy. While not everyone could read and write, a good portion could. This literacy made it much easier for the ideas of the revolution to spread and for the nation to grow. Literacy was a benefit of liberty and would draw immigrants from around the world. Literacy was part of the path to prosperity.

During the early days of the U.S. involvement in World War I, troop literacy, or rather the lack of literacy, was problematic for commanders. Modern warfare required soldiers who could read, write, and adapt quickly to the tasks that were foreign to them. By the end of two world wars, the United States realized a strong nation was dependent on a having a literate nation, more importantly, a strong nation needed an educated populace. Literacy was part of a strong national defense.

More than just the ability to read and write would be needed to win the modern war where science and technology would decide the battles. It could be said that the Cold War would be fought in the classroom rather than on the battlefield. The United States was determined to lead the world, and education was vital in the competition against the Soviet Union. Scientific minds, economic skill, and political craftsmanship would be required if containing Soviet influence was to be achieved. Defeating this particular foe required a populace where great minds could rise up from every locale, from every corner of the nation. A strong educational system was needed nationwide. While social injustice would not be eradicated, in a war of ideologies even the repressed were vital to the fight. It was opportunity rather than race that mattered when it came to intellectual potential, and in this particular war, all potential needed to be cultivated if victory  was to be secured. Literacy was part of achieving social equality.

Literacy has been key to the United States’ success throughout its history, but literacy produces a workforce who expect liberty rather than servitude, and that means a workforce that is not necessarily cheap. For cheap labor, businesses look elsewhere or look for ways to create cheap labor at home. Diminish the value of education – whether it be vocational or academic – and you will no longer need to look for cheap labor in far off locales. Diminish the value of education, and you have a cheap workforce at home. Diminish the value of education, and you are one step closer to achieving an illiterate populace who are relegated to servitude rather than benefiting from liberty.

 

 

Further Reading

Doughboys, the Great War and the Remaking of America by Jennifer D. Keen

“Every Man Able to Read” by Jack Lynch

“American Way of Life and Education during the Cold War” by Jessie Hagen

Colonialism, Current Affairs, Unexpected Consequences

Empty Tributes and Avoiding Change

Leave a comment

A recent discussion concerning cultural appropriation has identified an interesting question that needs pondering. Should it be considered an honor to have something attributed to a group, even if the thing in question is not a traditional piece of the group’s culture? Why, therefore, would a group of people be irritated or offended by such an honor, such a tribute? Upon pondering this, another question is arises. Who does the tribute actually benefit – the recipient or the one bestowing the tribute?

The tribute that generated these questions concerns the technique of chain-plying, a yarn spinning technique believed to have existed throughout the world prior to modern history. In the United States, this technique gained the name of “Navajo plying” because the indigenous people, the Diné (or commonly known as the Navajo), were known to use this technique in their weaving. It was not necessarily a traditional spinning technique for them, but rather a way of finishing a woven product. Therefore, it begs the question that wouldn’t referring to the spinning technique as Navajo-plying be incorrect or an empty tribute?

A tribute that is empty, not directly associated with any reason to honor or give acclaim, has inherent problems. Primarily, paying tribute without there being any real justification is often the result of a desire to feel better about how one has treated another. In simple terms, a tribute of this kind is made from a desire to make amends for past and/or present actions ill in nature. Therefore an empty tribute benefits the one bestowing rather than the recipient.  Does this tendency derive from racism? Is it merely a byproduct of colonialism? Can it simply be attributed to the notion that another culture is exotic and desirable? Or is the tendency simply paternalistic in nature – the notion that an honor is being bestowed on a lesser society who should be grateful for the tribute?

Throughout history, society has experienced the clash of cultures. It has also experienced the blending of cultures. Scholars now consider how the cultural blending of the past affects the people of the present. In particular, the question is raised as to whether the cultural blending of the past provides equanimity or discrimination for current members of the society. These considerations, and subsequent calls for change, have caused their own clashes of culture. In recent times tributes, particularly in the form of statues and monuments, have become the catalyst for heated debates and deadly violence. While these tributes may have originated out of differing intent than the empty tribute describe above, when they are challenged the reaction is quite the same. While is surprises few that challenges to statues and monuments associated with historical identity generate conflict, it may surprise many that something as seemingly simple as what people call a spinning technique, generates similar conflict. The heated debate over, and attempt to correct the name of a spinning technique highlights issue: change often causes someone to feel a sense of loss or inconvenience. One would think that by changing to a more universally understood name, one which is of greater descriptive nature and is already in general use, no one would feel a loss. At most, only a small inconvenience might be felt as an individual becomes accustomed to a different name. However, even when change benefits another individual or group, and where the change is of minor inconvenience, the change can generate a sense of loss for some. It can even generate a fear of greater loss. Therefore avoiding change, particularly when it means holding onto empty tributes, seems reasonable to many.

 

Additional Materials:

The Age of Homespun: Objects and Stories in the Creation of and American Myth by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Deculturalization and the Struggle for Equality: A Brief History of the Education of the Dominated Cultures in the United States by Joel Spring

Video blog on terms used in fiber arts by Abby Franquemont

 

 

 

 

Current Affairs, Education

Historiography: How the Story is Written

Leave a comment

In the modern world of minute-by-minute news coverage, it is easy to assume that history is being recorded both comprehensively and accurately. One may even think that the role of the historian is passé and all that is needed for the modern world is the analyst who will try to make sense out of current events. Even in a world where the events of the day are documented, and where social media can turn our most mundane activities into a historical sketch that we can share with all of our cyber friends, the role of the historian is crucial. It may even be more crucial than ever before because of the sheer volume of data that must now be shifted through in order to create a comprehensive, yet pertinent, story.

Accuracy in historical record has always been important to historians, but it has not been nearly as important as the story. In the days in which history was borrowed from others in order to bolster a rising nation’s image, accuracy was often less important than fostering the image that a new empire was ancient and eternal in origin. A good example of this is found with the Roman Empire, which having risen in power desired an historical record that would magnify its greatness rather than highlight its youth. Throughout history, political entities as well as powerful individuals have sought to bolster their images by creating histories that connect them to other prestigious historical events, periods, and reigns. By likening themselves to others who were dynamic, successful, dominant, and strong, they create an image of grandeur that is only partially based on the events of their own time and of their own making.

As technology and the availability of the written record evolved over the centuries, it became harder to use the history of others as a means in which one’s own history could be created. Even before the printing press, some historians began comparing their own region’s historical journey with that of their neighbors. In some cases, as with the historian Tacitus, the neighbor was heralded for its purity and simplicity in contrast to the corruption at home. In other cases, the neighbor was villainized in an attempt to deflect attention away from unpopular home-state policy. In either situation, the history of others was borrowed, no longer as a means to explain where a political state had come from, but rather to explain how the home-state compared to others. This trend created an interesting phenomenon in the writing of history. No longer was it simply good enough to extoll the greatness of one’s own past, but now it was acceptable, and even expected to criticize the neighbor as a means of exhausting oneself. By making the neighbor seem less noble or even villainous, the historian could create an even more illustrious history of the home-state.

In the not so distant past, historians were at the whim and will of powerful men who could finance the historical pursuit of the scholar. Modern technology has changed this to some extent. Scholarly history may still be contingent on research grants made possible by powerful institutions and individuals, but technology has made everyone who uses the internet a historian, or at least a historical participant. No longer is it only the famous, powerful, or well-connected who get recorded. Some individuals may only be contributors of data, whereas others may add more significantly to the record of daily events. In this world of high speed technology and vast data collection, history is being recorded more thoroughly than ever before, but that doesn’t mean that the record is any more accurate. Often, history is being recorded in very inaccurate ways and by people with little to no understanding of the ramifications this has on both the people of today as well as the historians of tomorrow. In the race to beat the ‘other guys’ to the best story, accuracy, once again, is secondary to the story being told.

Modern historians bound by ethical parameters of historical accuracy, try to share a story that is comprehensive, and as unbiased as possible. They are taught to question sources and present a full picture of an event, a person, or a period of time. In some cases, they are even taught to use good writing skills in order to make the story enjoyable to read. They are taught to recognize that history is not always pleasant, but it can always be of value, if even to only a few. At times, history can be a story of valor, bravery, and patriotic glory. At other times, history can be just the opposite. The modern historian may write a tale that makes some readers uncomfortable, but the job of the historian is to write a comprehensive and pertinent story rather than the myths and propaganda so many others are determined to write.