24 June 2010
So, this morning, one of my co-workers showed up with his new (~10 days old) baby daughter. Then, this afternoon, another co-worker showed up with her 3 week old baby daughter. There are 16 people working in my department and four of them have had new babies this calendar year: one in January, one in February, and two in June.
We’re about 35 days from the baby’s due date. I’m happy to say we’ve really made some progress in the naming department. For a boy, we’ve decided on a first name, and we just need to check one more thing before we agree on the middle name. For a girl, we’ve decided on a middle name, and we’ve got the first name down to two options. So, hopefully we can narrow this down to two for-sure names (one for each gender) within the next five weeks.
Owen and I went out to the garage today and, while he road his trike and badgered me every 5 minutes to ask when we’d be going back inside, I put the final touches on the cradle. I didn’t really need to, but I felt like sanding and sealing the bottom – something I hadn’t done before. Certainly no one will ever see it, but, you know, there were some rough spots and markings on it that I wanted to get rid of. Now it’s just a matter of waiting while the fumes dissipate. It should be fine in a few weeks. So, if the new baby is early, he/she won’t have a cradle for a while until it’s fume-free. But I guess that’s okay.
25 June 2010
QUESTION: What person gets the most historical markers in any state? Nope, it’s not Abe Lincoln in Illinois, nor is it Washington in Virginia. Just keep reading.
Today I finally finished reading James Loewen’s book Lies Across America. I bought this book shortly after hearing Loewen’s lecture at St. Thomas. I’ve been reading it ever since. It took me a long time to read the book, since I was busy reading books for school, then I was simultaneously trying to work through the Little House books.
This was one of the best books I’ve read in a while. Loewen travels across America; each chapter (they’re very short chapters) discusses a monument, memorial, statue, or museum in the country and Loewen points out why it is a lie. In some chapters, he uses the museum or monument he’s discussing as a springboard to talk about a larger issue. At other times, he points out, not actual errors, but oversights, such as the fact the Scottsboro, Alabama doesn’t have any marker for the famous case of the Sottsboro boys. In other cases, he points out monuments and plaques that ARE effective. He’s a fan, for instance, of the Lincoln Memorial, and he praises a marker in Maine.
The book begins in Alaska (where he discusses the horrendously names Mount McKinley) and then progresses east, ending on the east coast. He explains this only makes sense, because that’s the order in which America was settled. Never thought of it that way, have ya?
Here’s another interesting fact: Did you know that King County, Washington changed it’s name to…King County? Yep, it did. First it was named for Vice President William King (VP under Franklin Pierce, and a pro-slave racist), but in 1986 officials changed the name to honor Martin Luther King.
And here’s an interesting thing: following World War I, “The War to End All Wars,” many towns set up a monument to honor their soldiers. But, of course, that war didn’t end all wars. So, following World War II, the monuments were far more modest, sometimes the World War I markers were just amended to included World War II. This is odd considering America’s active involvement in part II lasted more than twice as long as its participation in part I.
And here’s a slight against men: Many markers tells of violence against women, but there’s not many that discuss similar violence against men, despite the fact that men are 4.2 times more likely to die a violent death than women. Loewen says that killing women is news…killing men is not.
Loewen frequently point out how markers tell of things being “settled” or “discovered” only when white people finally do it. The inference being that only once whites have seen a place has humankind actually discovered it. One area (Block Island, Rhode Island) displays a copper scroll on a boulder that says it was settled in 1661, despite the fact that prior to that date, there were over 1,350 people living there and, in 1911 (when the marker was erected), there were only 1,314. So…”settlement,” in this case, meant fewer people.
Much of the book discusses aspects of the civil war, and I was surprised to learn of the honors erected to the confederate as far north as Montana. Meanwhile, other monuments praise many confederate leaders, and outright lie about blacks helping in the Southern fight (they were not allowed to fight in the war until March 1865, mere weeks before the war had ended). Of course, much of this is due to the KKK’s efforts and the end of reconstruction, but it’s amazing that so many “good darkie” statues and other markers praising slavery continue to exist to this day. And did you know Helen Keller’s birthplace sports a Confederate flag these days? Despite the fact that she was a strong anti-racist advocate and early supporter of the NAACP.
And do you know of Elizabeth van Lew? Maybe not…because the city of Richmond, Virginia, purposely built a school at the site of her childhood home in order to obliterate any memory of her (yeah, that’s another thing about many of the southern states: they get rid of any interesting sites regarding people who fought for equality), but you should. See, she was a spy during the Civil War. Probably because she was “only a woman” she managed to evade the eyes of confederates. In this case, the sexism came in handy. Though living in the Confederacy, she did not hide her anti-slavery feelings. She hid Union soldiers in her home, and nursed the wounded and, during a break at a POW camp, she helped 59 of the 109 escapees to get away clean.
Members of Confederate President Jefferson Davis’ staff ran away to the north, and Van Lew helped them. She even set fire to Davis’ mansion, though it was put out before too much damage occurred.
Van Lew set up a relay station to get information to Union headquarters. She was often able to supply general Grant with a morning copy of the Richmond newpaper – sometimes with fresh flowers included!She spent much of her time pacing the streets of Richmond acting insane so that no one would think she was worth the trouble and, in doing so, she was free to sneak in to Confederate offices and grab some information.
Following the war, she was a hated member of the community and lived like a pariah until her death. In 1912, the city of Richmond tore down her mansion “to get rid of all traces of her,” according to one historian.
The book has several stories like this. Stories that I’d like to see made into Hollywood films if for no other reason than to remind us that these people existed. We’ve had enough “War is awesome!” movies.
Go read this book. I’m adding it to my “25 Favorite Non-Fiction Books of All Time” list right now.
ANSWER: Confederate cavalry leaders and founder of the KKK, Nathan Bedford Forrest in Tennessee.
“And here’s a slight against men: Many markers tells of violence against women, but there’s not many that discuss similar violence against men, despite the fact that men are 4.2 times more likely to die a violent death than women. Loewen says that killing women is news…killing men is not.”
That is likely for a reason though. Women were shut out of politics and didn’t even get to vote until 1920. Women still hold very little political power in this country and are not the ones starting wars. If there was a violent war, men caused it. It is only fitting that men should fight and die in it. And since most museums and monuments focus on war heros, or men, how is this slighting men? If women died due to violence it was because they were innocently targeted and likely had little defense or power in the situation. Our history books are full of the violent wars that men caused, and barely even tell us anything about the lives of women. Most monuments I’ve ever seen are glorifying men and their battles and victories. So I’m not buying that men are “slighted” at all.
Obviously Loewen takes this into consideration. His discussion in the chapter I mentioned concerns non-combat violent deaths. Perhaps I should’ve been more clear – even ignoring all wars, men still are far more likely to die violent deaths than women.
Here’s what Loewen says on page 72 of the book:
“Because males have been lynched in numbers far greater than their proportion in the population, should we infer that men have historically had lower status [in regards memorializing their deaths]?
The answer, surprisingly, is yes, we should, in certain ways. This is surprising because the women’s movement of the 1970s correctly taught our society that women have been disadvantaged in politics, most occupations, and many parts of our culture. The lack of a men’s movement has kept us from seeing that men have been disadvantaged in other areas of our culture. One disadvantage has to do with violent death. Not just in frontier California but even today, men are four times more likely than women to be murdered. Men are also 2.6 times as likely to die from accidents. Even nature seems to have it in for men: lightning is seven times as likely to strike men as women! Nature of course doesn’t check sex before sending a bolt; men are more likely to be be exposed to storms. Our culture tells men it’s n ot manly to take shelter or drive sedately on the one hand, and our occupational structure steers men towards dangerous all-weather jobs like telephone lineman and truck driver on the other. Either way the culture has been and still is careless of male lives – most obviously in requiring only males to register for the draft. Consistent with this devaluation, men seek medical care later and less often than women suffering from similar ailments, and are also 4.3 times as likely as women to kill themselves.
…Although males deaths were usually more numerous [during the Balkans’ ethnic cleansing of the 1990s], they went unremarked in so journalists could tap into the outrage that readers are supposed to feel when they learn that these perpetrators would stoop to kill women and children. Killing men is more common and more morally acceptable. In short, killing men is not news. Killing women is.”
Loewen also mentions that there were 59 lynchings in California between 1875 and 1935, and only one: the woman named Juanita, gets a historical marker.
It’s only obvious if you’ve read the book, your post didn’t make that at all obvious.
The one example you give, lynching, is not proof at all that men are being “slighted”. It only proves that African Americans are once again being slighted.
Aside from lynching, there is nothing to back up what he is trying to say here. I’m surprised at Loewen’s little wine about the discrimination of men, and to back that up he proceeds to mention all the ways that our male dominated society influences men to place themselves into higher risk situations. And his examples aren’t backing up what he claims, that men are being slighted in memorials. After all, we don’t generally memorialize people who fall off of telephone poles or get struck by lightning.
Another point to consider is who do you think are making these monuments and memorials? Predominantly men are. So, how is it that men are slighting themselves by portraying themselves as war heros, and women as victims? Is this really a slight to men, or to women? I really think Loewen should reconsider his statements on this one, it makes no sense at all. And the fact that he mentions a “men’s movement” is really odd and laughable even. What do we need a men’s movement for? Our society is ruled by men, they fill most of the pages of our history books, most of the monuments in the country, and most of the jobs of any power, what more do they want?
I guess I figured Loewen “obviously taking something into consideration” would be obvious to you having heard his lecture and reading parts of his other book.
Yes, African Americans are slighted, and Loewen more than covers that in his book. But this woman was not African American, she was Hispanic. I think Loewen’s statistic noting that only one of the 59 lynchings in California is memorialized in a monument (the one that was a female) is a perfect example to support his claim.
I’m sure men do slight men, much as some African Americans slight other African Americans. The point wasn’t who was doing the slighting, but who was being slighted.
The book definitely points out multiple ways in which women are slighted – it even points out how some female horses have been slighted! – so I don’t think Loewen is unreasonable to point out, in one chapter out of 94, that men do get slighted in some ways.
When I turned 18, I had to register with the military. This is sexist – had I been female, I would not have needed to do it. It’s a devaluation of men’s lives. I’m sure there are 100 ways women are slighted in our culture (and Loewen addresses dozens of them), but that doesn’t mean men have the advantage in everything.
A men’s movement – and some of them do exist – could certainly be useful in assisting men to have equal rights in custody battles and in not having their genitals mutilated without their consent, for example.
I really don’t think the example proves that men are being slighted. One monument of a lynching of a non-African American female, versus several lynchings of African American males that are not monuments simply proves that African American’s are being slighted, not men. If that’s all Loewen’s got to prove his point then I think he’s way off the mark on that one.
Also, I realize men don’t have the advantage in everything, however, a “movement” is only needed when the disadvantages are systemic in a society. So, men may have a handful of disadvantages, but they still get to benefit from male privilege in many many ways, ways that they are probably not even aware of. Because there is systemic sexism in our society, females are at a disadvantage and needed a movement to assert their rights. Just like people of color needed a civil rights movement, because they were systemically disadvantaged in our society, and still are.