I've read a couple of pretty good history books recently. I enjoyed them and learned some new things. I also gained some different perspectives. But......
I found some errors in both books. These weren't typographical errors. Nor were they numerous, just a handful. Neither were they egregious mistakes. They were errors, though.
To make sure it wasn't my reading/error, I double checked each of them and the books were wrong. Again, the mistakes didn't detract from my enjoyment or learning.
But it led me to questions. When we find errors in books, namely nonfiction, however trivial, does that cast doubt on the rest of the book? Hmmm. In these instances, I have no reason to believe the books were completely off base. Quite the contrary. Still.......
I was reminded of a history textbook we were required to use when I taught in the high school. I didn't choose the book; others in the history/social studies department did. Perhaps shame on me for refusing to be involved in the selection. (I wanted to get paid for my work; the district thought I should work for free.) Perhaps. But really shame on the teachers who chose this book instead of others, including the one we were already using (which was top flight).
This book had a number of errors in it, historical errors. How these mistakes were entered in the first place, I don't know. How they escaped the editors and proofreaders, I don't know. (I have proofread several textbooks before final publication.)
Here are two that I remember. (This was 30 or more years ago, so I don't recall all of them.) This textbook had Italy fighting on the wrong side in the First World War. (I joked, "Well, no wonder the Italian army did so poorly. It didn't know what side it was on." In WWI, the reality is that it wasn't the Italian soldier who necessarily performed poorly; the poor performances came from the Italian leaders, military and political.) There was a photograph in a chapter about ancient China. The picture was of a Buddhist temple and the caption read something like, "This Buddhist temple in China......" The problem was that the temple was actually in India. I didn't catch this, but another teacher who did some overseas study in India did. He even had his own slides of the temple, taken by him when he was in India, not China. And, to be certain, I double checked and it is in India, not China. This was a lousy textbook. I suppose, in reality, who knew it? Certainly the teachers in my department who selected it didn't.
Why did they choose it? I don't remember, but have suspicions. First, in the central office/administration, the thought was to change textbooks every five or six years. That can have advantages, but caution was never taken not to make change for the sake of change. Second, it was cheaper than other books. Third, the teachers really had no sense of history, really weren't historians or even history teachers. And I'll repeat, I didn't take part because I refused to do extra work for free.
That leads me to another idea, one that has bothered me for years. Teachers complain about their pay, how they are treated, the inane paperwork and procedures than must be followed, etc. Someone told me the other day that the average teacher spends about five or six years teaching and then moves on to something else. I have no reason to disbelieve that. I was sent an article recently bemoaning the many good teachers who are leaving the field for the reasons listed above. I would add this, how many potentially good teachers don't become educators for those reasons? I won't go into teacher salaries, but they are ridiculously low. (Remember, though, I think many teachers are so bad they don't even deserve that.)
OK, teachers grumble and grouse. But, especially the elementary teachers, they continue to work for free. They go in two or three weeks before school starts and work. The attend the ice cream socials, voluntarily. They sign up for committee work. (In my view, this is not only stupid for teachers to do, that is, work for free, it is deleterious. Most committee work produces bad things.) I know, I know. This shows how "dedicated" they are. Baloney/Bologna. They are doing it "for the kids." Baloney/Bologna. (By fostering an atmosphere of working for free, that is, keeping teacher pay low, they are discouraging many good teachers from staying and others from even becoming educators. How does that help the kids? But I understand the premise. I just don't agree with it, especially considering the long run.)
Regardless, they complain. Yet they refuse to do much about it. Do they ever show their anger and dissatisfaction, their frustrations? How angry, frustrated, and dissatisfied can they be if they continue to work for free? How many don't work in their classrooms, leaving the bulletin boards bare? How many go home for dinner with their families instead of staying for an extra two or three hours for the "Welcome Back Ice Cream Socials?" How many tell administrators, "No, I won't serve on that textbook selection committee?" Yet, they complain at how poorly they are treated, how little they are paid, etc.
This past week I threw this Martin Luther King quotation out at several teachers, all of whom grouse but went in to their classrooms the first day they were opened. "Freedom was never voluntarily granted by the oppressor; it had to be demanded by the oppressed." OK, I realize the difference, esp in magnitude. But isn't the principle the same?
To finish, I was very saddened by the passing of Aretha Franklin. What a singer! She was one of my favorites. Michael asked me, "Grandpa, is it true she was the best singer ever in Detroit?" I smiled, thinking of the Kid Rock and M & Ms fans, and replied, "Yes, she was." I do have some other candidates for that sobriquet, "Best Singer Ever in Detroit," but I can't really say any topped her. Let's put it this way. There were some of her songs I didn't particularly like. But I rarely stopped listening or changed stations because her voice was so mesmerizing.
One of my all-time favorite tunes is Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water." I love it for several reasons, never tiring of hearing it. But I'd be hard pressed to subjugate Aretha's version of that song. It is just terrific! I can often pick my favorite two or three songs from my favorite groups and singers. I'm not sure I can limit my Aretha favorites to two or three.
The Aretha stories are legion. This is one of my favorites. Some years ago, at the Grammy Awards, Luciano Pavarotti canceled due to illness--about 30 minutes before the big doin's. Aretha was tapped as a fill-in and was asked what she'd like to sing. Without missing a beat, she asked what song Pavarotti was planning to do. She was told "Nessun Dorma," an aria from Puccini's opera Turandot. Uh...... She did it and just nailed it. You can find a version online. Prepare to have your socks knocked off!
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Monday, August 13, 2018
The Constitution and Presidents
I recently finished a book, Nine Presidents Who Screwed Up America. It was interesting. I agreed with some of the author's assessments, but questioned some as well. Regardless, it was worth reading to once again challenge some of my beliefs.
A major point is that many Presidents, even those usually considered "good" or even "great," have violated the Constitution and their oaths to uphold it. In many instances, he makes a compelling argument.
I am, I suppose, at least a limited proponent of "originalism," that is, interpretation of the Constitution based on the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the authors of the document. But there are problems with such a view, I think. That isn't to say that the Constitution has been subverted, by Congress, by the Supremes, and, esp, by Presidents. It surely has.
For instance, the Constitution gives Congress the authority "to declare war." It's pretty clear. Yet, the Presidents, in their roles as Commanders-in-Chief, have used US forces in other nations more than 200 times--more than 200 times! Obviously, in event of a sudden attack, the President should have the power to use troops for defense of the country. Waiting for Congress to act...... Heh Heh. (Even the December 8, 1941 Congressional vote to declare war on Japan, after the Pearl Harbor attack, was not unanimous.) How many of those 200+ instances was the US directly under attack or in danger? For that matter, what direct threat did the North Koreans or North Vietnamese pose to the nation (allies aside, perhaps a discussion for another time).
But consider that the United States today is a far, far different place than in 1787. The times have changed beyond the imaginations of the Founders, perhaps with the exceptions of Franklin and Jefferson. Would those Constitutional ideas of 1787, alone and without expansion, have helped solve the problems of 200 or 100 or even 50 years later? Which of the Founders could have anticipated automobiles, airplanes, computers, television, and all the other modern stuff? And, what in the Constitution allowed dealing with slavery, women's suffrage, and citizenship of Indians? Nothing, that is, nothing until amendments were added in the former two instances.
At the very least, some expansion of original intent ("a living document?") seems necessary, doesn't it?
Many if not most of the Founders were followers of the Enlightenment. In addition to natural law and reason, one of the three tenets of Enlightenment thinkers was progress. If the Founders, then, believed in progress, would they not have approved of expansion of their document? And, none other than Madison didn't take too long to re-form his views on this Constitution. In fact, he started to change them at the Convention.
Now, I understand the dangers in some of what I've written above. And I am critical of some Presidents who have acted perhaps to expand the Constitution. I surely agree with the author than some of our Presidents have "screwed America" with their actions, "unConstitutional" ones according to him. I know folks will disagree with me on some of these, esp after what they've been taught in their school classrooms from teachers and textbooks. I think F. Roosevelt, Wilson, and L. Johnson fit into this category. Even if I'm willing to conceded that their hearts were in the right place (and I'm not), the long-term effects of these Presidents were deleterious. If nothing else, they did violate the Founders' principles of limited government, federalism, and one or two others. (Yes, I know that Hamilton was willing to do that almost immediately.)
But the many uses of executive orders and executive agreements, by Presidents of every party have often been catastrophic. Frequently they have been ways to get around Congress (and even the states), circumventing principles of checks and balances (Czechs and Norwegians?) and federalism.
This has led to what has been called "The Imperial Presidency," something cautioned about by the Founders (well, again, not Hamilton!).
Yet another question arose as I read the book. The author lumps Lincoln along with Jackson, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc. Hmmm...... I am concerned about using the government, namely "unconstitutional" Presidential actions (according to the author, with whom I often agree), to right obvious moral wrongs. Note the Civil War and slavery. Regarding Lincoln, should the South have been allowed to secede and form its own nation, preserving slavery in the process? Lincoln thought not and, obviously, was willing to fight a war to prevent that. "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Of course, his original intent, as he himself stated, was to keep the Union together. Only later did the abolition of slavery become a goal.
That said, imagine, once the Industrial Revolution hit its full stride, how impoverished the Confederate States of American would have been compared to the US. What problems would that have created? War? By either side? Would the South, now independent, have abandoned slavery? Look how long and hard southern states fought integration. Does anyone really think so? Should, in the name of "original intent," the southern states have been allowed to continue their institution of enslaving people? (That slavery might have died of its own weight is an interesting question.)
So, were Lincoln's "unconstitutional actions" more justified than those of T. and F. Roosevelt, Wilson, L. Johnson, and others? Were all of the circumstances equal in perils? Perhaps illogically and inconsistently, I justify Lincoln's actions and, indeed, applaud them, while criticizing the overreaches of FDR, LBJ, etc.
This also brings up how Presidents are evaluated. It seems those rated "Great" and "Near Great" are those who did something. Those rated far lower are often those Presidents who did little, that is, didn't "do something." But what if that "something" resulted in bad outcomes, esp long-term? "Doing something" is not synonymous with "great." FDR, TR, Wilson, LBJ, Jackson, and others are considered "great" or "near great" because they "did something." Others, such as Calvin Coolidge, have been rated as "below average" or worse because they didn't "do something." In fact, they followed their oaths to uphold the Constitution, not reinterpret it. (Read the last two biogs of Coolidge. His reputation, maybe, is being resurrected. How long, if ever, will that be reflected in history textbooks and with history teachers?) History is replete (I know, I know, but how many chances do we get to use the word "replete?") with examples of leaders "doing something" that led to catastrophe. Sometimes the smartest thing to do is to do nothing at all.
I just finished another book, a humorous one on grammar, that urged close proofreading of e-mails, letters, blogs, etc. I agree, but I am far too tired this evening to do so. Please forgive any typos or such mistakes.
A major point is that many Presidents, even those usually considered "good" or even "great," have violated the Constitution and their oaths to uphold it. In many instances, he makes a compelling argument.
I am, I suppose, at least a limited proponent of "originalism," that is, interpretation of the Constitution based on the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the authors of the document. But there are problems with such a view, I think. That isn't to say that the Constitution has been subverted, by Congress, by the Supremes, and, esp, by Presidents. It surely has.
For instance, the Constitution gives Congress the authority "to declare war." It's pretty clear. Yet, the Presidents, in their roles as Commanders-in-Chief, have used US forces in other nations more than 200 times--more than 200 times! Obviously, in event of a sudden attack, the President should have the power to use troops for defense of the country. Waiting for Congress to act...... Heh Heh. (Even the December 8, 1941 Congressional vote to declare war on Japan, after the Pearl Harbor attack, was not unanimous.) How many of those 200+ instances was the US directly under attack or in danger? For that matter, what direct threat did the North Koreans or North Vietnamese pose to the nation (allies aside, perhaps a discussion for another time).
But consider that the United States today is a far, far different place than in 1787. The times have changed beyond the imaginations of the Founders, perhaps with the exceptions of Franklin and Jefferson. Would those Constitutional ideas of 1787, alone and without expansion, have helped solve the problems of 200 or 100 or even 50 years later? Which of the Founders could have anticipated automobiles, airplanes, computers, television, and all the other modern stuff? And, what in the Constitution allowed dealing with slavery, women's suffrage, and citizenship of Indians? Nothing, that is, nothing until amendments were added in the former two instances.
At the very least, some expansion of original intent ("a living document?") seems necessary, doesn't it?
Many if not most of the Founders were followers of the Enlightenment. In addition to natural law and reason, one of the three tenets of Enlightenment thinkers was progress. If the Founders, then, believed in progress, would they not have approved of expansion of their document? And, none other than Madison didn't take too long to re-form his views on this Constitution. In fact, he started to change them at the Convention.
Now, I understand the dangers in some of what I've written above. And I am critical of some Presidents who have acted perhaps to expand the Constitution. I surely agree with the author than some of our Presidents have "screwed America" with their actions, "unConstitutional" ones according to him. I know folks will disagree with me on some of these, esp after what they've been taught in their school classrooms from teachers and textbooks. I think F. Roosevelt, Wilson, and L. Johnson fit into this category. Even if I'm willing to conceded that their hearts were in the right place (and I'm not), the long-term effects of these Presidents were deleterious. If nothing else, they did violate the Founders' principles of limited government, federalism, and one or two others. (Yes, I know that Hamilton was willing to do that almost immediately.)
But the many uses of executive orders and executive agreements, by Presidents of every party have often been catastrophic. Frequently they have been ways to get around Congress (and even the states), circumventing principles of checks and balances (Czechs and Norwegians?) and federalism.
This has led to what has been called "The Imperial Presidency," something cautioned about by the Founders (well, again, not Hamilton!).
Yet another question arose as I read the book. The author lumps Lincoln along with Jackson, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc. Hmmm...... I am concerned about using the government, namely "unconstitutional" Presidential actions (according to the author, with whom I often agree), to right obvious moral wrongs. Note the Civil War and slavery. Regarding Lincoln, should the South have been allowed to secede and form its own nation, preserving slavery in the process? Lincoln thought not and, obviously, was willing to fight a war to prevent that. "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Of course, his original intent, as he himself stated, was to keep the Union together. Only later did the abolition of slavery become a goal.
That said, imagine, once the Industrial Revolution hit its full stride, how impoverished the Confederate States of American would have been compared to the US. What problems would that have created? War? By either side? Would the South, now independent, have abandoned slavery? Look how long and hard southern states fought integration. Does anyone really think so? Should, in the name of "original intent," the southern states have been allowed to continue their institution of enslaving people? (That slavery might have died of its own weight is an interesting question.)
So, were Lincoln's "unconstitutional actions" more justified than those of T. and F. Roosevelt, Wilson, L. Johnson, and others? Were all of the circumstances equal in perils? Perhaps illogically and inconsistently, I justify Lincoln's actions and, indeed, applaud them, while criticizing the overreaches of FDR, LBJ, etc.
This also brings up how Presidents are evaluated. It seems those rated "Great" and "Near Great" are those who did something. Those rated far lower are often those Presidents who did little, that is, didn't "do something." But what if that "something" resulted in bad outcomes, esp long-term? "Doing something" is not synonymous with "great." FDR, TR, Wilson, LBJ, Jackson, and others are considered "great" or "near great" because they "did something." Others, such as Calvin Coolidge, have been rated as "below average" or worse because they didn't "do something." In fact, they followed their oaths to uphold the Constitution, not reinterpret it. (Read the last two biogs of Coolidge. His reputation, maybe, is being resurrected. How long, if ever, will that be reflected in history textbooks and with history teachers?) History is replete (I know, I know, but how many chances do we get to use the word "replete?") with examples of leaders "doing something" that led to catastrophe. Sometimes the smartest thing to do is to do nothing at all.
I just finished another book, a humorous one on grammar, that urged close proofreading of e-mails, letters, blogs, etc. I agree, but I am far too tired this evening to do so. Please forgive any typos or such mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
