Thursday, November 15, 2007

Teaching Populism

One of the most fascinating things to me about teaching this semester is that I have not mentioned the Populists in my US, 1877-1920 course except in passing. I also do not discuss the Populists in my modern US survey course.

I was surprised when they didn't get mentioned in my survey course, but I am downright shocked at their omission this semester. But when I think about, the Populists seem to me to be such an outlier to American history, that I'm not sure what kind of larger narratives they fit into.

Part of this is that I teach the Gilded Age and Progressive Era course thematically rather than by chronology. I simply think the era makes almost sense chronologically because so much is happening at the same time. So I talked a lot about race, with weeks on Native Americans, segregation, imperialism, and immigration. Then I moved on to discussions of gender and sexuality for a couple of weeks (and God do they love talking about the history of sex. So do I which makes it fun!). Now I've moved on to politics. The semester is ending so next week I am discussing political Progressivism and the week after World War I. This was the week I thought I would squeeze the Populists in--I'm discussing labor. But again, they are such outliers to the larger questions of labor during the GAPE. So they are just getting dropped. I am also not discussing William Jennings Bryan or the election of 1896 at all. Were I teaching this course chronologically, or from a primarily political perspective, all of this would get serious play.

But what do you think matters more for students, birth control or Populists? Hell, what matters more for our understanding of the past? I would fall decidedly on the side of birth control. Next semester, I am teaching a labor course. There I am already planning on taking a week to talk about rural labor during the GAPE and that of course will be dominated by the Populists. But I wonder if I am the only U.S. historian who sees the Populists fading from their teaching narratives, as interesting as they might be.

Historical Image of the Day




Map of Natchez, Mississippi, 1891

Amnesty Reports on Violence in the Favelas

For those who are interested, Amnesty has two reports up that are in English on the details of favela violence that I've mentioned before (here, here, here, and here, among other places). I've often been forced to link to Portuguese-language materials, so these are particularly valuable. Among other things, they mention the presence of "extrajudicial executions", police impunity, and de facto martial law in the favelas. Also, in addition to detailing the events in Rio this year, the second report offers a detailed analysis of the violence in São Paulo's favelas, something I have not touched on before. They are both very important and detailed, and worth checking out if you have the time.

Colombian Families Sue Chiquita for Funding Terrorism

Banana companies in Latin America have never behaved, to put it mildly. However, the Chiquita company seemed to reach a new low in its relations with Latin America, as earlier this year a court ordered the company to pay a $25 million fine for paying the Colombian terrorist paramilitary organization AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia). AUC, one of the largest paramilitary groups in Colombia, is also one its grosser human-rights violators, having killed thousands of peasants and "leftists" in Colombia's civil war. In the case this year, the courts ruled against Chiquita when it became clear that the fruit company had paid $1.7 million to AUC between 1997 and 2004 for what Chiquita claimed was coerced "protection." The word "protection" itself seems to have taken on a new meaning in this case, though, for Chiquita used the AUC to try to gain even more land for banana production in Colombia, using the AUC to force out poor farmers via eviction or, where there was justified resistance, murder. Colombia was shocked, SHOCKED! to find multinational big business in bed with the paramilitaries (President Álvaro Uribe didn't seem so bothered, though, given the steps he took at the time of the ruling).

Now, almost 400 family members of victims of the AUC have filed a civil suit against Chiquita, seeking $7.86 billion in damages (a fee that seems much fairer for sponsoring terrorism, widespread human rights violations, and murder than the $25 million court ruling). I don't know enough about civil cases (especially those involving multinationals) to predict how a case like this would work out. It strikes me that the $7.86 billion wouldn't actually be the final figure if the Colombian civilians won, but any major (hundreds-of-millions to billion) decision would be meaningful, I think. Chiquita really has to be punished severely for this, and given its enormous profits from its domination in the fruit sector, $25 million, while real money to you and me, is probably no more than a slap on the wrist for the company. One especially wants to see Chiquita bled dry in the face of their attitude towards this whole episode. Chiquita spokesman Michael Mitchell defended the company, claiming in the Times piece "that Chiquita and its employees were victims and that the actions taken by the company were always motivated to protect the lives of our employees and their families.”

Memo to Mitchell: when hundreds of people end up dead or dislocated thanks to your funding of a true terrorist group, you aren't the victim. Here's hoping Chiquita pays very VERY dearly for this.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

NFL 2007 Week 10: AFC Edition

AFC EAST: What did I do all week without my fix of overblown Patriots talk? Personally, I celebrated the quiet. Hopefully, though it’ll come back in full force as they come into this week’s “big” game against number two Buffalo. At least the Bills are calling it a big game. The Pats will breeze through it, especially since Marshawn Lynch is banged up and Dick Jauron has elected to go with JP Losman to start the game. My guess is that he’ll be benched by the fourth quarter in this rout. That said, the Bills have really dug themselves out of their hole and now actually look like they could have a shot at the playoffs. I feel foolish for saying so but, given how the rest of the second tier teams are playing, they’re right in the mix. The Jets will certainly fall to 1-9 after next week’s game against the Steelers and, when they do, they’ll officially be in the hunt for the worst in the league. Now, they’re no better than the Rams, who could be surging straight into mediocrity and they’re barely better than Miami, their biggest rival for worst. Miami will likely not win at Philadelphia this week, although the inconsistency of the Eagles could help them toward it, but each week that goes by finds them more desperate. Someone will go down to the lowly Dolphins, who barely lost against the Bills. At times, they actually played decent and could be gaining the confidence to upset somebody. I just hope it turns out to be against New England, who deserves it most.

AFC NORTH: It was a shockingly tight game, but the Steelers pulled out the win over the luckiest team of the century. By the end of the first half, it even looked like the Browns would grab another unconscionable victory but, though Derek the Great threw three TDs during the half, the offense couldn’t muster anything in the second and they had to rely on their shaky special teams to keep the game interesting. In the end, though, Pittsburgh knows what Cleveland is: not very much. Willie Parker rammed it down their throats when it counted, and Roethisberger had another of his respectable, but sometimes spotty, days and drove the last eight minutes of the game to get the lead and drive the nail in the Browns’ coffin. They’re in the second half with barely a winning record. In this conference they can kiss playoff hopes goodbye. The Ravens continue to fall apart and lose for the second time to the hopeless Bengals. Baltimore is now is in the sole company of the Jets as losers to Cincinnati, which says a lot about how good a team they actually are. I didn’t see this game, and I’m glad I missed it. After seven big field goals from Shayne Graham, the Ravens finally score a pointless touchdown. Right now, they have possibly the worst offense in the game. Judging from how they’re scoring these days, they’d get beaten by most baseball teams. The Bengals have to be happy, however, that Chris Henry was so productive on his first day back. All three receivers played well, despite not getting in the endzone, and T.J. is coming to be the ace of that corps.

AFC SOUTH: The closest division in football just got closer as, apparently, Adam Vinatieri had money on the Sunday night game. To be fair, Manning had one of his worst games in years against the Chargers, who badly wanted to give the Colts the game, but he’s bound to be off here and there and, for this reason, they got Vinatieri. Unfortunately, the kicker who has made forty yarders in blinding snow couldn’t put away the game from twenty yards. I’m bitter about it because it kept the Broncos out of first place in the division but, nonetheless, the Colts were given every opportunity to win and couldn’t do it. The Jaguars got tied up with the sputtering Titans in what was really a blowout, even if the score wasn’t that wide. While Quinn Grey didn’t have a very good game, the Jags finally got their running game into full gear and looked great on the ground. The Titans, on the other hand, who have been living because of their running game, ran a grand total of 19 times between three people. Vince Young threw the ball 41 times. Yes, 41 times. He did complete more than half of them, which might just be a season high, there is no excuse for that. Is there any defense in the league that is scared of Vince Young’s arm right now? The Texans are still in the hunt, only two games out of second, but they aren’t quite in the position to go to the playoff level. They’ll do themselves a huge service if they can manage a win over the Saints this week, who are themselves coming off a loss, but New Orleans is playing too well right now for that to be too likely.

AFC WEST: As I said before, I’m bitter about the Chargers’ win over the Colts. San Diego must think of themselves as the luckiest team in the league this week. They did everything in their power to hand the division lead to the Broncos but the Colts, who seem to have a subconscious grudge against Denver, weren’t having any of it. The only players who did anything worthwhile for the Chargers were Antonio Cromartie with his three interceptions (including one of the best picks I’ve ever seen) and Darren Sproles with his two return touchdowns. Other than this, LT looked mediocre and Rivers looked terrible. He looked even worse than Patrick Ramsey a couple of weeks ago…that’s bad. The Broncos have moved up from atrocious play to below average play, and this has helped them move into second place in this terrible division. It’s incredibly lucky that Cutler’s leg isn’t broken, and it’s even luckier that he’s playing his best football of the season right now. Selvin Young looks to be getting used to his future role as starting quarterback and, happy as I was that Travis Henry was signed before the season, I’m just as happy with the way Young is playing. With all the injuries, Denver will have to be even luckier than they already have been to continue even this level of play, but stranger things have happened. Hell, if the Browns can do it, so can the Broncos. Once again, the Chiefs looked bad, real bad, without Larry Johnson (not like they looked great with him). Priest Holmes is a heartwarming story, but he’s not Rudy and this isn’t Hollywood. He’s not an NFL running back any longer and his delusions will just damage his future health. It isn’t as though they have a shot at the division or the playoffs, I have a hard time seeing why they’d put a loyal former player in jeopardy like this. I have only one question about the Raiders (since I refuse to watch their games): does Oakland actually field an offense? I can’t tell.

Defending Hunting

I may be the only vegetarian in the world to defend hunting, but so be it.

Susan Stellin's piece on deer hunting in Maine gets at an important point: the divide between urban people who think of deer as cute little creatures and the decreasing number of people who live in rural places and still survive in part off the land.

Why do I support the hunters in this divide? Humans need to understand that there is no wilderness. There is nothing in the world not affected or managed by humans. Every spot on the planet, every species on the planet has been changed by human beings. We manage everything. So we might as well manage it right.

When it comes to deer, we have three management choices:

1. We can not allow any hunting. The problem is that the deer will starve to death. This can happen incredibly quickly. Once deer hunting became restricted on Arizona's Kaibab National Forest in the 1900s and 10s, animal populations erupted. By the late 20s, deer were dying by the droves from starvation. While lots of urban dwellers would probably like to see all hunting ended, they have to understand that things aren't all fun and cute in the forest. The animals will die, and in a pretty slow and painful way.

2. We can reintroduce wolves to the forests. Reintroducing wolves to the forest would provide the population control needed if we aren't going to have hunting. The reason the deer populations explode is that they are not culled by predators. Wolves are the natural top predator in American forests. So this would go a long ways to solving the problem. The problem with wolves is that rural folks would go completely insane with fury. While wolf reintroductions have had some success in the northern Rockies, in southern Arizona and New Mexico, the reintroductions have been an almost total failure, as the locals demand the states kill the wolves immediately. Wolves will eat cattle as well as deer. That has to be recognized. Plus you have people's instinctual fear of wolves, which is what really drives the opposition here.

I support this option. While there is more support for wolf reintroduction every year, rural people in this country have so much power in relation to their actual population that large-scale reintroductions are quite unlikely.

Thus we have option 3: hunting. This is working pretty well. There are tons of deer everywhere, yet they are not starving. It's sad I guess to kill an animal. I hope I never have reason to do it. But from a larger management standpoint, hunting is a responsible management option. So long as we don't have wolves culling the deer, hunting makes a lot of sense and has my support.

Random Music Observations IV

-The only thing worse than a musical movement that starts with “New” is one that starts with “Nu.”

-Thriller is still an amazing album.

-This is the most disturbing children’s album cover ever (is it a children's album, or the new Emmanuelle movie poster?)

-Nobody has been able to satisfactorily describe the qualities of Emo music to me beyond "absolutely craptacularly emotive whining."

-When Sting dies, I hope his headstone simply reads, "Stung". That might almost make up for his solo career.

Historical Images




Southern Paiutes

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

TIDOS Yankee on Climate Change

Treason in Defense of Slavery Yankee has a classic post denying climate change.

His evidence that climate change is not happening? The founder of the Weather Channel says so!
There is a fundamental difference between progressives and right-wing lunatics. Progressives understand what an expert is. And then they defer to said expert. So if I want to know about climate change, I am going to read, oh I don't know, perhaps an actual climatologist. Or I am going to look at the data that shows that not a single paper denying climate change has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

And if I'm a right-winger, I am just going to find some guy who believes what I do, especially if it is some kind of corporate titan, professional athlete, or Republican functionary, and then publicize it as equal to actual experts.

Read the comments too. They're not long and worth it. One guys claims expertise on the issue because his Dad was a meteorologist. Wow. By that logic, I am going to believe everything Julian Lennon has to say about music, everything Joe Buck has to say about baseball, and everything George W. Bush has to say about politics.

Absurd Texts in American History (IX)

Jill at Feministe reminds me of a clear entry for the Absurd Texts series.

Pat Robertson, 1992:

“The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

Drug Policy and Afghanistan

Eric Martin reports that the Bush administration has kind of sort of won in their poppy eradication campaign in Afghanistan. What, you say. The Bush administration did something right??? Yes, indeed. Afghani farmers have found another cash crop that can they can survive on instead of opium.

Marijuana.

Awesome.

Of course, the Bush administration and its allies will start eradicating the pot as soon as they can. Because they don't actually care about those farmers. That they will become even more impoverished if they grow chickpeas or whatever means nothing to them. Nor does effective drug policy within the United States that might cut the demand for drugs. I suppose the US could create a policy that would give these farmers subsidies to not grow drugs that would make up the income, something like an Agricultural Adjustment Act for the world. But that makes way too much sense for the United States and its war on some classes of people who make or do drugs.

Trivia

Q: Who was the only U.S. president never to run for elected office?

Answer to be given this evening if no one gets it.

Historical Image of the Day



US Antarctic Expeditionary Squadron, 1840

Monday, November 12, 2007

Into the Wild

Kit Stolz's defense of Christopher McCandless, the hero of Into the Wild, sums up just about everything I am uncomfortable with in characters like him. McCandless, a wealthy Virginia kid, gave up everything he had to go live an "authentic" life. This eventually led him to Alaska, where he wandered into the backcountry without any kind of provisions and starved to death. Jon Krakauer and now Sean Penn have idealized McCandless in print and film.

McCandless definitely represents an archetype of American environmentalism--the driven masculine loner who turns his back on privilege and goes to find himself in nature. Other prominent examples are Edward Abbey, Henry David Thoreau, and John Muir. Perhaps the most salient comparison is the early 20th century artist and writer Everett Ruess, who as a young man wandered into the southwestern deserts, never to be seen again. But should this behavior be lionized? I think not.

First of all, I have a lot of trouble dealing with kids like McCandless because despite their pretensions to giving up their privilege, in fact they are still incredibly privileged. McCandless was a rich kid whose behavior was deeply influenced by his wealth. You don't see many working-class kids engaging in this kind of behavior. Why? They are too busy figuring out how to eat to romanticize what it would be like to not eat, or only eat foods you gathered. It takes some serious privilege to distance yourself enough from real life to think wandering off into Alaska for the summer without having a clue about your surroundings is a good idea. No doubt someone out there might find some working-class examples of this behavior, but I've never met them nor read about them.

Second, it reinforces the wilderness ideal in environmentalism. I have long argued that focusing on pristine wilderness has done more to undermine the movement than anything Reagan or Bush have done. At one time, environmentalism focused both on protecting land and protecting human bodies. It was during this period, in the 1960s and 1970s, that everything from the Wilderness Act to the Endangered Species Act to the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were passed. Environmentalists made close connections between protecting land and protecting humans. Thus they were able to do both. Environmentalism was a bipartisan issue.

Starting in the 1980s, and probably because of the hostility of the Reagan administration to environmental legislation, the environmental movement began focusing almost exclusively on saving pristine land. New, more radical groups like EarthFirst! and Greenpeace helped promote this shift through their vigorous defense of American forests and whales respectively, but the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society probably did more to push this new emphasis because they found they could raise much more money when they promoted charismatic, but endangered, animals or beautiful forest and desert scenes that were under attack than they could by focusing on the kind of legal and technical issues that create legislation. Once the environmental movement gave up its emphasis on human beings, it lost popularity and became divisive rather than consensus building. Thus since 1980, they have succeeded in protecting a lot of wilderness areas when Democrats are president, but they are completely left out in the cold when Republicans are in power and they are nowhere near building groundswells of popular support for any sort of legislation.

To be fair, I do believe this is starting to change. Young people seem to be much more into coalition building and connecting humans and wilderness. And this is an absolute good.

Third, people like McCandless do a very poor job of making connections between their own behavior and its larger implications on the land. Now McCandless may have never made claims to being an environmentalist, but given that his cause has picked up on my so many environmentalists, this is still a worthy point. McCandless went out there with his gun and was hunting animals to survive. He even shot a moose (or it could have been a caribou) once, though because he didn't have a freaking clue what to do with a large animal to preserve its meat, it all went bad. What he didn't realize, and what his defenders don't seem to get, is that it was through the behavior of people just like him that the nation's wildlife plummeted during the 19th century. Of course, there was a lot of pointless hunting for fun as well, and there is no doubt that significantly added to the decline of the bison and passenger pigeon, among other species. But what if everyone wanted to live like McCandless? What if even 5% of Americans did? What if they all went out to Montana or Alaska or Arizona or wherever and decided to live off the land. How fast would wildlife be hunted out? When people like McCandless go hunting in the wild, they do far more environmental damage than they ever would living in the city. If you really care about nature, leave it alone.

Stolz also lauds the film, which I thought was really pretty blase. He says, "After this movie, he may become a Clint Eastwood of indie filmmaking, a completely free spirit and a free talent. Watch out world." The merits of Eastwood as a filmmaker aside (the most overrated American director), Penn's movie falls flat in a lot of ways. I went in thinking I would either love it or hate it. In fact, I was bored by it. Despite a great supporting cast, Emile Hirsch never seems to inhabit the character. He's almost a cipher that other great actors can work around. He mutters some words about his great Alaskan adventure without any convincing emotion and then Catherine Keener or Hal Holbrook can worry about him in a meaningful way.

Stolz also talks about how great the music by Eddie Vedder was. About this, the less said the better. It added nothing to the film and in fact became rather annoying several times.

What's more, what many viewers and readers don't seem to get is that Christopher McCandless was a total asshole. Despite extremely sympathetic portrayals of the man by both Krakauer and Penn, he clearly didn't give a shit about the people who cared for him. And this is what comes across in sympathetic portrayls! Imagine what an unsympathetic how he would look to the more critical chronicler. Both Krakauer and Penn make it abundantly clear that so many people who he met were touched by him, cared for him, etc. I have no doubt this is true. But a person to model oneself after this does not make. What makes a good person is also caring about the people who care about you. McCandless clearly did not. He was a spoiled, neurotic rich brat who couldn't deal with the kind of modern family crisis that thousands of other kids manage to live with every day. He decided instead to abandon his family, and continue to abandon people who wanted to bring him into their families, in order to live out his wilderness fantasy. Had he even brought a goddamn map with him into the wilderness he would have lived. Instead, he died.

Christopher McCandless did not deserve to die. I feel bad for his family and for all the people who knew him. But he also does not deserve to be remembered by history. And he especially does not deserve to be heroically portrayed in books and on the big screen. Rather, his is a story of personal dysfunction, the search for false authenticity, and a fatal romanticization of wilderness. It is a cautionary tale, not a laudatory one.

Democrats, Urban Sprawl, and Exurban Voters

Max Bergmann at Democracy Arsenal has an interesting point about exurban voters turning to the Democrats because of transportation issues. This is the kind of issue Democrats can really be leaders on. Living in the far-out exurbs sucks. Certainly some of the blame goes to the people who choose to live in these places. Everyone wants their big house (after all, how did humans live for so long with less than 1500 square feet per dwelling?) and their yard. The American Dream remains strong in our mythology. While lots of people are moving back into the cities, lots more continue to pour into ever expanding suburban development.

For years, these people voted for the Republicans, in large part because of racial issues and to some extent over taxes as well. But as Bergmann points out, this is changing. Much of the Democratic resurgence in Virginia has come from these areas. People move out there and then realize that the complete lack of urban planning makes their dreams a lot more like nightmares than they thought. With the collapsing housing market, massive debt load many of these homeowners took on, and the Republican crackdown on bankruptcies, a lot of voters seem to be reconsidering their political allegiances. Democrats are taking advantage and becoming increasingly competitive in places like Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado--all states that face these problems.

I am also stealing Bergmann's photo here of the line between development and farmland. It's worth seeing what happens to America's beauty when we decide to live in the suburbs. The massive expansion of northern Virginia has destroyed tens of thousands of acres of our most beautiful and historical land. Does this beauty, so well-contrasted here with suburban dreck, not deserve to be saved? Obviously this is no wilderness, as if there really is such a thing anyway, but just because Europeans have a long historical interaction with a piece of land does not mean that we shouldn't save it from pointless development.

Historical Image of the Day



Dean Acheson

Sunday, November 11, 2007

The Centralia Massacre

On November 11, 1919, the people of Centralia, Washington, a small lumber town in the southwestern part of the state, celebrated the first anniversary of Armistice Day with a parade. However, town leaders and the local American Legion post decided to turn the parade into an attack upon the Industrial Workers of the World (I.W.W.) union hall, which they considered the center of subversion and sedition in their community. When the Legion reached the hall, they broke in and began tearing the place apart. What they did not expect was that the radical loggers had prepared an ambush. The I.W.W. had stationed at least two shooters on a hill approximately ¼ mile away. In addition, some of the workers in the hall had weapons. In the hail of bullets, four American Legion members died. Warren Grimm, a University of Washington graduate and lawyer, had not only fought in World War I, but had also served in the military’s anti-Bolshevik force in Siberia before returning to his home town of Centralia. Arthur McElfresh had spent eighteen months in the army in France. The third dead Legionnaire was Ben Casagranda, a Greek-American who went to war for his new nation. The fourth was another University of Washington graduate and member of the Centralia elite, Dale Hubbard.

Infuriated, the Legionnaires chased a man they thought was Britt Smith, the local I.W.W. secretary, but who in fact was Wesley Everest, an itinerant logger and I.W.W. member. They beat him severely and threw him into a prison cell with other Wobblies they rounded up. That evening, still incensed, local men took Everest from his jail cell, possibly castrated him, and hanged him from a bridge on the Chehalis River. Trials quickly ensued for a dozen other I.W.W. members. A jury found eight guilty of second-degree murder, and they received sentences ranging from twenty-five to forty years at the Washington State Prison in Walla Walla. The I.W.W. claimed that the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen (4-L), the American Legion, and local authorities had railroaded the eight men into prison; and their cause served as a rallying cry for an increasingly marginalized I.W.W. over the next twenty years.

Violence in this little lumber town took place as forces of order battled against radicalized loggers over control of the industry. Throughout the first two decades of the 20th century, timber companies treated their workers like animals. They forced them to live in horrific conditions in the timber camps. Daily these workers dealt with adulterated food, fleas and other vermin in their overcrowded housing, straw for bedding, the smell of disgusting wet socks drying near the bunkhouse's one heater, latrines located directly next to the dining hall so that they could smell feces everything they sat down to eat, etc. They were paid next to nothing for their work and frequently ripped off by a collusion of timber operators and employment agencies who would force men to pay for jobs and then the job not be there when they arrived. These men also lived in all-male spaces, completely isolated from women in their remote camps. Thus, when men could get to town, the first thing they headed for was to purchase the services of a prostitute. They could not live normally, either in the camps or when they returned to society. In desperation, and with the American Federation of Labor showing almost no interest in organizing these workers, they turned to the I.W.W.

By the summer of 1917, the woods were at war in what I call the Battle for the Body. The IWW organized directly around these environmental conditions and workers joined because the union was the only organization that could give them dignity and their bodies safety. Timber production plummeted that summer, but it could have continued interminably. However, when the U.S. entered World War I, the nation needed Sitka spruce to build airplanes. That tree only grows in the Pacific Northwest (and the west coast of Canada). Thus, the strikes became a threat to national security.

President Woodrow Wilson and General John J. Pershing realized they need to end these strikes. So they sent Colonel Brice Disque to the woods to figure it out. He ended up starting two organizations. The first was the Spruce Production Division, which was a squadron of soldier-loggers. Instead of going to Europe, these troops would cut down trees, which frankly sounds like a good deal to me, though there was a lot of squawking about these guys not being able to share in the manly glory that the war provided. Disque also began the Loyal Legion of Loggers of Lumbermen. Disque also supported a project to organize logging camps based on patriotism, hard work, and loyalty to the American government. This became known as the 4-L, or Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen. The pilot camp started on November 30, 1917 in Wheeler, Oregon, with 100% participation. Impressed by this, both Disque and the timbermen gave increasing support to the idea. On February 27, 1918, the Northwest’s lumber operators agreed to place their problems in Disque’s hands, which he responded to by officially announcing the 4-L, which became the nation’s first government-sponsored company union. Disque’s plan to settle labor disputes by improving workers’ environmental conditions proved effective. The 4-L set new standards of hours, wages, working conditions, and environmental conditions in the camps, regardless of whether they had SPD troops. SPD officers played a major role in pushing the 4-L, as they often worked hard to ensure high rates of enrollment among the loggers where they worked. In return for meeting the demands of agitated workers, the 4-L demanded that workers not strike during the war and instead consider the 4-L a mediating organization between themselves and their employers.

By forcing the hands of both the workers and the industry, Disque successfully brought peace to the labor industry through eventually became a government sanctioned, industry-wide company union. Most workers reneged on their 4-L membership. They didn't really believe in I.W.W. ideas of syndicalism anyway. They just wanted safe environments and bodily dignity. The 4-L provided that. But some loggers held out for the radical beliefs they held so dear. Those radicals were loathed in the Northwest. A year before, in 1918, Centralia residents had destroyed the local I.W.W. hall. They figured they could do so again. Little did they know that the union would set up shooters on the hills surrounding the town and arm some of the men inside.

In the years after the Centralia Massacre, both the I.W.W. and the American Legion fought over the meanings of the event, as well as over the fates of the prisoners. Both sides used ideas of masculinity based upon work in nature to build their arguments. Rather than bore with the details of these gender constructions, let me focus on the alleged castration of Wesley Everest. From the best I can tell, the I.W.W. made this up. None of the early accounts of the event mention it, and that includes Wobbly accounts. But soon the legend sprung up that the mob had castrated Everest, something promulgated by John Dos Passos in his novel, 1919. Although some scholars have tried to debunk the castration, it has generally come to the present as a fact, including in recent histories of the World War I era. Wobbly propagandists had little problem in promoting the castration story. The earliest publications about Centralia make no mention of castration. It first appears when I.W.W. writer Walker C. Smith wrote Was It Murder? The Truth about Centralia in 1922 as a spur to promote a retrial of the Centralia prisoners, he did discuss it, writing, “An automobile headlight was trained upon the dead man, plainly revealing that some sadist more demoniacal than his fellow degenerates had ripped Everest’s sexual organs almost loose from the body with some sharp instrument.”

What really matters here though is not whether the mob in fact castrated Everest, which I believe did not happen, but how the Wobblies used the idea of castration, the ultimate demanning of the body, to further their agenda about manhood, the body, and the environment. For the I.W.W., within Everest’s testicles laid the core of working-class manhood. He showed his bravery throughout that hellish day in Centralia. His courage originated with his hard work in the woods in the midst of other men. For that daring, savage capitalists, fearful of this kind of true proletarian man, had to eliminate that manhood before ending his life. But of course, one could not eradicate the manhood of someone like Wesley Everest so long as his comrades continued his memory and the fight to destroy capitalism.

By the middle of the 1920s, the white heat blazing off the Centralia Massacre cooled. The story became untouchable in Centralia, and in fact no documents exist from anyone remotely connected with the American Legion or timber industry in that town. The I.W.W. focused much of its waning energy on freeing the Centralia prisoners, as well as its other incarcerated members throughout the nation. Many of the jurors who put away the Centralia radicals felt remorse about their role, and in the fall of 1925, five of them met with Washington Governor Roland Hartley to make a personal appeal for the prisoners’ release.

The real impetus for their release came from former army captain Edward Patrick Coll. In 1928, Coll, an active American Legion member and a close relation to Irish revolutionary leader Eamon De Valera, moved to Aberdeen to sell insurance. He could not believe the stories he heard about the organization’s role in the Centralia affair. Coll wanted the Legion to put on a program defending themselves, but they refused, citing explosive evidence against them if they were to do so. Concerned that the Centralia case would undermine the power of the Legion in southwestern Washington, Coll began a personal crusade to get the prisoners released, which the Legion opposed every step of the way. He started asking around Centralia and claimed that the relatives of dead Legionnaire Warren Grimm had admitted that Grimm helped lead the raid, the denial of which formed the basis for the prosecution’s murder case against the Wobblies. Governor Clarence Martin paroled most of the prisoners in 1933 but Rayfield Becker refused his parole, holding out until he received a full pardon. In 1939, Martin commuted his sentence to time served and Becker left prison, though without the full pardon for which he held out.
.
Mentioning the Centralia Massacre quickly became totally unacceptable in the community. Literally none of the participants on the Legion side ever told their story. They all took it to the grave with them. At some point, I think sometime in the 80s, Centralia residents commissioned a bunch of murals for their town representing their history. There are lots of scenes of white people settling the land, but nothing on Centralia. The labor hall in town put up its own mural, though it is kind of hard to see from the road because it is on the second floor. You have to know where to look. Even today, it is an almost totally unmentionable subject.

Historical Image of the Day


Flight Attendants, 1968

A Major Oil Field in Brazil and Idiotic, Biased Media Responses

On Friday, Brazil announced that it had discovered a major deep-sea oil field off its coast. The field may hold up to 8 billion barrels, which would be a huge windfall for Brazil. Previously the 24th leading oil producer in the world, this discovery alone now makes Brazil the 9th largest petroleum producer globally. This discovery is due in no small part to the fact that Brazil, lacking any major land-based oil fields, has become one of the leaders of deep-sea drilling in the world, and to the fact that the state-owned oil company, Petrobras, has wisely spent money on both alternate fuels and R&D.

Not surprisingly, as soon as the news was announced, biases already began. Randy does a great job condemning the idiotic "journalistic" treatment that the Wall Street Journal gave. However, idiotic responses did not exist just in the U.S. On Friday morning, on the program "Bom Dia, Brasil" on O Globo (a slightly more news-based "Good Morning America"-type program), the discovery dominated the discussion. However, in true Globo fashion, it immediately followed up what is nothing but good news for Brazil with the "bad news" part that Globo always does with the Lula administration (cynicism towards the government is chronic inBrazil, but Globo has really ratcheted it up since 2002). Alexandre Garcia, ever the harbinger of doom on Bom Dia, Brasil", followed up this story by immediately saying, "But the government has just been sitting on this discovery so it could boost its approval ratings. O Globo reported in 2006 that this field exists".

Already idiotic, his support didn't make his case any stronger. They put up a graphic showing the "news" from 2006 that O Globo originally had before the government (because, of course, the government only has its own oil company - what could it possibly know before O Globo knew?). The headline said (and I paraphrase), "there may be an oil field off of the coastal city of Santos [in São Paulo]." The fact that it didn't say either that there was a field, nor how big it was, didn't exactly strengthen Garcia's case. And then there's the issue of how O Globo got this information in 2006, which Garcia did not mention but which most likely (as is almost always the case) came from Petrobras officials themselves. But none of these "details" mattered - the only thing O GLobo could do was try to smear the government even further while making itself a righteous pariah that knew all this a year ago. Absolutely pathetic.

The CIA and Facial Hair

As a Latin American historian, one of the lighter moments of the 20th century is how far the CIA went to try to remove Castro. Of the numerous plots, from Bay of Pigs to exploding cigars, one of the more popular was the CIA's consideration of poisoning Castro so that his beard would fall out. The thinking went that if Castro lost his beard, he would lose his masculine authority among the Cuban peoples, would be emasculated. Seeing such a weak, "feminine" leader now, the macho-oriented Cubans would rise against his new "weakness" to overthrow him and the U.S. could elbow its way back into Cuba (and I am not making a bit of this up). It's one of those anecdotes that gives the students a chance to chuckle while revealing just how absurd the U.S. policy towards Cuba and Castro could get - sort of a "they were so possessed with this man that they thought he'd lose power if they could just make his beard fall out!!"

Thanks to this article about the toothbrush moustache (the "Hitler" moustache) that d points us to, it appears this idea actually had precedent. In discussing how the German dictator's use of the toothbrush led to the death of said moustache forevermore, Rich Cohen goes through the history of the moustache. Apparently, at one point during World War II, "the plan cooked up by officers of the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor to the C.I.A., to inject estrogen into Hitler's food—female hormone that would make Hitler grow weepy, make Hitler grow breasts, and, crucially, destroy his mustache. A smooth-faced Adolf would lose confidence and fall from power." I had no idea that any form of the CIA/OSS had ever considered the facial-hair-loss-as-loss-of-power approach before, yet apparently, what almost every Latin American survey will convey, Castro actually wasn't an exception. If you get a chance, read the whole article - it provides an excellent analysis of how facial hair can define somebody, if a symbol like the toothbrush moustache can ever be re-coopted, why facial hair has all but disappeared from American politics, and other issues.