History News Network | The War over War.
The historian Mark Byrnes warns against the “unconditional surrender” mentality that has taken hold on the right: “Like the uncompromising Tea Party Congressional caucus does with domestic issues, Cotton seems to think that in diplomacy, any kind of compromise with an adversary, anything less than total victory, is abject failure. As I’ve written before, this attitude is dangerous enough when it shuts down the U.S. government or blocks meaningful action in Congress. When it is brought to bear on the world stage, it can be catastrophic.” Read his entire article:
History News Network | “Unconditional Surrender” in Iran.
Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton
Examining the history of the GOP from to today to the Barry Goldwater presidential campaign the historian Michael Kazin concludes, “Adhering to an easily understood and deeply felt ideology has helped conservatives win impressive victories. After Goldwater lost the 1964 election in a landslide, they kept building their movement, taking advantage of the failure of Democratic administrations and Congresses to contain communism or soothe the rising fears of white Americans about black criminals, rebellious youths, and uppity gays and feminists. They persuaded evangelical churchgoers, anti-regulation and anti-union employers, and intellectual Cold Warriors to unite against the common enemy of secular liberalism. They elected three avowedly conservative presidents and now control both houses of Congress and wield, in effect, a majority on the Supreme Court.” However, Kazin believes that there is one difference between today’s presidential candidates and Goldwater: “Goldwater knew he was going to lose.” Read the entire article:
Author of “One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America” Kevin M. Kruse reviews the history of Gideon bibles from their origins to their distribution in public schools. Based on this history, Kruse concludes that “[t]he concept of ‘one nation under God’ had seemed a simple, elegant way to bring together the citizens of a broadly religious country, but at the local level, as the Gideons had discovered, Americans were anything but united.” Read the entire article here:
This looks like a great book. Read Nigel Jones’ book review at the Telegraph:
The historian John Farrell reviews Steven Weinberg’s new book To Explain the World:
Steven Weinberg Tackles The History Of Science.
How important are genes in determining our political leanings? More and more research supports the claim that genes play a significant role. This is the subject of Avi Tuschman’s new book Our Political Nature. In a brief interview at the HNN, he summarizes his findings. He explains: “The left-right spectrums that run through countries around the world have a natural history and therefore a common structure (even though they widen and shift in response to environmental stress, like economic conditions). This common origin explains why many controversial issues – like gay marriage – invariably polarize political spectrums everywhere in the same direction. If the environment determined everything, there would be at least a few countries out of the nearly 200 where the left is fighting against gay rights and the right is fighting for them.” Read the full interview at:
History News Network | The Evolutionary Origins of Politics: An Interview with Avi Tuschman.
History is full of interesting stories, but few rival those surrounding the court of Henry VIII. Henry’s court was a place of intrigue and full of interesting characters but none so interesting as the king himself. Who could forget the king that had six wives and a penchant for chopping people’s heads off? A quick glance at the history section of any bookstore attests to the popularity of all things Henry VIII. Television has also gotten in on the Tudor dynasty fad. On Showtime the popular series The Tudors ran from 2007 to 2010. Now PBS is getting in on the action and last night aired a new Masterpiece theater series centered on Thomas Cromwell and the Tudor court appropriately named Wolf Hall. On Tuesday (April 7) PBS will also air a documentary Inside the Court of Henry VIII (I can’t wait!). Thomas Cromwell is not as well-known as his great-great-grandnephew Oliver Cromwell, but the role he played in Henry VIII’s court had important implications for English history. He was central in steering England toward Protestantism despite the King’s continued sympathy for Catholicism.
Cromwell is somewhat of a controversial figure, but few doubt his Machiavellian nature. This probably accounts for his current rise in popularity. As Jim Dwyer notes in The New York Times: “this is high season for him and his ilk. Dirty things done dirty, clean things done dirty — people who get stuff done, somehow or other, now rise in glory on stage and film. Perhaps the long stall of Washington politics has made us yearn for those grease-stained mechanics whose unseen guile, we imagine, would protect the engines of power from seizing up. Says Henry: ‘I keep you, Master Cromwell, because you are as cunning as a bag of serpents.’” Unfortunately today dirty tricks are put in the service of making sure nothing gets done. This all leads to cynicism and perhaps this is why we are attracted to the dirty politics of Henry’s court.
Thomas Cromwell, a Man for All Centuries – NYTimes.com.
For an overview of Cromwell’s life see: Who was the Real Thomas Cromwell? BBC
Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey
What is the “one-dot theory” of history? In his review of W. Joseph Campbell’s 1995: The Year the Future Began, Louis Menand explains that “the most enjoyable histories to read (and, probably, to write) are ‘the x that changed the world’ books. These are essentially one-dot explanations. They try to make the course of human events turn on a single phenomenon or a single year.” While enjoyable, he rightly points out that these narratives are “not completely persuasive” in convincing us that history has turned on this “x” (in this case: 1995). History is vastly complex and “all dots have dots of their own.”
But for all the flaws of “one-dot theories” they can be informative and entertaining. On that note, Menard’s review of 1995 was favorable. For me personally 1995 was a traumatic year and I’d rather forget it. But looking beyond my own troubles I can see that many events of note happened that year that are worthy of our attention, even if they are unpleasant.
We tend to look to the 1990s as a good decade, but a review of the history says otherwise: the Oklahoma City bombing, the O.J. Simpson trial, genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia, the siege in Waco, Black Hawk down in Somalia, etc.
To read Menand’s entire review go here:
Did 1995 Change Everything? – The New Yorker.
The New Yorker: O. J. Simpson, Monica Lewinsky, Timothy McVeigh—seeds of the present? Credit Illustration by Concepción Studios; Clockwise from top: Michael Nelson / AFP / Getty (Simpson); Reuters / CORBIS (McVeigh); Barbara Laing / The LIFE Images Collection / Getty (Building); APTV / AP (Lewinsky)
Museums in Russia are collaborators in sparking the flames of nationalism.
“Irina Y. Velikanova, a former Moscow City Council member appointed to run the museum last year, said the mission of any historical museum should be rooted in patriotism. ‘We don’t hide the fact that we are interested in forming the patriotic and civic position of Russian youth,’ she said. ‘Our goal is that when leaving our museum, all Russians would feel proud of their country.’”
Pride is one thing but history has shown that nationalism is more likely to incite hatred, intolerance, and violence. And unfortunately Russia is not the only country where nationalism is on the rise.
Russian History Receives a Makeover That Starts With Ivan the Terrible – NYTimes.com.
Ivan the Terrible
History Chick in AZ 