#32 – Dick Bernard: Health Care Reform ("Good Morning Vietnam")

/in , , , , /by

Yesterday was spent with a group of about twenty persons.  We were having our annual meeting.  It could be fairly said that with very few exceptions, we all knew each other reasonably well.
Someone observing us from the outside would quickly note that we were about the same age.  We would appear to be homogeneous in composition,  of roughly the same economic status, all accustomed to being leaders in one context or another.  And we would even agree  on the major issue facing our constituency, and that issue was Health Care Reform.
Near the end of our meeting the group was presented with a proposed statement of position on Health Care Reform.  The draft was very brief and general: two paragraphs, one-half page.  
Rather than simply approve the draft and go home, there ensued a vigorous debate and a number of amendments to the contents of the fifteen lines of text.  What two pairs of eyes had thought would be a relatively simple action statement became considerably more complicated when 20 pairs of eyes looked at the same sentences.
And we were all basically similar in our points of view on the general issue.
It took about a half hour of vigorous discussion, but finally a generally acceptable draft was approved and we went home.
It occurred to me that if our little group had so much trouble agreeing on a general framework, how much more difficult it is when the constituency is over 300 million, as is our U.S. population.  Change does not come easily.
But change does happen, and that’s why the “Good Morning Vietnam” addition to the subject line of this post.
I was in the Army in 1962-63, the beginning of the Vietnam era.  So I saw the entirety of the Vietnam conflict as an adult American. 
Vietnam was a long, destructive, contentious and divisive war among the American people.  Wounds still fester 35 years after the conflicts official end.  
But there is a lesson from that era that is directly applicable to today’s debate about Healthcare reform.
Years ago, very slowly but very surely the national conversation about Vietnam changed.  People can key in on different events which led to the change – there were many such events – but that part of history is less relevant than the ultimate fact that at some point a tipping point was reached, where the status quo of continuing the War became politically unacceptable, and the politicians sensed the change, and the war ended.
In my view the same general dynamic is in play today regarding health care reform.  The tipping point either has or soon will be reached in the debate.  Unlike the unfortunate end to the Clinton initiative in 1993-94, today’s efforts are not as clouded by public rigidity to change in the inefficient status quo.  People know that something needs to be done.
But as evidenced by the debate over a small statement of position by a small organization yesterday, the process of moving from the status quo to a new standard will be extraordinarily messy, and the initial outcome will be unsatisfactory to most who will legitimately see this defect or that in the resulting creation.
The very least we can do as individuals is to make certain that our personal positions are made known to our elected leaders at state and national level.  And, in addition, to enter into the debates in our organizations – as we did on Saturday afternoon – to take organizational positions on the abundant issues as well.
At the same time, we need to acknowledge the reality that this will be an extraordinarily difficult and imperfect process. 
As we enter this debate, I offer my favorite song from “Good Morning Vietnam”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnRqYMTpXHc.  Louis Armstrong went up against long odds.  He was not a quitter.

#30 – Marion Brady: A very serious and comprehensive look at the need for Public Education Reform

/in , , /by

Note from Moderator:  For 77 years Marion Brady has been immersed in public education in numerous roles, from student to teacher to text book author to informed commentator on public education.  In blog entry #10, (April 24, 2009), Marion laid out a very simple, but very essential prescription for necessary change in Public Education practice to fit the present day and future needs.  He contends that modern public education policy originated in the 1890s, and has inadequately changed in the well over 100 years since.  Below Marion Brady provides more specific context.   

 

Marion Brady: For more than forty years, in books published by respected presses, in a great many articles in education journals, and in newspaper columns distributed nationally by Knight-Ridder/Tribune, I’ve maintained that there will be no significant improvement in learner performance until problems with the deeply flawed “core curriculum” adopted in 1893 and in

near-universal use in America’s schools and colleges are recognized and addressed.

 

My criticisms have been myriad and specific, and have been articulated in simple, straightforward language, but education “reform” efforts from the local to the federal level continue to assume that poor performance is primarily a “people problem” rather than a system problem.

 

Until problems with the 1893 curriculum are addressed, rigor, raising the bar, trying harder, bringing market forces to bear, and so on — the reform strategies being promoted by corporate America and state and national politicians and policy makers — won’t just fail but will be

counterproductive.

 

For a summary of major problems with the familiar, traditional core curriculum, see:

 

www.marionbrady.com/powerpoint/NationalStandardsII.ppt

INDEX for OutsideTheWalls.org/blog

/in /by

NOTE: Rather than expanding this index, I have decided to rely on the Categories section which is visible at right on each posting. A click on any topic will bring up all posts which have been written on that topic.

(See Categories on home page for more detailed grouping.)

(click on specific date on calendar to the right for requested item)

#1 – March 25, 2009: Introducing the blog, and Reflecting on Fear Itself

#2 – April 2, 2009: Social Democracy

#3 – April 4, 2009: Binghamton NY shootings

#4 – April 7, 2009: Red River Flood at Fargo-Moorhead

#5 – April 9, 2009: What will be left for our Grandchildren?

#6 – April 12, 2009: Sugar Bush (see also #14)

#7 – April 15, 2009: Thoughts on Taxes and Taxation

#8 – April 16, 2009: Susan Boyle

#9 – April 20, 2009: The Columbine tragedy remembered

#10 – April 24, 2009: RIGOR as Public Education Policy

#11 – April 27, 2009: Swine Flu (see also #16)

#12 – April 29, 2009: Atoms for Peace

#13 – May 1, 2009: Democrats, Republicans, etc

#14 – May 3, 2009: Sweet Smoky Blues (See also #6)

#15 – May 4, 2009: Grandpa’s slingshot

#16 – May 5, 2009: Flu Survivor (See also #11)

#17 – May 8, 2009: Don Bartlette (See also #21 and #22)

#18 – May 10, 2009: Mothers Day

#19 – May 11, 2009: Chris Martenson’s “Crash Course”

#20 – May 12, 2009: Drones and War

#21 – May 13, 2009: Heather (See also #17 and #22)

#22 – May 14, 2009: Johnny, Carl and Elmer L (See also #17 and #21)

#23 – May 17, 2009: President Obama at Notre Dame

#24 – May 18, 2009: Power vs Force

#25 – May 20, 2009: Thoughts at #25

#26 – May 21, 2009: Fear Itself (see also #1 and #27)

#27 – May 22, 2009: Webinar on Fear (see also #1 and #26)

#28 – May 23, 2009: French-Canadians in the American Civil War

#29 – May 25, 2009: Memorial Day, remembering WWII 1944-45 in a small community.

#30 – May 27, 2009: A very serious and comprehensive look at the need for Public Education Reform

#31 – May 28, 2009:  R.I.P. Gerard Jean-Juste, Pere, Haiti Hero

#32 – May 31, 2009:  Health Care Reform: (“Good Morning Vietnam”)

#33 – June 2, 2009: Susan Boyle goes back to her village

#34 – June 3, 2009: The Conversation about Climate Change

#35 – June 5, 2009: President Obama Speaks in Cairo

#36 – June 6, 2009: President Obama builds a wall behind U.S. and everybody else.

#37 – June 7, 2009: The “Can Don’t” problem

#38 – June 10, 2009: Seeing “Community” (it’s all around us)

#39 – June 12, 2009: A new Farmer’s Market in New Hope MN

#40 – June 14, 2009: Dr. Tiller and Stephen Johns: Some thoughts about a conversation

#41 – June 15, 2009: Lobbying

#42 – June 18, 2009: A new dawn for Thinking Globally

#43 – June 21, 2009: Father’s Day: Thoughts about a French-Canadian

#44 – June 27, 2009: “Life is what happens to you while you’re making other plans.”

#45 – June 29, 2009: Guns and America

#46 – July 1, 2009: Sen. Al Franken enroute to Washington

#47 – July 3, 2009: Driving up the negatives

#48 – July 5, 2009: The 4th of July

#49 – July 6, 2009: “A million [tea bag faxes] made….”

#50 – July 7, 2009: “Back to the future with technology.”

#51 – July 8, 2009:  Death: Michael Jackson, Robert McNamara and Sarah Palin

#52 – July 11, 2009: Views on Economic Stimulus

#53 – July 13, 2009: Fact vs Theory

#54 – July 20, 2009: “The Eagle has landed”, and Walter Cronkite

#55 – July 23, 2009: Enobling Peace or Memorializing Eternal War?

#56 – July 24, 2009: Health Care Policy Sausage Making

#57 – July 25, 2009: The Politics and Practice of Race

#58 – July 26, 2009: Health Care Policy: Some Realities to Consider

#59 – July 27, 2009: Should there be Health care for all?  A simple exercise.

#60 – July 29, 2009: Health Care Reform and the Middle Class: The Middle Class fighting against its own best interests?

#61 – July 30, 2009: VA and Medicare

#62 – July 31, 2009: Long Term Care: Moving from Charity to Profit Center

#63 – August 1, 2009: Comments on the American narrative and the demonization of words.

#64 – August 2, 2009: The Health Care Reform Posts – a personal summation.

#65 – August 5, 2009: The latest Poll…and the “protests”

#66 – August 6, 2009: The Practice of the Viral Lie

#67 – August 7, 2009: Communicating Health Care Reform

#68 – August 10, 2009: Putting the “n” back in “commuity”

#69 – August 12, 2009: Eunice Kennedy Shriver, Heather, and “…the land of the free, and the home of the” Rave.

#70 – August 15, 2009: Health Care and Government in LaMoure

#71 – August 16, 2009: Dixie Chicks, on the road…with fascism?

#72 – August 22, 2009: Lindsay’s 23rd birthday, and some other 23rds

#73 – August 26, 2009: Senator Ted Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.

#74 – August 28, 2009: First do no harm (health care)

#75 – September 3, 2009:  “Faith-based” and Politics

#76 – September 6, 2009:  “Taking Woodstock”

#77 – September 7, 2009: The political execution of Van Jones (and a possibility or two)

#78 – September 8, 2009: Back to school with the President

#79 – September 9, 2009: Obama speaks to the nation on health care reform

#80 – September 10, 2009: Au revoir to a classy lady

#81 – September 11, 2009: The growing incivility of public discourse

#82 – September 12, 2009:  A message to students

#83 – September 13, 2009:  “I loved her first”

#84 – September 14, 2009:  The 9-12ers

#85 – September 15, 2009:  A gathering of the news community

#86 – September 16, 2009: Two Sides of “Entitlement”

#87 – September 17, 2009:  Stomping on ACORN

#88 – September 20, 2009:  Annelee Woodstrom and War Child

#89 – September 21, 2009:  Honoring two veterans

#90 – September 22, 2009:  Glenn Beck and “the mythical marching millions”

#91 – September 23, 2009:  “Photo-shoppe”

#92 – September 24, 2009: “Out of the loop”

#93 – September 26, 2009:  A Political Afternoon

#94 – September 28, 2009:  A Challenge to the Progressives

#95 – September 29, 2009:  Elmer L., Politics and People.

#96 – September 30, 2009:  “…above average” ?

#97 – October 1, 2009:  Killing a civil society.

#98 – October 2, 2009:  Chicago loses its Olympic bid

#99 – October 3, 2009: “Capitalism: A Love Story”

#100 – October 5, 2009: Thoughts at a Century of Blogging

#101 – October 6, 2009: Running for TJ; and building a base.

#102 – October 7, 2009: The Curse of Competition

#103 – October 8, 2009: The Evils of Commerce

#104 – October 9, 2009:  Health Care Reform.  Lurching to the finish line.

#105 – October 10, 2009:  The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

#106 – October 11, 2009:  “Capitalism: A Love Story” Part II

#107 – October 12, 2009:  Abortion

#108 – October 18, 2009: August Wilson’s Radio Golf

#109 – October 19, 2009: $1,420,000,000,000

#110 – October 21, 2009: $300,000,000,000

#111 – October 23, 2009: “From Hidden Roots….”

#112 – October 24, 2009: “La Grippe”

#113 – October 25, 2009: Being a face of hope

#114 – October 28, 2009: Iraq revisited, October, 2009

#115 – October 31, 2009: Learning about south Asia from a south Asian

#116 – November 7, 2009: Denying reality

#117 – November 8, 2009: The School Board election

#118 – November 9, 2009: A Reflection for Peace on Armistice (Veterans) Day

#119 – November 11, 2009: Armistice Day, Veterans Day, Remembrance Day
#120 – November 12, 2009: Raining Apples
#121 – November 23, 2009: Significance of 60 Votes
#122 – November 26, 2009: Thanksgiving
#123 – November 29, 2009: The Day Maker
#124 – December 1, 2009: The Ice on the Pond
#125 – December 5, 2009: Blessed Debt
#126 – December 6, 2009: Haiti, a look back and forward
#127 – December 7, 2009: Pearl Harbor, Once we were young.
#128 – December 8, 2009: Health Care Reform, Death by a Thousand Cuts
#129 – December 13, 2009: The Shack
#130 – December 14, 2009: “the gods must be crazy”
#131 – December 15, 2009: A Merry Christmas firing of an employee
#132 – December 17, 2009: Christmas Call and an encore from Susan Boyle
#133 – December 20, 2009: The Dust Bowl and Depression of the 1930s
#134 – December 21, 2009: A 1940s Country School Christmas
#135 – December 22, 2009: Dad’s Shoes
#136 – December 26, 2009: The Bad Plus
#137 – December 27, 2009: “Climate” vs “Weather”: A matter of huge consequence.
#138 – December 29, 2009: Real Time Health Care in the United States for a member of the Privileged Class
#139 – December 30, 2009: Part II Real Time Health Care in the U.S. from another perspective.
#140 – December 31, 2009: 500 years
#141 – January 1, 2010: Invictus
#142 – January 2, 2010: A New Years Day Reflection
#143 – January 3, 2010: YouTube, Elders and Youngers
#144 – January 4, 2010: Looking to the Future, by Looking at the Past
#145 – January 6, 2010: Reflections on Copenhagen Climate Summit
#146 – January 8, 2010: Armies of One
#147 – January 9, 2010: Avatar
#148 – January 12, 2010: Harry Reid and Me.
#149 – January 13, 2010: Fr. Tom Hagan, a horrible tragedy in Port-au-Prince, and a message to us all.
#150 – January 17, 2010: “We’re off to see the Wizard….”
#151 – January 19, 2010: Start Seeing Haiti
#152 – January 20, 2010: Who Deserves Medical Care? A Personal Experience.
#153 – January 23, 2010: Haiti. Hope is on the way?
#154 – January 26, 2010: Haiti and Power
#155 – January 30, 2010: Haiti, a plea
#156 – February 5, 2010: Howard Zinn
#157 – February 6, 2010: Haiti et al, a little Arithmetic Lesson in Caring and Sharing



#29 – Dick Bernard: Memorial Day 2009: A snapshot of the last year of WWII as experienced by two ND farm families

/in , , , , , /by

Taps:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn_iz8z2AGw

Today is Memorial Day, with all the varied meanings attached to it, all of which are deemed by their interpreters to be the proper meaning, all of which commemorate the tragedy of war. 

An e-mail from Mel in California on Friday, May 23, led me back to a treasure trove of copies of old letters I’ve had for years.  Most of them were written on my grandparents kitchen table, which would have been within the grove of trees included in the photo on the cover page of this blog.  The others would have been written on another kitchen table on a farm about three-fourths of a mile to the right of Sam and his photographer, myself. 

These letters were all written in 1944-45, and provide a snapshot of the impact of one war on one tiny community in the United States.  The quotes were interspersed among mundane bits of news: harvesting, cold weather, going to town and church.  I could have included more than these, but they suffice.  Grammatical and punctuation errors are as they were.  No editor was looking over the shoulder of these writers.  They wrote from the heart to their son, brother, cousin….

My correspondent, Mel, my mother’s first cousin who grew up on the neighboring farm in North Dakota, wrote about “Francis [Long] (marine killed in Tarawa)”.  I knew of Francis; Tarawa particularly interested me, as my friend, Minneapolis businessman Lynn Elling, was a young Navy officer, early in his tour, when his LST arrived at the gosh-awful remains of the Tarawa campaign in late 1943.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tarawa  His experiences there, and later, seared into his memory, led him to a life long and still continuing quest for peace. http://www.amillioncopies.info .

Mel had his facts slightly wrong: his Aunt, my Grandma Rosa, wrote her son, George, an Officer on the USS Woodworth in the Pacific Theatre, on August 20, 1944: “Fri we had a Memorial Mass for Francis Long killed July 2 on Saipan…”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saipan

George kept letters he received in WWII, and a few years ago I incorporated all of the letters from home into a family history of two neighboring farm families, the Buschs and Bernings, rural Berlin, ND.

Deadly World War II comes alive simply from pull quotes from a few of the letters written to George from the kitchen tables.  Following are a few samples:

Grandma, September 22, 1944: “I must give Francis Long a spiritual bouquet yet in a Mass they feel so badly.”

September 22, 1944, Uncle Vince writes his brother: “Threshing is coming along fine…[one hired man], a ex-marine from Guadacanal.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guadalcanal

October 22, 1944, Aunt Edith: “[our sister Florence] wrote they were afraid they were loosing their hired man to the Army.  He got his 1-A….”

Also October 22, Grandma Rosa “[my neighbor and sister-in-law Tina and her daughter Agnes] are going out to Whyoming… to see [their daughter and sister] Rose as Pinkey [Rose’s husband George Molitor] has to go across now too she expects a baby in Nov. so its to bad he has to go at this time.  Mrs. Heim says Elmer is in Holland now was in England & Belgium driving a tank so is in the front too at times Delores is in Italy….”

October 30, Grandma writes “[Vincent] got a card from the draft board saying he was in class II-C till Feb… How I wish it were all over.”  (II-C was likely a military deferment for essential work at home.  Vincent was needed on the farm.)

November 5, Grandma: “The Bernings are well Aug[ust] is still at camp LaJeune NoCar…  Ruby is in cadet nurse training in [Rockford] IL.  Rufina is in training at Iowa City.”

January 1, 1945, Grandma writes “[three] are leaving for the service soon…[another Long] is in Class A 1 now too….”

There is “radio silence” on the letters until June, 1945.  Doubtless letters continued, but don’t remain for posterity. 

June 11, 1945, Aunt Tina, Rose’s mother, writes “[daughter] Ruby has gone on to Montana to cheer up Rose a bit as her hubby is missing now for a month or so.  I hope…that he turns up liveing.”  (George Molitor KIA over Italy April 4, 1945, leaving Rose with two daughters, aged two and six months.)

July 25, 1945, Grandma: “…had a letter from [Marine Captain] August [Berning] is on Okinawa he had a bad battle there got shot through his jacket…The boys were to a show last night in LaMoure “30 seconds over Tokyo”….”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

August 8, 1945, Grandma: “Lorin H____ is at home now again they say he is nervous and has some shrapnel in his body but I bet he is glad to be home and will soon mend.”

August 26, 1945, Grandma:  “Hurrah! The old war is over I can’t say what that means to me….”

The surrender documents were signed by the Germans on May 7; and by the Empire of Japan on September 2, 1945.

War continues.  “Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me.”

#28 – Mary Ellen Weller: French-Canadians in the American Civil War: A Book Review

/in , , , , /by

Note from Moderator: Mary Ellen filed this review of a book about the Civil War over a year ago.  It seems particulary pertinent as a memory for Memorial Day, 2009.  A companion to this article might be a recent talk by Howard Zinn on America’s “Three Holy Wars” at the 100th anniversary celebration of the Progressive magazine.  The Civil War is one of those wars.  His 35 minute talk can be viewed at http://www.commondreams.org/video/2009/05/18-0

Mary Ellen Weller: Riding the bus was an essential part of the French Heritage Tour sponsored by the IF Midwest May 2, 2008 [http://www.IFMidwest.org] . Essential because of who was sitting in those seats. Some were on the program and many were authors of books related to French-Canadian heritage in the US. What follows is a review of one of those books, a fascinating look at the US Civil War as an engine of French-Canadian immigration. It is not yet available in English.

Les Canadiens Français et la Guerre de Sécession, 1861-1865, une autre dimension de leur migration aux Etats-Unis

(French Canadians and the War of Secession, 1861-1865, another dimension of their migration to the United States)

by Jean Lamarre, Professor of History, Royal Military College of Kingston, Ontario

Quebec: VLB Editeur, 2006.

Americans of French-Canadian descent are likely to find their first immigrant ancestor arrived here between 1840 and 1930. In those 90 years more than a million French-Canadians came south of the border. The numbers are especially high during the time of the American Civil War. Exactly why young men of 15 to 49 (average age 25.2) (p. 51) would choose to fight in a neighbor’s civil war is addressed in Mr. Lamarre’s intriguing book and the answers are surprising.

The facts and evidence on which this work is based represent months of often tedious research in the National Archives in Washington D.C. where military records for each and every enlisted man are found. Lamarre used Record Group 94: the Adjutant General’s Office, Civil War (Union) Compiled Military Service Records. “The researcher who wants to consult the personal file of a soldier must fill out, for each one, a form on which he indicates the name of the soldier and his regiment.” (p.26)* Using such a laborious process Lamarre gathered a sample of 1320 Union soldiers of French-Canadian origin, of whom 1142 were born in French-Canada and 178 in the US. He concludes that they represent about 10% of the total French-Canadian participation in the Union Army.

In addition to the challenge of submitting the necessary forms one by one to establish this sample, was the challenge of recognizing French surnames from approximate homonymic spellings in English. The recruits often could not spell their own names. More than 90% of these men could not sign their contracts and simply made a cross at the bottom of the page (p. 53). Check Mr. Lamarre’s appendix for the name Duquette and you will get a quick lesson in the challenges he faced. Remember, he had to order each record individually by name.

Once accessed, the record shows the soldier’s age at enlistment, his home, his place of enrollment, date of enrollment, and assigned regiment. The appendix which lists this information for the entire sample of 1320 French-Canadian Union soldiers will certainly be useful to anyone doing a family history. Thirty regiments from Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New Hampshire and Rhode Island are represented. Additionally, the record might note injury, hospitalization, discharge at the end of his contract, re-enlistment, or status as a prisoner of war. Lamarre has re-created the stories of many individual soldiers and tells them with great care within the body of the text.

The first wave of (over-)confidence and patriotism that brought volunteers to the Northern Army swept many French-Canadians with it. An early victory was expected. Some joined for adventure, some for patriotism, some to combat slavery and some for the security of food, shelter, and a small salary. Those French-Canadians already living in the US were often pressured to show their allegiance to their new country by enlisting. In some communities there was violence against immigrants.

The situation at the border echoes the years of the Revolution. Just as Loyalists headed north to avoid the Revolutionary War, many, many French-Canadians returned to Canada alongside Americans seeking shelter from the conflict.

Lamarre notes that seasonal employment in both logging and farming, from New England to Michigan, had become a way of life for many French-Canadians. Some were motivated to enlist to protect these very personal economic interests. They reasoned that if the South won the war, they could lose these jobs.

That very line of reasoning reveals a lack of employment opportunities in French-Canada. Between 12,000 and 20,000 French-Canadians enrolled in the Union Army and Lamarre states that “it is above all the financial advantages accompanying enlistment that attracted the French-Canadians”(p. 49). At first, the “assurance of a monthly salary of $13” seemed “preferable to the idleness and poverty that awaited them on returning home” p. (48). As this most deadly of all American conflicts dragged on, with tens of thousands of Union soldiers dying in battle after battle, and few enlistments to replace them, Congress voted signing bonuses as part of the Militia Act of 1862. French-Canadian enlistments went up again. In 1863 a draft was established and “enlistment became even more profitable”. (p. 49)

Lamarre brings out three very important aspects of recruitment and enlistment that were new to me. One, under the draft it was legally possible to pay a substitute to enlist in your place. 14% of the French-Canadians who enrolled, did so as substitutes (p. 58) Two, recruiters for the Union Army operated in French-Canada openly before the British enforced the Foreign Enlistment Act (which forbade British subjects from fighting in foreign wars), and clandestinely as ‘job recruiters’ even after Britain’s declaration of neutrality. Three, the payment of Bounties to new recruits after 1862 led to a pattern of desertion and ‘bounty jumping’. 

Enlisting as a Substitute was dazzlingly attractive. “The sums paid varied between $100 and $300 in 1863 but they later reached $600 and even $1000. These amounts represented the equivalent of one to two year’s wages in Eastern Canada, a regular small fortune” (p.59).

The British and their colonies north of the border were understandably nervous at the assembly of large armies in the States. Among their fears was possible invasion by a victorious Northern Army. It was thought that the army would be used to pick off territory or whole colonies and annex them to the US. Among the results was the British North American Act of 1867. Huge territories recently opened by the ending of the charter of the Hudson Bay Company in 1860 were indeed causing comment and machinations in the US. Eastern and Western Canada (French and English) pulled together and became a confederation and a country rather than a collection of colonies. Many other factors led to confederation, but the American Civil War had its influence.

With Bounties at amazing levels, the fraud that was called Bounty Jumping is no surprise. Despite the risk of court martial and possible execution, some individuals signed up in several different regiments and collected several bounties, deserting each time, or simply not reporting for duty. Amazing as it seems, the recruits were paid their Bounty and then given time to put their affairs in order at home before reporting for duty. How much temptation does a poor man need? The number who reported honorably for duty is all the more impressive.

The individual stories that Jean Lamarre has reconstructed for this fascinating account of Civil War experiences are a great treasure. Alongside the important facts related to French-Canadian Union Army soldiers as a whole, each individual story humanizes and verifies those facts.

With illegal immigration ever before us as a 2008 campaign issue, with a fence going up between the US and Mexico, consider just this one fact: 25% of the Union Army were immigrants. At that time, if you were here and you were not born here, you were an immigrant. Simple as that. At the end of the war Union soldiers were granted a free homestead of 180 acres in remote places like Minnesota and Dakota Territory. It solved two problems at once: what to do with thousands of men seeking work, and how to populate a continent.

*All translations are mine, mew.

Note: This book is not yet available in English translation, but the valuable appendix is easily accessible with a minimal knowledge of French. An earlier work by Professor Lamarre, The French Canadians of Michigan: Their Contribution to the Development of the Saginaw Valley and the Keweenaw Peninsula, 1840-1914 is available in English from Wayne State University Press.

Mary Ellen Weller is retired instructor of French at Mesabi Range Community and Technical College, Virginia MN.  maryellenwellerATaolDOTcom 

#27 – Dick Bernard: The Webinar on Fear, and related happenings, May 21, 2009

/in , , , , /by

 In #26, May 21, 2009, I mentioned an adventure on which I was about to embark: hooking into something called a webinar on “The Fear Factor: A briefing on communication and messaging from U.S. in the World”.   This session was taking place in some conference room in Washington D.C.

Apparently at roughly the same time, in the same city, President Obama was making a major speech on essentially the same topic relating to Guantanamo; and former Vice-President Cheney was trying to blunt the Presidents case in yet another speech at the American Enterprise Institute.  It was an interesting day, yesterday. 

 I am of the doofus generation, at least in a technological sense: a Webinar was something novel and largely incomprehensible to me.

 

 Nonetheless, I managed to follow the appropriate instructions, figured out how to put my cell phone on speaker mode, and got my computer linked so that I could watch the speakers power-point, including her occasional small errors in going to the wrong slide, or such.

 

(The power-point, with captions, can be accessed here http://www.connectusfund.org/resources/managing-fear-factor-briefing-us-world) 

 

That the speaker and in-house audience was invisible to me and sounded somewhat tinny was a relatively small problem.  I got the gist of it.

 

 The time on the webinar was well spent, though there are only so many new ways to make a presentation about Fear.

 

Fear is obviously a saleable commodity, and a dominant emotion in homo sapiens (and other vertebrates) brains.  It is survival mode, the bare basics on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. 

 

The speaker described as the “stone age brain”, and it is tempting to ascribe to the others whose views I oppose the inferior intellectual status of Fred and Wilma Flintstone.

 

But I have seen plenty of fear-based behavior amongst the good (and intellectually superior, of course) people with whom I most often associate.  And I’m in the same kettle as everyone else….  We’re all susceptible to Fear.  We just fear different things in different ways.

 

So, the speaker talked about “fears world view”, a view in which the “stone age brain” assesses situations as it would if its owner was in a schoolyard tussle with a bully; in a rough and tumble “wild west” scenario; or as it sees or imagines things out there in the “urban jungle”.  These are all examples of places “where the normal rules don’t apply” and where everyone has to watch out for him or her self.

 

In these kinds of situations, the sense of community is very restricted: trusting even the good next door neighbor might be a stretch.  “Me against the world” might be a good phrase.

 

The message I picked up from the Webinar is that the best course is simply to acknowledge that fear is a reality for all of us, and it is nothing to lecture or belittle people about.  People who are fearful are not stupid or crazy.  Fear just is.  And other tactics need to be explored to deal with the political tendency to rachet fear up as a useful “us vs them” tactic.

 

There is plenty of good material available about the topic, beginning with those references noted in #26 for May 21.  Do take the time to take a look at these references.   

#26 – Dick Bernard: NIMBY – Are we killing ourselves through "fear itself"?

/in , , , , , /by

Shortly I will join a webinar sponsored by the Connect US Fund (www.connectusfund.org).  The title of the session “The Fear Factor: A briefing on communication and messaging from U.S. In The World”.   The  suggested readings are listed at the end of this posting.  They are very interesting.

 

I write intentionally before that session convenes.  Somehow it seems that the title is missing something when it says “from U.S. In The World”.  Might it better be, rather, “among us”?

 

The internal use of Fear to manipulate us is perhaps our most deadly enemy as a nation.  As I suggest in the title, we buy this Fear and, I contend, we are accepting the role of “killing ourselves”.

 

Examples are abundant.  Two on the national and international level occurred for me in the past 24 hours

 

1.  Yesterday, May 20, the United States Senate voted 90-6 against a small budget allocation directed towards the closing of Guantanamo Prison in Cuba.  The vote is not because there is serious disagreement with the data about the prisoners long held there, their possible guilt or innocence, the implications of their release, whether they can get a fair trial, etc.  Neither is it about the need to close this institution which has come to represent the worst of what we are as a nation.  We know we have to do this.  But none of this is terribly relevant.

 

The sole question seems to be “where should these prisoners go?”  And the stated and unstated answer is, “not in my backyard” (NIMBY).  We are afraid of these people, and legislators are afraid to face down this fear and do what is right.  They are afraid of the political consequences in the next election.

 

Some of these prisoners, (Many?  Most?), were innocent when they were thrown in jail without any rights, and left to rot there, tortured for information they did not have.  In the tragic irony of such situations, their very false incarceration leads to the near certainty of their continued incarceration in Cuba.  Nobody wants them in their state.

 

Fear is at work.  Politicians know the value of fear as a motivator.  Nobody wants them, even in the most secure facilities in the United States.   

 

If only this were the only example of fear run amuck….

 

2.  The same day the Senate voted I received the draft of a long carefully written letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations questioning the conduct of a recent election in the country of Haiti.  It seems that a major political party was denied placement on the ballot there because its designated leader had not properly signed the required form: a fax’ed signature was deemed improper.  Because this party wasn’t on the ballot, apparently great numbers of people boycotted the election in question, rendering the results invalid: there was no free election.

 

Since the designated leader of the party “is half a world away, exiled to another continent under international pressure” he could not sign in person the form required.

 

I have come to know a bit about this country and the sordid long term U.S. relationship with it.  Most Americans likely know little or nothing about Haiti, which makes it irrelevant and invisible to them.  But what we do reflects negatively on us, in relationship much as we impact negatively on it.

 

The leaders name is Jean-Bertrand Aristide, twice democratically elected president of Haiti, forced into exile by a coup engineered by the U.S., France and Canada in 2004.  Aristide, native born and till 2004 a life-long resident of Haiti, cannot even return to the country of his birth.  He is in another Guantanamo of our making, South Africa, even though he has not been found guilty of anything other than being someone the United States didn’t want to hold office in the desperately poor sovereign nation of Haiti.

 

For a particular reason, his popularity with the people of Haiti, the United States apparently fears Aristide’s return to his home country.   We fear any sense of empowerment of his constituency, the poor, for whose interests he advocated. 

 

Unlike the prisoners at Guantanamo, most Americans have probably never heard of Aristide; in fact, during a period of exile after another coup (1991) he lived several years in the United States.  One wonders if he would even be allowed to come to the United States at this point.

 

We seem mired in a swamp of our own making.  If there is anything we need to fear, it is that we are destroying ourselves.

 

Here are the readings suggested for today’s web-based session.  They are worth the time.

Resources
Detecting Intentions, Managing Fear: How Americans Think about National Security
Produced by the Topos Partnership for the National Security Network
http://www.connectusfund.org/resources/detecting-intentions-managing-fear-how-americans-think-about-national-security-0
Death Grip: How Political Psychology Explains Bush’s Ghastly Success
By John J. Judis, in The New Republic, August 27, 2007
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=9e9af105-6745-497a-b5f8-4f304749eed4&p=1
“Cheney’s Fear Mongering”
Political Cartoon by Morin, in The Miami Herald, April 5-11, 2009
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Cheneyu-Fear-Mongering.htm
“A Nuclear 9/11?”
By Brian Michael Jenkins, Senior Advisor to the President of the RAND Corporation
http://www.rand.org/commentary/2008/09/11/CNN.html
“Clark blasts GOP terror video”
Alex Isenstadt, in Politico, May 8, 2009
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22268.html

 

 

#25 – Dick Bernard: Thoughts at 25

/in , /by

#25 – Dick Bernard: Thoughts at 25

 

Today is an anniversary of sorts: I’ve reached the quarter century mark in the world of blogging.  Twenty-five posts is tiny, nonetheless, a good time to do an initial review…and encourage people like you to become contributors of your words.

 

Today is the 57th day this blog has been on-line, and this is the 25th post.  I’ve averaged one post roughly every two days.  (it is very easy to “cruise” this site: the calendar dates for which there have been posts are underscored, and there is no need to open any post to see the title.)  I didn’t know what the frequency of these posts would be when I began.  My long-term goal is a single post per day.  There will be holes from time to time since I’m not chained to this computer, and do not carry it with me when I’m away.

 

In the first 57 days, there have been six authors other than myself on this blog.  This is fewer than I’d prefer; but more than I expected at this stage.  My hope is that this blog will become a community of writers, holding forth on many topics.  (Each who posts two or more times will earn their own category.  In addition to myself, there are three others in this category thus far.)   

 

Those who know me well know that I am no stranger in the world of writing imperfectly.  Those who don’t know me at all, and are curious, can go back to blog post #1 on March 25, 2009, to find out more about the personal history of this blogger.

 

I paid a fair amount of attention to the makeup of this blog: what I decided to call it (“Thoughts towards a better world”); how I decided to describe myself (“moderate, pragmatic, Democrat”); what photos I wanted to use (rural North Dakota; myself out for a walk at the cusp between winter and spring in Minnesota).  I’m small town, and big city.  To me, at least, all of these identify what I wanted this blog to represent.  Early on I included a category called “Quietings” to move away from the seriousness and the shouting so endemic in todays political conversation.

 

I want this space to talk of many things in a manner which may attract reasonable people of assorted points of view.  Unfortunately, we tend to be a polarized society, so that the words I use above, or some of the content I choose to print from “left” or “right”, may drive away some very good thinkers.  So be it.  It will evolve.    

 

The blog community is an immense one.  I actually thought there might be credible statistics on number of blogs but so far, no reliable data.  Depending on one’s definition of a “blog”, it is possible that everyone who tweets once on Twitter can be considered a “blogger”.  At the moment, anyway, it appears that anything from the internet version of school kids passing crude hand-written notes through the most learned commentaries are considered, by some, to be in the “community” called “blogs”.  There’s likely a dividing line somewhere between thought out writing and idle chatter but I haven’t found it.  I’d like to think this space will be more serious effort than simply fluff.  Someone else will judge that over time.

 

It is clear from my own experience with the internet, that this medium has huge potential for good or mischief.  Anything I write in this public space can be accessed by anybody, anywhere, any time.

 

Most recently, two days ago, out of the blue came a short e-mail from someone who had come across something I wrote in another forum over two years ago.  I had written about someone he knew, a person he’d lost track of.  (The posting he came across is in two parts, November and December, 2006, part one accessible at http://www.mapm.org/presidentsmemo/2006/11/.   It referred to a 1989 Hunger Strike at the Cathedral of St. Paul in St. Paul MN, and the role of a man I had met, Jesus Hurtado.)  Out of curiosity I wrote the individual to inquire where he was from, and how he happened to find the commentary.  He is a teacher at a west coast University and he said “a student of mine found the article while researching a topic relevant to a book we are reading: Tom Mertes’s A Movement of Movements (Verso 2004).” 

 

After hearing from him, I entered the words “St. Paul Cathedral Hunger Strike 1989” and sure enough, up came my blog post, first on the list.  I got the same result entering the words Jesus Hurtado.  It reminded me of the first time I had met Mr. Hurtado and then tried to find out something about that Hunger Strike: there was nothing at all on the internet.   In a sense, I added to history, and helped some student, and can now help a couple of guys renew acquaintance. 

 

It makes this project – this blog – worth my time.  Consider submitting your own posts.  My guidelines are simple.  See the “about” page.    

#24 – Bob Barkley: Power vs Force

/in , , , , /by

As the transition from Bush to Obama continues, the differences between the reliance of power versus force, while subtle, are still quite substantive. I believe it is best explained in a piece I wrote in the midst of the Bush incompetence.
The tension between power and force is great and often misunderstood. Much of the problem here is the western worlds—or at least most Bush sympathizers—misunderstanding of the differences between these two dynamics.
And when it comes to which of these two will win in the long-term, power will eat force for lunch.
Power is about influence, persuasion, example, compassion, civility, modeling, pacifism, peacefulness, humility, and is intrinsic by nature; it is a ‘pull’ action.
Force is about bullying, brashness, greed, militarism, war, arrogance, hubris, brutishness, and is extrinsic by nature; it is a ‘push’ action. We have just escaped a US leadership that revered force, and, while not yet complete, the shift is apparent to at least a balance of the use of power and force.
Gandhi, M. L. King, Mandela, the Dalai Lama, Reinhold Niehbuhr, and Jesus exemplify power. Its essence is in ideas rather than things, and it is transmitted through words, serenity, calmness, and trust. Use of this model generates eager followers rather than reluctant servants.
King George III, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, bin Ladin, Saddam, Caesar, Herod, and, some would argue, to an increasing extent the US and British leadership for the past 8 years in particular, exemplify force. It is transmitted through fear, intimidation, coercion, dishonesty, and violence. It generates obedience and subservience rather than voluntary and enthusiastic acceptance.
The world has had its share of force, but force has never sustained a society in the way that power has. Martin Luther King captured the concept with the following: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” It will always take the power of some new and more reasoned influence to rectify the damage done by the wrong-headedness of using force.
A friend has offered that recently, “We have at work a strange version of the force/power distinction that operates as if force is the measure of power. Those holding this belief think that a bigger force will inevitably win, and they dread that others will conquer them if they don’t achieve total domination first. The only thing that can be won in such a paradigm is more control. And to maintain such control requires an ever-increasing ruthlessness and creates a world that responds only to force – a world that is driven by extrinsic reward or consequences rather than by an intrinsic sense of hope and of true community.” A study of history—Rome, Hitler, Napoleon, on and on, take your pick—shows that force is always trumped and is never sustainable long term.
A tweaking of this power vs. force discussion might well lead to what Reinhold Niebuhr would have referenced as “power and humility.” This comment about Reinhold Niebuhr recently came to my attention*, “Niebuhr understood that the exercise of power can be shocking and, at times, corrupting. But he also understood that power is absolutely necessary to fight the battles that must be fought. The trick is to fight these battles with humility and constant introspection, knowing that there is no monopoly on virtue. Moreover, this combination is simply more effective. For power untethered from humility is certain to eventually fail.”
And in the wake of World War II, Niebuhr warned us “we are so deluded by the concept of our innocence that we are ill-prepared to deal with the temptations of power which now assail us.” I can’t think of a better bit of advice to those that today control our government.
Finally, Niebuhr wrote, “If we should perish, the ruthlessness of the foe would be only the secondary cause of the disaster. The primary cause would be that the strength of a giant nation was directed by eyes too blind to see all the hazards of the struggle; and the blindness would be induced not by some accident of nature or history but by hatred and vainglory.” Or quoting an old adage, “Hubris is terminal.” And there couldn’t be a better description of where Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, et al, had been leading this nation.
In my manuscript titled “Progressive Thoughts from a Liberal Mind: Creating a More Perfect World,” this section has received the most attention by occasional readers. It is also the one I seem to refer to most often as I reflect upon today’s international climate.
Undoubtedly we must guide our nation to the use of power as here defined and to avoiding a reliance on force. Ultimately, particularly in the long term, all models based upon force will fail. But quite unfortunately, the failure of these models falls upon the children of the perpetrators rather than upon them. This means that it is most often the shortsighted and selfish – those lacking “humility” – who most rely on force to settle their grievances and frustrations or satisfy their greed.
It will serve us well to reflect upon this dynamic of power v. force as we evaluate efforts by the Obama administration to make the transition as it is apparent they wish to.
* Quotations by Rienhold Niebuhr are from his book Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study of Ethics and Politics
_________________________
Robert Barkley, Jr., Worthington, Ohio. Email at RBarkle@columbus.rr.com. Retired Executive Director, Ohio Education Association, served as Interim Executive Director, Maine Education Association, thirty-five year veteran of National Education Association and NEA affiliate staff work, long-term Consultant to the KnowledgeWorks Foundation of Cincinnati, Ohio [www.kwfdn.org], author of: Quality in Education: A Primer for Collaborative Visionary Educational Leaders, Leadership In Education: A Handbook for School Superintendents and Teacher Union Presidents, Principles and Actions: A Framework for Systemic Change (unpublished), and Progressive Thoughts from a Liberal Mind: Creating a More Perfect World (unpublished and available online upon request).

#23 – Dick Bernard: President Obama at Notre Dame University May 17, 2009

/in , , , , /by

A beautiful Sunday afternoon was very tempting for a good long walk, but I knew that the long anticipated appearance of Barack Obama at Notre Dame was soon to begin, so I delayed the walk and watched the proceedings live on Notre Dame’s website, from the procession of graduates into the fieldhouse, to the remarks following President Obama’s speech.

 

It was a truly remarkable afternoon: grist for an entire semester course condensed into less than two hours of time.

 

I would diminish the event by trying to summarize it.  The most gifted commentators and film editors will similarly diminish it.  It has to be watched. 

 

Those who wish can likely view, or view for a second time, the entire proceedings at the Notre Dame website http://www.nd.edu/.  To get the entire perspective, you really need to watch the proceedings, including the opening prayer, and the student valedictory by a remarkable student, E. Brennan Bollman.

 

For those unable to see it all, it included a history lesson or two or three: the President noted (to no applause – doubtless because it caught a young audience unawares) that today was the 55th anniversary of Brown vs Board of Education, the landmark civil rights case.  And at the end of his speech, the President was presented a photo of former Notre Dame President Theodore Hesburgh with Martin Luther King in Chicago in 1965.  Hesburgh was one of the giants of the civil rights era.  He was at the commencement, nearing his 92nd birthday. 

 

As a lifelong Catholic I could feel pride at the long history of my Church as a champion of social justice.  At points in my life I benefitted from that role.  As a person who brushed up close against the possibility of abortion during my first wife’s last months on earth in the spring and summer of 1965, and is unalterably pro-choice because of my personal experience, I listened closely for, and heard, acknowledgement of the difficulties inherent in adopting absolute right and wrong positions.  But I heard respect for differing opinions from both Obama and the University of Our Lady (Notre Dame).

 

Obama used the Abortion word on the Notre Dame stage, and handled the sensitive matter in a sensitive way.  But he was no less classy than the Notre Dame officials. 

 

There was one – or was it several – very loud hecklers early in the speech.  An overwhelming student led chant drowned them out. 

 

I was distracted early on by a grim looking professor like figure behind President Obama on the stage.  This guy had on all the robes, but when others applauded, he stood stone-like.  I finally decided that he was probably Secret Service.  Maybe someone will expand on that presumption of mine.

 

Knowing a little about such things work, my guess is that all of the VIPS, Obama, the President of Notre Dame, Father Hesburgh and others, knew before a single word was uttered what at minimum the gist of each others talk would be.  This was not a time or a place for surprises.

 

Going in everyone doubtless knew that this wasn’t a serious issue within the Catholic Church.  Only about 20% of the Bishops united in opposition to Obama’s appearance; over 60% of Catholics approved.  In my own Catholic Church, this morning, there was not a single word verbally or in print about the conflict, nor did the local diocesan paper in its most recent edition carry a single word about it (though I suspect the local Archbishop was among the 20% who were against Obama’s appearance).* 

 

And to the best of my knowledge Rome was silent.   Its silence spoke volumes.

 

For those who value Hostility around a controversial and difficult issue, today was not a good day.  For those who are interested in Healing, today was a solid start.

 

I went for my walk.  And saw a little kid with his Mom, wearing a Notre Dame tee-shirt.  A good omen.

 

One day later – May 18, 2009

 

* I went back to the Archdiocesan paper and found I was in error on this sentence.  Indeed the Archbishop’s column mentioned the event without mentioning either the speaker or the institution, but one had to be a very diligent reader of the weekly newspaper and interested in the event to figure out what the Archbishop was talking about.  The meat of the column was buried in the inside back page of the newspaper.  Such placement was likely intentional.  The entire column is accessible here http://tinyurl.com/ovhszz. 

 

In his column, the Archbishop appears to acknowledge the need to dialogue “with those who disagree” with the Church’s stand.  The continuing dilemma is how there can be “dialogue” with someone who not only claims the truth but claims that the official position of the Church is the only correct one and says that “[t]here can be no compromise”.  Dialogue does not presume closed minds in a conversation, or “lines drawn in the sand”.  But no openness to other points of view is conveyed whatsoever. The Archbishop who wrote the column for his newspaper has chosen, apparently deliberately, to hide his position from all but those who most likely fervently agree with him.  He can demonstrate that he took a hard position on the issue, without much risk that anyone will notice.

 

Two days later – May 19, 2009

 

Out of curiosity I decided to look at the several issues of the Archdiocesan newspaper which were published the last several weeks before the speech.  I picked up a sense of editorial meetings concerning “what shall we say about this?” with an answer “as little as possible”, from the small amount of newsprint devoted to the Obama appearance.  The most interesting, and perhaps most revealing, article was a short one on April 16, where it was reported that the local South Bend Bishop “advised Catholics to not attend [the] demonstrations”.  Whatever the real intent was, my own perception was that, even by early April, the powers-that-be knew that the general church membership was not with them regarding Obama’s visit to Notre Dame, and the advisory was a clever PR creation to provide a cover story.  But that is just my individual perception.  I have learned over the years that it is useful to have a healthy skepticism about official versions of events and their meaning.

 

Four days later – May 21, 2009

 

The Archdiocesan newspaper carried two front page “below the fold” stories about the events at Notre Dame.  They were equal in length: one focusing on Obama’s remarks; the other on the protests.  On page 6 was a half-page “Guest Editoria” “It’s not only Obama who needs to examine conscience” which, first, acknowledged what every Catholic knows: that the church is not a monolith where everyone thinks alike; but nonetheless contended that genuine Catholics must follow the official Church teaching.