posted April 18, 2003 04:21 PM               

The one where I muse philosophically on how the United States backed the wrong horse in World War II...

But hell, given the leadership of F.D. Roosevelt, our first Communo-Sociaist president, whatcha gonna do, huh?

posted April 18, 2003 04:39 PM               

Boy, I sure HOPE this was a war for oil!

I like my archives, printed by the machine-driven corporate Satan, like DC Comics.

I like to flick a switch and enjoy the fruits of technology in my -ahem- decadent Western world.

I see my gas is about .12/.15 cents cheaper near-about my neighborhood. I have no desire to pedal a bike to work like our Asian friends in a third-world Asian nation of your choice.

Guilt-ridden, paradoxical knee-jerk whiners like Ethan Hawke, Martin Sheen, ______________ (fill-in-the-blank-of-your-favorite) I find I don't suffer too well.

I have accepted the Hypocrisy that is America. I am comfortable with it. If you are not, join the Peace Corp/VISTA or any other Kennedy "feel-good" groups and enjoy being one-with-the-universe in a third-world country.

And, cuh-rist, take that Dowd dame with ya!

posted April 18, 2003 07:38 PM            

Second, I'd like to toss in my thoughts on the War Between the States: everyone was right, and everyone was wrong.

A free and sovereign people have the right to associate, and disassociate, with whomever they wish. As such, any State should have the ability to secede from the rest when circumstances demand. Too bad that the people of the Confederacy were anything but free and sovereign.

A nation of laws also demands that when such a secession occurs, that the seceding party assume its fair share of debts and obligations, and compensates the remainder for unmoveable physical assets. Thus, a negotiation is required to make the secession a smooth process. See the Czechs and Slovaks for details.

The Confederacy's right to secede was trampled. Its motive, to ensure the continuation of a feudal economy on the backs of slaves, was (still is!) abhorrent and reprehensible. In no way can the Confederacy be considered an object of admiration.

The Union's effort to overturn the secession was unjustifiable. To make it a "war to free the slaves" is as much an after-the-fact excuse as the "war to liberate Iraq". Yes, great good came from both acts, in the end. But both are still cases of ends justifying means. Both are examples of a failure of diplomacy/politics prior to hostilities.

posted April 18, 2003 07:46 PM            

But I will say this-- When it comes to antiquities and archaeology, some folks don't quite understand the importance of provenance.

You know there are actually achaeological sites that have been left undisturbed intentionally so that people in the future can study those?

And with new technologies, antiquities that have been studied before will often give up new information we could not have guessed.

posted April 18, 2003 09:42 PM               

I'm an unabashed leftist. But I also grew up in the South. I've always taken the view that (this is historically verifiable) a large number, if not most, of the Framers of the Constitution, including James Madison, its principal architect, intended for secession to be an option that was always available to a State. Lincoln used brute force, ratified after the fact by a pretty tame Supreme Court, to change that, and he's (understandably, from the point of view of the winners) regarded as the greatest President ever.
Had I been around then, I wouldn't have fought for the Confederacy, because I know they seceded in large part (though not exclusively) over the issue of slavery extension to the Territories, and their fear that they were doomed to lose the "Peculiar Institution".
But I wouldn't have fought for the Union either, because I do believe that the option of secession is rightfully available to any State that wants to exercise it, regardless of how bad its reason is.
I don't know if that's Carlo's position, but I know that a lot of folks subscribe to it.

posted April 19, 2003 12:59 AM               

And thanks for being gracious enough to recognize a touch of tongue in cheek in some of my commentaries and not for immediately calling me a "rat bastard sum'bitch".

Next, much of this gets "lost" in the typing. I always "type" on these boards as if I'm in a "bar" (although I don't drink!)with you board podnars have a nice animated discussion, me with my Italian/Siciian gestures flailing about.

And yes, thanks for recognizing me as one of the good guys.

Ok, the "backing the wrong horse" issue with WWII. None of that to imply anti-Semitic feelings, etc. It does address the isolationist vibe of our country at that time (Lindbergh damn near crucified for his isolationist/proGerman? views at the time). Ian Kershaw latest 2-volume look at Hitler outlines possible overtures Hitler/Nazi government had with Great Britain. Germany somewhat hegemony of the continent, England still "rules the sea" and all leave America alone. The Nippon Empire would be thrown a bone with parts of China. All semi-nice and neat. A "new imperialism" so to speak. Would that scenario "settled" some of today's problems? Hmmmm...

My affinity for the Confederacy? Well, for one, I don't carry a whip to beat idle blacks, nor do I pine for the days of separate water-fountains. My grandpa was off the boat from Sicily.

As a "near-miss" third degree in history (back surgeries and children being born cut that off!), one thing I keep in mind is to be very careful applying the moral/ethics of period C when analyzing period A. My Catholic upbringing makes me well aware of the "evil" of slavery. But in the spring of 1862 when Yankee "invaders" traversed the Shenandoah Valley, you bet yer butt I'd have joined Thomas J. Jackson's troops. Was I defending slavery? Of course not. I was defending home and hearth.

James F., as always my friend, you hit the nail perfectly - the tariff/money issue! Lincoln, the anti-Christ, could not "afford" to let the "erring sisters" go in peace. The South provided "too much" money!

Another reason I scoff at Northern anti-Southern bias is the immigrant issue. Northern "slaves" came from Ireland, Germany, etc. with the appropriate slave-wages paid accordingly. The new "ball 'n chain" is, of course, the welfare check.

Winners write the history books. As I've grown older, I just get tired of being the "bad guy" for being a Southerner.

Surely, if I was born and raised in Maine or Vermont I'd feel differently. My heroes would be Joshua Chamberlain, or Dan Sickles or Winfield Scott Hancock.

The "tragic flaw" of the Southern cause catches my interest as well. Georgia governor Joseph Brown was such a "states rights" advocate, he groused about sending munitions and troops to non-Georgians! Lee offered command of the North, but would not "draw his sword" against Virginia! Genl James Longstreet's children dying within a few days of each other - and he does't return home to comfort his wife- he is "needed" in the field!

The human interest scenarios on both sides is marvelous. THAT is what attracts me. The paradox of "good men" probably fighting for the wrong reason! Gosh, what a story! What a tragedy!

I do not apologize for a cause that produces a Lee or a Jackson.

Thanks for letting have my say in a somewhat non-threatening fashion!

Again, best to all...

posted April 19, 2003 09:19 AM               

As I continue my studies, the "roll call" of those who answered the Southern cause was remarkable...

former VP Breckingridge, of course...
Genl Richard Taylor, son of Pres Zachary Taylor, buried in my home-town, at Metairie Cemetery...

And our Federals had their many champions as well...

posted April 19, 2003 09:22 AM               

who/what is little Meatball and the Wise Guys?

Comic strip?
Feature in a comic?

posted April 19, 2003 10:44 AM               

-Steve

posted April 19, 2003 01:12 PM               

Hey, buddy, no apologies necessary - I trust you and others can "see" my views without either of us having to load our Enfield rifles! Sometimes my musings get a wee to the right of even Mr. Limbaugh!>?# I'm my worst Devil's Advocate at times!

oh - my paper also carries a "shot" of Ms. Dowd! Growl!Hubba-hubba and all that sexist talk! No viagra needed for that, ol' sod!

best...

posted April 19, 2003 01:15 PM               

-Steve

posted April 19, 2003 01:37 PM            

I don't know that my question about the Civil War's been addressed, though. I understand why Southerners at the time would resent the North on other grounds, such as economic, even if they were personally opposed to slavery. Obviously, an invading army coming through your home would tend to upset you, regardless of from whence it came.

My question goes to the idea of why a person living currently, some 100+ years later, would choose to identify positively with the Civil War South? It still seems like unless you currently support slavery or unless you currently want to secede from the Union, you'd be happy with the way the war turned out in the long run. Surely people still aren't personally upset about bad things that happened to their great-great-grandfathers? If so, I'd imagine you'd have to support things like the reparations argument for descendants of slaves or for American Indians (I mean, if you want to talk about a group of people who got screwed in American history, start there). I understand the theoretical argument that a State should be able to secede, but I don't think that's any kind of current issue -- again, unless someone out there really wants Alabama to go out and form its own country right now.

I also think N.I. and James are a little quick to blame the North for economic motives and dismiss the slavery issue. I appreciate it's more complicated than just the one issue, but hey, slavery was a pretty darn big issue. I disagree with N.I. that states should be allowed to secede for whatever reason and be left alone. Should the North have just looked the other way and allowed slavery to continue?

I guess my own political views is that America should be the world's policeman when necessary, just because the world needs a policeman and we're the only ones big enough and rich enough to do it. Obviously, we can't be a bully -- we need to work with other countries and the U.N., for instance -- but I've got no problem at all with going to war to stop atrocities from being committed elsewhere. I supported Clinton's intervention in Kosovo, for instance, because a murderous regime was actively committing genocide and other heinous acts on its own people, and I think if we can stop something like that, we should.

posted April 19, 2003 04:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marty Raap:
I disagree with N.I. that states should be allowed to secede for whatever reason and be left alone. Should the North have just looked the other way and allowed slavery to continue?

---

Regarding secession: a union of free and sovereign peoples is a union of the willing. When that will wanes, when one party wants out, but are held by force of arms, it is no longer a union of free and sovereign peoples. It is empire, pure and simple, and one set of peoples are effectively colonial subjects.

Can you imagine Canada occupying Quebec, should Quebec finally decide to leave? Can you imagine England occupying Scotland should the Scottish independence movement ever succeed? Can you see the South of Italy trying to keep the North in the fold, if the Lombard League's extremists have their way? It is unthinkable (to me) for any democratic country to keep the unwilling by force of arms.

Who is right? The Chechens for wishing to have the same right that was granted the Ukrainians and Armenians and Latvians, or the Russians, who want to hold close what remains of their empire? My sympathies are with the Chechens. And the Tibetans. And the Basque. And the Kurds, who will once again be denied self-determination by the big powers (the US, the UK, and Turkey, in this case). It's all about control, baby. It's ALWAYS about control. The seceding party can get away with it only if the remainder is unwilling or too weak to prevent the secession. Otherwise, it's empire time!

posted April 19, 2003 05:54 PM            

It drives me bonkers when pro-war Americans refuse to see that point.

I always knew that Bush could win the war. But I still doubt he'll win the peace. And if he didn't have a clear plan for winning the peace (one that he could articulate to the U.N. and the world) then he shouldn't have risked all our cans by starting a war that will enflame terrorism and lawlessness for decades to come.

Enough for the soapbox. Let me try to say something that indirectly addresses both the stated topic and the tangent.

Since most of my archaeology/anthropology/art history education is rooted in either Greece or the New World, let me offer an analogy to Ancient Greece in terms of preserving comic book history...

Much of what we know about Greece comes from what little was thought so important that it was preserved. We have few plays extant, and only the two Homeric epics extant. Because these things kept getting reprinted (actually re-printed--re-transcribed from aging documents). Some other stuff survives mainly because it was quoted in another work. So from these quoted fragments we can kind of get an idea of the whole story (sort of like trying to figure out the story for "The Will of William Winsom").

And then there was the Dark Ages. In Christendom, learning fell off. Except among the monks, but even those guys had a smallish library (partly because documents burned or decayed, and partly because they were intentionally destroyed as they contradicted Church doctrine). Thank god for the Arabs. While the libraries of Christendom withered, in Islam learning was encouraged.

The Arab world was tolerant of all knowledge and all faiths. Jews were persecuted in Christendom, but enjoyed a certain intellectual freedom in Islam. Many of the great Hebraic scholars of this period come out of the Arab world.

Works of Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Herodotus--all stored in the libraries of Islam.

And when Christendom launched their first Crusades on the Arab world, the kings and knights discovered Arab learning. Along with their booty, the Crusaders brought back Plato and other Greek scholars to Christendom. And this burst of learning in the Western world brought about a Rennaisance.

Meanwhile the Arab caravans were engaged in trade with both the West and the Far East. The Arabs brought learning from China, and then transfered that learning to the European world.

Dragging this back to the topic. My concern is that some things are getting an awful lot of attention--and those will survive in the minds of future comics historians as the significant stories from the past. While a lot of other stories aren't getting any attention, and will simply fall out, completely forgotten.

Let me offer an analogy to American Idol. The reason Ricky went off the show is because of the system set up. People phone in for the singer they want to go forward. They don't phone in for the one they want to go off. Ricky is one of the top four, but he's not the absolute top. So it's Clay and Ruben who get all the calls. Meanwhile a small number of callers call in for those singers who are perceived to be at the bottom--because they feel sorry for them and don't want them to go off the show. So the top singers (Clay & Ruben) get the most calls, the bottom singers (Carmen & Trenice) get the rest of the calls--and those who are in the middle of the pack (and perceived to be safe) get virtually no calls.

posted April 19, 2003 07:04 PM               

ahem...Marty? Hope you are still around!

In a prior post you asked how I could "identify" with a seemingly wretched cause as the CSA...
The Carlo of 2003 understands the evil of slavery.
The Carlo of 1861 could not have afforded to keep one in bondage.
The Carlo of 2003 realized Lincoln would have "kissed and made up" with the "erring sister" states.
The Carlo of April 1865 would have wept tears of joy at the death of the tyrant Lincoln.

I guess I keep hindsight and value judgements in my hip pocket when I study history. I read, listen, digest, analyze, synthesize, but am very careful with judgements. Sometimes we are who we are, WHERE and WHEN we are. The "what", the "how", the "if" of history I find enthralling - in this case, my interest in the Southern Confederacy. The wonderful paradox of good, God-fearing men like Jackson, Lee, Davis fighting for the freedom of a states' right - to enslave others?! Gosh, the irony is dripping!

Maybe I'm too tolerant or "gracious" in my studies. I don't know if I identify or more "recognize" threads. I can't "identify" with a filthy-rich plantation owner - I can, however, "recognize" his point of view.

Heinrich Carlo would probably been a happy Nazi in 1938.
Fujikawa Carlo-san would have applauded the success of his Nippon brothers on that fly-by in December of '41.
And during this Easter season, I'm sure Flavius Carlous would have patted Pilate on the back for his decision to crucify that homeless Jew, thereby quelling a riot!

The seal of the Confederacy bore the phrase "Deo Vindice" - God will vindicate, God will judge our cause, as it were...

I hope He will be tolerant and gracious in his judgement of me!