The American Revolution --"WE should rule OURSELVES" and European thought.

Random thoughts from the last few days:

No one should be mocked for the color of their skin or their sex and that includes White males. Nuff said. Not sure why it has become fashionable in some circles to pretend this isn't racism, but it is. The goal, I thought, was to work towards an America that was a color-blind meritocracy where people of all classes and colors work in harmony and if you think this sort of divisive nonsense somehow helps, well, you are wrong and deserve to be called out on it. Nuff said.

If you think it is appropriate to mock White Males because they are White Males then your vision of America and its ideals does not match mine because my vision of America welcomes people of all races, and colors and I will resist you. Simple enough.

Second, three days after July 4th I find myself reading a classic historical work on the Hessians and other German Auxiliaries of the American revolution. (I finished the book on the French in that war.) For those who don't know their history, in 1775, the British government found itself faced with a large scale uprising in its North American colonies. They needed to send large amounts of troops to try to put down the armed uprising. There were not enough British troops to do this and meet the other obligations of the British army. So the British government looked to hire troops abroad to send to fight in America. Germany was not a unified nation and instead a collection of independent feudal states of various sizes. About half a dozen of the petty tyrants of the minor German states agreed to rent or sell their subjects and citizens to the British with the plan being to put them in military units and ship them to America to fight in a distant war all without their consent or agreement.

As Hesse-Hanau sent the most, such troops are often called Hessians, but this was not the only small German state that sent it's citizens to the USA.

Along the way, the German draftees at times tried to mutiny and riot or escape, but most got to America where they fought George Washington, the other patriot leaders, and their armies. (Please no airport jokes, please. They've worn thin.)  And they often fought surprisingly well once there, and despite not having chosen their lot, there seem to be few if any records that they considered their fate to be unjust, immoral, or a sign of an underlying social or political problem. After all these Germans considered such acts by petty tyrants to be a natural state of affairs for mankind. Instead they seemed to have just considered themselves rather unlucky to be the ones having gotten chosen to do this, but it was only natural to expect such things to happen and it wasn't something one could really do anything about.

Which sort of makes me think how amazing it was that the Americans of this time said "WE should rules OURSELVES." And that was a pretty radical idea for the time. A very radical idea.

And then they tried to make it happen.

And while half informed pseudo-intellectuals today are quite quick to say "What about the Indians? What about the Blacks? The women?" and then use this as a reason to dismiss the entire process and events of the American Revolution as somehow being unimportant and even immoral, they're missing the significance of the whole thing.

The idea was "WE should rules OURSELVES."

And this was in direct contrast to how the Germans of the  day lived.

The Germans sort of thought "WE are ruled by others, WE have no say in the process, and that is the way things always have been and always will be. It is natural.

And not only that, the bulk of the German citizenry had never considered that there might be a better different way to be governed.

The Americans of the time had begun to think outside the box, outside the traditional cultural framework of most Europeans of the time.

The idea that "WE should rule OURSELVES" was a radical one.

And what about the Indians, well. they were clearly not "WE" to the Americans of the time. The Indians were "THEM", the classic other, and, besides not only were the bulk of the Indians already ruling themselves, but they had no desire to become part of the American governmental system and its ethnocentric to think they would have. (Heck, there are still Iroquois today, Mohawks in particular, who are asserting their independence from the USA and its government. I'm not saying the Indians were treated fairly at this time, they weren't, but that does not mean they wished to become US citizens. The issue is, as they say, complicated.)

And the Black slaves, obviously a social and moral problem of the time that still has continuing repercussions today, cannot be ignored. The role of Blacks in the armies of the American Revolution (they fought in surprisingly large numbers on both sides) being a very complicated issue. It was essentially, a war for freedom being fought by a society that had legal slavery, an issue that was grappled with for years and finally only settled with a surprising amount of bloodshed.

But one that does not need distract us from the radical notion of the time that "WE should rules OURSELVES."

Clearly America still had a need to work out for itself who it meant when it say "WE" but the notion was still important and revolutionary for its day.

Women, the same thing. "Are they WE, US, or THEM?" Another issue worth looking at. Despite the presence of religious groups like the Quakers who practiced equality for women and the nearby Iroquois who had developed a Democracy that pre-dated the contact with Whites but one where, interestingly enough, only women could vote, it would be astonishingly long before women got the right to vote in the USA. (Women only got the right to vote in the USA in 1920,believe it or not.)

But regardless, the notion that "WE should rule OURSELVES" was a surprisingly radical idea for the time and an idea that was completely alien to much of the European population of the time.



You can find a PDF of Lowell's book here: https://themarshallhouse.org/assets/pdf_files/Lowell%20-%20Hessians.pdf

If you prefer, you can buy a copy. As the work is out of copyright, it is available from multiple publishers. If you buy though these links you will support this blog.

Social Media Hoax: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez

[UPDATE FROM MARCH 9,2020]


Arguably not history, but it's been a while since I posted here, and when I created this blog, I had hoped to do more here to expose the problem of pseudo-history, pseudo-archeology, and other false claims about history. (And while I'm on the subject, please check out the work of Jason Colavito . He's got a great blog, a free e-mail newsletter, he sends out each week like clockwork and lots of good stuff. Honestly, one reason why I skipped several proposed posts on false historical claims was that Jason Colavito has already done them.) This was originally posted on my other blog, peterhuston.blogspot.com , a less focused blog where I post about many subjects on an intermittent schedule. You can see it here, if you wish: https://peterhuston.blogspot.com/2019/02/social-media-hoaxes-alexandria-ocasio.html

So . . . with no further ado, a post on what will some day be a minor historical hoax. (Hmmmm. When do current events become history?  Heavy thought.)

I like to think the truth has a value. I like to think that misrepresentation is grounds for suspicion and looking carefully at the motivations of the people making them. And having said that, I think it's obvious that a lot of people out there are very, very scared of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, also known to many as "AOC." At least scared enough to knowingly spread lies about her. In these pages, I hope to expose some of those lies and misrepresentations.

For the record, I am actually not a fan of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her views. Honestly, in most cases, I don't claim to know enough about many of the issues she talks about and the economics surrounding them to hold an educated view. I do think she's making following the news more fun, and that it's great to see the field of discussion expanded when it comes to suggesting solutions to societal problems. (For instance, while I do not feel qualified to discuss whether a 70% tax on the extremely rich is a good idea or not, I think it's great that the idea has been not just proposed but also put in historical context as something that has been done in the past.)

I support truthful discussion and even attacks on her proposals and political views. This is what American politics should involved. I do not consider dishonest attacks on her character to be good, helpful, or conducive to a healthy political climate in our nation.

So, with that said, let's look at a hoaxed AOC photo, I found on FB.

First, here's the photo:

[UPDATE --OBVIOUSLY THE PICTURE IS GONE. WHY DO THEY DISAPPEAR LIKE THAT? IF SOMEONE KNOWS PLEASE EXPLAIN IN THE COMMENTS SECTION. WHILE I AM VERY PROUD THAT I DID MY OWN "DETECTIVE WORK" AND FOUND THE ORIGINAL PHOTOS MYSELF, THEY ARE NOW GONE FROM THIS BLOGPOST. WHY? WHY? WHY?
REGARDLESS, SOMEONE ELSE DID IT TOO, AND HERE'S THEIR WEBSITE:
https://www.truthorfiction.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-splits-image/  THANKS GUYS.]

While not my original work, this gives the basic idea of what I discovered. 

Obviously, not very flattering. Also, perhaps equally troubling, it offers no political insight or commentary and contains zero discussion of any issues. Which makes it even more problematic.

But looking into it a bit more, I found this.

Clearly one of these photos is an alteration of the other. Same young man holding a woman with spread legs, same room, even the same news show in the background. Obviously one is a photoshopped alternation of the other. And I think it's safe to say the upper photo is the reworked one. There are several reasons for this. The clothes on the upper photo do not look real to me. 

Not sure what to make of that "flaming fart" spewing forth from her bottom, but then again, that's not really the point of the thing, is it?

I also think that on the one above, AOC's head looks reattached. My guess is that the head shot used came from here:  

So . . . cheap smear job. Nothing more. Bad photo job. Again, if you want to attack OAC, and do it in a fair and fact focused, mature manner that contributes to mature political discussion, be my guest. I encourage it. But cheap smear jobs are nothing but cheap smear jobs and only weaken our nation and lower the level of political discourse.

South East Asian Cultural Boundaries of the Pre-Modern World and their Continuing Effects on the Modern World.

Author's note: Originally written almost 9 years ago. Still significant today. I've spent a lot of time in the last ten years studying, visiting, teaching, and hanging out with refugees from this part of the world. This is the map that made a lot of things click.
SUNDAY, APRIL 26, 2009
Asia / Refugee Stuff : South East Asian Cutural Boundaries and the modern world.

Ah! I wish I could go back to graduate school and make writing and researching about Asian culture and history the focus of my life. Alas! It shall not be so anytime soon.

Therefore, for the moment, I must be content to speculate, pontificate and elucidate in these pages instead of elsewhere.

The importance of this map is explained in the text. 

One of the joys of academic research is when you get those wonderful "Eureka" moments. That great "Ah ha!" feeling sweeps throughout you and you realize that a great deal of once complex information suddenly makes sense and fits a pattern. (Of course, one must be careful of assuming this feeling actually means your conclusions are making sense. Conspiracy theorists and schizophrenics, for instance, are blessed with brains that misfire this way all the time. Still, the sensation is blissfully exciting, which explains perhaps why schizophrenics and conspiracy theorists spend so much time lost in their own odd thoughts.)

Recently while reading "In Search of Asia" I had such a moment while viewing this map. The map is entitled "Centers of power in Southeast Asia at the end of the Eighteenth Century" and appears on page 98 of the 1987 edition of "In Search of Southeast Asia."




Essentially what the map shows is the extent of cultural power and cultural influence in various centers in southeast Asia at the beginning of the modern era. At the time the kingdoms and cultures that are now dominant in Burma, Thailand and Vietnam did not have boundaries in the sense of anything resembling the modern sense of the term. And the role of the king was often different than in Europe of the time as well. Simplifying greatly for ease of transmitting a concept, the king hd less of a political role and more of a ritual role in the lives of his citizens. His power was not seen as uniform through a given geographical territory. Instead, his power radiated outward from the center, becoming weaker the further one was from that center. Instead of there being a strict boundary to the state, instead the state just sort of faded away becoming less and less important until it faded away altogether at the edge of civilization. Then came the rugged lands of hills and forest and jungle, the lands where the uncivilized people who existed outside the pale of civilization.

And that's what this map shows. The black "core area" is the center of the civilized area. Beyond it is a gray realm, where civilization exists but there's a certain lack of sophistication although the people are still part of the dominant culture. Light gray is a "fringe area" and the striped lines represent the areas where two different relatively equal states vie for control.




Now if one examines the map of Burma what you essentially see is the way in which Burma is divided between a dominant, Burmese culture, and a surrounding area with many other minority cultures. And it is from these minority cultures, i.e. the Karen, the Chin, that many refugees come. And to some extent the reason they come here is over a dispute over their relationship with the central government of the state now known as Myanmar.

In neighboring Thailand this map also shows the difference between the areas where hill tribes (some of which overlap with Burma) live.

As for Vietnam, the map shows the area where the so-called montagniards live.

A similar map could easily be made for China.

History and the Current Uighur unrest in Xinjiang

 Note: I originally Wrote this a little over 9 years ago, and the situation is still the same if not worse. However the same historical roots apply. Again the causes and roots of the present lie in the past.


FRIDAY, JULY 10, 2009
Uighur and Xinjiang unrest
Look at this map. It's a map of China, right? More specifically it's a map of China during the warlord/ Republic of China era. See Xinjiang? Yes, Xinjiang. That obscure place where the Uighurs live, the place that's been in the news lately. It's up to the northwest on the map, far from the area where the Chinese political events described on the map, the important events of the era, took place. In fact, from a glance at the map one would suspect that Xinjiang is not part of China at all. And if you did, you'd probably be in agreement with most of the people who lived there during the period of history described on the map. 
             

The world, quite frankly, is a mess. It can get depressing. And, all you can do, in my opinion, is pick a cause here and there and work towards making it better.

But be forewarned, when you do, or even if you don't, then someone will bombard you with other causes and new problems.

For the last week or so I 've been bombarded with news of the Uighurs in Xinjiang and the unrest and discontent they express towards the Chinese government. No surprise there. Culturally the Uighurs, a central Asian Muslim people, have nothing in common with the Han Chinese majority. It is only an accident of history that made their homeland part of China. Furthermore, the Chinese have for decades been engaging in a systematic program to reduce Uighur influence in their homeland and more solidly integrate Xinjiang into China, its economy and its society. As part of this program, they have encouraged Han Chinese emigration to Xinjiang, and thereby consciously set out to make the Uighurs a minority in their own homeland.

It's not a nice thing to do. And it's understandably that the Uighurs react. (Just as they have over the centuries.There was a widespread uprising in this region in the 1880s, although in much of the early half of the twentieth century the area was independent. On, again, off-again, membership in the nation of China, with this being part of the result.)

And why mention it here? Well, it ties in nicely with my posts about Burma from a couple months ago.  [Note: I'll post this here eventually. If it takes too long for you, message me.]  If one looks at the map of Burma and Southeast Asia one will see that in the eighteenth century Burma and its neighbors had no borders. Instead it had a civilization and the influence of the civilization faded away the farther one got from the center and the farther out into the so-called "wilderness" you traveled. China's the same way. And Xinjiang, until the 1940s or so, was on the far fringe of its influence, an area that was sometimes in and sometimes out of the Chinese nation's sphere of influence. Again, just as in Burma, we have the same pattern of trying to rectify a modern border with a historical lack of a border and violence erupting on the area in the fringes.

Patterns repeat. Conditions vary. People get stuck in the middle. Its the way of the world.
POSTED BY PETER HUSTON AT 9:54 AM
LABELS: BURMA. UIGHURS., CHINA, CHINESE HISTORY