Originally Posted By shortformblog


Meet the president before George Washington
John Hanson didn’t get the props his successor did. But for eight years, Hanson led the Continental Congress — the organization that led the United States in the days before the Constitution was hashed out. Hanson didn’t have the executive powers of the leaders who followed him, but he took his job quite seriously. “The load of business which I have very unwillingly and very imprudently taken on me I am afraid will be more than my constitution will be able to bear,” he wrote to his son-in-law days before he took power. Ultimately, the Articles of Confederation, which gave him his position, proved to be too weak for the job, so the founding documents got rebooted — and Hanson didn’t receive much more than a footnote in the history books. It’s such a small footnote, however, that there have been rumors on the Interwebs that he was actually the first black president (he wasn’t, it was a case of mistaken identity). But for one day, let’s honor this guy and remember him as the Atari 2600 to the Nintendo Entertainment System that eventually became the engine for this country.

A very happy Presidents Day to America’s least known executive!

Meet the president before George Washington

John Hanson didn’t get the props his successor did. But for eight years, Hanson led the Continental Congress — the organization that led the United States in the days before the Constitution was hashed out. Hanson didn’t have the executive powers of the leaders who followed him, but he took his job quite seriously. “The load of business which I have very unwillingly and very imprudently taken on me I am afraid will be more than my constitution will be able to bear,” he wrote to his son-in-law days before he took power. Ultimately, the Articles of Confederation, which gave him his position, proved to be too weak for the job, so the founding documents got rebooted — and Hanson didn’t receive much more than a footnote in the history books. It’s such a small footnote, however, that there have been rumors on the Interwebs that he was actually the first black president (he wasn’t, it was a case of mistaken identity). But for one day, let’s honor this guy and remember him as the Atari 2600 to the Nintendo Entertainment System that eventually became the engine for this country.

A very happy Presidents Day to America’s least known executive!

(via shortformblog)

submit to reddit

Comments

In case you weren’t already weeping for our future.

(via Munger.)

submit to reddit

Comments
Originally Posted By librar-y


November 1938. Truck carrying movie poster. Omaha, Nebraska.

Omaha, Nebraska: Protected from the dangers of marijuana since at least 1938.

November 1938. Truck carrying movie poster. Omaha, Nebraska.


Omaha, Nebraska: Protected from the dangers of marijuana since at least 1938.

(Source: librar-y, via netnewsnebraska)

submit to reddit

Comments

From Today’s Torah Reading

In Parashat Bo, read on January 28, 2012, Pharaoh continues in his refusal to heed God’s command, conveyed by Moses and Aaron, to free his Israelite slaves. Pharaoh’s self-destructive intransigence dismays even his own courtiers, who warn him: “Are you not yet aware that Egypt is lost?” (10:7). On January 28, 2011 – one year ago today – Egypt responded to anti-government protests by cutting off access to cell phones and the internet, as well as by imposing a curfew.

(Source: uscj.org)

submit to reddit

Comments
Originally Posted By united-nations

Friday 27 January is the International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust, this year dedicated to the children who faced terror and evil at the hands of the Nazis and their supporters. Watch Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s video message for the Day.  

(Source: united-nations)

submit to reddit

Comments

I’m sure you’ve noticed that, with the ascendancy of Newt Gingrich over the past few weeks, people have started to bring to light his many foibles and flaws, just as they did with the other non-Mitt Romney GOP candidates. And there’s a lot about Gingrich for people not to like. That said, when a blogger for The Atlantic found a photo from 2009 in which Gingrich and his wife are standing in front of the main entrance to Auschwitz and said there was “something distinctly off” about it, I thought it was a cheap shot. From my experience, there are no happy tourists at concentration camps. And I don’t need to think Gingrich and his wife were happy tourists at Auschwitz in order to be prevented from voting for him.
In 2006, when I was in Germany for an academic conference on human rights, I visited the site of the Buchenwald concentration camp, where my grandfather was imprisoned for some time in the early 1940s. Although there isn’t much there, I took a lot of pictures. I wanted to show them to others, to people who wouldn’t have the opportunity to travel there, in order to explain more fully and more clearly what I had seen. Accompanying the pictures, I wrote the following letter to my family:

I have had some time to think about my experiences today and thought I would put them down before the day was over and I went to sleep.
I think that the most general thing I can say is that Buchenwald is the most terrible place I have ever been in my life. It is about a ten minute bus ride from the city center of Weimar, from the statue of Goethe and Schiller. The bus drops everyone off in front of the complex of buildings that housed the SS. They look new and are painted yellow. They now house a bookstore, information center, and education center for youth. This is on the top of a hill; the whole camp is on a hill, overlooking a beautiful valley. From these buildings, it is a short downhill walk to the main gatehouse.
The motto on the gate, like the ones on all of the gates of all of the camps, can only be read from the inside. Of course, all of the other gates said, “Arbeit macht frei”: “Work makes you free.” This one says, “Jedem das seine “: “To each what he deserves.”
Inside the gatehouse, there is very little to see. Down the hill, where the barracks used to be, there are only stones and scattered ruins. It is essentially just a desolate hillside. On my way down to the gatehouse from the information center, I had the distinct sense of not wanting to go in, of maybe staying outside. And when I went in, I didn’t go anywhere for a little while; I just stood inside the main gate looking down at the emptiness. There is a feeling that I can’t really explain, like I had to talk myself into seeing the place at each step.
Despite the general emptiness and desolation, there are a few buildings left standing inside the camp. The only building that has been left in its original condition is the crematorium. The other buildings that are still standing are a prisoner infirmary barrack (which is reconstructed and locked), the canteen (also not open), the prisoner depot/storehouse (now a museum, but originally where prisoners’ belongings were stored along with material for running the camp), and the decontamination center (which is now a museum of prisoner art). The crematorium is literally a building out of a nightmare and walking inside might be one of the more difficult things I’ve done. I didn’t take any pictures in the crematorium; I just said Kaddish and left after I finished it.
It was cold today and it rained. I can’t imagine seeing the camp on a sunny day and, in fact, my image is that the sun likely doesn’t shine on this place. The hardest thing to reconcile, I think, is that the sun does shine here and it did while prisoners were starved, beaten, experiment upon, shot, and cremated. The prisoners looked down the hill, into the valley, and on beautiful days it must have seemed so much more cruelly absurd.
Having been to Buchenwald, it all seems so much harder to believe than it was when I was listening to survivors’ stories, learning about it in school, or going to a museum. But it becomes almost unthinkable to travel here, a few miles from the Goethe and Schiller houses, and to try to imagine how people could build a place like this one, let alone how they could live in its shadow. They went to the neighborhood bakeries, they read great literature, they played with their children, they walked in the local parks. It is unimaginable to me, especially when I think that these were regular people and not devils. We want them to be monsters because only monsters should be capable of this; but that is one of the principle lessons, I suppose: regular people perpetrated these monstrous crimes and so it is regular people — us, all of us — about whom we must think. This is why we must have the language of human rights, that great legacy of the Holocaust, and it is why we must continually encourage ourselves to think of others as being like us: by expanding our sense of inclusivity and limiting our sense of exclusivity, we prevent ourselves from creating a distance between Us and Them, where others are some undesirable sort that is unworthy of the rights we hold for ourselves.
“Never Again” means more than preventing something like this from happening in the future, which is obviously vitally important. It means working harder to care about others, to make the suffering of others more real and immediate for us.
Even as it assaults the senses, even as it shocks and horrifies us, Buchenwald should strengthen everyone’s commitment to a better world, in which human rights play a more important role than they do even today. That is where I wind up tonight.

Coming back to this letter after a few years, my thoughts remain essentially unchanged. I took photos and I wrote these words because I wanted to find some way to capture that I had been there. For me, this was something personal; I was living proof that the genocidal project undertaken at this place had failed. But I think the same is true of other visitors, at least to an extent. So long as people continue to visit these places, these crimes will be remembered and future crimes like this one will be recognized and, I hope, fought against. More people should visit these sites and reflect on what they see there but because the trips can be quite difficult — both logistically and emotionally — I’m glad to have the opportunity to share my experience.[1]

[1] An edited version of this blog post appears as the fifth in a monthly series of columns on the problem of justice in contemporary politics and pop culture that I will be writing for the Daily Nebraskan this academic year.

I’m sure you’ve noticed that, with the ascendancy of Newt Gingrich over the past few weeks, people have started to bring to light his many foibles and flaws, just as they did with the other non-Mitt Romney GOP candidates. And there’s a lot about Gingrich for people not to like. That said, when a blogger for The Atlantic found a photo from 2009 in which Gingrich and his wife are standing in front of the main entrance to Auschwitz and said there was “something distinctly off” about it, I thought it was a cheap shot. From my experience, there are no happy tourists at concentration camps. And I don’t need to think Gingrich and his wife were happy tourists at Auschwitz in order to be prevented from voting for him.

In 2006, when I was in Germany for an academic conference on human rights, I visited the site of the Buchenwald concentration camp, where my grandfather was imprisoned for some time in the early 1940s. Although there isn’t much there, I took a lot of pictures. I wanted to show them to others, to people who wouldn’t have the opportunity to travel there, in order to explain more fully and more clearly what I had seen. Accompanying the pictures, I wrote the following letter to my family:

I have had some time to think about my experiences today and thought I would put them down before the day was over and I went to sleep.

I think that the most general thing I can say is that Buchenwald is the most terrible place I have ever been in my life. It is about a ten minute bus ride from the city center of Weimar, from the statue of Goethe and Schiller. The bus drops everyone off in front of the complex of buildings that housed the SS. They look new and are painted yellow. They now house a bookstore, information center, and education center for youth. This is on the top of a hill; the whole camp is on a hill, overlooking a beautiful valley. From these buildings, it is a short downhill walk to the main gatehouse.

The motto on the gate, like the ones on all of the gates of all of the camps, can only be read from the inside. Of course, all of the other gates said, “Arbeit macht frei”: “Work makes you free.” This one says, “Jedem das seine “: “To each what he deserves.”

Inside the gatehouse, there is very little to see. Down the hill, where the barracks used to be, there are only stones and scattered ruins. It is essentially just a desolate hillside. On my way down to the gatehouse from the information center, I had the distinct sense of not wanting to go in, of maybe staying outside. And when I went in, I didn’t go anywhere for a little while; I just stood inside the main gate looking down at the emptiness. There is a feeling that I can’t really explain, like I had to talk myself into seeing the place at each step.

Despite the general emptiness and desolation, there are a few buildings left standing inside the camp. The only building that has been left in its original condition is the crematorium. The other buildings that are still standing are a prisoner infirmary barrack (which is reconstructed and locked), the canteen (also not open), the prisoner depot/storehouse (now a museum, but originally where prisoners’ belongings were stored along with material for running the camp), and the decontamination center (which is now a museum of prisoner art). The crematorium is literally a building out of a nightmare and walking inside might be one of the more difficult things I’ve done. I didn’t take any pictures in the crematorium; I just said Kaddish and left after I finished it.

It was cold today and it rained. I can’t imagine seeing the camp on a sunny day and, in fact, my image is that the sun likely doesn’t shine on this place. The hardest thing to reconcile, I think, is that the sun does shine here and it did while prisoners were starved, beaten, experiment upon, shot, and cremated. The prisoners looked down the hill, into the valley, and on beautiful days it must have seemed so much more cruelly absurd.

Having been to Buchenwald, it all seems so much harder to believe than it was when I was listening to survivors’ stories, learning about it in school, or going to a museum. But it becomes almost unthinkable to travel here, a few miles from the Goethe and Schiller houses, and to try to imagine how people could build a place like this one, let alone how they could live in its shadow. They went to the neighborhood bakeries, they read great literature, they played with their children, they walked in the local parks. It is unimaginable to me, especially when I think that these were regular people and not devils. We want them to be monsters because only monsters should be capable of this; but that is one of the principle lessons, I suppose: regular people perpetrated these monstrous crimes and so it is regular people — us, all of us — about whom we must think. This is why we must have the language of human rights, that great legacy of the Holocaust, and it is why we must continually encourage ourselves to think of others as being like us: by expanding our sense of inclusivity and limiting our sense of exclusivity, we prevent ourselves from creating a distance between Us and Them, where others are some undesirable sort that is unworthy of the rights we hold for ourselves.

“Never Again” means more than preventing something like this from happening in the future, which is obviously vitally important. It means working harder to care about others, to make the suffering of others more real and immediate for us.

Even as it assaults the senses, even as it shocks and horrifies us, Buchenwald should strengthen everyone’s commitment to a better world, in which human rights play a more important role than they do even today. That is where I wind up tonight.

Coming back to this letter after a few years, my thoughts remain essentially unchanged. I took photos and I wrote these words because I wanted to find some way to capture that I had been there. For me, this was something personal; I was living proof that the genocidal project undertaken at this place had failed. But I think the same is true of other visitors, at least to an extent. So long as people continue to visit these places, these crimes will be remembered and future crimes like this one will be recognized and, I hope, fought against. More people should visit these sites and reflect on what they see there but because the trips can be quite difficult — both logistically and emotionally — I’m glad to have the opportunity to share my experience.[1]

submit to reddit

Comments

Things Academics Don’t Like: Newt Gingrich The Academic

Robert Paul Wollf, an emeritus professor of political philosophy at UMass-Amherst, has undertaken a task so unpleasant that few would even consider it: He has read Newt Gingrich’s doctoral dissertation:

Gingrich’s summary evaluation of the Belgian colonial performance is quite positive, on the whole, and I cannot help but wonder whether this reflects the point of view of his Belgian dissertation director. To give you some sense of Gingrich’s perspective, here is a paragraph from the short Concluding chapter:

“The Belgian colonial record left no one guilty and no one innocent. The Belgian leaders had virtually absolute power. By 20th century standards they used it benevolently although without foresight. The Belgian public had abandoned a responsibility which it did not desire in the first place and which had to compete for attention with pressing and far more obvious domestic problems. The only people who suffered were the Congolese and they had suffered far more under Leopold II (and their neighbors still suffer far more under Portuguese and South African rule). That guilt which the Belgians bear is for neglect, oversight, and relatively mild exploitation. If the Congo was not the model colony Belgian publicists pretended, neither was it the disaster news reports from 1960 to 1965 suggested. To have developed a semi-modernized, semi-educated but politically innocent colony was one of the Twentieth Century’s lesser sins.” [p. 283]

While Wolff doesn’t explicitly tell readers of his blog what they ought to think about Gingrich as an academic, he does note, “I have been unable to find any scholarly publications coming from his dissertation, but my ability to search the databases on the web is rather rudimentary, and someone more skilled may be able to enlighten me. While teaching at West Georgia, Gingrich ran unsuccessfully for the U. S. House of Representatives in the 6th district, first in 1974 and again in 1976. Finally, having been denied tenure at West Georgia, he won the seat in 1978.”

My friend Laura Seay, an expert with regard to the particular part of the world that interested Gingrich, also looked over the dissertation and wrote an excellent blog post on the subject a couple of years ago. Her conclusion:

The whole thing is kind of a glorified white man’s burden take on colonial policy that was almost certainly out of vogue in the early 1970’s. Gingrich wrote this as the Black Consciousness and Black Power movements were approaching their pinnacles. It was most decidedly not the time to be arguing that white European masters did a swell job ruling black Africans through a system that ensured that most Congolese would never get a real education. Then again, Gingrich finished his Ph.D. just before Mobutu systematically destroyed almost every aspect of Congolese society, including the education system. It’s very fair to say that the Congolese were in some ways better off under the Belgians in the post-World War II era than they were in the mid-1980’s as Mobutu stole from the public coffers and allowed the state to collapse under the weight of corruption and falling commodity prices on the global market.

I recommend reading both of the blog posts I’ve referenced here if you’re interested in Gingrich as a scholar; whatever Wolff and Seay have to say about Gingrich as a politician, they actually treat his dissertation as an academic piece of work.

HT: Corey Robin.

submit to reddit

Comments
Originally Posted By futurejournalismproject


Maps + Mashups + Conflicts + History = Conflict History
Part amazing, part depressing, Conflict History is a Google Maps timeline mashup that lets you browse from past to present to learn about the world’s conflicts.
The screenshot above shows 2001-2010. Selecting the Info icon on the left gives background information on the conflict with additional links to related materials. The slider on the bottom brings you forward and back in time.
For example, we just learned about the Sicilian Wars of 600 to 264 BCE.
Most of the content is pulled from Wikipedia and Freebase, a Creative Commons licensed data source.

If you have an interest in political science, international relations, inter- or intra-state conflict, or history, my guess is that you could spend a whole lot of time playing with the above website. Enjoy!

Maps + Mashups + Conflicts + History = Conflict History

Part amazing, part depressing, Conflict History is a Google Maps timeline mashup that lets you browse from past to present to learn about the world’s conflicts.

The screenshot above shows 2001-2010. Selecting the Info icon on the left gives background information on the conflict with additional links to related materials. The slider on the bottom brings you forward and back in time.

For example, we just learned about the Sicilian Wars of 600 to 264 BCE.

Most of the content is pulled from Wikipedia and Freebase, a Creative Commons licensed data source.

If you have an interest in political science, international relations, inter- or intra-state conflict, or history, my guess is that you could spend a whole lot of time playing with the above website. Enjoy!

(via pol102)

submit to reddit

Comments

Since it’s the actual American Independence Day today, the whole family went to visit a local bald eagle at Pioneers Park.
The picture is really more enclosure than bird, but hopefully you still get the idea.
And, just to head you off at the pass, no, the irony of a bird in a cage as a symbol of freedom is not lost on me.

Since it’s the actual American Independence Day today, the whole family went to visit a local bald eagle at Pioneers Park.

The picture is really more enclosure than bird, but hopefully you still get the idea.

And, just to head you off at the pass, no, the irony of a bird in a cage as a symbol of freedom is not lost on me.

submit to reddit

Comments
Originally Posted By usagov
submit to reddit

Comments
submit to reddit

Comments

Gerald Steinacher, my excellent new colleague at the University of Nebraska, discusses his research on how Nazis evaded justice following World War II, aided in part by the Vatican and the Red Cross. It’s a fascinating and unsettling story that highlights the importance of the global consensus on both the prevention and the punishment of genocide, and that underscores the importance of yesterday’s arrests of Ratko Mladic and Bernard Munyagishari.

There’s an article on Steinacher’s work here. The book is here.

submit to reddit

Comments

More on History, Partition, and Israel/Palestine

In response to my most recent post about Israel, the Palestinians, and the UN Partition Plan of 1947, cerebralthoughts said: “But that doesn’t really address the crux of his argument. His argument is that there has always been a non-violent Palestinian resistance; there were indeed Palestinian political groups who even supported the UN partition plan…”

So, let me clarify and expand a bit on my earlier comments.

I actually don’t disagree with anything that Munayyer says about non-violence in his Foreign Policy piece; perhaps I wasn’t clear enough about my agreement with him on that central part of his argument (though that was my intention with what I said at the outset of my post).

My disagreement is with the fact that he doesn’t mention, anywhere in his piece, that there was a partition plan on the table in 1947 and that the vast majority of the Palestinian and, indeed, Arab leadership rejected it.

None of that should be read as an attempt to in any way invalidate or erode current support for Palestinian statehood. It is simply, as I wrote in my most recent post, to make mention of what I take to be an important historical fact that went unmentioned by Munayyer in a piece that described the dashed hopes for a Palestinian homeland from at least the 1920s and that referred to Israelis as the colonial masters of the Palestinians.

What’s more, I should note that Mahmoud Abbas also neglected to make any mention of the fact that the Palestinian leadershp rejected the UN Partition Plan in his New York Times op-ed a few days ago. Indeed, what he said was the following:

It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued.

This is a fine narrative … except that it is factually inaccurate by omission. Indeed, the impression that one gets from reading both Munayyer and Abbas is that the Palestinians’ long-standing desire for a homeland, finally recognized by the international, was somehow thwarted by the Zionists and that everything that has happened since that time has led us to this moment where that desire (and the international community’s promise) might finally be fulfilled.

For my part, I support the fulfillment of the Palestinians’ desire for statehood today. But I can’t understand why it’s necessary — in the case of Israel/Palestine — for each side to insist that it so fully in the right and that it always has been so fully in the right. Some people might believe such claims, but not those with any historical memory or the desire to discover how things actually happened. And when the omissions are discovered, one’s cause suffers for it.

In truth, one needn’t be entirely in the right forever and always in order to still be deserving of peace and justice; it would be nice if both Israelis and Palestinians could come to recognize this fact as it might make negotiation and compromise a bit easier for everyone.

submit to reddit

Comments

 
I couldn’t agree more with the conclusion that Yousef Munayyer reaches in yesterday’s Foreign Policy piece:

If ever there were a moment for Palestinians to overwhelmingly embrace nonviolence, that moment is now. The new media environment has created space for peaceful Palestinian voices that would never have been heard in the past.
…
But Western governments need to end their silence. By condemning Palestinian violent resistance while failing to condemn Israel’s repression of nonviolent resistance, Israel’s allies — above all the United States — are sending the dangerous message to young Palestinians that no resistance to Israeli occupation is ever acceptable. The fact that the nonviolent protest of the Arab Spring has come to Palestine is not a threat. It’s a historic opportunity for the West to finally get it right.

But there is also problem with the narrative that Munayyer sketches here:

The truth is that there is a long, rich history of nonviolent Palestinian resistance dating back well before 1948, when the state of Israel was established atop a depopulated Palestine. It has just never captured the world’s attention the way violent acts have.
Indeed, by the issuance of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, well before the establishment of the state of Israel, and during a period when the Jewish population of historic Palestine had yet to reach 10 percent, the native Arabs of Palestine could already see that their hopes for self-determination — in a homeland where they constituted a vast majority — were being jeopardized by their soon-to-be colonial master.

What Munayyer doesn’t mention anywhere in the piece is that the UN proposed the partition of Palestine in 1947, that the Zionists accepted this plan, and that the Palestinian leadership (along with the Arab League more broadly) rejected it. Had the Palestinians accepted the partition plan, an independent Arab state on approximately 43% of Mandatory Palestine would have been created.
This seems like an incredibly important point to have missed in this discussion, as it speaks directly to all the talk of dashed hopes, violent and non-violent tactics, and colonialism and creating homelands.

I couldn’t agree more with the conclusion that Yousef Munayyer reaches in yesterday’s Foreign Policy piece:

If ever there were a moment for Palestinians to overwhelmingly embrace nonviolence, that moment is now. The new media environment has created space for peaceful Palestinian voices that would never have been heard in the past.

But Western governments need to end their silence. By condemning Palestinian violent resistance while failing to condemn Israel’s repression of nonviolent resistance, Israel’s allies — above all the United States — are sending the dangerous message to young Palestinians that no resistance to Israeli occupation is ever acceptable. The fact that the nonviolent protest of the Arab Spring has come to Palestine is not a threat. It’s a historic opportunity for the West to finally get it right.

But there is also problem with the narrative that Munayyer sketches here:

The truth is that there is a long, rich history of nonviolent Palestinian resistance dating back well before 1948, when the state of Israel was established atop a depopulated Palestine. It has just never captured the world’s attention the way violent acts have.

Indeed, by the issuance of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, well before the establishment of the state of Israel, and during a period when the Jewish population of historic Palestine had yet to reach 10 percent, the native Arabs of Palestine could already see that their hopes for self-determination — in a homeland where they constituted a vast majority — were being jeopardized by their soon-to-be colonial master.

What Munayyer doesn’t mention anywhere in the piece is that the UN proposed the partition of Palestine in 1947, that the Zionists accepted this plan, and that the Palestinian leadership (along with the Arab League more broadly) rejected it. Had the Palestinians accepted the partition plan, an independent Arab state on approximately 43% of Mandatory Palestine would have been created.

This seems like an incredibly important point to have missed in this discussion, as it speaks directly to all the talk of dashed hopes, violent and non-violent tactics, and colonialism and creating homelands.

submit to reddit

Comments
submit to reddit

Comments