0 comment Friday, December 5, 2014 | admin
A while back, I read something about this new law, Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), which was passed quietly (as most laws are) last year and which came into effect last week or so. I paid scant attention to it, but I've just read about one curious feature of this new law, after Laurel Loflund posted about it at the Kinism forum. The article to which she linked was in the City Journal:
The New Book Banning
byWalter Olson
It�s hard to believe, but true: under a law Congress passed last year aimed at regulating hazards in children�s products, the federal government has now advised that children�s books published before 1985 should not be considered safe and may in many cases be unlawful to sell or distribute. Merchants, thrift stores, and booksellers may be at risk if they sell older volumes, or even give them away, without first subjecting them to testing�at prohibitive expense. Many used-book sellers, consignment stores, Goodwill outlets, and the like have accordingly begun to refuse new donations of pre-1985 volumes, yank existing ones off their shelves, and in some cases discard them en masse.
The problem is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), passed by Congress last summer after the panic over lead paint on toys from China. Among its other provisions, CPSIA imposed tough new limits on lead in any products intended for use by children aged 12 or under, and made those limits retroactive: that is, goods manufactured before the law passed cannot be sold on the used market (even in garage sales or on eBay) if they don�t conform.''
Laurel also linked to Gary North's piece on this law
Children's Books in Dumpsters: Washington's Madness Continues
Here is the new reality, one week old. If you can still find any pre-1985 books, it is because the thrift store's managers don't know they are breaking the law and could be fined or sent to prison if they persist.
[...]
The bureaucrats are now enforcing the letter of the 2008 law. Congressmen will feign ignorance. "Gee, how were we to know?"
Too late. The books are in landfill.
But why? "Stop dangerous lead paint!" Right. The lead paint in pre-1985 kids' books in minuscule traces. There is no known example of any child being injured by lead paint from a book. No matter. The law's the law.
This seems insane, but it is the relentless logic of the State: "Nothing is permitted unless authorized by the State."
The Federal government has authorized abortion on demand. But, once a parent allows a child to be born, that parent is not be allowed to buy the child a pre-1985 book. Such books are too dangerous for children.
This is the logic of Washington. This logic is relentless. It will be extended by law into every nook and cranny of our lives until it is stopped.''
Now, most of the criticisms I've since found of the law are concerned with the minutiae of it, or about other aspects of it, like the banning of certain clothing items like buttons or snaps which may contain toxic materials. But from my perspective, the most troubling thing about it is that it seems, beneath the surface, to be concerned with what our rulers consider 'toxic ideas', not lead in ink or in items of apparel.
Our government has different ideas of what is 'dangerous to our health' than my own idea. To them, it seems anything which comes from the pre-politically correct era is toxic. Our school textbooks and popular histories, in book form or on TV or the Internet, have been 'corrected' to conform with the present ideas of acceptability. We are all familiar with disputes between educators and parents, and complaints by ethnic agitators over 'racist' and 'xenophobic' words, images, and ideas in old textbooks and literature. I don't for a moment believe that the government would not like to wave a magic wand and cause all pre-PC books, movies, and recordings to disappear forever. Anything that would further that cause, even if only incidentally, would be just fine with them.
Some time back, I blogged about the 'cleansing' of old books from public libraries nationwide, and the overall dumbing down of libraries, usually under the guise of ''updating" and digitizing and changing the emphasis to electronic media. If some old, pre-PC books happened to be casualties of the march of progress, then -- oops, too bad, what a shame.
Most people don't question this; we have this ingrained idea that newer is better and that progress is inevitable and unstoppable, and that overall, all changes are part of progress and therefore we just have to accept it with a shrug. But I think we may lose a great deal of our heritage and history in those old books that are being unceremoniously thrown out or dumped in landfills, and what is being left in its place is not an improvement.
As a society, we no longer value the old in general, and every day it seems another article appears somewhere about the coming demise of the printed word. Books in general are valued less than ever before, as people passively accept that the book will soon be a relic of the past, of no use to us in the computer age. And old books generally are regarded as irrelevant if not downright backward and harmful to our delicate PC sensibilities.
This commentator understands the importance of what is happening.
...It used to be that the older the book, the more it was treasured as part of the collection. Now the opposite seems to be true: the most recent interpretations of human affairs are valued, while the older ones are discarded. Instant and untested knowledge trumps the wisdom of the ages.
Western civilization (or any other civilization worth its name) depends on written texts for its preservation, perpetuation, and development. Dead civilizations are studied through archeology, live ones are reanimated by reading books.
[...]
The removal of a sizeable percentage of books published before the 1960s truncates the memory of the present generation. If a significant chunk of interpretations of culture committed to paper is removed from easy circulation, the culture built on these interpretations will eventually wither. This was predicted by Marxists like Antonio Gramsci who wrote in the 1930s that it is not necessary to engineer bloody revolutions to change political systems and affect a transfer of power: it is enough to change culture to affect such a change. The massive removal of old books from university libraries is a small step in this direction. While many steps have to be taken to bring Gramsci�s vision to fruition, one should not ignore the small steps.''
I agree; the 'small steps' often go unnoticed but they are not insignificant.
The New Book Banning
byWalter Olson
It�s hard to believe, but true: under a law Congress passed last year aimed at regulating hazards in children�s products, the federal government has now advised that children�s books published before 1985 should not be considered safe and may in many cases be unlawful to sell or distribute. Merchants, thrift stores, and booksellers may be at risk if they sell older volumes, or even give them away, without first subjecting them to testing�at prohibitive expense. Many used-book sellers, consignment stores, Goodwill outlets, and the like have accordingly begun to refuse new donations of pre-1985 volumes, yank existing ones off their shelves, and in some cases discard them en masse.
The problem is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), passed by Congress last summer after the panic over lead paint on toys from China. Among its other provisions, CPSIA imposed tough new limits on lead in any products intended for use by children aged 12 or under, and made those limits retroactive: that is, goods manufactured before the law passed cannot be sold on the used market (even in garage sales or on eBay) if they don�t conform.''
Laurel also linked to Gary North's piece on this law
Children's Books in Dumpsters: Washington's Madness Continues
Here is the new reality, one week old. If you can still find any pre-1985 books, it is because the thrift store's managers don't know they are breaking the law and could be fined or sent to prison if they persist.
[...]
The bureaucrats are now enforcing the letter of the 2008 law. Congressmen will feign ignorance. "Gee, how were we to know?"
Too late. The books are in landfill.
But why? "Stop dangerous lead paint!" Right. The lead paint in pre-1985 kids' books in minuscule traces. There is no known example of any child being injured by lead paint from a book. No matter. The law's the law.
This seems insane, but it is the relentless logic of the State: "Nothing is permitted unless authorized by the State."
The Federal government has authorized abortion on demand. But, once a parent allows a child to be born, that parent is not be allowed to buy the child a pre-1985 book. Such books are too dangerous for children.
This is the logic of Washington. This logic is relentless. It will be extended by law into every nook and cranny of our lives until it is stopped.''
Now, most of the criticisms I've since found of the law are concerned with the minutiae of it, or about other aspects of it, like the banning of certain clothing items like buttons or snaps which may contain toxic materials. But from my perspective, the most troubling thing about it is that it seems, beneath the surface, to be concerned with what our rulers consider 'toxic ideas', not lead in ink or in items of apparel.
Our government has different ideas of what is 'dangerous to our health' than my own idea. To them, it seems anything which comes from the pre-politically correct era is toxic. Our school textbooks and popular histories, in book form or on TV or the Internet, have been 'corrected' to conform with the present ideas of acceptability. We are all familiar with disputes between educators and parents, and complaints by ethnic agitators over 'racist' and 'xenophobic' words, images, and ideas in old textbooks and literature. I don't for a moment believe that the government would not like to wave a magic wand and cause all pre-PC books, movies, and recordings to disappear forever. Anything that would further that cause, even if only incidentally, would be just fine with them.
Some time back, I blogged about the 'cleansing' of old books from public libraries nationwide, and the overall dumbing down of libraries, usually under the guise of ''updating" and digitizing and changing the emphasis to electronic media. If some old, pre-PC books happened to be casualties of the march of progress, then -- oops, too bad, what a shame.
Most people don't question this; we have this ingrained idea that newer is better and that progress is inevitable and unstoppable, and that overall, all changes are part of progress and therefore we just have to accept it with a shrug. But I think we may lose a great deal of our heritage and history in those old books that are being unceremoniously thrown out or dumped in landfills, and what is being left in its place is not an improvement.
As a society, we no longer value the old in general, and every day it seems another article appears somewhere about the coming demise of the printed word. Books in general are valued less than ever before, as people passively accept that the book will soon be a relic of the past, of no use to us in the computer age. And old books generally are regarded as irrelevant if not downright backward and harmful to our delicate PC sensibilities.
This commentator understands the importance of what is happening.
...It used to be that the older the book, the more it was treasured as part of the collection. Now the opposite seems to be true: the most recent interpretations of human affairs are valued, while the older ones are discarded. Instant and untested knowledge trumps the wisdom of the ages.
Western civilization (or any other civilization worth its name) depends on written texts for its preservation, perpetuation, and development. Dead civilizations are studied through archeology, live ones are reanimated by reading books.
[...]
The removal of a sizeable percentage of books published before the 1960s truncates the memory of the present generation. If a significant chunk of interpretations of culture committed to paper is removed from easy circulation, the culture built on these interpretations will eventually wither. This was predicted by Marxists like Antonio Gramsci who wrote in the 1930s that it is not necessary to engineer bloody revolutions to change political systems and affect a transfer of power: it is enough to change culture to affect such a change. The massive removal of old books from university libraries is a small step in this direction. While many steps have to be taken to bring Gramsci�s vision to fruition, one should not ignore the small steps.''
I agree; the 'small steps' often go unnoticed but they are not insignificant.
Labels: Big Government, Books, Censorship, Congress, Freedom Of Thought, Libraries, Orwellian, Political Correctness
0 comment Friday, October 17, 2014 | admin
Those of you who have read this blog for a while may remember that I am a collector of old books and that occasionally I delve into these books in my blog posts. I've been rather remiss in my reading lately but I have come across some interesting things, such as The Customs of Mankind, by Lillian Eichler, published in 1924.
It's a interesting book, wherein the author describes various customs from around the world, etiquette, holiday traditions, and so on. It's also somewhat odd in that the author attempts to trace many customs or folkways back to our supposed 'caveman' origins. At that point, it's hard for me to take her seriously; her explanations seem fanciful, though she was obviously in earnest. Still it's interesting in its quaintness. I'll probably share some quotes from that book.
I've also been reading through a book called For Better Not For Worse, (1939),by Walter A. Maier, Ph.D.
Reading it makes me aware of how much of the cultural Marxist agenda was already at work back then. The book is a Christian book dealing with marriage. The last chapter deals with 'mixed marriages', which is a very relevant topic today, as today's impostor Church attempts to turn traditional attitudes on their heads in service of the 'agenda.'
Not all the books I buy or read are old books, and one of the recent newer books I read was one called 'Me and Lee' -- the 'Lee' of the title being Lee Harvey Oswald. I have to say it was a very interesting read, though hardly the conventional book in the JFK assassination genre.
If any of you have read these books, I'd like to hear your thoughts.
If anyone has other books to recommend, let's hear them.
It's a interesting book, wherein the author describes various customs from around the world, etiquette, holiday traditions, and so on. It's also somewhat odd in that the author attempts to trace many customs or folkways back to our supposed 'caveman' origins. At that point, it's hard for me to take her seriously; her explanations seem fanciful, though she was obviously in earnest. Still it's interesting in its quaintness. I'll probably share some quotes from that book.
I've also been reading through a book called For Better Not For Worse, (1939),by Walter A. Maier, Ph.D.
Reading it makes me aware of how much of the cultural Marxist agenda was already at work back then. The book is a Christian book dealing with marriage. The last chapter deals with 'mixed marriages', which is a very relevant topic today, as today's impostor Church attempts to turn traditional attitudes on their heads in service of the 'agenda.'
Not all the books I buy or read are old books, and one of the recent newer books I read was one called 'Me and Lee' -- the 'Lee' of the title being Lee Harvey Oswald. I have to say it was a very interesting read, though hardly the conventional book in the JFK assassination genre.
If any of you have read these books, I'd like to hear your thoughts.
If anyone has other books to recommend, let's hear them.
Labels: Books, History, Old Books
0 comment Thursday, September 25, 2014 | admin
What books are my readers reading? It would be interesting to hear your choices of reading material.
Although I don't seem to have enough time to read, other than the news and blogging-related reading, I recently found a copy, in one of my favorite second-hand book sellers, of Harold Lamb's 1930 book, 'Iron Men and Saints', which is about the Crusades. I've only just started reading it, but I like Lamb's writing style, and apparently his histories were fairly well-regarded.
The book itself is a nicely-bound volume, and in wonderful condition, so I was thrilled to find it. I love the old books, and of course, for me, histories written in the era before Political Correctness are a must.
Has anybody out there read the book?
Or what are my readers reading?
0 comment Sunday, August 31, 2014 | admin
As I've mentioned before, I love old books of all kinds, especially reference books, histories, anything factual. It's vital, I think, to read what was written before the present politically correct regime got a stranglehold on the West. So I go on regular forays to local stores (antique and second-hand stores) which sell old books. The thrift shop in my town is an extraordinarily good place to find unusual old books, and to find them at bargain prices. I've found a lot of old books (from 50 to 100 years old) for as little as 25 or 50 cents each. Some of them are not books that are easily found, although from a real bibliophile's viewpoint, they may not be valuable books. Their value to me is in the information they contain, as well as the glimpse into the un-propagandized minds of earlier eras. As the older generations die off, our only contact with the saner world of the past is via old books.
I've got quite a stack of books which I haven't had a chance to read yet, or books which I have browsed but not read through, but here are a few of the recent books which I was particularly pleased to find.
The Standard Dictionary of Facts - published in 1917, 908 pages. "A Practical Handbook of Ready Reference."
The New Dictionary of Thoughts - edited by Tryon Edwards, D.D., published in 1930, 732 pages.
This book is one that I have relished browsing through; as my readers know, I love collecting quotations, and this one is a collection of quotations, many of them from sources who are unfamiliar to our era. Have any of you ever noticed how, for example, Bartlett's has changed through the years? Now they cite such founts of wisdom as 'pop culture' icons and celebrities, and of course they've gone multiculti and Politically Correct, big-time. It's easy to see the shibboleths and prejudices of an era by the quotations that are selected for books like Bartlett's, and by the online sources that are collections of quotes. So this old book of quotes is a real breath of fresh air, speaking of a very different time.
The Joy of Words - by J.G Ferguson, published in 1960. This one is something of an oddity. "Selections of Literature, expressing beauty, humor, history, wisdom and inspiration...which are a joy to read and read again."
Sisson's Word and Expression Locator - by A.F. Sisson. Published 1966.
A Treasury of American Heritage - A Selection from The Magazine of History, including articles from the years 1954-59. Published in 1960. This is a coffee-table sized book, with many wonderful colorplates.
A World of Movies - by Richard Lawton. I can't find a publication date, but it appears to be from the 70s. There are also lots of beautiful pictures in this book.
Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment: Popular Religious Belief in New England, by David P. Hall. Published 1989.
The previous owner of this book wrote some amusing notations on the dust jacket, and on the flyleaf. Next to the author's picture, he has written "A diehard liberal -- a democrat [sic] no doubt!" On the title page he says "a distortion of true Christianity, written by a nonbeliever. Full of falsehoods, completely misreads the Puritans."
I haven't read it yet, but the previous owner, judging by his notations, sounds like a man after my own heart, though I would have expected liberal bias, considering its publication date. Anyway I hope to read it sometime soon.
I'm also a collector of old cookbooks and recipe books and booklets, and in recent months I've found quite a few from the 1920s through the 1960s. One I was particularly thrilled with is a book called 'The Art of Cooking and Serving', by Sarah Field Splint, published in 1932. It has some nice illustrations on the cover, very typical of that era. Recipe books, too, tell a story of how our country and culture have changed. Still, I enjoy the cookbooks for their own sake.
A few months ago, in my local thrift shop I found a Geneva Bible, which is something I have been wanting for some time, and I've priced them online. I've found they are quite expensive. So I found a Geneva Bible, in very good condition, priced at $5. I passed it up -- only because my bookshelves are groaning under the existing weight, and there are already books with no 'home' stacked around the place, here and there, and the Geneva Bible was a large tome. But afterwards I regretted not buying it, and went back -- to find it's gone, unsurprisingly. Somebody got a wonderful buy.
I suspect that my town is something of a treasure trove of antiques, old books and ephemera because the people who live here are readers of books, and they are also very frugal, tending not to throw valued things like books and antiques away but to carefully keep them throughout the decades. Many of these old book collections and antiques are likely things that have been given away, sadly, on the death of the owner, or when the owners have to leave their homes to go to assisted care or nursing homes. Sad to say, I think the younger generations will not be so careful of possessions as the older folks in this area so obviously are.
So what's on your bookshelves, readers? What are you reading?
Labels: Books
0 comment Saturday, July 19, 2014 | admin
I happened across a book called Out of Our Past, by Carl N. Degler, for which I paid all of 50 cents.
It's dated 1959, and it is subtitled The Forces That Shaped Modern America.
Apparently it's available now for purchase, though I found my copy in a second-hand store. It promises to be an interesting read, though I've only skimmed various passages so far. It seems as though he devotes considerable attention to issues that happen to be front and center now: national identity, immigration, the role of government throughout our history, and the intractable race problem.
Given that the book was first published in 1959, it seems to have been written in a kind of transitional time between old America and the America of today, especially where ideas about national identity and the role of government are concerned. Within those limitations, it seems to be fairly even-handed, compared to the PC extremes of today.
I've looked at the chapters regarding the War Between the States and it appears as though he treats the concerns of the South with somewhat more respect than today's historians and writers deign to.
There are obvious examples of proto-PC attitudes in the book, but in the 1950s as now, academics were more liberal than the general population, so I make allowances for that. I hope to blog about some of the subjects he deals with in this book, because as the subtitle says, certain 'forces' or ideas that brought us to our present state are a consequence of past events and developments.
If any of you know this book, or have any opinions or thoughts about it, please comment.
It's dated 1959, and it is subtitled The Forces That Shaped Modern America.
Apparently it's available now for purchase, though I found my copy in a second-hand store. It promises to be an interesting read, though I've only skimmed various passages so far. It seems as though he devotes considerable attention to issues that happen to be front and center now: national identity, immigration, the role of government throughout our history, and the intractable race problem.
Given that the book was first published in 1959, it seems to have been written in a kind of transitional time between old America and the America of today, especially where ideas about national identity and the role of government are concerned. Within those limitations, it seems to be fairly even-handed, compared to the PC extremes of today.
I've looked at the chapters regarding the War Between the States and it appears as though he treats the concerns of the South with somewhat more respect than today's historians and writers deign to.
There are obvious examples of proto-PC attitudes in the book, but in the 1950s as now, academics were more liberal than the general population, so I make allowances for that. I hope to blog about some of the subjects he deals with in this book, because as the subtitle says, certain 'forces' or ideas that brought us to our present state are a consequence of past events and developments.
If any of you know this book, or have any opinions or thoughts about it, please comment.
Labels: American History, Books
0 comment Tuesday, July 15, 2014 | admin
Over at the Iron Ink blog, Bret has a series of entries under the heading
Bret's Thumbnail Summer Course on American History
The discussion is based on Thomas Woods' "Politically Incorrect Guide To American History." Although that book has been on my informal list of books I hope to read, so far I haven't gotten around to reading it. I have quite a stack of books here that I have not read, so it may be a while before I get to Woods' book, but it would seem to be worth reading, as is the Iron Ink series of posts.
In introducing the series, Bret describes the conflict between the politically correct version of American history which is prevailing today, and the older version.
Recorded American History is viciously fought over by those who would use history as part of an effort to bend and shape the American psyche so that it conforms to a particular theological / ideological mold. If it is true that it is the victors who write history it is even more true that it is historians who control the self-understanding of a people or a nation.
The book that we are reading this summer is dedicated to over-throwing current popular historical myths that many contemporary American historians are seeking to advance as set and established truths in our culture. This is where the "Battle Royal" begins. As I said some historians are seeking to teach one set of "truths" and the historian who wrote the book we are reading is battling against their reading of American history in favor of an older and more tested reading. Both set of historians are dealing with the same set of recorded facts and events but the battle heats up as each school of historians handle and compile the facts in such a different way that one quickly begins to realize that the differences between the historians is not one of facts and events but rather the difference is one of worldviews.
[...]
This book challenges the current myth supported by many contemporary American historians that the Puritans were racist or that they stole Indian lands. This book challenges the current myth supported by many contemporary American historians that the American revolution was of a same piece with the French Revolution. This book challenges the current myth supported by many contemporary American historians that the American Constitution is a living document by focusing on the Constitutions original intent. This book challenges the current myth supported by many contemporary American historians that the American War Between The States was primarily about slavery.
These and many other current interpretations of American history that are intended to fill Americans with self hatred so that the nation�s character and direction can be more easily changed are challenged in this book.''
This is something that's important, of course, for younger people who have been exposed to the PC version of history, but which needs to be emphasized for many of the older generations as well. Those of us who are baby-boomers and older remember America as it was before the PC reign, and most of us were taught the politically incorrect truths as they were recognized in the pre-PC era. Shockingly, though, I encounter people who are old enough to remember the old America, but yet seem to have been indoctrinated by the PC version that is promoted by the media today. It seems that many of the older generations seem to have forgotten what they once knew. I am dumbfounded to see that; I don't know how it can happen.
So I think all ages could benefit by a re-visiting of American History, seen without the distorting lenses of political correctness.
In the Iron Ink entry called 3 Insights Into the Colonial Character, Bret uses the term 'classical Americans.'
Classical Americans have ever been leery of governmental expansion. Classical Americans have understood that when governments expand their reach the result is that the reach of the free individual is constricted. Classical Americans have understood that government, by its very nature, always desires to expand and so are ever vigilant against such expansion.''
That term 'Classical Americans' caught my fancy, and I wondered if he intended it as I use the term 'old Americans' or sometimes 'vanishing Americans', or perhaps like Stephen Hopewell's 'Heritage American.' A commenter asks him about the phrase, and Bret responds
''The term "Classical American" is mine as far as I know.''
It's a good term, if I understand it properly.
I hope the series continues; it's interesting reading so far.
Bret's Thumbnail Summer Course on American History
The discussion is based on Thomas Woods' "Politically Incorrect Guide To American History." Although that book has been on my informal list of books I hope to read, so far I haven't gotten around to reading it. I have quite a stack of books here that I have not read, so it may be a while before I get to Woods' book, but it would seem to be worth reading, as is the Iron Ink series of posts.
In introducing the series, Bret describes the conflict between the politically correct version of American history which is prevailing today, and the older version.
Recorded American History is viciously fought over by those who would use history as part of an effort to bend and shape the American psyche so that it conforms to a particular theological / ideological mold. If it is true that it is the victors who write history it is even more true that it is historians who control the self-understanding of a people or a nation.
The book that we are reading this summer is dedicated to over-throwing current popular historical myths that many contemporary American historians are seeking to advance as set and established truths in our culture. This is where the "Battle Royal" begins. As I said some historians are seeking to teach one set of "truths" and the historian who wrote the book we are reading is battling against their reading of American history in favor of an older and more tested reading. Both set of historians are dealing with the same set of recorded facts and events but the battle heats up as each school of historians handle and compile the facts in such a different way that one quickly begins to realize that the differences between the historians is not one of facts and events but rather the difference is one of worldviews.
[...]
This book challenges the current myth supported by many contemporary American historians that the Puritans were racist or that they stole Indian lands. This book challenges the current myth supported by many contemporary American historians that the American revolution was of a same piece with the French Revolution. This book challenges the current myth supported by many contemporary American historians that the American Constitution is a living document by focusing on the Constitutions original intent. This book challenges the current myth supported by many contemporary American historians that the American War Between The States was primarily about slavery.
These and many other current interpretations of American history that are intended to fill Americans with self hatred so that the nation�s character and direction can be more easily changed are challenged in this book.''
This is something that's important, of course, for younger people who have been exposed to the PC version of history, but which needs to be emphasized for many of the older generations as well. Those of us who are baby-boomers and older remember America as it was before the PC reign, and most of us were taught the politically incorrect truths as they were recognized in the pre-PC era. Shockingly, though, I encounter people who are old enough to remember the old America, but yet seem to have been indoctrinated by the PC version that is promoted by the media today. It seems that many of the older generations seem to have forgotten what they once knew. I am dumbfounded to see that; I don't know how it can happen.
So I think all ages could benefit by a re-visiting of American History, seen without the distorting lenses of political correctness.
In the Iron Ink entry called 3 Insights Into the Colonial Character, Bret uses the term 'classical Americans.'
Classical Americans have ever been leery of governmental expansion. Classical Americans have understood that when governments expand their reach the result is that the reach of the free individual is constricted. Classical Americans have understood that government, by its very nature, always desires to expand and so are ever vigilant against such expansion.''
That term 'Classical Americans' caught my fancy, and I wondered if he intended it as I use the term 'old Americans' or sometimes 'vanishing Americans', or perhaps like Stephen Hopewell's 'Heritage American.' A commenter asks him about the phrase, and Bret responds
''The term "Classical American" is mine as far as I know.''
It's a good term, if I understand it properly.
I hope the series continues; it's interesting reading so far.
Labels: American History, American Identity, Books, Political Correctness, Puritans
0 comment | admin
There's a very good post by Stephen Hopewell at the Heritage American.
It's about Louisa May Alcott's book Little Women, and its depictions of traditional womanhood. I'm sure all of you are familiar with the book; even some who have not read it have seen one of the several Hollywood treatments of the story. My favorite Hollywood version was the 1933 movie, starring Katharine Hepburn, but the 1949 version, with June Allyson, Janet Leigh, Elizabeth Taylor, and Mary Astor, was also good.
A critic could, of course, call the book false, a romantic fantasy. Even if this is so, the type of fantasy a society creates says something real about its soul. And in Little Women one sees a deep love between sisters and between mother and daughters that is utterly free of feminist distortion and resentment towards males. So, too, it was innovative as an early form of the American "domestic novel." In the words of Madeline Stern:
Little Women is great because it is a book on the American home, and hence universal in its appeal. As long as human beings delight in "the blessings that alone can make life happy," as long as they believe, with Jo March, that "families are the most beautiful things in all the world," the book will be treasured. (1)
The values held by the March family amount to a uniquely American conglomeration of stern Calvinism and English bourgeois values: a strong work ethic and a dislike of the pursuit of money, ostentation, and habits like drinking and gambling; but a very worldly enjoyment of art, music, games, nature, and conversation.''
I really like the second sentence in the excerpt above.
Read the rest at The Heritage American.
The discussion of Little Women started me thinking about the various books I read as a child, many of which were books that were read by virtually all children of the time. It's true that Little Women, like certain other popular childhood books, was a ''girls' book''. Many children's books, just as with adults' fiction, were divided between those for female readers and those for male readers. Boys tended to read more adventure books, involving action, travel, conquest, and so on.
But there were certain books that most children, both boys and girls, read. For example, The Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum. Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. Mark Twain's books. Aesop's Fables.The Arabian Nights. The Joel Chandler Harris 'Uncle Remus' stories.
Grimm's Fairy Tales. Hans Christian Andersen's stories. (I loved Andersen's stories, all of them. The Snow Queen was a special favorite for some reason.) Classical Mythology was popular with both boys and girls.
Girls read the 'Nancy Drew' mysteries while boys read The Hardy Boys.
In the realm of fantasy and fairy tales, George MacDonald was a popular writer among many children even when I was a child. I think he has been very influential over several generations.
Another more mundane writer whose books I enjoyed as a child was Lois Lenski ,who wrote about children in different regions of the country. Another series of ''girls' books'' which I read avidly were those by Maud Hart Lovelace. She wrote, among other things, the ''Betsy-Tacy" books about friends named Betsy and Tacy. They followed the lives of these girls as they grew up.
An interesting side note: this web page is devoted to explaining the cultural references in the Betsy-Tacy books, which would likely be foreign to any young girl of today who might read the books. I don't recall being baffled by these references when I read the books as a child; I think this is due to the fact that children of my era did not live in a world which was that drastically different, at least in a cultural sense, from that of 50 years earlier, the time in which the books were set. We did not need a translator or a lexicon to explain these things to us. Nowadays, however, children live in a very different world from that of my childhood, and the differences are not all due to our more advanced technology. It is more a matter of our not being conversant with the classic Western cultural matrix that everybody of earlier (pre-1960s) America shared. For instance, most of us knew the phrase ''All of Gaul is divided into three parts", and most of us knew the poem "Lochinvar." These things are absolutely foreign to the average child of today.
Many of the books we read as children were by British authors: those by Tolkien, Kenneth Grahame (The Wind in the Willows), Lewis Carroll, Enid Blyton, E. Nesbit, A.A. Milne, Edward Lear, Frances Hodgson Burnett (how I loved 'The Secret Garden!), Anna Sewell, Andrew Lang.
Mother Goose.
We read books by European authors like Johanna Spyri (Heidi), or the aforementioned Hans Christian Andersen, or books like The Wonderful Adventures of Nils by Selma Lagerlöf.
We read things like the stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, or the Robin Hood stories, or Aesop's Fables, or Grimm's, or Greek and Roman mythology, and we sensed that these things belonged to us; they were a part of our history and our origins, even we here in America. We had a sense of continuity.
But what I get from looking back at the books which most of us read as children is the message that we were much more a unified people then, with a common culture, a set of common cultural references, many of which were introduced to us as children. We had a sense of being part of a much larger, much more ancient culture. . Do children of today, except for some homeschooled children with good instruction, get that same sense?
Sadly, most of the young children I know of today, even those from good homes with conscientious parents. do not read that many books at all, and when they do it is the fad books of the moment, like Harry Potter. Now, I know some of my readers are probably Potter fans, and to each his own, but they are just not on a par with the books of the past, especially the truly classical books. I hear so many parents saying ''anything that gets them to read is good. We want them to read, and so whatever interests them in reading is good for them." Really? I question that sentiment. Suppose your child is undernourished. Would you say that ''anything they eat is good, so I let them eat whatever they like best; at least they're eating." I don't think you would find many parents who would use that line of reasoning; otherwise we'd be giving kids a diet of fast food, chips, twinkies, and cokes. So why is any reading material good ''just as long as they're reading"? We should take as much care to provide wholesome and edifying reading material as we take in choosing healthy food for our children's bodies. In fact I might say that unwholesome reading material can do more harm than junk food; childhood is a time for building good habits and good character, and that is even more important than the physical body in some senses.
Some of my Christian friends don't seem to try to feed their children wholesome mental food by encouraging good reading habits. I don't know that there are many good books for children out there, other than the classics; many of the newer books for young children are steeped in political correctness and liberalism in some form. Books for the 'young adult' group often feature foul language and sexual themes. The excuse is always that ''this is today's reality. Kids use profanity and hear it all the time, and they are exploring their sexuality." So it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.
One of the reasons our culture and our people are in such dire straits is that we've lost touch with our roots and our longstanding cultural heritage. Without even basic familiarity with it, how can any of us, particularly the younger generations coming up now, be proud of or protective of something with which they lack even a passing acquaintance ?
Generations are divided against each other because our children, in many senses, have grown up in a different country and a different culture than that of our generation and earlier generations. This is by design; the leftists and liberals were very astute in seizing control of academia and the arts, so as to surround the younger generations with different ideas and influences than those of earlier eras.
Those of you who do home-school, I trust you are including classic reading material, and works that represent the best of our Western cultural traditions. Much of what is produced today is suspect, and is often tainted, even if unintentionally, with political correctness.
Older books, describing an earlier era and a different way of life, have the effect of broadening a child's outlook, and opening the mind to other and better possibilities than those visible in today's world.
I know that many parents will say that 'kids today won't read that old stuff; they have to have something they can relate to.' Many children today seem sadly rather cynical and steeped in 'streetwise' kinds of entertainment. The trash on some of the ''children's" TV networks is very much of the 'urban', multicult variety, and this alienates children from their own rightful culture. I don't know what the antidote to this trend may be; killing the TV is a good start. If I had young children now, there would be no TV, and no modern movies.
Another criticism often made of the older books or of any older traditional fare, like movies, is ''the world was never really like that; it was whitewashed and idealized. It was really uglier than that. No such world ever existed.'' All I can say to this is that it's true that the world is imperfect and has always been imperfect. But to insist on exploring ugliness and the dark side of everything is to shut out the light. We get more of what we choose to focus and concentrate on. Why not exalt the higher instincts and our better potential? Why not show the good of which we are capable, rather than the bad and the ugly, as we do today?
And it is not wrong to idealize and to show a world which is just that little bit better than the world we see outside our windows. It gives us something better toward which we can aspire and strive.
"We never reach our ideals, whether of mental or moral improvement, but the thought of them shows us our deficiencies, and spurs us on to higher and better things." - Tryon Edwards
What books did you read growing up? Which ones inspired you or shaped your character or outlook?
It's about Louisa May Alcott's book Little Women, and its depictions of traditional womanhood. I'm sure all of you are familiar with the book; even some who have not read it have seen one of the several Hollywood treatments of the story. My favorite Hollywood version was the 1933 movie, starring Katharine Hepburn, but the 1949 version, with June Allyson, Janet Leigh, Elizabeth Taylor, and Mary Astor, was also good.
A critic could, of course, call the book false, a romantic fantasy. Even if this is so, the type of fantasy a society creates says something real about its soul. And in Little Women one sees a deep love between sisters and between mother and daughters that is utterly free of feminist distortion and resentment towards males. So, too, it was innovative as an early form of the American "domestic novel." In the words of Madeline Stern:
Little Women is great because it is a book on the American home, and hence universal in its appeal. As long as human beings delight in "the blessings that alone can make life happy," as long as they believe, with Jo March, that "families are the most beautiful things in all the world," the book will be treasured. (1)
The values held by the March family amount to a uniquely American conglomeration of stern Calvinism and English bourgeois values: a strong work ethic and a dislike of the pursuit of money, ostentation, and habits like drinking and gambling; but a very worldly enjoyment of art, music, games, nature, and conversation.''
I really like the second sentence in the excerpt above.
Read the rest at The Heritage American.
The discussion of Little Women started me thinking about the various books I read as a child, many of which were books that were read by virtually all children of the time. It's true that Little Women, like certain other popular childhood books, was a ''girls' book''. Many children's books, just as with adults' fiction, were divided between those for female readers and those for male readers. Boys tended to read more adventure books, involving action, travel, conquest, and so on.
But there were certain books that most children, both boys and girls, read. For example, The Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum. Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. Mark Twain's books. Aesop's Fables.The Arabian Nights. The Joel Chandler Harris 'Uncle Remus' stories.
Grimm's Fairy Tales. Hans Christian Andersen's stories. (I loved Andersen's stories, all of them. The Snow Queen was a special favorite for some reason.) Classical Mythology was popular with both boys and girls.
Girls read the 'Nancy Drew' mysteries while boys read The Hardy Boys.
In the realm of fantasy and fairy tales, George MacDonald was a popular writer among many children even when I was a child. I think he has been very influential over several generations.
Another more mundane writer whose books I enjoyed as a child was Lois Lenski ,who wrote about children in different regions of the country. Another series of ''girls' books'' which I read avidly were those by Maud Hart Lovelace. She wrote, among other things, the ''Betsy-Tacy" books about friends named Betsy and Tacy. They followed the lives of these girls as they grew up.
An interesting side note: this web page is devoted to explaining the cultural references in the Betsy-Tacy books, which would likely be foreign to any young girl of today who might read the books. I don't recall being baffled by these references when I read the books as a child; I think this is due to the fact that children of my era did not live in a world which was that drastically different, at least in a cultural sense, from that of 50 years earlier, the time in which the books were set. We did not need a translator or a lexicon to explain these things to us. Nowadays, however, children live in a very different world from that of my childhood, and the differences are not all due to our more advanced technology. It is more a matter of our not being conversant with the classic Western cultural matrix that everybody of earlier (pre-1960s) America shared. For instance, most of us knew the phrase ''All of Gaul is divided into three parts", and most of us knew the poem "Lochinvar." These things are absolutely foreign to the average child of today.
Many of the books we read as children were by British authors: those by Tolkien, Kenneth Grahame (The Wind in the Willows), Lewis Carroll, Enid Blyton, E. Nesbit, A.A. Milne, Edward Lear, Frances Hodgson Burnett (how I loved 'The Secret Garden!), Anna Sewell, Andrew Lang.
Mother Goose.
We read books by European authors like Johanna Spyri (Heidi), or the aforementioned Hans Christian Andersen, or books like The Wonderful Adventures of Nils by Selma Lagerlöf.
We read things like the stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, or the Robin Hood stories, or Aesop's Fables, or Grimm's, or Greek and Roman mythology, and we sensed that these things belonged to us; they were a part of our history and our origins, even we here in America. We had a sense of continuity.
But what I get from looking back at the books which most of us read as children is the message that we were much more a unified people then, with a common culture, a set of common cultural references, many of which were introduced to us as children. We had a sense of being part of a much larger, much more ancient culture. . Do children of today, except for some homeschooled children with good instruction, get that same sense?
Sadly, most of the young children I know of today, even those from good homes with conscientious parents. do not read that many books at all, and when they do it is the fad books of the moment, like Harry Potter. Now, I know some of my readers are probably Potter fans, and to each his own, but they are just not on a par with the books of the past, especially the truly classical books. I hear so many parents saying ''anything that gets them to read is good. We want them to read, and so whatever interests them in reading is good for them." Really? I question that sentiment. Suppose your child is undernourished. Would you say that ''anything they eat is good, so I let them eat whatever they like best; at least they're eating." I don't think you would find many parents who would use that line of reasoning; otherwise we'd be giving kids a diet of fast food, chips, twinkies, and cokes. So why is any reading material good ''just as long as they're reading"? We should take as much care to provide wholesome and edifying reading material as we take in choosing healthy food for our children's bodies. In fact I might say that unwholesome reading material can do more harm than junk food; childhood is a time for building good habits and good character, and that is even more important than the physical body in some senses.
Some of my Christian friends don't seem to try to feed their children wholesome mental food by encouraging good reading habits. I don't know that there are many good books for children out there, other than the classics; many of the newer books for young children are steeped in political correctness and liberalism in some form. Books for the 'young adult' group often feature foul language and sexual themes. The excuse is always that ''this is today's reality. Kids use profanity and hear it all the time, and they are exploring their sexuality." So it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.
One of the reasons our culture and our people are in such dire straits is that we've lost touch with our roots and our longstanding cultural heritage. Without even basic familiarity with it, how can any of us, particularly the younger generations coming up now, be proud of or protective of something with which they lack even a passing acquaintance ?
Generations are divided against each other because our children, in many senses, have grown up in a different country and a different culture than that of our generation and earlier generations. This is by design; the leftists and liberals were very astute in seizing control of academia and the arts, so as to surround the younger generations with different ideas and influences than those of earlier eras.
Those of you who do home-school, I trust you are including classic reading material, and works that represent the best of our Western cultural traditions. Much of what is produced today is suspect, and is often tainted, even if unintentionally, with political correctness.
Older books, describing an earlier era and a different way of life, have the effect of broadening a child's outlook, and opening the mind to other and better possibilities than those visible in today's world.
I know that many parents will say that 'kids today won't read that old stuff; they have to have something they can relate to.' Many children today seem sadly rather cynical and steeped in 'streetwise' kinds of entertainment. The trash on some of the ''children's" TV networks is very much of the 'urban', multicult variety, and this alienates children from their own rightful culture. I don't know what the antidote to this trend may be; killing the TV is a good start. If I had young children now, there would be no TV, and no modern movies.
Another criticism often made of the older books or of any older traditional fare, like movies, is ''the world was never really like that; it was whitewashed and idealized. It was really uglier than that. No such world ever existed.'' All I can say to this is that it's true that the world is imperfect and has always been imperfect. But to insist on exploring ugliness and the dark side of everything is to shut out the light. We get more of what we choose to focus and concentrate on. Why not exalt the higher instincts and our better potential? Why not show the good of which we are capable, rather than the bad and the ugly, as we do today?
And it is not wrong to idealize and to show a world which is just that little bit better than the world we see outside our windows. It gives us something better toward which we can aspire and strive.
"We never reach our ideals, whether of mental or moral improvement, but the thought of them shows us our deficiencies, and spurs us on to higher and better things." - Tryon Edwards
What books did you read growing up? Which ones inspired you or shaped your character or outlook?
Labels: American Culture, Books, Literature, Western Culture, Western Decline
0 comment Sunday, May 18, 2014 | admin
And today's villains were once heroes.
The picture posted above is of Robert E. Lee and his generals. It was an interesting experience recently, on a forum where British as well as Canadian and a couple of Americans gather, a picture like the one above was posted. It was identified only as General Lee (who was noted by the English commenters as being of English descent) and his generals. I was pleasantly surprised that a couple of the men from the UK recognized many of the generals, while the American who was there confessed that he knew who none of them were, apart from General Lee. Everybody in the South surely knows Robert E. Lee's face, but my fellow Southern American did not know the others, not even Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson, whose face is also very well-known in the South -- or used to be.
I confess I can't name them all, though I recognize, from other pictures I've seen, John Bell Hood, my great-granddad's commanding officer. Then of course J.E.B. Stuart, and the very topical Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Braxton Bragg. Can anybody else name the others? It seems our history is being neglected. It's pretty bad when someone in England knows our history and our heroes better than we do.
Not altogether off topic, at the Guardian website, there is an article discussing the fact that at the time of the American War Between the States, the majority of British 'liberals' sided with the Confederacy, and held a negative view of Abraham Lincoln.
The writer of the article cites material from a book by Amanda Foreman, called A World On Fire.
''Foreman stumbled on her subject while researching her bestselling 1999 biography of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire. In the family archives she discovered that the heir to the Devonshire title � later the eighth duke � had spent Christmas Day 1862 making eggnog for Robert E Lee's Confederate cavalry officers in Virginia.
This Devonshire heir, though, was not some deranged rightwing romantic but one of the pillars of Victorian Liberalism. As Lord Hartington, he served in Gladstone's first two Liberal cabinets, introduced the secret ballot into British law, pulled troops out of Afghanistan in the 1880s, was leader of the Liberal party in opposition, nearly became PM, and finally broke with Gladstone over home rule for Ireland, becoming leader of the breakaway Liberal Unionists � an irony for a man who had sided with the Confederates 20 years previously.
Yet as Foreman shows, Hartington's support for the south was anything but unusual among liberal and progressive 1860s Britain. This country was almost as torn over the civil war as Americans themselves. Many went to fight. The war even crossed the Atlantic, with a battle between Union and Confederate ships in the Channel in 1864. The political parties, and Lord Palmerston's Whig government, were split down the middle over the issues.''
The writer also mentions that the Guardian itself was conflicted over which side to take, given their anti-slavery position. But oddly (to the article's writer, at least) it seemed that the Guardian's support for the principle of self-determination resulted in their taking a very anti-Lincoln stance.
''The Guardian's anti-Lincoln obsession reached its heights in the April 1865 editorial on, of all things, the president's assassination. "Of his rule we can never speak except as a series of acts abhorrent to every true notion of constitutional right and human liberty," the paper wrote, before tactfully adding that "it is doubtless to be regretted that he had not the opportunity of vindicating his good intentions".
It's interesting that some cracks are beginning to appear in the façade of Lincolnolatry, at least in this country. Lately there has even been some public discussion of Lincoln's support for repatriating freed slaves to Africa. Yet it seems that the Guardian and its readers are not cognizant of that fact.
The following quote from Lincoln is not one with which most Americans or British people are familiar with these days:
"I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."
Those words were Lincoln's from the fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate, which took place on September 18, 1858. They are quoted in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings (New York: Library of America, 1989)on p. 636.
As for the fact that many in England were pro-Confederate, that is what I was taught as a child in school, so it is not a new revelation to me. But I will be looking for the release of 'A World On Fire'. It promises to be interesting.
The picture posted above is of Robert E. Lee and his generals. It was an interesting experience recently, on a forum where British as well as Canadian and a couple of Americans gather, a picture like the one above was posted. It was identified only as General Lee (who was noted by the English commenters as being of English descent) and his generals. I was pleasantly surprised that a couple of the men from the UK recognized many of the generals, while the American who was there confessed that he knew who none of them were, apart from General Lee. Everybody in the South surely knows Robert E. Lee's face, but my fellow Southern American did not know the others, not even Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson, whose face is also very well-known in the South -- or used to be.
I confess I can't name them all, though I recognize, from other pictures I've seen, John Bell Hood, my great-granddad's commanding officer. Then of course J.E.B. Stuart, and the very topical Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Braxton Bragg. Can anybody else name the others? It seems our history is being neglected. It's pretty bad when someone in England knows our history and our heroes better than we do.
Not altogether off topic, at the Guardian website, there is an article discussing the fact that at the time of the American War Between the States, the majority of British 'liberals' sided with the Confederacy, and held a negative view of Abraham Lincoln.
The writer of the article cites material from a book by Amanda Foreman, called A World On Fire.
''Foreman stumbled on her subject while researching her bestselling 1999 biography of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire. In the family archives she discovered that the heir to the Devonshire title � later the eighth duke � had spent Christmas Day 1862 making eggnog for Robert E Lee's Confederate cavalry officers in Virginia.
This Devonshire heir, though, was not some deranged rightwing romantic but one of the pillars of Victorian Liberalism. As Lord Hartington, he served in Gladstone's first two Liberal cabinets, introduced the secret ballot into British law, pulled troops out of Afghanistan in the 1880s, was leader of the Liberal party in opposition, nearly became PM, and finally broke with Gladstone over home rule for Ireland, becoming leader of the breakaway Liberal Unionists � an irony for a man who had sided with the Confederates 20 years previously.
Yet as Foreman shows, Hartington's support for the south was anything but unusual among liberal and progressive 1860s Britain. This country was almost as torn over the civil war as Americans themselves. Many went to fight. The war even crossed the Atlantic, with a battle between Union and Confederate ships in the Channel in 1864. The political parties, and Lord Palmerston's Whig government, were split down the middle over the issues.''
The writer also mentions that the Guardian itself was conflicted over which side to take, given their anti-slavery position. But oddly (to the article's writer, at least) it seemed that the Guardian's support for the principle of self-determination resulted in their taking a very anti-Lincoln stance.
''The Guardian's anti-Lincoln obsession reached its heights in the April 1865 editorial on, of all things, the president's assassination. "Of his rule we can never speak except as a series of acts abhorrent to every true notion of constitutional right and human liberty," the paper wrote, before tactfully adding that "it is doubtless to be regretted that he had not the opportunity of vindicating his good intentions".
It's interesting that some cracks are beginning to appear in the façade of Lincolnolatry, at least in this country. Lately there has even been some public discussion of Lincoln's support for repatriating freed slaves to Africa. Yet it seems that the Guardian and its readers are not cognizant of that fact.
The following quote from Lincoln is not one with which most Americans or British people are familiar with these days:
"I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."
Those words were Lincoln's from the fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate, which took place on September 18, 1858. They are quoted in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings (New York: Library of America, 1989)on p. 636.
As for the fact that many in England were pro-Confederate, that is what I was taught as a child in school, so it is not a new revelation to me. But I will be looking for the release of 'A World On Fire'. It promises to be interesting.
Labels: American History, Books, Confederate States Of America, Robert E Lee, StateS Rights