Beginning of the Reckoning?

Last weekend, European and American leaders, in negotiations with Iranian representatives in Geneva, Switzerland, struck a six-month deal to limit the enrichment of uranium.  It is hoped that this agreement is the first step towards slowing Iran’s search for a nuclear weapon.  However, as a historian, I hope this is not the Munich Agreement of our times.  At its core is a trust (or hope) that Iran will fulfill its obligations as it sincerely presented them at the negotiation table.  Despite this, there is a fear that the western European leaders and President Obama do not end up looking like the appeasers – a group of leaders who hoped, against history, that the promises slipping from the mouths of tyrants do not end up costing us dearly in the end. 

It is often said that the current elected leader of Iran, President Hassan Rouhani, is a moderate.  Keep in mind that in a country like Iran, “moderate” does not translate to a western definition.  If indeed he is not the promise that many westerners desperately hope he is, the question must be asked about the motivation of Iran.  Iran, like most dictatorial regimes, only agrees to that which costs them nothing to do so.  Consider the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Act.  Throughout the Harding/Coolidge administrations, there was a concerted attempt to take war off the table and help bring more belligerent countries in line with some fifty-four countries signing along.  This measure was joined by earlier efforts such as the Washington Conference (1921-2) and the various naval power agreements to limit tools of war.  However, such pie-in-the-sky idealism, further advanced by the impotent League of Nations, only assuaged people’s concern temporarily.  None of the agreements or the organization prevented the carnage ahead.   

The hope for better things, with no history or facts to support such aspirations, brought us to the infamous Munich Agreement, where the Allies, desperate to avoid war, gave away Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s.  Czechoslovakia was not present at those meetings, and today, countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia, very concerned by an Iran with nuclear weapons, are equally minimized and now equally anxious.  To put it succinctly, many people are concerned because they don’t trust the governments that formed the agreement.  The Saudis do not trust the Iranians to carry out their obligations and they do not trust the Obama administration or the Europeans to punish Iran should the Islamic Republic fail to uphold its end.  For Saudi Arabia, who fears a Shi’a nuclear power, and the Israelis, who fear anyone nearby with a nuclear weapon, a rather untenable situation has developed.  Despite the words of assurances by various European and American leaders, the general sense is that it is doomed to fail because the aggressor lacks the interest and the appeasers lack the intestinal fortitude for a fight.  

Herein lies the problem of all of the major conflicts that have wreaked havoc in the 20^th century.  The League of Nations was destroyed because it failed to act against Italian aggression in Albania and Ethiopia and when Japan invaded its neighbors.  U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt felt that by not joining the Spanish civil war, the fight between fascists and republicans would not grow but it did when Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini helped.  The Allies partially created the carnage of World War II because they failed to check Hitler’s rise to power.  What will be said 40 years from now?  Will European leaders and President Obama further epitomize the folly of trusting untrustworthy dictatorships?  History seems to suggest that the treaty struck in Geneva will be an unmitigated disaster through either Iranian action or pre-emptive strikes by Saudi Arabia or Israel.   

From the outside, it is easy to make judgments and none of us are privy to all the factors that went into the construction of that treaty.  I can only use the examples of leaders past to understand what happens when you try to buy compliance with concessions.  One good side of the treaty is that it lasts only six months and perhaps, with a clearer vision, world leaders might take another approach.  I’d just hate to think the future of relations in the Middle East (and its stability) is dependent upon the cooperation of a country like Iran.  Let us hope our leaders have learned from history instead of just repeating it. 

Fifty Years On

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
            President John F. Kennedy

Fifty years ago today, in the city of Dallas, the president of the United States died.  From a historian point of view, births and deaths are seldom discussed or noteworthy.  Yet, a man holding the most powerful position in the world, a man whose greatest promise was his youth and the time he possibly had in office, draws people in and invites them to delve into his achievements, his beliefs and his legacy.  I have my opinion on conspiracy theories, especially those related to the death of the president, however, they are beyond the point and not relevant.  What is relevant is what President John Fitzgerald Kennedy meant as a part of the American story and his role in the history he made and world he helped create.  

Among historians, it is often said that forty to fifty years are required to properly assess an event or individual.  So, it is with some historical certainty that I offer these thoughts.  From the beginning, John Kennedy was a classic New England liberal but one with conservative fiscal policies – today, what we would call the kind of left-leaning centrist that was instrumental to the approach of President Bill Clinton.  He had a compelling personal story as a member of one of the richest, most powerful American families.  He was a World War II veteran who served the dangerous duty of captain of a PT boat in the Pacific patrolling against the Japanese navy.  He had a beautiful family, including a glamorous wife and adorable children.  While southern Democrats bemoaned the Catholic, northern liberal, he made inroads into the South thanks to his vice presidential candidate, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. 

Politically, he is most discussed on two levels – his relationship with the Soviet Union and his actions dealing with civil rights.  President Kennedy’s record against Nikita Khrushchev was spotty at best.  His greatest highlight against the Soviets is undoubtedly the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis where the president displayed an intestinal fortitude greater than many of his critics imaged.  However, he flubbed horribly during the Bay of Pigs incident the year before and in a showdown with the Soviets over Berlin that led to the creation of a wall.  With regards to civil rights, he was reluctant to join the fray, fearing a backlash of southern discontent in the 1964 re-election bid.  He balked at James Meredith’s attempt to enter Ole Miss and he was not supportive of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on the capital.  It was this failing that led to some of his dreadful approval numbers prior to his death. 

In hindsight, his presidency when taken as a whole was not terribly productive.  One could say he did not have enough time and that is certainly a valid point but some presidents have done much more with less time.  Yet, his death created a mystique and aura that may only be available to us wrapped in nostalgia and our wonder of what could have been.  Some say that he was interested in scaling back in Vietnam but his increase of military advisors to the South’s government does not suggest he was making any serious exit strategies.  It is interesting to speculate how different his legacy would have been had he survived and won re-election.  Without the threat of another election, he could have been more decisive with civil rights, unions (part of a general centrist/right leaning fiscal stance) and other important aspects of his philosophy.  

This anniversary of President Kennedy’s death, unfortunately, will be misdirected.  It has been said that more people visit the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas than visit his presidential library in Boston.  In that is not just a morbid curiosity of his dramatic death but a disregard or misrepresentation of his record.  His promise was never fully realized but that is not a criticism.  Many good men have filled the Oval Office and failed to manifest their greatest hopes and aspirations.  John F. Kennedy is simply one.  Today does not need to be a saturnine remembrance but a reminder of our best intentions. 

The Forgotten War

If you go to a typical bookstore (provided you can find one), make a comparison between the books devoted to World War One and those about World War Two.  The second conflict fills a string of bookcases – everything from the generic survey history to Hitler’s women or something along those lines.  If the first conflict fills an entire single shelf, it is a minor miracle.  Next year will be the centennial history of World War I.  Yet, very little thought is given to that first conflict.  As the war’s veterans died, so did America’s interest.  As a history teacher, I’ve often said that World War One is much more important than the following war.  This is why.   

First, World War One changed irrevocably the political landscape of Europe; gone were the archaic and decrepit ruling families who gave way to the first halting steps towards more democratic governments.  Revolutions erupted in Russia and Germany; the former creating a communist government the likes of which no one had seen before, the latter creating a deeply flawed democratic system that would fail miserably but in the end, would set the groundwork for the future.  The United Kingdom began to lose control of an empire that was a holdover of the past and the ideas of what made a “great” country.  France also began to lose control of its empire as the government began a turn towards socialist democracy.  Italy would slowly delve into fascism, much like their Teutonic brothers in arms. 

Second, the First World War shaped modern Europe.  The dominant powers in 1914, the year Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip shot and killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, were Germany, Austria-Hungary, France and the United Kingdom.  Eastern Europe did not exist, save for the countries of Romania and Bulgaria, as well as the various Balkan states.  Millions of ethnic minorities were trapped in large empires with no hope of autonomy or cultural recognition.  After the war, Europe was a completely different scene and map.  The Baltic states emerged; Austria-Hungary split with each nationality controlling its own boundaries and destiny.  Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belorussia and the Ukraine embraced President Wilson’s dream of self-determination.  The Europe of today, and its spirit, was created as a result of World War One.  This does not even mention the way post-war arrangements shaped, sometimes in capricious ways, the modern Middle East.

Lastly, the First World War created the Second World War.  The treaty of Versailles turned the Allies into money grubbers, fighting and squabbling over reparation dollars even as some of the leaders, particularly British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, knew the treaty was too punitive.  Versailles turned Germany, into a seething, embarrassed, broken nation that fell for a demagogue willing to sell them a twisted vision of their future.  Indeed, the treaty’s most impactful component is its treatment of Germany.  Germany’s military was nearly wiped out; it was saddled with millions of dollars in reparations but was stripped of its largest coal producing region, leaving it incapable in its attempt to build an economy to pay back the Allies.  Worst of all, Germany was saddled with the full and unmitigated responsibility of the war.  While Germany certainly played a role, arguably a significant role, to suggest it was solely responsible for the conflict was a form of punishment Prime Minister Lloyd George and French Premier Georges Clemenceau could not let go – their pre- and wartime rhetoric created a quixotic treaty.  So badly was it designed, French Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch said Versailles was not a peace treaty; it was a cease fire for twenty years. 

World War II is most recent and certainly filled with horrific moments that equal anything that happened between 1914 and 1918.  However, it was only a conclusion and not a conflict in and of itself.  Those men and women who fought and served in the “War to End all Wars” used state of the art weaponry with outdated tactics to create an imperfect peace.  Last week, we celebrated Veterans Day but prior to 1954, it was known as Armistice Day in honor of the end of World War One.  The names have changed but the responsibility is the same – remember their sacrifice by remembering their story.  It is the least we can do. 

What Some Don't Understand

In recent years, bullying has become a major issue within American education.  This past week, it has dominated headlines in America’s number one sport – professional football.  Miami Dolphins’ offensive lineman Jonathan Martin left the team without explanation and over this last week, it has been determined that teammate Richie Incognito was the reason.  Evidence emerged that Mr. Incognito sent some pretty vile texts and tweets to his teammate.  This seems to have been done with the acknowledgement of the coaching staff in order to toughen up Mr. Martin.  While outsiders have jumped to the defense of the offended, there is a dynamic with which few critics are familiar. 

One of the developments is the near complete lack of support for Mr. Martin coming from his former teammates.  I believe this to be the product of team, not individual, thinking.  Mr. Martin has taken something in-house out into the public – a public that neither can or wants to consider the team context.  A team works on the basis of trust.  A part of that trust is an understanding that the internal conflicts do not become public fodder.  Critics might suggest that people like Mr. Incognito thrive on that type of culture but it is that type of culture which creates the fidelity and fraternity that are instrumental toward team success.  

Then, there is the issue of hazing or initiation that is often present in group or team dynamics.  Such things are quite common and serve a group purpose.  A newcomer into a group must quickly understand the values of the group and integrate into the relationships.  Doing this shows a commitment to the group, the people within and the goals of the group.  Typically, everyone has done something that serves as an initiation and they oversee the process for newcomers.  As a member of the military, I went through various traditions and I’ve doled them out as well.  The purpose is never to hurt necessarily but to ascertain the character of the person seeking entrance into our team.  This is not a capricious concern but one that could determine our future success or failure.  If one has never been a part of this type of relationship, it might seem strange, even sadistic, but it serves a purpose.   

The other feature to all of this is the proposed racism involved.  When I was in the military (certainly a team environment), the teasing and needling was part of the bonding.  It is too early to tell if this is really racism or not.  I would suggest it is not always racism but the absence of racism.  Race meant nothing to my platoon – everyone was called everything.  As a Jew, I was called a kike and Heb and Holocaust jokes were slipped in frequently.  Whether you were a redneck, Asian, Hispanic or black, there was not a label or slander not heard.  In these types of environments, race means nothing and therefore the words mean nothing.  One’s worth is based simply on what one contributes to the group.  Words based off this were the ones that hurt – if you were called a slacker or weak.  People outside these groups cannot understand but that is the reality.  When the individual no longer matters, one’s ability to fit into and work within the group is all important. 

There is a good chance that Mr. Incognito is just a jerk and a racist (the kind that typically gets weeded out in a true team environment).  This article is not in defense of him or what he allegedly has done.  What I do defend is the group/team culture.  This can sometimes include things considered unacceptable in the outside world.  I cannot make “civilians” understand because they never will unless in that position.  Yet a system cannot be punished simply because others do not understand.  There is value here and such teams or groups have changed the world (or brightened an occasional weekend).  We would all do well to reflect on that. 

Happy Birthday Marines

It has dawned on me that I've never addressed a day that was a very important one for me for nearly four and a half years - November 10.  Today, around the world, men and women are celebrating the 238th birthday of the United States Marine Corps.  For over two centuries, the marines have been the first in and the last out in one conflict after another. 

For me, it changed my life - turning me from directionless to focused.  The drive I learned in the marines put me through college in four years - though I was balancing a double major and working at the same time.  It provided memories and experiences that I'll never forgot.  I've seen lands and talked with people I never would have otherwise and my provincial mindset has grown more global.  I've learned the true meaning of friendship and camaraderie as well as patience and coping skills.  In short, I'm a better man.  I would not be the teacher I am now were it not for my time with the marines.  I certainly would not be the husband I am without the maturity instilled in me in the marines. 

So, for all those wearing the eagle, globe and anchor, serving home and abroad, know that your efforts are appreciated and honored.  Happy Birthday Marines - Semper Fi.      

The Way They Should Go

This past week, an editorial in the Paris-based newspaper Le Monde discussed one of the most debated components of the teaching profession – to be nice or not be nice.  Of course, when I began my career, I was told not to smile until Christmas.  The thought was it was much easier to grow nicer than to grow stricter.  However, what the article misses altogether and what I was missing at the beginning of my career was that notions of “mean” or “nice” are beyond the scope of the question and not relevant.  Instead, the question should be about being a teacher.

In the past, I’ve alluded to the words of German thinker Martin Buber and his concept that a teacher’s job is to instruct the adult they will become – not the teenager they are now.  Therefore, my approach is not to be polite or mean but to be professional and keep the long term in mind.  In general, I have deadlines and restrictions on re-takes and make-ups.  Most teachers do but in the application of such policies, I respond to situations as a professional.  I will extend latitude when common decency dictates that I should.  If a kid’s parent has been in the hospital all weekend, it is as a professional that I extend the deadline where other students are not afforded such consideration.  For the student, I’m not being nice (though I’m surely sympathetic) but practical.  It is unreasonable to expect a student to complete an assignment if their parent was in the hospital all weekend.  To enforce the policy is not a case of being strict, it is being a jerk.   

However, more likely is the case that a student comes to me and ask for an extension on an assignment and I say no.  Again, not extending the deadline is not a question of being mean – as Le Monde editorial seems to suggest.  The question I have to ask myself is what is being learned from my action.  If the student learns in the future, be it in my class or another class (or a job), that it is not good to turn things in late, then a life-long lesson has been internalized.  Like parents, it does not serve me (and certainly not the students) to allow a kid to arbitrarily miss deadlines.  To do so could lead to the student suffering after they’ve left school where the consequences are more severe and less forgiving.    

 

What is the extent of my “niceness?”  I often say that I’m friendly but refuse to be friends.  Many teachers seek to be friends with students.  Like parents, that serves no one.  I’m not there to be a friend but to be a teacher.  My ability to do what is best for the student can be easily compromised with personal feelings or attachments.  Still, I seek to be friendly.  It would be equally ridiculous to take an adversarial approach to students I have to deal with for 182 days.  Like a professional, the best you can make these relationships, the better the students will perform.   

Now, those who argue against this approach say such teachers do not care for their students and do not care about what is best for them.  Typically, when a person’s response to a point is an ad hominem attack, it is never a good sign.  I’ve been told that I don’t care and I don’t understand what they are going through.  I should try to “meet them where they are.”  Such thinking is naïve.  When a teacher acquiesces to a student’s excuses (extraordinary circumstances notwithstanding) or a student’s plea to avoid consequences, the teacher is cutting the student’s legs out from underneath them – crippling them as they head into a world that cares very little for them.   

So what is a teacher to do?  It is not to be nice for niceness sake.  It is not to be mean because a student should be able to expect a certain level of decency.  The teacher should be the dispassionate advocate for the adult the student will become.  If a teacher does their job correctly, that student will enter the world with maturity and confidence and will have the benefit of having a mentor who sought what was best for the long-run rather than doing what was easier in the short-term.