The Blues

When I wore “a younger man’s clothes,” I was introduced to the blues by some guys with whom I served in the military. I grew up with jazz and country music in the house. Blues took a bit long to enter my life. Lately, I’ve reacquainted myself with the musical musings that, in some way, connect with me. Certainly most of the blues musicians I admire had it much worse than me; still, my first exposure to the blues was eye opening and life changing.

When I mention the blues, I prefer listening to some of the older guys – artists such as Robert Johnson, Son House, Big Bill Broonzy, Mississippi John Hurt and Skip James. In their lyrics and in their voices, one can feel pain. It is this quality that impacted me more than anything else. I appreciate some of the newer guys (with blues, newer means the 1960s and 1970s). Guys like Albert King and bar rocker Hounddog Taylor play a style of blues more analogous to the classic rock music with which I grew up. However, for all their bravado, there is something more authentic to be gleaned from the powerful voices, deft guitar playing and frightening wails of the older men who lived through the worse of racial hatred and economic depression.

The jazz movement was a natural extension of the blues and big band music of the 1920s and 1930s. Blues and country have so much in common – particularly some of the classic country music and not the over-stylized and over-produced mess that exists today. The same pain seen in blues musicians can also be heard in the tales of woe from early country stars. Yet, I still come back to the blues. The expression of life’s turmoil and difficulty is so real in their voices and lyrics and in the quality of their playing, it puts into perspective some of the new crop of singers attempting the same sound. What makes the newer music incompatible with the classic blues musicians are that the voice rings hollow…false. They have not lived it and so they are left to mimic it.

I encourage you to gravitate towards the sound of lost or spurned love as heard in Broonzy’s “Frankie and Johnny” or James' "Devil Got My Woman." Listen to a mixture of the old style religion and blues of Delta Blues legend, Son House, in “John the Revelator.” I dare you to listen to Robert Johnson and not think of the legend that suggests he sold his soul to the Devil for a chance at fame and fortune. He died so young, it seems to validate the story or at the least, give weight to the emotions he conveyed. These men (and women) who played the notes and belted out the songs represented the voice of generations and decades of misery, marginal living and hopes unrealized. Music was one of their joys and they used the medium to tell their story.

American music means a great many things to a great many people today. Each style claims an authenticity. However, if I may be a bit of a music snob, the blues represent the first true American music. Its devotees are spread throughout the world but we can visit the regions and hear the sounds and see the settings for ourselves. There is something timeless about their stories and I’ve been enthralled since my first exposure. If the blues ever became chic again, I would bemoan the Johnny-come-latelys but I implore more to venture into a record store (if you can find one) and connect. If you are open to it, it will change your life and your perspective.

The Importance of Suffering

You want, if possible – and there is no more insane “if possible” – to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it – that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible – that makes his destruction desirable. The discipline of suffering, of great suffering – do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far? - Friedrich Nietzsche

I was watching the World Series tonight and thinking on the concept of suffering. In the 7th inning, as the Texas Rangers jumped out to a 7:4 lead, the camera panned to shots of the Cardinal faithful. They were hanging on to the last vestiges of hope – a fervent wish that their team would somehow, someway triumph. Afterwards, I saw the Rangers’ fans, with the look of utter shock and dismay, desperately seeking an answer to two blown leads and ultimately, a loss. I asked myself, where is the constructive benefit of that suffering to those fans?

As a teacher, I’m in a strange position. My job is to push my students beyond their preconceived limits to reach new heights. In order to do this, there is a certain amount of suffering that comes into play. Every year, I have those students who relish in the suffering and come through at the end. Then, I have those students who are repelled by any difficulty in their studies, but search it constantly, even contrive it, in their daily lives. I’m left with a group of students who live on drama and suffering, not as a tool to overcome it but as a way of wallowing in it. Seldom is the suffering over anything of importance, certainly not in the long run.

I’m charged with trying to teach the importance of suffering as a way of enduring, as Nietzsche would later explain. My subject is history and its greatest value is placing our lives in context. However, if I cannot convince students to endure a bit of suffering that some perceive in studying history, they can never appreciate nor fully understand what could exist on the other side of effort and stress. Without going through the distress of pushing through a difficult historical or mathematical concept, they will never truly value its importance. For Nietzsche, the suffering creates a moment of clarity and one that defines character.

Suffering and its importance is seen beyond Western ideals and more than the musings of controversial German philosophers. The humanity of Jesus was tied to his suffering – his time spent in the desert was meant to be a trial, a test. His ability to endure the suffering, the temptation was a part of his identity and his connection to man. Suffering also connects us to our fellow man. Can we truly be a sympathetic people without having a frame of reference with regard to other’s tribulations? To the Buddhists, there is a belief that the idea of suffering is one to overcome in order to achieve happiness. The ability to endure and to overcome suffering is the path towards enlightenment.

And so, my thoughts return to those fans. If they are true fans and not bandwagoners, they know the history of their team. The Cardinal fan understands what it means to see their team struggle, scrimp and scratch their way to a World Series – the ultimate baseball prize. For the Ranger fan, they know the decades of futility and unfulfilled hope. They know their history and they know suffering. For the Cardinal fan, they know the reward such suffering can bring. The Ranger fan is yet to know but is there not a lesson from which everyone can learn? Tomorrow, my students will talk about it but will they truly understand it? We, as adults, have an obligation to impress upon our young the lesson of Nietzsche – the notion of suffering and the character it creates.

The Need for a New (Albeit Modified) Ataturk

In the wake of World War I, the Ottoman Empire was wiped from the pages of history for its supporting role of the Central Powers. As a result, the Allies sought their own piece of the Turkish dinosaur. France and Great Britain carved up the old Fertile Crescent along the lines of the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916), with the British overseeing much of Iraq, Jordan and Palestine and the French overseeing Syria and Lebanon, as well as portions of modern-day Turkey. Meanwhile, the Italians and Greeks made a grab for land around Constantinople. However, from the Turkish military sector emerged a skilled commander named Mustafa Kemal, known in history as Ataturk.

Throughout the early 1920s, Ataturk pushed back the Greek forces, including ethnic Greeks who had settled in Turkish territories. He then pushed through a series of reforms that were considered fairly radical. He implemented a new Latin alphabet and allowed women to have the right to vote. But, his most daring set of reforms was the secularization of Turkey. He went after religious orders and nationalized property held by religious organizations. In the schools of the new country, a secular curriculum was put in place and Sharia law was replaced with one modeled after Western Europe. Islam was delegitimized as a governing force and symbols of the faith, notably the veil, were outlawed. In his efforts, Ataturk was brutal and unrelenting, particularly towards the Kurds, but he was able to reverse centuries of historical precedent to bring stability and democracy to a country possessing little experience with either. In the aftermath, Ataturk, who died in 1938, became a national hero.

Today, Turkey has Recep Tayyip Erdogan. A far cry from Ataturk (except, sadly, his attitude towards the Kurds), he has recently brought Turkey to the point of conflict at various levels. He seems to be going out of his way to destabilize the region. First, he is operating under the false impression that he does not need Europe – saying the continent needs him more. This is seen in the widening gulf between the European Union and Turkey over admission of the latter into the former. Turkey’s economy is extraordinary but I wonder what would happen if some European countries revoked the guest worker program and forced hundreds of thousands of unemployed Turkish nationals to their native land (there are two million in Germany alone)? I don’t foresee countries doing that but I can see an end to the program. This would be a new weight on the Turkish economy that could undermine Mr. Erdogan’s policies.

Second, Mr. Erdogan is pursuing policies that could endanger the fragile stability in the entire region with two cases in particular – Cyprus and Israel. Of concern to the EU is his refusal of any Greek-Cypriot ships to enter Turkish waters or ports. Perhaps, Mr. Erdogan feels his country’s economy does not need their products but the actions seem to be based more on purposefully antagonizing Greek Cyprus on simply historical grounds. The resulting increase in tensions is avoidable. Yet, as problematic as the Cyprus situation is, it does not measure up to his stance on Israel.

The prime minister was the former mayor of Istanbul and is the head of the Justice and Development Party (AK), an Islamist party that has led some to fear, particularly when he came to power in 2003, of an ebbing of Turkey’s secular traditions. While his rule has not suggested an obliteration of said traditions, his stance with Israel seems a ploy to cater to his base. Israel has the right to protect its borders and inspect anything coming into its territorial waters. The fact that the flotilla advocates, a group attempting to run the blockade Israel has on shipments to Gaza, refuse to have their cargo inspected suggests the worst and has nothing to do with the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. They are the ploy and the flotilla, a Trojan horse. While the U.S. has encouraged Mr. Erdogan to ease back on the stance with regards to Israel, he has escalated by suggesting the next flotilla attempt would be protected by Turkish ships. Whether or not this is bluster, (the New York Times once referred to him as a “hothead,”) the implications are the same.

Ataturk, while progressive at home, was aware of the importance of good relations with his neighbors. His active role within the League of Nations (a precursor to the United Nations), his partnership within the Balkan Entente (1934) and his non-aggression agreement with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan in the Saadabad Pact (1937) shows his understanding of the importance of regional stability. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has shown the opposite. While conditions within the country have ameliorated since his ascension to the prime ministership, the same cannot be said beyond. Let us hope he is a student of history. If not, I fear for the region.

A Love Letter to Baltimore

I’m from Baltimore, Maryland. The city and its history and quirky nature shaped and formed my development. I’ve lived in the city and I’ve lived in the suburbs. I’ve eaten the coddies and I’ve devoured the crab cakes. I swam the waters and walked the trails. I’ve celebrated the ecstasy of the Orioles winning the World Series in 1983 and suffered the depression of my beloved Colts leaving for Indianapolis the next year. I’ve suffered the comments about Homicide and the characterizations of a city on decline – an antiquated member of the Rust Belt. I’ve heard it all but I know the truth. Baltimore is a great city and I’d like to tell a few of the reasons why the city stays with me to this day.

I’m in love with the neighborhoods and indeed, it is the soul of the city. I think of the Greektown where my parents took me to the shops and little eateries and they bought me my first komboloi or worry beads. As a kid, I was mesmerized by the different accents, different looks, different smells and different items for sale. Since those days as a small boy, even though I’m not Greek or particularly worrisome, I’ve always had my komboloi. It was the nature of these neighborhoods that have shaped my life – one in constant search for new ways, new ideas and new cultures to explore. To this day, accents fire my imagination and it was my upbringing in Baltimore that instilled that in me.

The fact that I’m a history teacher cannot be separated from my hometown. Likely the most important historical point of the city is Fort McHenry – the place bombarded by the British in the War of 1812 and the scene of the writing of the Star Spangled Banner. Fells Point is a neighborhood more known today as a chic hang out but this was once an area for the working man and the history surrounding the shipping industry in the city was based here. Even today, the area’s buildings and small alleyways are a reminder that this was once a residential area with a handful of bars and a multitude of dock workers. The first monument to the country’s first president is not in the capital but in Baltimore, in the historic Mount Vernon neighborhood. These places and others were the destination of many a field trip and in part, shaped my life and career.

And, I remember the food. I remember my father taking me to the Lexington Market – the largest indoor market in the United States. He would take me to a greasy spoon café near the back to get breakfast on Saturdays. It was fattening and, to the uninitiated, a bit gross but it was delicious – scrambled eggs and corn beef hash were the food of the gods. There was a great German restaurant called Hausner’s, known as much for its incredible art collection than its great food. I treasured the times in Little Italy eating at Chiapparelli’s or Mug's but always ending at the famous and wonderful bakery – Vacarro’s. Whatever you wanted, whatever cuisine you craved, it could be found in Baltimore.

To many, Baltimore is beleaguered by crime (though, what major city isn’t), overshadowed by sexier nearby destinations (Washington or Philadelphia) and home to a struggling baseball team. However, it is the city that molded me and a city that stays with me. It always will.

From Russia with Confusion?

I’m a bit surprised at how little Americans are aware of Russian politics. Much of my surprise is based on growing up during the Cold War. More so than any other country, I knew who the Soviet premier was, I was aware of what the Soviet Union was doing and in general, the happenings within Russia were more top of mind to the average American. Other countries and other peoples have now pre-occupied the American attention span. While Russia has escaped our consideration over the last decade or so, it has not stepped away from the international stage and therefore, still worthy of our time to read about and keep track of.

Russia is mired in various things at the moment. A Ukrainian court has jailed its former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, for the crimes of overstepping her authority. Her crime was an oil pipeline deal with Russia that decidedly favored Moscow. Her prison sentence has been criticized by nearly everyone who has a stake in the oil supply, from the Americans to the Swedes, and Russia has declared the verdict “anti-Russian.” It can certainly be argued that the verdict has as much to do with Ms. Tymoshenko’s abrasive and combative personality, particularly with her political opponents. However, whether this deal goes through or not, the U.S. and its Western European allies will be greatly affected. The European Union has stepped up the pressure by suggesting the Ukraine is jeopardizing its potential candidacy into the EU. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich will have the chance to make amends when he meets Russian President Dmitry Medvedev next week.

However, the biggest upcoming story out of Russia is the election in March 2012 that will, if reports are to be believed, return to the position of president, Vladimir Putin. The reason why this story should be of interest to the United States is what the move means for Russian democracy. As it is, Russia has proven quite obdurate over the last decade in actions against North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya. Worse, its rationale seems more to do with gumming up the works on the international scene than being based on any core beliefs or national interest. Now, the fear that international observers had with the presidency of Mr. Medvedev, a puppet that was keeping the seat of power warm until Mr. Putin could work around the Russian constitution, seem validated. What must the Russian people think? The Economist calls the situation farcical and it is hard to disagree with the assessment. This comes at a time when investors are leaving the country, government spending is up to make up the difference and oil revenue could certainly use the boost the Ukrainian deal would provide.

The Putin/Medvedev deal is not democracy – not even potential democracy. Granted, the U.S. took a while to improve their process but Russia seems headed in the opposite direction. What will the Russian people do when their frustrations with the economy are compounded by a shaky and disingenuous democratic system? Will they turn to something more radical and potentially dangerous or will they rise up to reiterate their demand for true democratic reforms? Whatever happens, it will be interesting and worthy of American attention.

Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC

When is the melding of church and state ok? It could be decided soon by the Supreme Court. The Court, recently reconvening, is considering the case of Cheryl Perich, a former teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Michigan. She began her “official” capacity in the church as a lay person and later, as a faculty member of both secular and religious instruction. She even conducted chapel for the students from time to time. She fell ill in 2004 and was diagnosed as having narcolepsy, a condition that impacts sleep patterns and can caused involuntary sleeping during the day or at normal times of alertness. When she returned to the church, they had hired another to take her place. When she threatened to sue, the church stated that the potential litigation violated church beliefs that issues should be settled within, not from without, the church. If she pursued such action, she would be fired. She did and she was. Ms. Perich is declaring she was fired for threatening to “blow the whistle” by suing and she is being supported by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Most forceful in his initial impression of the case was the most senior member of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, who declared that the government had no business in determining the interest of the church. There is quite a bit of evidence to support this. Many court decisions have stated that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and an exemption in the EEOC regulations does not apply to church matters. For instance, the Catholic Church’s position of not allowing women as priests has never been challenged, a point that Justice Samuel Alito brought out in opening arguments.

As recently as 1993, the Court has ruled on the nature of government interference in church practices. In Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), the Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida was conducting animal sacrifices. The city, in an attempt to convince the newcomers they were not welcomed, passed several ordinances limiting to practice of animal sacrifice. The Court ruled in favor of the church, 9:0 with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority. In his decision, Justice Kennedy said the ordinances were unconstitutional because they singled out the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye. Justice Kennedy weighed in also on Ms. Perich’s case, saying he doubted the success of the claim. The argument could be made that, absent of other instances of government involvement of church affairs, the Lutheran church is also being singled out.

There is also judicial precedent on the idea that religious ideas can conflict with civil law. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the Court ruled 5:4 that a former scout leader, who was dismissed because he was gay, could not sue the Boy Scouts. As a private organization, if it were forced to accept James Dale as a leader, its first amendment rights would be violated. The organization would be forced to send a message to its members of acceptance that goes against its core beliefs and values. For the Court to recognize Ms. Perich’s lawsuit would be to violate the core beliefs of the Lutheran Church.

This case is not about wrongful firing but whether the state can dictate who serves in a religious capacity. What is the proper course of action? As much as it is not the purview of the church to interject itself in the business of governance, so it should not be the purview of the government to interpret, rule on or interfere with the business of the church. The dictates of the faith are paramount and must be protected in a country that purports freedom of religion.

The Historical Case for Henry Clay

Over the last couple of weeks, CSPAN has been showing a series of broadcasts called “The Contenders.” The purpose of the program is to highlight some of the more notable presidential election losers whose contributions extend far beyond their failed presidential run. For those not entirely into history, there is also a comedic element, as callers trying to pose serious queries get turned around on the quality over quantity element to questions. Secondly, CSPAN does a great job finding historians who are experts on the person of the night, if not entirely comfortable in front of the camera. It makes for great television. However, watching the program, I was struck as to why Henry Clay has not received more attention in many history classes.

Henry Clay is often mentioned in conjunction with Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun as one of the “great compromisers.” He first rose to prominence in the debate over the admission of Missouri into the Union. Missouri represented the first state culled out of the old Louisiana territory and it wanted to join the Union as a slave state. At the time, the congressmen from the free northern states and the slave southern states wanted to maintain a balance of delegates in Congress to maintain the status quo. Missouri threatened that but with the admission of Maine as a free state, the efforts of Henry Clay, among others, a national crisis was diverted.

Over the next couple of decades, much of it as Speaker of the House, he worked to implement his “American System” – an improvement plan for the country that included protective tariffs, a stronger banking system and government paid-for infrastructure improvements. He also voraciously challenged President Andrew Jackson on the existence of a national bank. However, for all of his work, he was not terribly successful on the big moments. His American System fell to southern states suspicious of the federal government’s paying of projects within their states. That same group was also adamantly against tariffs, which traditionally, in U.S. history, favored New England industries and punished farmers. President Jackson was able to outmaneuver Speaker Clay and his congressional ally, John Quincy Adams. While impressive as the Speaker, the aforementioned incidents, not to mention his failed presidential run in 1824, kept him from the top echelon of American politicians.

His biggest moment, his biggest achievement was to happen towards the end of his life. California wanted to be a state but a free state. Southern congressmen were outraged and again, for the second time in forty years, the country was on the verge of devolution, possibly war. However, the now senator from Kentucky and two of his colleagues, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, rose to the occasion. Most of them near death, literally, they worked together to produce one bill after another to bring the two sides together.

The Compromise of 1850 is one of the most important pre-Civil War congressional measures. Senator Calhoun died shortly after its passage and the other two senators died a mere two years later. Henry Clay played a large role but beyond this compromise, little is spoken about in “regular” U.S. history classes. It makes one wonder who else is being overlooked in U.S. or world history.

Henry Clay's service to his country deserves greater recognition. I’m doing my part as a historical votary and teacher (and occasional blogger), CSPAN is doing theirs with this amazing collection of features (every Friday night at 8:00ET). If you are interested, Robert V. Ramini’s At the Edge of the Precipice is a great study on the 1850 compromise and worth your time.