Thursday, February 28, 2019

US Racial History Is The Embodiment Of "Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est La Même Chose"

Long before Emmitt Till was brutally murdered by a white mob in Mississippi in 1955 and James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner were brutally murdered in 1964 in... (wait for it) Mississippi, Isaac Woodard, Jr. was brutally beaten and blinded by a rural police chief in rural South Carolina.under comparable circumstances. Emmitt Till, the 3 civil rights workers, and Isaac Woodard Jr. all were guilty of "uppity behavior" in the Jim Crow South. Little has changed since that time. White police officers in Missouri, Minnesota, Illinois, and New York City (and elsewhere) have shot and killed "uppity" African Americans who were unarmed. As Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr wrote in 1849: "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" — “The more it changes, the more it’s the same thing.” If this is a (fair & balanced) illustration of the evil of racism and white supremacy, so be it.

[x LitHub]
An Account Of The Blinding Of Sergeant Isaac Woodard By The Police Chief, Lynwood Shull
By Richard Gergel


TagCrowd Cloud of the following piece of writing

created at TagCrowd.com

[This essay was excerpted from Richard Gergel's book, Unexampled Courage: The Blinding of Sgt. Isaac Woodard and the Awakening of President Harry S. Truman and Judge J. Waties Waring (2019).]

On the cool winter night of February 12, 1946, Isaac Woodard Jr. climbed aboard a Greyhound bus in Augusta, Georgia, on his last leg home to Winnsboro, South Carolina, from a journey that had begun in the Philippines several weeks before. Woodard, who was 26 years old, had just completed an arduous three-year tour in the US Army, where he served in the Pacific theater, earned a battle star for unloading ships under enemy fire during the New Guinea campaign, and won promotions, ultimately to the rank of sergeant.

One of nine children of Sarah and Isaac Woodard Sr., he was born on March 8, 1919, on a farm in Fairfield County, South Carolina. The county was an impoverished, majority-black community in the central part of the state. The Woodard family, as landless sharecroppers, was on the lowest rung of what was essentially a feudal society. The family struggled to subsist, and the Woodard children frequently worked in the fields rather than attend school. Isaac junior quit school at age 11, after completing the fifth grade, and left home at 15 in search of relief from the family’s crushing poverty. His mother would later observe that Fairfield County whites, who owned virtually all of the land and wealth of the community, did not “think of a Negro as they do a dog. Looks as if all they want is our work.”

Woodard worked in North Carolina for a number of his early adult years, doing $2-a-day construction jobs, laying railroad tracks, delivering milk for a local dairy, and serving in the Civilian Conservation Corps. As World War II approached and it appeared likely he would be inducted into the armed forces, he returned to Fairfield County and briefly took a job at a local sawmill, Doolittle’s Lumber, while he awaited his induction notice. He worked as a “log turner,” a backbreaking and dangerous job that earned him but $10 a week. Because they faced such dismal employment options, it is not surprising that despite the perils of service in the armed forces, Woodard and many other African Americans residing in the rural South viewed military service as a promising alternative.

Woodard entered service at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, on October 14, 1942, as a private and did his basic training in Bainbridge, Georgia. He was a member of the 429th Port Battalion, which shipped out in October 1944 for New Guinea, where he served as a longshoreman, loading and unloading military ships in the Pacific. The New Guinea campaign was a multi-year battle by the Allies, mostly Australians and Americans, to recapture New Guinea Island from a deeply entrenched Japanese army. The campaign involved some of the most arduous and intense fighting of the war, and all armies suffered significant casualties. The Allies ultimately prevailed through a series of dramatic water landings devised by General Douglas MacArthur.

Isaac Woodard was part of a segregated support unit during the major New Guinea maritime landing operations, and his unit took intense enemy fire and casualties as they performed critical operations. He showed solid leadership and won promotions to technician fifth grade, equivalent to the rank of corporal, and later technician fourth grade, equivalent to the rank of sergeant. He received the American Campaign Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal. As the army demobilized, Woodard was given an honorable discharge notice and traveled from Manila to the United States by troopship, arriving in New York on January 15, 1946. After transport by troop train to Camp Gordon, Georgia, he was discharged nearly a month later, on February 12.

Now, a little more than three years after joining the army, Woodard was returning home with sergeant stripes on his sleeve and battle medals on his chest. Although at five feet eight inches and 143 pounds he was not a large and imposing man, his military service as a longshoreman had left him in top physical condition. Upon discharge, he was taking the Greyhound bus from Augusta, Georgia, to Columbia, South Carolina, and ultimately to Winnsboro, the seat of Fairfield County. There he was to be reunited with his wife, Rosa Scruggs Woodard, after several years of separation.

The Greyhound bus on which Woodard traveled was mostly filled with recently demobilized soldiers still in uniform who had been discharged only hours earlier from Camp Gordon. They were in a jovial mood as the bus progressed in the darkness through the small towns on its route—first to Aiken and then to the even smaller communities of Edgefield, Johnston, Ridge Spring, and Batesburg—with black and white soldiers mixing and socializing on the bus in a manner that likely made the few white civilian passengers and the white bus driver uncomfortable.

The events that would transpire that fateful evening, both on and off the bus, would later be the subject of great dispute, but what is clear is that Sergeant Woodard displayed a degree of assertiveness and self-confidence that most southern whites were not accustomed to nor prepared to accept. According to Woodard’s later account, his troubles that evening began with an angry exchange of words with the bus driver, Alton Blackwell. Woodard stated that he approached the driver during what was to be a brief stop to ask if he could step off the bus to relieve himself. Buses during this era did not have restroom facilities, and Greyhound drivers were instructed that any request by a passenger to step off the bus should be accommodated. According to Woodard, Blackwell responded, “Hell, no. God damn it, go back and sit down. I ain’t got time to wait.” Woodard stated that he responded to the driver, “God damn it, talk to me like I am talking to you. I am a man just like you.” He stated that Blackwell then reluctantly told him to “go ahead then and hurry back.” Woodard stepped off the bus and quickly returned without further words with the driver.

Blackwell later described a distinctly different set of events in his encounter with Woodard. He claimed that his disagreement with Woodard arose initially from the soldier’s repeated requests to leave the bus to relieve himself during what were scheduled to be brief stops in various small communities. According to Blackwell, these frequent exits by Woodard put the bus behind schedule for its arrival in Columbia, where many of the passengers were making connections. Blackwell would later claim that he detected the odor of alcohol on Woodard and observed him drinking from a bottle of whiskey and then passing the bottle to a white soldier sitting next to him. As the evening progressed, Blackwell asserted that Woodard became increasingly intoxicated, profane, and disruptive. He claimed that after a white civilian passenger complained to him about Woodard’s conduct, he resolved to have the soldier removed from his bus at the next stop, which was in Batesburg, South Carolina. Apparently then unconcerned about staying on schedule, he exited the bus in search of a police officer to have Woodard removed.

Subsequent investigative interviews and sworn testimony of other passengers on the Augusta-to-Columbia bus offered conflicting accounts regarding Woodard’s behavior on the bus. Two soldiers, one black and one white, gave FBI agents sworn statements that they saw Woodard (and other soldiers) drinking on the bus, but both denied that Woodard was in any way disruptive. One civilian witness, a white woman, later stated that Woodard and a white soldier were sitting together, drinking, and “using language not becoming to a gentleman [that] should not be used in the presence of a lady.” No witness ever corroborated the bus driver’s claim that Woodard left the bus at every stop.

Batesburg was a small town of several thousand people, approximately half black and half white, nestled in the western portion of Lexington County, about thirty miles from Columbia, the state capital. It was an oddly situated town immediately adjacent to another small town and rival, Leesville, with their town business districts only approximately a hundred yards apart. As in most small southern rural communities of that era, whites controlled essentially all aspects of economic and political life, and blacks, disenfranchised and mostly impoverished, lived marginal existences and sought to avoid any conflict with the ruling white establishment.

Batesburg’s two-man police force was headed by Lynwood Shull, then 40 years old, who had served as the department’s chief for nearly eight years. Unlike two of his brothers, Shull did not serve in the military during World War II. He was five feet nine inches tall, with blue eyes and gray-streaked brown hair. He tipped the scales at well over 200 pounds and was sliding into middle-age obesity. He wore his police uniform essentially all the time, changing into a suit only for Sunday morning services at the local Methodist church. The Shull family was politically connected: Lynwood’s father had at one time served in a patronage position as supervisor of a local prison farm. Later, when an investigator from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) began looking into the Woodard incident, local African Americans privately expressed fear of the Shull family, citing incidents of excessive force by Chief Shull against black citizens and abusive actions by his father while running the prison farm.

Blackwell found Chief Shull with a younger officer, Elliot Long, sitting nearby in the town’s one patrol car. He reported that he had two soldiers, one black and one white, who were drunk and disorderly and he wanted them off his bus. The driver then climbed back onto his bus and informed Woodard he had someone who wanted to speak to him. Woodard complied, and as he exited the bus, the driver told Chief Shull that “this soldier has been making a disturbance on the bus.” As Woodard later recounted, he tried to explain to Shull his exchange with the bus driver, in which he was cursed by the driver and told to return to his seat when he asked for the opportunity to relieve himself.

Before he could complete his explanation, Woodard stated, Shull removed a baton from a side pocket, struck him across his head, and told him to “shut up.” A black soldier sitting on the bus, Lincoln Miller, later gave the FBI an affidavit stating that he observed an officer “pull a black jack out of his pocket and hit Woodard over the head with it.” A white soldier, Jennings Stroud, told the FBI he saw a policeman “hit the colored fellow a fairly good lick which did not knock him down, but seemed to show the colored fellow [his] authority.”

Shull’s statements and testimony about when he first struck Woodard with his blackjack were inconsistent and would become a focus of attention at later criminal and civil trials. In Shull’s initial interview with FBI agents, he stated he first struck Woodard with his police-issued blackjack after walking a considerable distance from the bus stop and in response to the soldier’s allegedly refusing to continue walking with him to the city jail. Later, he changed his story and admitted that he “may have” struck Woodard with his blackjack at or near the bus stop, as observed by the two soldiers interviewed by the FBI.

Law-enforcement officers during this era routinely carried blackjacks, which were baton-type weapons, generally leather, with shotgun pellets or other metal packed into the head and with a coiled-spring handle. These devices were so common that most police uniforms came with a “blackjack pocket” along the pants leg. A leather strap at the base of the blackjack allowed an officer to secure the device to his wrist. The coiled-spring handle produced tremendous energy and a whipping force in the head of the device, which from time to time resulted in devastating injuries or death when an officer struck a citizen in the face or head. In an early 1990s federal appellate court decision, the court quoted expert testimony indicating that a blow from a blackjack to the head was “potentially lethal and . . . universally prohibited.” Shull’s blackjack strike to Woodard’s head near the bus stop that February evening—variously described as a “tap,” a “punch,” and a “good lick”—immediately quieted Woodard’s efforts to explain himself.

After striking Woodard in the head, Shull placed the sergeant under arrest and began escorting him to the town jail several blocks away. To secure him, Shull twisted Woodard’s arm behind his back and pushed him down one of Batesburg’s main streets, Railroad Avenue, and then right onto Granite Street to the jail. Shull left his other officer, Elliot Long, to question the supposedly drunk and disorderly white passenger, whom the driver was never able to reliably identify.

As the police chief and the soldier proceeded toward the town jail and out of sight, Woodard reported that Shull asked him whether he was discharged from the army. Woodard said that when he replied “yes,” Shull immediately struck him again on the head with the blackjack. The correct answer, Shull informed the soldier, was “yes, sir.” Woodard responded by grabbing the blackjack from Shull and wrenching it away. At that moment, in Woodard’s telling, Officer Long appeared with his gun drawn. Drop your weapon, he told Woodard—or “I will drop you.”

Woodard reported that when he complied with Long’s directive and allowed the blackjack to fall to the ground, Shull retrieved it and began to angrily beat him in the head and face. Woodard stated that he lost consciousness and lay on the ground for an unknown period of time. When he came to, Shull instructed him to stand up. As Woodard struggled to his feet, he reported, Shull struck him violently and repeatedly in one eye, and then the other, with the end of the blackjack, driving the baton “into my eyeballs.” The force used by Shull was so great that it broke his blackjack. Woodard stated he was then dragged into the town jail and placed in a cell, where he was the only prisoner present. Shortly thereafter, Shull and Long left for the evening, with Woodard in a semiconscious haze.

In his various statements and trial testimony, Shull denied beating Woodard repeatedly with his blackjack or driving the end of the weapon into his eyes but offered varied accounts regarding the number of times he struck him, the location where the strikes occurred, and the circumstances leading to the use of the blackjack. When first confronted about the incident by an Associated Press reporter, Shull stated that the soldier attempted to take his blackjack and he “cracked him across the head.” In his initial FBI interview, Shull claimed that he “bumped” Woodard with the baton after he refused to continue walking to the city jail. He claimed that after this “bump” with the blackjack, Woodard tried to wrench the weapon from his hand and, in self-defense, he struck Woodard a single time in the face with the blackjack.

Later, Shull stated that while they were walking to the jail, Woodard “suddenly grabbed” the blackjack without any provocation, and he struck Woodard with the weapon once in self-defense. When confronted with these inconsistencies under cross-examination, Shull admitted he might have struck Woodard with his blackjack on three occasions: at the bus stop, while walking to the jail, and when Woodard attempted to take the blackjack from him.

Shull denied that he beat Woodard into unconsciousness and left him dazed in the town jail overnight. Instead, he claimed that after striking Woodard with his blackjack one time outside the jail, he was able to move the soldier into a cell without further incident. He stated that Woodard voiced no complaints that evening about his eyes and was in good health when Shull left the jail. He also denied that Officer Long was present for any of his altercation with Woodard, which Long affirmed.

When Woodard woke the next morning, he could not see. He had been awakened by Shull, who informed him he was due in city court that morning. This presented several practical problems. Woodard reported he was unable to see and needed assistance to move from one place to another. Further, the brutal beating of the night before had left his face covered with dried blood, which he could not see or remove without help. Shull led Woodard to the sink and cleaned him up for his court appearance. Then, said Woodard, Shull guided him to the city court to face a charge of drunk and disorderly conduct.

Woodard’s case was called by the Batesburg town judge, H. E. Quarles, who also served as the town’s mayor. Woodard attempted to explain to the judge the circumstances that had led to his conflict with the bus driver and with Chief Shull. Shull stepped in to inform Quarles that Woodard had attempted to take his blackjack on the way to the jail. Quarles responded by stating that “we don’t have that kind of stuff down here” and promptly found Woodard guilty. Woodard was given a fine of $50.00 or “30 days hard labor on the road.” He attempted to locate the money to pay the fine but had only $44.00 in cash and a check from the army for mustering-out pay of $694.73. According to Woodard, he wanted to endorse the check to pay the fine but was incapable of doing so because “I had never tried to sign my name without seeing.” The judge ultimately agreed to suspend the balance of the fine and accept payment of $44.00.

Shull’s account of the morning differed. He denied that Woodard said he could not see, although one eye appeared “swelled practically shut” and the other was “puffed.” He claimed Woodard was able to negotiate himself over to the city court without assistance and could see sufficiently to count out the money in his pocket. According to Shull, when his case was called, Woodard stated he was guilty and “guessed he had too much to drink.” Judge Quarles would later testify that Woodard was able to see while in the city court that morning and that he pleaded guilty to the charge of drunk and disorderly conduct. Later medical evaluations of Woodard’s eye injuries made Shull’s and Quarles’s claims that Woodard could see that morning implausible if not medically impossible.

With his court hearing completed and having paid the fine, Woodard was free to go. But according to Woodard, he was blind and incapable of navigating independently. He returned to the jail to lie down on a cot, telling Shull he felt ill. Shull attempted to locate the town physician, W. W. King, to see Woodard but was told the doctor was on a house call. Confronted with a prisoner who claimed he could not see as a result of traumatic injuries, and unable to obtain the assistance of a physician, Shull seemed at a loss for what to do next. One account had him repeatedly pouring water on Woodard’s eyes and asking after each application, “Can you see yet?” Shull testified he went to the town pharmacist for advice and was told to apply eyewash and warm towels until King arrived. He followed this advice, but Woodard did not improve.

King showed up later that afternoon. He found both of Woodard’s eyes “badly swollen,” and when he opened the lids, “there was an escape of bloody fluid.” Although he prepared no medical record of his examination, he later testified that Woodard’s injuries were confined exclusively to his eyes, with swelling only over the eyelids and nose. He concluded that Woodard “had serious damage to both eyes” and “was badly in need of a specialist.” He recommended that Shull immediately transport Woodard to the Veterans Administration Hospital in Columbia, some 30 miles away. In compliance with King’s instructions, Shull loaded Woodard into the town’s police vehicle and drove him to the VA Hospital, telling the on-call physician that evening that Woodard had suffered his injuries as a result of an encounter with a police officer after being arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct.

Woodard was initially evaluated by the medical officer on duty, Major Albert Eaddy, who had trained as a psychiatrist. Eaddy immediately appreciated that Woodard’s condition was wholly beyond his expertise. Because the VA Hospital had no eye specialist, he summoned the ear, nose, and throat specialist, Captain Arthur Clancy, to Woodard’s bedside. Clancy observed that both of Woodard’s eyelids were black and blue and swollen, and there was massive hemorrhaging inside each eye. He was then able to determine that Woodard’s right cornea was lacerated. He did not note any other injuries that were visible in that initial examination. He would later diagnose Woodard with a rupture of his right globe and massive intraocular hemorrhaging to both eyes. He also indicated that Woodard’s remaining vision was “nil” and that there was no available treatment for his condition.

Woodard was seen the following morning, February 14, by Dr. Mortimer Burger, an internist, who conducted a full physical examination. Burger documented a history of Woodard’s having been beaten on the head by a police officer and knocked unconscious. He noted that Woodard’s eyelids were moderately swollen and tender, with a thick coat of pus and bloody material. When he pulled back the soldier’s eyelids, he observed hemorrhaging of the eyeballs. He also documented the presence of dried blood over Woodard’s right ear and swelling on the forehead and on the upper portions of his cheek. He noted that there was swelling over the nose but no gross deformities; a skull X-ray confirmed the absence of any fracture to the nose. Thus, Burger’s initial examination suggested that Woodard had suffered facial and head trauma greater than would be expected from a single strike by a blackjack. Because Woodard had bilateral blindness and lacked any fracture of the facial or nasal bones, a fair question was how Woodard could have been blinded in both eyes from a single strike of a blackjack.

Woodard remained at the VA Hospital for the next two months and was treated with antibiotics and other medications related to the traumatic injuries to his eyes. There was no treatment offered or recommended that would restore his vision. Upon his discharge on April 13, Woodard was diagnosed with bilateral phthisis bulbi “secondary to trauma,” which meant he had two shrunken, nonfunctioning eyes as a result of his encounter in Batesburg. The VA physicians determined that he was totally and permanently blind, unable to discern light sufficiently to tell when a 60-watt bulb was on or off. Woodard’s discharging doctors offered him no hope for future treatment and could only recommend that he attend a school for the blind.

While Woodard was hospitalized, VA staff applied for VA disability benefits on his behalf. But there was a major complication: Woodard had been discharged around 5 pm from Camp Gordon, Georgia, approximately five hours before suffering his disabling injury. Although he was still in uniform and had not yet reached home, VA rules at the time disqualified him from full benefits and limited him to partial disability benefits of $50 per month. (This denial of full pension benefits would later become highly controversial but would not be rectified for more than 15 years, when Congress finally amended the law to allow full service-related disability for a soldier who suffered a disabling injury while traveling home after discharge from the military.)

As Woodard convalesced in the VA Hospital, his wife, Rosa, then living in Winnsboro, showed little interest in continuing their relationship. According to a Woodard family member, Rosa did not look forward to a future life with a disabled husband. Like many southern black families, Woodard’s parents and siblings had moved north during the war in search of greater economic opportunities, and the entire family now resided together in New York City. When Woodard was finally discharged from the hospital, two of his sisters traveled to South Carolina to gather up their blinded brother and bring him to the new family home at 1100 Franklin Avenue in the Bronx.

Life was a struggle for Woodard. He complained to his mother, “My head feels like it’s going to burst [and] my eyes ache.” He fumbled around the home, having no training for independent living as a blind person. His mother prayed nightly for some relief for her son, lamenting that a loss of a leg or arm would have been less devastating than the loss of sight.

The Woodard family resolved to seek specialized evaluation and treatment in the newly emerging field of ophthalmology to determine if there was any potential treatment for Isaac. Dr. Chester Chinn, America’s first African American ophthalmologist, examined Woodard in his Manhattan office on April 25, 1946. He determined that the structural injuries to Woodard’s eyes were more extensive than diagnosed by the VA physicians, finding that Woodard had suffered traumatic ruptures of both globes. This made any prospect for recovery essentially nonexistent. Chinn also diagnosed Woodard with “bilateral phthisis bulbi of traumatic origin” and rated his prognosis “hopeless.” For Sergeant Isaac Woodard, now twenty-seven, blinded, unemployed, abandoned by his wife, and limited to a VA pension below subsistence level, “hopeless” might have seemed an apt prognosis of his life ahead. ###

[Richard Gergel is the US District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.He was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2010. He is the author of Unexampled Courage: The Blinding of Sgt. Isaac Woodard and the Awakening of President Harry S. Truman and Judge J. Waties Waring (2019). Gergel received a BA, summa cum laude (history) and a JD from the Duke University School of Law.]

Copyright © 2019 Literary Hub



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2019 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Roll Over, Rob Reiner — Make Way For "When The HA (Horse's A$$) Met 'Madame Clap-Back' (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi)"

Even now, if you laughed at an old "Roadrunner cartoon, today's post characterizes the HA (Horse's A$$) in the Oval Office as Wile E. Coyote and House Speaker Nacy Pelosi as the Roadrunner. During the delayed SOTU address earlier this month, in a moment, the House Speaker became the Roadrunner and below her at the House rostrum stood a Coyote in the virtual path of a visual anvil. If this is (fair & balanced) comic deconstruction of a political naïf, so be it.

PS: Below, toward the close of the essay in the paragraph beginning "Pelosi's clap ate...," there is a link to the SNL skit ("Women of Congress") that is LOL-funny.

[x NY Fishwrap 'Zine]
The Meaning of the Scene: When Pelosi Clapped At Trump
By Wesley Morris


TagCrowd Cloud of the following piece of writing

created at TagCrowd.com

Animated image by Chip Sommodevilla/Getty Images

It should go without saying that our national health relies on a grown-up relationship between the president and the speaker of the House. But Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi are more like the Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner of American politics, our Karen and Jack, our Alexis Carrington and Dominique Deveraux, our Ren and Stimpy. She has been speaker for roughly two months of his presidency, but it’s as if they’ve been on the Cartoon Network for 20 years. He tries to drop an anvil on her. She lures him over a cliff. We care about the nation’s health, but we seem to enjoy the anvil business even more.

Look at the visual highlight of the State of the Union address. It’s only a few seconds long — Trump turning to absorb Pelosi’s smirking spin on a routine stand-and-clap — but it proved more noteworthy than the hour-plus of speechifying. It comes at about eight minutes in. The president’s on an alliterative high, talking about rejecting the “politics of revenge, resistance and retribution.” When he gets to the part about embracing “the boundless potential of cooperation, compromise and the common good,” the room erupts in approval.

But something tells Trump to turn around. He rotates toward Pelosi, who has thus far been clapping tepidly, here and there, when not inspecting her paper copy of the speech the way people search certain restaurant menus for something they can eat. What Trump glimpses is stranger and more pointed than Pelosi’s previous handwork. Now she is extending her arms all the way out, toward him, applauding him the way you might applaud a little kid who wants credit for behavior that warrants none or a dad proudly announcing that he has finally changed a single diaper.

I watched the speech on C-SPAN, where it wasn’t so remarkable in the moment. Mike Pence’s unbreakable gaze at the back of the president’s head was actually more striking. The instant Pelosi extended her arms, the C-SPAN feed cut to the Democratic women of the House, presumably looking for another puckered expression from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose face suggested the whole night was one long lemon. The networks were trying their best to make lemonade out of that.

But within minutes, the internet had mined gold from that brief shot of Pelosi: elbows bent, palms together, arms extended — aimed. What turned the image truly infectious was the tilt of her head into her body, the rictus of hauteur. This was somebody feeling herself. Her eyes were meeting the president’s, and her arms appeared to be transferring, conveying, zapping something at — or into — him. The most powerful woman in American politics appeared to be laser-beaming the most powerful man, one who really does seem bedeviled by her grasp of the game of being political. In this micromoment — which omits his haplessly mouthing “thank you” to her, and the smirk releasing into a smile — he still seems, what, zung?

Political speeches might strive to nourish us, but lately nobody wants a salad; this president got where he is by slinging red meat. Trump could talk about comity and unity this time, but if you were watching his speech, you were also watching television — a dramatically ripe encounter between two people who had just faced off over a historic, harmfully long government shutdown, and over whether this speech could happen in the first place. You would have wanted a moment that captured the conflict hiding behind the pleas for civility — an emblem of the anomie sizzling beneath the surface of most politics at the moment. Something small and arguable and maybe a little bit beneath us that alluded to the stratospheric stakes of the discord. And this woman, clapping at this man, was the reddest meat. It was an image that registered on the Richter scale of beef.

The internet is great at rooting out, freeze-framing then fan-ficking this kind of interpersonal drama. It has become downright masterful during the Trump era: the meme-ing of his appearing to stalk Hillary Clinton during a presidential debate, of Melania swatting his hand away. It’s a terrible way of following politics. But it might be the only sane mechanism for digesting the politics we have — as must-share TV.

Pelosi’s clap ate both the internet and the national news, which ran endless stories parsing its meaning. Pelosi’s daughter Christine offered an interpretation: “She knows,” she tweeted, “and she knows that you know. And frankly she’s disappointed that you thought this would work. But here’s a clap. #youtriedit.” The clap became all things to lots of people. Most of them supposed some kind of triumph for Pelosi and humiliation for Trump. The clap was seen as loaded and self-amused and captivatingly sardonic. “Saturday Night Live” whipped up a 1970s-era action-TV sketch called “Women of Congress,” in which Pelosi was identified as “Madame Clap Back.” At a Grammys-weekend celebration for Dolly Parton, Pelosi herself stood between Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom, who got her to do the clap with them. It’s possible that was the moment when the image started eating itself.

Most of the clapping at a political address is obnoxious for the way it disrupts any kind of oratorical rhythm and for its partisan clinginess. Pelosi’s clapping might have been obnoxious, too, but it was also piquant, rather than fawning or confused. She was adding some static to all that cling. The next day she denied any perceived sarcasm. “Look at what I was applauding,” she told reporters about the president’s call for cooperation and compromise. “I wanted him to know that it was very welcomed.” What a wonderfully slick deflection. You might wryly applaud your boo for changing that diaper, but that’s behavior you also wholeheartedly endorse.

The naughtiness of the gesture is what made it popular. And maybe, given decades of popular music built out of hand claps, what made it a hit was that it was a clap at all. Pelosi’s particular method — her arms out in front of her — struck me as instantly familiar. I didn’t grow up in the church, but I went often enough to remember a clap like that. It’s not the sort of plain old clapping a choir does in time with a song or even the kind a choir does against the beat (a gospel clap). Those you can do the regular way, with your elbows bent.

I’m talking about a clap you do with your elbows almost locked, that’s pointed at somebody in the room. That’s what you see the Southern California Community Choir doing at Aretha Franklin in “Amazing Grace,” the documentary of her live recording of her best-selling gospel album. Franklin is in the middle of “Climbing Higher Mountains,” poised between the church congregants and the choir. As she’s belting, the choir long-claps her in a way that says: We see you. I suppose that’s what Pelosi was saying, in a very different way, during the State of the Union: I see you trolling me. The choir’s clap was pious. Hers was triumphantly petty, another lure off a cliff. But look up: The forecast calls for anvils. ###

[Wesley Morris is a critic-at-large for the NY Fshwrap. He came to the Times in 2015 from Grantland where he wrote about film, fashion, and music. Morris spent 10 years at The Boston Globe, where he won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. Morris received a BA (film studies and literature) from Yale University (CT).]

Copyright  2019 The New York Times Company



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2019 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Tuesday, February 26, 2019

Welcome To Ye Olde Blog-Apothecary — Here Is Today's ℞ For Ennui During Our Dismal Days: Read (Or Re-Read) These 12 Books

This blogger almost used a title for this post that paraphrased Hamlet — "Get Thee To a -Nunnery- Library" but merciful reconsideration occurred and the apothecary trope won out. John Shaw has made sensible and sober suggestions for alternatives to the media yammering from both sides of the national divide. Turn off the TV and read! If this is (fair & balanced) good counsel in the worst time in our history (or next to it), so be it.

PS: The links below offer the e-reader version of most of the selected books: less costly and do not require additional bookshelf space.

[x HNN]
A Dozen Books To Help Weather The Political Storm
By John T. Shaw


TagCrowd Cloud of the following piece of writing

created at TagCrowd.com

This is already shaping up to be extraordinary year in the United States. The country is deeply polarized and it is quite possible that Robert Mueller’s investigation of President Donald Trump could ignite a political and constitutional crisis. The endless barrage of tweets, newspaper headlines, and “Breaking News” bulletins on cable television has an exhausting and disorienting effect. It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish the important from the mundane, the consequential from the sensational.

During a recent talk to a group of retirees in Carbondale, Illinois I was asked how to navigate this tense and fraught time. I surprised myself when I urged them to turn away from their televisions (particularly the partisan cable offerings) and toward books. Specifically, books that would allow them to see our country’s political traditions in a fuller and more nuanced way and to provide context to evaluate future choices. I suggested they read a balanced biography of a leader of the party they affiliate with and an equally balanced biography of a member of the opposing party.

I’m a journalist, historian, and the director of a public policy research institute that is affiliated with a public university. As a dedicated and dogged reader of non-fiction I propose a dozen political books that can guide us through this gathering political storm.

Let me begin with several caveats. I am not arguing that the following are “the best,” the “most impactful,” or the “most inspiring” books in American history. Nor am I positing that these twelve books provide a comprehensive and coherent framework to view American political life. They reflect my personal preference for history and biography and do not include works of sociology, psychology, spirituality, or literature, all of which also offer critical perspectives that are relevant for this turbulent time.

I believe these books tell important stories, introduce us to consequential people from our past, describe our best traditions, and demonstrate that positive change is possible but often only after years of hard work and frequent setbacks. They exemplify the fact that America is a creative, and sometimes chaotic, country that tends to get things right, but often only after perplexing and disappointing detours.

Twelve books that can help us weather the coming political storm:

1. A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution by Carol Berkin, 2002.

Berkin is a professor of American history at the City University of New York and Baruch College. Her book describes how an effort to fix the Articles of Confederation morphed into a negotiation that resulted in a new Constitution. A Brilliant Solution chronicles how chaotic and fiercely contested the drafting of this document was. Nothing was certain when the 1787 Constitutional Convention began in Philadelphia, and failure was a distinct possibility. Deep divisions persisted between those who supported a strong federal government and those who wanted the states to retain substantial powers. The final Constitution was an elegant compromise that emerged from a messy and unpredictable process. Berkin also argues that the subsequent battle for ratification was a hard-fought endeavor that could easily have failed. She makes it clear that not everything in the Constitution has worked out as the founders intended. For example, they were determined to create a government in which the legislative branch was more powerful than the executive. This was once the case but clearly no longer is. The founders feared a powerful executive and worried that a tyrant might one day govern the nation. Thus they took care to create procedures for removing such a person from the presidency. “The founding fathers did not expect their constitution to endure for centuries,” Berkin concludes. “They could not predict the social, economic, or technological changes produced by the generations that followed them. Perhaps their ultimate wisdom, and their ultimate achievement, was their willingness to subject the Constitution they created to amendment. With this gesture—a true leap of faith—they freed future generations from the icy grip of the past.”

2. Eisenhower in War and Peace by Jean Edward Smith, 2012.

Dwight Eisenhower was a solid but unspectacular West Point graduate from America’s Heartland who grew into a world-class military leader, helped win World War II, and served two terms as the president of the United States. Smith, one of America’s pre-eminent biographers and historians, depicts Eisenhower as a man of decency, force, intelligence, moderation and competence. He argues that except for Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower was the most successful president of the 20>sup>th century. Smith credits Ike for ending a three-year stalemated war in Korea, resisting calls for preventive war against the Soviet Union and China, deploying the Seventh Fleet to protect Formosa (Taiwan) from invasion, facing down Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over Berlin, moving the Republican party from its isolationist past, balancing the federal budget, and building the interstate highway system. He argues that Eisenhower understood the demands of leadership although he often concealed his political acumen. “All of his life Eisenhower managed crises without overreacting. He made every task he undertook look easy. Ike’s military experience taught him that an outward display of casualness inspired confidence, and he took that lesson into the White House,” Smith writes.

3. Truman by David McCullough, 1992.

This Pulitzer Prize-winning biography by one of America’s most popular writers introduced President Harry Truman to a generation of Americans. Few stories are more remarkable than Truman’s maturation from a mostly obscure senator to a mostly obscure vice president to a magnificent president. Following the death of Franklin Roosevelt, Truman became Commander in Chief in 1945, a critical time in American history. He confronted the sternest challenges imaginable and handled them successfully. Truman built the foundation for the United States and the West to eventually win the Cold War with the Marshall Plan, NATO, and the US national security apparatus which includes the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and the CIA. Truman was the first president to recommend that Congress take action on civil rights. He also is remembered for desegregating the armed forces. “Ambitious by nature, he was never torn by ambition, never tried to appear as something he was not,” McCullough writes of Truman. “He stood for common sense, common decency. He spoke the common tongue. As much as any president since Lincoln, he brought to the highest office the language and values of the common American people. He held to the old guidelines: work hard, do your best, assume no airs, trust in God, have no fear. Yet he was not and had never been a simple, ordinary man. The homely attributes, the Missouri wit, the warmth of his friendship, the genuineness of Harry Truman, however appealing, were outweighed by the larger qualities that made him a figure of world stature, both a great and good man, and a great American president.”

4. The China Mission: George Marshall’s Unfinished War, 1945-1947 by Daniel Kurtz-Phelan, 2018

George Marshall was a quiet giant in American history. He served as the Army chief of staff who organized the American victory in World War II and later as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense under Truman. He also won the Nobel Peace Prize. Truman called him “the greatest military man this country ever produced--or any other country produced.” Time magazine named him “Man of the Year” in January of 1948 and wrote that Americans “trust General Marshal more than they have trusted any military man since George Washington.” The China Mission chronicles Marshall’s impossible quest to broker an agreement between China’s warring communist and nationalist forces. Even in failure, Marshall emerges as honorable, creative, and devoted to duty. Kurtz-Phelan, executive editor of Foreign Affairs, offers a meticulous account of Marshall’s diplomacy as he tried to forge a peace deal between two sides, who ultimately did not want an agreement. “It is a story not of possibility and ambition, but of limits and restraint; not of a victory achieved at any cost, but of a kind of failure ultimately accepted as the best of terrible options,” Kurtz-Phelan writes. “Marshall came away with a more limited sense of America’s place in the story. A master of self-control, here he came to terms with what could not be controlled…Yet that did not mean settling into fatalism. Marshall also returned home with a deeper sense of what it would take to succeed in the larger struggle just beginning.” Kurtz-Phelan portrays Marshall as a remarkable man who was respected “not so much for brilliance of insight as quality of judgment.”

5. Lincoln by David Herbert Donald, 1995.

Abraham Lincoln remains the most towering figure in American political life and our archetypal statesman. Donald, a revered Lincoln scholar and biographer, shows Lincoln’s large spirit, clear intelligence, implacable will, and deep humanity. He describes Lincoln’s striking and inspiring capacity for growth, which enabled one of the least experienced and most poorly prepared men ever elected to high office to become America’s greatest president. Donald sees Lincoln as a man of ambition, vision, and tactical shrewdness. “The pilots on our Western rivers steer from point to point as they call it—setting the course of the boat no farther than they can see and that is all I propose to myself in this great problem,” Lincoln once told a lawmaker who asked about the president’s post Civil War plans for the United States. Donald does not shy away from Lincoln’s flaws such as his sometimes passive and reactive approach to problems. “I claim not to have controlled events but confess plainly that events have controlled me,” Lincoln once acknowledged. However, Lincoln’s wisdom, decency, vision, and persistence ultimately prevailed. Few nations can claim a leader of Lincoln’s stature as part of their historical inheritance.

6. The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, and the Struggle for Civil Rights by Robert Mann, 1996.

Mann, a former Senate aide, offers a compelling account of the struggle to enact civil rights legislation, from the bitterly divisive 1948 Democratic Convention when three dozen Southern delegates walked out over the issue of Civil Rights, to the passage of historic legislation in the 1960’s. Years of stalemate, failure, and small advances preceded the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mann hones in on three of the dominant players in this drama: Senator Hubert Humphrey, a passionate and relentless advocate for sweeping civil rights legislation, Senator Richard Russell, a fierce, formidable opponent and segregationist, and Lyndon Johnson, the senator and then president who helped secure the critical legislative victories. Mann details Russell’s unrelenting battle to defeat civil rights initiatives but also makes the important point that once civil rights legislation became the law of the land, Russell implored all Americans to respect these laws. “I have no apologies to anyone for the fight I made. I only regret that we did not prevail. But these statutes are now on the books, and it becomes our duty as good citizens to live with them,” Russell said. Mann argues that passing civil rights and voting rights legislation was important, but they were just a first step. “The easy part was over,” he writes. “Congress had finally enacted powerful legislation to guarantee the civil and voting rights of all black Americans. Enforcing those new rights would be difficult, but not as daunting as the task of creating and nurturing an economic and social environment in which black citizens could achieve the American dream of economic independence and prosperity.”

7. The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America’s Great Migration by Isabel Wilkerson, 2010.

Wilkerson, a former New York Times reporter and journalism professor, chronicles the historic migration of millions of African-Americans from the South to the Midwest, the Northeast, and the West between 1915 and 1970. “Over the course of six decades, some six million black southerners left the land of their forefathers and fanned across the country for an uncertain existence in nearly every other corner of America,” Wilkerson writes. “The Great Migration would become a turning point in history. It would transform urban America and recast the social and political order of every city it touched. It would force the South to search its soul and finally to lay aside a feudal caste system.” Wilkerson focuses on three people who illuminate this larger drama: Ida Mae Brandon Gladney, the wife of a sharecropper who moved from Mississippi to Chicago in the 1930s; George Swanson Starling, a laborer who left Florida in the 1940s for New York City; and Robert Joseph Pershing Foster, a doctor who departed Louisiana in the early 1950s for Los Angeles. Their stories highlight this critical demographic event in American life and also offer inspiring examples of resilience. The Warmth of Other Suns provides a strong complement to The Walls of Jericho. Wilkerson’ sprotagonists benefited from civil rights and voting rights legislation, but also endured discrimination and employment challenges. “Over the decades, perhaps the wrong questions have been asked about the Great Migration,” Wilkerson concludes. “Perhaps it is not a question of whether the migrants brought good or ill to the cities they fled to or were pushed or pulled to their destinations, but a question of how they summoned the courage to leave in the first place or how they found the will to press beyond the forces against them and the faith in the country that had rejected them for so long. By their actions, they did not dream the American Dream, they willed it into being by a definition of their own choosing.”

8. The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam by Barbara W. Tuchman, 1984.

Tuchman was one of America’s great narrative historians and in this book she explores why governments throughout history have so often acted in ways that have been harmful to their own interests. She examines four episodes: the Trojan decision to accept a Greek horse into its city, the failure of six Renaissance popes to effectively deal with the Reformation, King George III’s mistakes that fueled the American Revolution, and America’s debacle in Vietnam. Tuchman argues that in all of these cases, leaders were warned against their courses of action, they had feasible alternatives, and critical mistakes were made by groups not just one misguided person. “A phenomenon noticeable throughout history regardless of place or period is the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests. Mankind, it seems, makes a poorer performance of government than of almost any other human activity,” Tuchman writes. “Why do holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggests? Why does intelligent mental process seem so often not to function?” Tuchman does not find clear answers to her questions, but observes that self-deception “is a factor that plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs.” Some critics have challenged Tuchman’s use of four very different historical examples as well as her definition of governmental folly but she raises profound questions that resonate today. Tuchman’s final chapter, “America Betrays Herself in Vietnam” is sobering, especially given that the disastrous experience and outcome did not lead to clearer thinking by policymakers when they launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

9. Diversifying Diplomacy: My Journey from Roxbury to Dakar by Harriet Lee Elam-Thomas with Jim Robinson, 2017.

Harriet Lee Elam-Thomas grew up in Boston, studied at Simmons College and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and had a rich and consequential career as an American diplomat. She represented the United States in Senegal, Cote D’Ivoire, Mali, Athens, Brussels, and Istanbul. In her inspiring and deeply evocative memoir, Elam-Thomas describes the promise of America and the challenge of being an African-American woman diplomat. “Whenever I encountered colleagues in diplomat settings, there were usually men. I saw very few women—and even fewer women of color. Wearing a skirt in the Foreign Service was ten times more difficult than having brown skin. Few of my colleagues looked like me. Although I do not profess to have been an effective diplomat because of my race, ethnicity or gender, I believe these elements of my persona paid dividends. Though I thoroughly prepared for each new assignment, I am certain the key to making a contribution toward a credible articulation of US foreign policy was the fact that I had the opportunity to serve and felt included. Without inclusion, all of the lip service to diversity would have been suspect,” she writes. Elam-Thomas argues that the example the United States offers, and the respect she extends, to other countries is a deeply powerful force. American diplomats are most effective when they are culturally sensitive and modest. “The best leaders are sincere and humble,” she writes. “Real leadership has to do with integrity and performance; neither one can take a holiday. They reflect on your character and soul.”

10. The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, 1932-1972 by William Manchester, 1974.

Manchester, a skilled journalist and historian, chronicles life in the United States from the Hoover and the Depression to Nixon and Watergate. This narrative largely focuses on the politics of this era but includes memorable descriptions of American life from the 30s through the 60s. We learn about the books people read, the clothes they wore, the movies they watched, the music they listened to, trips they took, the celebrities they followed, the companies they worked for, the churches they attended, and the cultural fads that influenced their lives. The Glory and the Dream is a vivid and nostalgic journey through important decades in American history. It transports you back in time, while also raising larger issues about the country. “Change is a constant theme in the American past,” he writes. “The United States is the only nation in the world to worship change for its own sake and to regard change and progress as indistinguishable.” Manchester also detects a periodic “yearning to renounce the present and find restoration in the unconsummated past.”

11. These Truths: A History of the United States by Jill Lepore, 2018.

A professor at Harvard and staff writer for the New Yorker, Lepore tells the story of the United States from Christopher Columbus to Donald Trump. These Truths is packed with broad assessments, fascinating vignettes, compelling sketches, and provocative questions. She believes the American experience can be understood by exploring three phrases, which Thomas Jefferson referred to as “these truths” - political equality, natural rights, and the sovereignty of the people. “The roots of these ideas are as ancient as Aristotle and as old as Genesis and their branches spread as wide as the limbs of an oak,” Lepore writes. “But they are the nation’s founding principles: it was by declaring them that that the nation came to be. In the centuries since, these principles have been cherished, decried, and contested, fought for, fought over, fought against.” She believes that it is important for Americans to understand the full sweep of their nation’s history and appreciate the country’s successes, failures, accomplishments, and inconsistencies. “There is, to be sure, a great deal of anguish in American history and more hypocrisy. No nation and no people are relieved of these. But there is also, in the American past, an extraordinary amount of decency and hope, of prosperity and ambition, and much, especially, of invention and beauty.... The past is an inheritance, a gift and a burden. It can’t be shirked. You carry it everywhere. There’s nothing for it but to get to know it,” writes Lepore.

12. Dangerous Games: The Uses and Abuses of History by Margaret MacMillan, 2008.

A professor of history at the University of Toronto, MacMillan has written popular and highly regarded books on the Versailles Peace Conference of 1919, the British Raj, World War I, and Richard Nixon’s 1972 trip to China. In Dangerous Games, MacMillan argues that history should be read, studied, and savored. But it should be used cautiously when considering public policy. Examining the past is useful and sometimes edifying, she posits, but it does not provide a prescription for navigating the present or predicting future. Studying history allows you to delve into complex situations, evaluate leaders, and render informed judgments. It encourages you to ask hard questions, study evidence, and probe assumptions. “If the study of history does nothing more than teach us humility, skepticism, and awareness of ourselves, then it has done something useful,” she writes. MacMillan is concerned that some people, either through malice or sloppiness, use history in ways that are harmful. She believes, “History can be helpful; it can also be very dangerous. Sometimes we abuse history, creating one-sided or false histories to justify treating others badly, seizing their land, for example, or killing them. There are also many lessons and much advice offered by history, and it is easy to pick and choose what you want. The past can be used for almost anything you want to do in the present.”

In addition to the specific merits of each of these books the discipline of serious reading helps us slow down, think more carefully, weigh evidence, and respect - and expect - careful argument. I acknowledge that these dozen books will not provide a clear guide to our current challenges. They do, however, offer wonderful stories and introduce us to remarkable people, many who were important, not famous. They remind us that America has endured much and accomplished great things and reinforce the fact that both parties have honorable traditions and have been led by impressive people. Great successes have often occurred when ordinary people have acted responsibly, fairly, and with an eye to the future. We owe it to them to conduct ourselves honorably in these trying times and with concern for those who will come after us. ###

[John T. Shaw is the director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. His books include Rising Star, Setting Sun: Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and the Presidential Transition that Changed America (2018), JFK in the Senate: Pathway to the Presidency (2013), and Richard G. Lugar, Statesman of the Senate: Crafting Foreign Policy from Capitol Hill (2012). Shaw received a BA (political science) from Knox College (IL) and an MA (history) from the University of New South Wales (AU).]

Copyright © 2019 History News Network



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2019 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Monday, February 25, 2019

Roll Over, Joseph Smith — Is It Possible That A Vision Spawned Another Movement In the Empire State?

With the e-mail that brought today' 'toon to Ye Olde In Box, Tom/Dan wrote:

Hey all,

Had to wrap this cartoon up in the middle of last week, due to a big project I was taking part in that I can’t tell you about for awhile. (It’s interesting, but nothing huge, I’m not teasing a new TV deal or something.)

And then as soon as I wrapped that up, another random and irresistible thing came up that I had to spend some serious time focused on.

Sorry to be so oblique, I’ll explain all of this at some later date. The point is, it’s Sunday and man am I exhausted. What is this “time off” of which people speak?

Until next week, my friends…

Dan/Tom

So, with a cryptic 'toon, we get a cryptic message from the 'toonist accompanying an account of a cryptic vision experience in the tRump Tower in June 2015. The HA (Horse's A$$) might have taken a vision experience.that animated a religious movement in the mid-19th religious movement in the same direction nearly 200 years later in tRump Tower. If this is a (fair & balanced) example of virtual historical equivalency, so be it.

[x TMW]
The Traveler
By Tom Tomorrow (Dan Perkins)


Tom Tomorrow/Dan Perkins

[Dan Perkins is an editorial cartoonist better known by the pen name "Tom Tomorrow." His weekly comic strip, "This Modern World," which comments on current events from a strong liberal perspective, appears regularly in approximately 150 papers across the U.S., as well as on Daily Kos. The strip debuted in 1990 in SF Weekly. Perkins received the Robert F. Kennedy Award for Excellence in Journalism in both 1998 and 2002. When he is not working on projects related to his comic strip, Perkins writes a daily political blog, also entitled "This Modern World," which he began in December 2001. More recently, Dan Perkins, pen name Tom Tomorrow, was named the winner of the 2013 Herblock Prize for editorial cartooning. Even more recently, Dan Perkins was a runner-up for the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning.]

Copyright © 2019 This Modern World/Tom Tomorrow (Dan Perkins)



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2019 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Sunday, February 24, 2019

All Those Famous Last Words Were Likely Just Gasps & Moans... Or Imagined By The Living

As this blogger ages, he finds little charm in life that is bedevilled by the need to swallow 9 pills a day to keep the doctor away because the blogger has refused to allow invasive procedures to prolong (groan) his life. So, instead it's four pills or capsules in the AM and five pills or capsules in the PM rhat the blogger shakes out of the bottles aligned on his kitchen counter. If this is (fair & balanced) morbidity, so be it.

[x The Atlantic]
What People Actually Say Before They Die
By Michael Erard


TagCrowd Cloud of the following piece of writing

created at TagCrowd.com

Mort Felix liked to say that his name, when read as two Latin words, meant “happy death.” When he was sick with the flu, he used to jokingly remind his wife, Susan, that he wanted Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” played at his deathbed. But when his life’s end arrived at the age of 77, he lay in his study in his Berkeley, California, home, his body besieged by cancer and his consciousness cradled in morphine, uninterested in music and refusing food as he dwindled away over three weeks in 2012. “Enough,” he told Susan. “Thank you, and I love you, and enough.” When she came downstairs the next morning, she found Felix dead.

During those three weeks, Felix had talked. He was a clinical psychologist who had also spent a lifetime writing poetry, and though his end-of-life speech often didn’t make sense, it seemed to draw from his attention to language. “There’s so much so in sorrow,” he said at one point. “Let me down from here,” he said at another. “I’ve lost my modality.” To the surprise of his family members, the lifelong atheist also began hallucinating angels and complaining about the crowded room—even though no one was there.

Felix’s 53-year-old daughter, Lisa Smartt, kept track of his utterances, writing them down as she sat at his bedside in those final days. Smartt majored in linguistics at UC Berkeley in the 1980s and built a career teaching adults to read and write. Transcribing Felix’s ramblings was a sort of coping mechanism for her, she says. Something of a poet herself (as a child, she sold poems, three for a penny, like other children sold lemonade), she appreciated his unmoored syntax and surreal imagery. Smartt also wondered whether her notes had any scientific value, and eventually she wrote a book, Words on the Threshold, published in early 2017, about the linguistic patterns in 2,000 utterances from 181 dying people, including her father.

Despite the limitations of this book, it’s unique—it’s the only published work I could find when I tried to satisfy my curiosity about how people really talk when they die. I knew about collections of “last words,” eloquent and enunciated, but these can’t literally show the linguistic abilities of the dying. It turns out that vanishingly few have ever examined these actual linguistic patterns, and to find any sort of rigor, one has to go back to 1921, to the [out-of-print] work of the American anthropologist Arthur MacDonald.

To assess people’s “mental condition just before death,” MacDonald mined last-word anthologies, the only linguistic corpus then available, dividing people into 10 occupational categories (statesmen, philosophers, poets, etc.) and coding their last words as sarcastic, jocose, contented, and so forth. MacDonald found that military men had the “relatively highest number of requests, directions, or admonitions,” while philosophers (who included mathematicians and educators) had the most “questions, answers, and exclamations.” The religious and royalty used the most words to express contentment or discontentment, while the artists and scientists used the fewest.

MacDonald’s work “seems to be the only attempt to evaluate last words by quantifying them, and the results are curious,” wrote the German scholar Karl Guthke in his book Last Words: Variations on a Theme in Cultural History (1992), on Western culture’s long fascination with them. Mainly, MacDonald’s work shows that we need better data about verbal and nonverbal abilities at the end of life. One point that Guthke makes repeatedly is that last words, as anthologized in multiple languages since the 17th century, are artifacts of an era’s concerns and fascinations about death, not “historical facts of documentary status.” They can tell us little about a dying person’s actual ability to communicate.

Some contemporary approaches move beyond the oratorical monologues of yore and focus on emotions and relationships. Books such as Final Gifts, published in 1992 by the hospice nurses Maggie Callanan and Patricia Kelley, and Final Conversations, published in 2007 by Maureen Keeley, a Texas State University communications-studies scholar, and Julie Yingling, professor emerita at Humboldt State University [CA], aim to sharpen the skills of the living for having important, meaningful conversations with the dying. Previous centuries’ focus on last words has ceded space to the contemporary focus on last conversations and even nonverbal interactions. “As the person gets weaker and sleepier, communication with others often becomes more subtle,” Callanan and Kelley write. “Even when people are too weak to speak, or have lost consciousness, they can hear; hearing is the last sense to fade.”

I spoke to Maureen Keeley shortly after the death of George H. W. Bush, whose last words (“I love you, too,” he reportedly told his son, George W. Bush) were widely reported in the media, but she said they should properly be seen in the context of a conversation (“I love you,” the son had said first) as well as all the prior conversations with family members leading up to that point.

At the end of life, Keeley says, the majority of interactions will be nonverbal as the body shuts down and the person lacks the physical strength, and often even the lung capacity, for long utterances. “People will whisper, and they’ll be brief, single words—that’s all they have energy for,” Keeley said. Medications limit communication. So does dry mouth and lack of dentures. She also noted that family members often take advantage of a patient’s comatose state to speak their piece, when the dying person cannot interrupt or object.

Many people die in such silence, particularly if they have advanced dementia or Alzheimer’s that robbed them of language years earlier. For those who do speak, it seems their vernacular is often banal. From a doctor I heard that people often say, “Oh fuck, oh fuck.” Often it’s the names of wives, husbands, children. “A nurse from the hospice told me that the last words of dying men often resembled each other,” wrote Hajo Schumacher in a September essay in Der Spiegel. “Almost everyone is calling for ‘Mommy’ or ‘Mama’ with the last breath.”

It’s still the interactions that fascinate me, partly because their subtle interpersonal textures are lost when they’re written down. A linguist friend of mine, sitting with his dying grandmother, spoke her name. Her eyes opened, she looked at him, and died. What that plain description omits is how he paused when he described the sequence to me, and how his eyes quivered.

But there are no descriptions of the basics of last words or last interactions in the scientific literature. The most linguistic detail exists about delirium, which involves a loss of consciousness, the inability to find words, restlessness, and a withdrawal from social interaction. Delirium strikes people of all ages after surgery and is also common at the end of life, a frequent sign of dehydration and over-sedation. Delirium is so frequent then, wrote the New Zealand psychiatrist Sandy McLeod, that “it may even be regarded as exceptional for patients to remain mentally clear throughout the final stages of malignant illness.” About half of people who recover from postoperative delirium recall the disorienting, fearful experience. In a Swedish study, one patient recalled that “I certainly was somewhat tired after the operation and everything … and I did not know where I was. I thought it became like misty, in some way… the outlines were sort of fuzzy.” How many people are in a similar state as they approach death? We can only guess.

We have a rich picture of the beginnings of language, thanks to decades of scientific research with children, infants, and even babies in the womb. But if you wanted to know how language ends in the dying, there’s next to nothing to look up, only firsthand knowledge gained painfully.

After her father died, Lisa Smartt was left with endless questions about what she had heard him say, and she approached graduate schools, proposing to study last words academically. After being rebuffed, she began interviewing family members and medical staff on her own. That led her to collaborate with Raymond Moody Jr., the Virginia-born psychiatrist best known for his work on “near-death experiences” in a 1975 best-selling book, Life After Life. He has long been interested in what he calls “peri-mortal nonsense” and helped Smartt with the work that became Words on the Threshold, based on her father’s utterances as well as ones she’d collected via a website she called the Final Words Project.

One common pattern she noted was that when her father, Felix, used pronouns such as it and this, they didn’t clearly refer to anything. One time he said, “I want to pull these down to earth somehowI really don’t knowno more earth binding.” What did these refer to? His sense of his body in space seemed to be shifting. “I got to go down there. I have to go down,” he said, even though there was nothing below him.

He also repeated words and phrases, often ones that made no sense. “The green dimension! The green dimension!” (Repetition is common in the speech of people with dementia and also those who are delirious.) Smartt found that repetitions often expressed themes such as gratitude and resistance to death. But there were also unexpected motifs, such as circles, numbers, and motion. “I’ve got to get off, get off! Off of this life,” Felix had said.

Smartt says she’s been most surprised by narratives in people’s speech that seem to unfold, piecemeal, over days. Early on, one man talked about a train stuck at a station, then days later referred to the repaired train, and then weeks later to how the train was moving northward.

“If you just walk through the room and you heard your loved one talk about ‘Oh, there’s a boxing champion standing by my bed,’ that just sounds like some kind of hallucination,” Smartt says. “But if you see over time that that person has been talking about the boxing champion and having him wearing that, or doing this, you think, Wow, there’s this narrative going on.” She imagines that tracking these story lines could be clinically useful, particularly as the stories moved toward resolution, which might reflect a person’s sense of the impending end.

In Final Gifts, the hospice nurses Callanan and Kelley note that “the dying often use the metaphor of travel to alert those around them that it is time for them to die.” They quote a 17-year-old, dying of cancer, distraught because she can’t find the map. “If I could find the map, I could go home! Where’s the map? I want to go home!” Smartt noted such journey metaphors as well, though she writes that dying people seem to get more metaphorical in general. (However, people with dementia and Alzheimer’s have difficulty understanding figurative language, and anthropologists who study dying in other cultures told me that journey metaphors aren’t prevalent everywhere.)

Even basic descriptions of language at the end of life would not only advance linguistic understanding but also provide a host of benefits to those who work with the dying, and to the dying themselves. Experts told me that a more detailed road map of changes could help counter people’s fear of death and provide them with some sense of control. It could also offer insight into how to communicate better with the dying. Differences in cultural metaphors could be included in training for hospice nurses who may not share the same cultural frame as their patients.

End-of-life communication will only become more relevant as life lengthens and deaths happen more frequently in institutions. Most people in developed countries won’t die as quickly and abruptly as their ancestors did. Thanks to medical advances and preventive care, a majority of people will likely die from either some sort of cancer, some sort of organ disease (foremost being cardiovascular disease), or simply advanced age. Those deaths will often be long and slow, and will likely take place in hospitals, hospices, or nursing homes overseen by teams of medical experts. And people can participate in decisions about their care only while they are able to communicate. More knowledge about how language ends and how the dying communicate would give patients more agency for a longer period of time.

But studying language and interaction at the end of life remains a challenge, because of cultural taboos about death and ethical concerns about having scientists at a dying person’s bedside. Experts also pointed out to me that each death is unique, which presents a variability that science has difficulty grappling with.

And in the health-care realm, the priorities are defined by doctors. “I think that work that is more squarely focused on describing communication patterns and behaviors is much harder to get funded because agencies like NCI prioritize research that directly reduces suffering from cancer, such as interventions to improve palliative-care communication,” says Wen-ying Sylvia Chou, a program director in the Behavioral Research Program at the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, who oversees funding on patient-doctor communication at the end of life.

Despite the faults of Smartt’s book (it doesn’t control for things such as medication, for one thing, and it’s colored by an interest in the afterlife), it takes a big step toward building a corpus of data and looking for patterns. This is the same first step that child-language studies took in its early days. That field didn’t take off until natural historians of the 19th century, most notably Charles Darwin, began writing down things their children said and did. (In 1877, Darwin published a biographical sketch about his son, William, noting his first word: mum.) Such “diary studies,” as they were called, eventually led to a more systematic approach, and early child-language research has itself moved away from solely studying first words.

“Famous last words” are the cornerstone of a romantic vision of death—one that falsely promises a final burst of lucidity and meaning before a person passes. “The process of dying is still very profound, but it’s a very different kind of profoundness,” says Bob Parker, the chief compliance officer of the home health agency Intrepid USA. “Last words—it doesn’t happen like the movies. That’s not how patients die.” We are beginning to understand that final interactions, if they happen at all, will look and sound very different. ###

[Michael Erard is the author of both Babel No More: The Search for the World's Most Extraordinary Language Learners (2012) and Um.: Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders, and What They Mean (2007). Erard us a linguist and freelance writer whose work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, Science, Aeon and Mosaic. He received a BA (American studies) from Williams College (MA) and both an MA (linguistics) and a PhD (English) from the University of Texas at Austin.]

Copyright © 2019 The Atlantic Monthly Group



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2019 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves